PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PART ONE OF HIS WORKS: EXEGETICAL. PROLEGOMENA TO THE AMPHILOCHIA OF PHOTIUS. I. HISTORICAL DISSERTATION ON THE AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS OF PHOTIUS BY JOSEPH HERGENRÖTHER, DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY, PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CANON LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG.
§ I. *On the name, origin, and purpose of the Amphilochia.*
1. The *Amphilochia* of Photius, or the Amphilochian questions, constitute a vast work or treasury of various dissertations and diatribes, which for the most part illustrate and expound upon various testimonies of the sacred Books. Learned men have adorned this work with the highest praise. "Photius’s genius," says Maximus Margunius in the epistle prefixed to the *Bibliotheca* of Photius for the learned, "prepared for resolving questions—whatever they may be—that are proposed against sacred philosophy, and in explaining divine Scripture where any deeper meaning lies hidden: who would not justly and deservedly marvel at his elaborate work, which is inscribed *Amphilochia*?" Leo Allatius commended this outstanding collection, describing it as a work varied and full of manifold erudition, most necessary for theologians and expositors of Scripture; nor did the following age, down to the most eminent Mai, who earned great merit from this collection, offer any lesser praise, although there were some who, when the greater part of the work had not yet been brought to light, passed a somewhat too fastidious judgment upon it.
2. This work obtained the name *Amphilochia* or *Amphilochiana* not because it was excerpted from Saint Amphilochius of Iconium or explains his text, as some learned men of old seem to have judged, but because it was dedicated to the most dear Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus. This is evident not only from the title but also from the preface prefixed to the entire collection B and from the many questions specially inscribed to this bishop. Some had indeed been sent to others at first, but later they were collected into one body and sent to Amphilochius, whom no one had consulted more frequently and insistently than Photius regarding various questions. Nor is it difficult to determine the time when this collection was brought forth. For although many had been written already beforehand, the greater part of the questions was composed and redacted into one body during the time of his first exile, just as from
the repeated complaints and lamentations concerning the gravity of the persecution and the magnitude of the tribulations it is made manifest, and as the title itself and the preface declare. Furthermore, it is certain that this exile of Photius lasted from the year 867 up to the year 876; Amphilochius, however, during Photius's first episcopate, having rejected Antonio, a follower of Ignatius, obtained the see of Cyzicus, from which Photius, having once again occupied the throne of Constantinople, later transferred him to Nicaea, where he died a short time later and had as his successor the former bishop of Syracuse, Gregory. B Since, however, the same Gregory already appears as the prelate of Nicaea at the Photian synod held in the month of November of the year 879, Amphilochius must be said to have departed this life before that time. Therefore, as far as the greater part is concerned, the collection was composed within the years 868–876, although some questions could have been added later, since Photius did not fix a certain number and only mentioned about three hundred, a number which he seems to have held in special favor. Wherefore, as we shall see below, the order and number of the questions in various codices are different.
3. But as to the fact that Photius himself instituted this collection of discussions, which he had composed at different times, before the preface to the same was published in print, it was possible for it to be doubted, and there were not wanting those who, with Wolf, conjectured that various epistles of Photius had been collected from here and there and later attributed to Amphilochius, for the reason that a frequent exchange C of letters existed between Photius and Amphilochius. But the preface published by Scott has removed all doubt. For Photius clearly relates therein that he had treated his individual responses to various questions with repeated care and had collected them into one; nor does he pass over in silence the weightiest reasons, as he himself considered them, which could have deterred him from such a new labor, which, nevertheless, he undertook at the urging of a friend. Among these reasons, which seemed to have drawn Photius’s mind away from the task, the first was that many of the holy Fathers had already beforehand solved the same questions to the best of their ability; the second was taken from the fact that Photius himself had already sufficiently treated not a few of them elsewhere, D and had explained others by word of mouth before his disciples; the third was from the difficulty of the work, in that a long period of time was required to go through such a great multitude of diverse questions, and only a brief time, and that one agitated by great anxieties and troubles, seemed to have been granted to him. He adds also that reasons of lesser importance might have been an obstacle to anyone else preventing him from undertaking this new labor, yet that, neglecting all these, it had been his greatest concern to satisfy the requests of a friend, and that he had not cared for the elegance of his diction, but rather for clarity and the utility of his readers. Hence Scott rightly judges that Photius had several times, as occasion arose, solved many questions for the benefit of his friends, and then, that they might not remain hidden or be scattered, had collected them all into one bundle and transmitted it to his Amphilochius, who was requesting it.
4. The collection, therefore, which we have before our hands, consists of parts drawn from entirely different sources, written at different times and without method or order, in almost the same manner as books of diverse subject matter, excerpts from them, and judgments about them are heaped together and aggregated in the celebrated *Bibliotheca* of the same author. Hence most of the dissertations bear the form of epistles, in which he responds to proposed theological and philosophical difficulties; the responses were given at various times to the questions of learned friends, and although some "Diatribes" appear to be mere excerpts, and in others the questioners appear only in the ancient fashion, yet most follow entirely the erotematic and catechetical manner of the ancients, which had long since been employed by ecclesiastical writers.
5. Indeed, the writings of the Pseudo-Justin and the Pseudo-Athanasius provide us with very similar works; and not far removed are the *Questions* of Eusebius of Caesarea, the *Solutions to Difficulties* of Hesychius, the 313 shorter *Rules* of Basil, the *Dialogues* ascribed to Saint Caesarius, and the *Questions on the Octateuch* of Theodoret.
PROLEGOMENA.
[G] and to whom they ought to be attributed, or finally, to what extent they should be ascribed both to his own genius and, at the same time, to the labors of others.
§ II. — Whether Photius was the author of the individual questions.
He often cites the Fathers, such as Basil, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, the commonly known Dionysius, Maximus, and others. But he usually only brings them forward when he briefly and incidentally proffers or touches upon one or another of their sentiments. For it is agreed that Photius sometimes transcribed, word for word, and appropriated to himself almost whole treatises of earlier writers, under their veiled names. Wolf has already deemed it probable that the explanation on Chapter 1, verse 16 of the Epistle to the Colossians was drawn from Chrysostom; Mai truly indicated that that long investigation concerning the end of life, which is contained in the one hundred and forty-ninth question, is declared to be the work of Germanus the Patriarch in two other Vatican codices, and that of two dissertations on the obscurity of the Scriptures, one is taken from Polychronius' prologue to Job; the question concerning the different editions of the Scriptures of the Old Testament (in Greek) [is also discussed].
[Regarding] some things [seen as] pillaged from other authors by Augustine and Pseudo-Augustine, or [as to] whether they should be attributed to the same author, [as well as] the *Interrogations and Solutions* of Saint Maximus and the *Questions and Responses* commonly adjudicated to Anastasius Sinaita: these *One Hundred and Fifty-Four Questions* of Anastasius are a certain anthology from the testimonies of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, [containing] for the most part brief responses with demonstration sought from the fountains of revelation, and the works of the Fathers employed therein are diligently indicated. The author made use of Theodoret in particular. In these works, many questions correspond, sometimes—though more rarely—verbatim, and more frequently, according to their meaning. For a long time, various compilations had supplied the lack of new fruits of genius among the Greeks; *Sacred Parallels* were in use, which confirmed any given theological thesis from the Bibles and the Fathers, as Leontius of Byzantium is known to have done; already the *Catenae* of the Fathers placed expositions upon the Holy Books, and from them an immense material was always available for the sewing together of new compilations and the enriching of older ones with the addition of other lucubrations. With the fecundity of the Greeks extinguished in the collecting and decorating of the treasures of antiquity, learned men were almost solely occupied in these, and Photius himself, if you except some of his writings which are truly his own offspring, and especially works of a polemical nature, seems to be placed among them. But it would be worth the effort to inquire more accurately whether the *Amphilochia* of Photius...
ON THE AMPHILOCHIA OF PHOTIUS
A ...drawn from Pseudo-Athanasius and Epiphanius, mostly in the question concerning the passage in Genesis ch. 4:26 and in the dissertation on gnomic wills, in which Photius mentions that one holy Maximus who treats this subject ought to be attributed to John of Damascus.
But what Photius avoids, and what we have already revealed elsewhere, is that he translated thirty-two exegetical questions from Theodoret into his *Amphilochia*, without mentioning him even once. The questions are for the most part the same, the responses are composed of almost the same words, and some things are abridged, others amplified, and most are seen to be but little changed. Hardly a sentence is found in these that has not been already expressed by the prelate of Cyrus. It seems certainly strange that Photius, who elsewhere—and indeed in the *Nomocanon*, which by its nature could not have been judged so strictly, and which he himself only revised with secondary care after it had been composed by another—reproaches most severely those who have dared to arrogate and steal the labors of others, should have decorated his own writings to such an extent with the spoils of Theodoret, and should have sold the work of another as if it were his own, without any shame. Nor, indeed, did those excuses with which this famous expounder of the Holy Scriptures defended himself—when he used the interpretations of older Fathers—prove useful here for the sake of Photius, for those who are concerned with the matters in question can see that he appears to have transcribed him word for word; he does not even cite him by name, nor join him with others, but rather, as a plagiarist, as they say, he claims alien work entirely as his own. B This is something that, even considering the more lenient judgment of the ancients in this matter, must still be considered grave. Furthermore, in elucidating the passages of the Holy Scriptures, he does not follow Chrysostom, whom most men of that time were handling day and night, but rather a less known author, so pressingly that his theft was perhaps not immediately recognized; and since he himself, who appears elsewhere as so generous in praising the Fathers, tries to deprive a most learned man, to whom he owed much, of honor and praise, this is altogether deliberate.
However, his sharp judgment shines through in that he preferred such a distinguished interpreter of the Bible to all others, and it is no less certain that in other matters, where the exposition of Theodoret was less pleasing, Photius departed from it entirely. For example, the literal explanation of Theodoret does not seem to have been entirely pleasing to Photius when he was dealing with the question of why Jacob anointed the stone; for he seeks the solution elsewhere. Again, in other subject matters he provides an exegesis far different from the interpretation of Theodoret, while in others he adopts only a few things from the same.
Justellus, in *Bibliotheca juris canonici vet.*, vol. II, p. 792, declares in that part which scholars agree is truly that of Photius, that the labors of those who came before are not to be disparaged, nor are they to be turned to one’s own use after the example of thieves. "The difficulty," he says, "of being recognized as having arrived at this from one's own study forced [some] to dare, and by the theft of another's work, it deceived the wisdom of those who puffed up their brows."
C “A foolish question: for he who said, *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, did not mean that the earth was eternal, nor did he say that the earth was [always] existing in an absolute sense, but that it was unformed; for as yet it was invisible, with the water overlying it, and unformed, not yet having been adorned with vegetation, etc.
A most foolish and senseless question: for he who said, *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, did not say that the earth was eternal, but that it received existence either after the heaven or together with the heaven. Otherwise, the writer did not even say it was simply or absolutely, ‘The earth was,’ but set it together in sequence: ‘The earth was invisible and unformed,’ that is, it was created by the God of all, but it was still invisible, with the water overlying it, and unformed, not yet having been adorned with vegetation, etc.
...things that are mutually related, but both were from the beginning for men... but that darkness is not necessary, it is clear... but that darkness is necessary... (Having exhorted those who read not to accuse us of theft, if they should find in our interpretations anything spoken by the Fathers; for we also admit that we have found from them the starting points of clarity; and such a thing is not theft, but a paternal inheritance; and the things we have taken from them we set down, but others we ourselves have discovered and added, and others still, which needed working out, we expand.) ...a marvelous, blessed man, (most useful in all respects).” D
Photius seems to have selected what he considered best, intent perhaps only on the utility of his friends, having already had some things collected long before among his excerpts, the authors of which perhaps were no longer present to his memory, just as sometimes happens with other learned men.
8. Photius also resolves other questions from earlier authors—questions which we shall scarcely be able to identify, since the various works reviewed by Photius and recorded in his *Myriobiblion* no longer exist. Among these, I consider that the books of Job on the incarnation and the disputes of Eulogius of Alexandria against the Novatians should be placed; a comparison of certain questions with fragments preserved in the Library indicates how our writer used them in the *Amphilochia*. Justin’s solutions to doubts were at hand for him, as were several writings of Maximus; some *Amphilochia* also show an affinity with the homily on the incarnation which is attributed to Chrysostom, and with the writings of Pseudo-Athanasius. Many fragments of the Fathers, otherwise lost, appear to be preserved in the *Amphilochia* under the hidden name of the authors; these can be regarded as an anthology or florilegium from the Fathers, just like the *Myriobiblion*, though elaborated with a different intention and scope. In the *Myriobiblion*, Photius gives an account of the books he read from every kind of discipline, but in the *Amphilochia* he solves various difficulties, especially theological ones. There, he cares chiefly for the authors and their books; here, for the things themselves, the doctrines, and the theorems. In this, both works agree: that they store up the treasures of patristic erudition and are a sort of gold mine of useful and varied knowledge.
9. However, he also elaborated not a few things himself by his own efforts. He inserted into the *Amphilochia* many items from those things which he had once written for the use of his students, especially regarding dialectical and philosophical questions. We also believe it probable that those questions related to the Epistles in this collection are owed to the genius of Photius himself. Hence, the entire body of the *Amphilochia* must be said to have flowed from a double source: concerning the greater part, from the books of older authors and fragments plucked therefrom; but concerning the rest, from the fruits of the studies of the collector himself, who with marvelous assiduity strove to lift his friends and clergy to greater progress day by day and to an ever higher degree in both sacred and profane science.
III. Of the subjects and matters with which the Amphilochian questions deal.
10. It is already clear from what was said above what arguments are treated in the *Amphilochia*. Nevertheless, three classes of dissertations may be distinguished. The first of these, the richest of all, comprises exegetical and hermeneutical disquisitions; the second, dogmatic; the third, finally, solves some philosophical, mythological, grammatical, and historical questions. But since the number of exegetical questions far exceeds the others, and the name arises with better right, the entire body may deservedly be called a collection of exegetical disquisitions.
11. These explain the text of the Holy Scriptures, many of which elucidate *ἐναντιοφανίας* or apparent contradictions in the Bible, others refer to and judge various expositions of the Fathers, and others solve difficulties that have arisen on the occasion of the Bible. Sometimes the same questions are resolved in a double or triple way, which we think happened chiefly because Photius at one time sought a solution from different authors, and at another had attempted to clarify the same argument—which had already been treated by others—through his own repeated study. The greater part of the questions concerns the five books of Moses, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul; more rarely are the opinions of Job and the prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles...
and the Catholic Epistles expounded. Photius brings forth philological observations A often, and provides us with some remnants of the ancient versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and for the most part follows a sober method of interpretation, by which he rejects and chastises the immoderation and perversity of the allegorists, yet does not reject the mystical sense. Indeed, very often the types of the Old Testament are illustrated quite broadly, and the "letter" is preferred to the "spirit," *γράμματι πνεύμα*. Not everything, indeed, is explained solidly, but most things are explained clearly; yet the variety and constant use of the ancients adorn these commentaries, from which many things that illustrate the Epistles of Paul have passed into the commentaries of Oecumenius.
B About 50 questions follow, which pursue dogmatic arguments. In these, the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation claim the first place, on which he discourses very often, even if sometimes more subtly than correctly; nor are polemical diatribes against the Latins lacking, in which some of their arguments concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son are attacked. The treatise *On Gnomic Wills*, however, easily surpasses the others in its subtle method of arguing and reasoning. Furthermore, the dogma concerning the eternity of punishments is defended, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is upheld, Baptism administered in the name of the Trinity alone, and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary are not incongruously defended.
Yet there are not lacking Diatribes in which Photius is too indulgent to his own genius and, now from a desire for brevity, now from a superfluity of words and sentiments, becomes obscure. Nor can his style of writing be judged by the same standard, both because many things were derived from so many entirely different authors, distinguished by a singular form of elocution, and because Photius himself, who had perused such a vast amount of books, sometimes differs from himself in regard to diction. Indeed, no one is unaware of how much this most learned man departed from the pure simplicity and elegance of the ancient Attic writers, and how rarely he attained that purer mode of speaking which he so often protests that he values highly, and which he proposes to his disciples as the goal of their studies to be pursued. His speech often casts about grandiloquent expressions and affects too much ornamentation; elsewhere it appears rougher and almost crawling on the ground; at times it is concise, in the manner of the dialecticians; at other times it is crammed beyond all measure with the flowers of the rhetoricians of a later age, not well collected; now it is entirely clear and perspicuous, now most obscure and destitute of all grace. The versatile man reveals himself also in his style.
C It must be noted, finally, that some things are not discussed with sufficient accuracy and caution in relation to the norm of Catholic doctrine, and that certain abstruse matters drawn from the Areopagitic writings are contained in his *Dogmatic Diatribes*, which, while they might not exclude a sound interpretation, seem to make it entirely difficult. Not only those matters which refer to the controversy stirred up between the Latins and the Greeks—or, to speak more correctly—to the dogma regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but also other things which occur in these questions, though they have been annotated by the editors in their proper places for the most part, must be touched upon by serious and prudent theologians in this regard. The locutions often differ from ecclesiastical usage and are subject to difficulties, the greater part of which, however, can be opportunely explained from other places in Photius. Thus, when speaking of Christ, he says, "Yet we do not make a man God, far be it," which cannot be taken in a sinister sense, since in six hundred places Photius clearly sets forth his doctrine concerning the Incarnation. Often shades of error strike the reader, but rarely are there open errors. But now, for a fuller knowledge of our work, let us turn our mind to the aids and supports which have contributed to the present edition.
D Questions follow. At one time Photius comments upon the categories of Aristotle, at another upon the sayings of the Fathers (indeed, of Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and John Climacus). To literary history belong his discussions concerning the Asterii and Eusebius of Caesarea; to mythology, his discourse on Hercules wearing the horn of Amalthea; to philology, a brief treatise on the redundancy of the verb *εἰμί*. He inquiries into the reasons for the Lenten fast and the irregularity ordained by the Church arising from a physical defect; he treats briefly of Platonic ideas, of genus and species, of the number of the Sibyls, of the magnet, of the beginnings of the year, of the Kalends, Nones, and Ides, and other things. Photius unfolds and illustrates in this work of the *Amphilochia* so many and so diverse arguments, in part with a very brief response, in part with a long dissertation.
§ IV. — Of the better codices by which the Amphilochian questions are exhibited.
16. The manuscript codices which provide the Amphilochian questions differ greatly among themselves. Not all questions are found in the same codex; some exhibit more or fewer than others; A some provide only one or another dissertation. Indeed, four codices, wealthier and more excellent, are known up to this time. One of these is the Coislinianus, described by Bernard de Montfaucon, signed with the number 270, and containing 388 questions reviewed by that same most learned man. Much richer still is the Lollini codex, which was brought into the Vatican library under the Supreme Pontiff Urban VIII and is signed there with the number 1923. It belongs to the thirteenth century, and in its index 313 dissertations are numbered, though in reality it contains other things as well which are not recorded in this series. The third is the Colbertinus codex, no. 444, mentioned by Jean-Baptiste Cotelier, now Parisian, no. 152, which accords with the aforementioned Vatican codex regarding the order and number of the dissertations. The fourth is the Regius Taurinensis, no. 51, B described by Pasinius, written in the fifteenth century and in agreement with the Coislinianus regarding the first 138 questions; yet many parts of it are missing here, and no more than 297 questions are numbered.
17. Furthermore, there are more apographs taken from these better codices. Franciscus Arcudius transcribed another from the Vatican, which exists in the Barberini library at Rome; the Marciana library of the Venetians possesses another, which Antonius Catiforus Zacynthius used, who with wonderful assiduity took care to collect all the works of Photius, yet was unable to bring the diligently prepared edition to a conclusion. Indeed, Franciscus Dionysius Camusatus, who died at Amsterdam in the year 1732, transcribed about a sixth part of our work from the Coislinianus codex and compared it with the Colbertinus codex; Wolfius later employed this, which he had received from Jacob Wetstein, when he brought 46 questions into the public domain from it.
18. C Furthermore, there exists in the royal Neapolitan library a mutilated codex containing 18 Amphilochian questions, which Joannes Andresius and Angelus Antonius Scottus used after others. To these are added very many codices which provide only a few questions, such as those that treat the categories of Aristotle. A question concerning the ubiquity of Christ appears in the Tilian codex of Combefis, in two Vatican codices, in Monacensis Gr. 104, in the Vindobonensis and the Escorialensis; a question concerning the gnomical wills D in the Vallicellianus, Monacensis, and Vindobonensis. In other manuscripts, other questions or rather fragments of the same are present, as a certain part of question 165 under its own title in a certain Vatican codex, and many other things already for the most part commemorated by Fabricius.
A of those which have been known up to this point, is the most abundant and, being written in the thirteenth century, is recommended by many titles; above all, in this new edition of the *Amphilochia*, it seemed that it should be held as a norm, as much as that was possible. In what way, however, this has been accomplished will be explained briefly below, after we have succinctly set forth the things that have thus far been offered for public light in the *Amphilochia*.
V.—Concerning the Amphilochian questions published to date.
21. It is not, then, in parts that the Amphilochian questions were published, but first through fragments which both Allatius and Francis Turrianus, a companion of the Society of Jesus, brought forward. The same Turrianus, however, had first published six questions in Latin from a Bavarian codex in Canisius’ *Sylloge*, the Greek text of which had not yet appeared at that time. Peter Stevartius, indeed, of the same society, made public the question concerning gnomical wills from Turrianus’ version. These dissertations, however, were not known by the learned to pertain to the most praiseworthy work of the *Amphilochia*; B J. A. Fabricius was the first, as it seems, to suspect it. Then, in the year 1644, Francis Combefis published a question against the Ubiquitarians, incorrectly inscribed under the name of Saint Amphilochius (which error Allatius detected), and then a question concerning the Asterii, received from that same Allatius. Moreover, there appeared through the work of Richard Montagu, in London in the year 1651, an edition of Photius' epistles, from which many had been inserted into the *Amphilochia*, though they were not yet recognized at that time as parts of our work. Thus, throughout the entire seventeenth century, only a few segments of the whole work appeared in the public light.
C 22. Greater progress was made regarding the publication of this work in the eighteenth century. In the year 1715, Montfaucon, or Bernard de Montfaucon, having provided an index of the Coislin codex, published four Amphilochian questions, three of which, however, had already appeared long before: the first concerning Hercules, from ep. 209; the second concerning Eusebius of Caesarea, among the letters of Photius, no. 144; the third concerning the Asterii, in Combefis’ *Auctarium novum*. In the year 1723, however, J. Basnage provided a new edition of H. Canisius’ *Antiquae lectiones*, in which (with the exception of one) the dissertations published in Latin by Turrianus were exhibited with the Greek text, which D. Caperonnier had supplied. Finally, J. Chr. Wolf published forty-six exegetical questions under the title of *Amphilochian*, which subsequently passed into the Gallandian *Bibliotheca Patrum*. But what M. J. Justus Spier specifically did in this
matter, we have not yet been able to find. In actual fact, at the end of the eighteenth century, 128 treatises from the *Amphilochia* had been published: 74 by Montagu, 8 by J. Basnage (30), 2 by Combefis, one by Montfaucon (31), and 46 by Wolf.
23. Finally, in our own century, A. Scott (32) first provided 17 new questions together with another one which Combefis had rendered in a mutilated form, namely the question against the Ubiquists (33). Cardinal Angelo Mai indeed published 150 new questions (34); but these in reality constitute only 147, since among these three had already been published previously (35). Hence, 164 questions were provided by Scott and Mai, which, with those 128 already published earlier, make 292.
24. Gieseler (36) had already noted this same number of published questions, but from an entirely false calculation; for by omitting seven questions, which in truth are all read among the epistles (37), he counted just as many others twice (38).
25. It is not the place here to extol the merits or accuse the negligence of the individual editors. Not all used the same manuscript codices, nor did they proceed by the same method, nor did they prepare their editions with equal *akribeia*. Regarding the sum of the matter, however, all usefully expended their labor on a writer truly illustrious among the later Greeks, whom some extolled with excessive praises, while others estimated as being of less than just value, and on a work which, among his theological writings, although it may not have entirely proceeded from his own genius, nevertheless deservedly obtains the first place. Indeed, so many distinguished men, who brought their studies to this work, are also a great commendation of the work itself. B
§ VI. — *On the present edition of the Amphilochian questions.*
26. Eminentissimus Mai, in committing the final one hundred and thirty questions to print, seemed to have believed that he had now made public all the *Amphilochia* that had not yet been edited, and that he had completed this whole treasury of dissertations (39). But that the matter is not so, we have already taught elsewhere (40) having been sufficiently informed by an inspection of the Vatican codex and a collation of the Coislinian index described by Montfaucon, and we likewise showed that at least thirty-two questions had still remained unpublished, and that the Vatican codex had not been exhausted by those which Mai had given. C
27. So that we might determine the number of these questions with the greatest certainty possible, we decided that the better codices must be compared. It immediately appeared that the Turin codex contains only one question (41) which is missing from the rest; with this removed, the Coislinian provides everything that exists in it; furthermore, although 308 questions are enumerated in the Coislinian, it nevertheless exhibits in reality only 306 (42); the Vatican, however, shows more than 313, many of which are absent from the Coislinian; finally, the numbers noted by Mai are in many cases disordered, since the same number was assigned to different questions. Wherefore, after the labors of so many learned men concerning this work, the order and series of the whole collection and the number of questions could not yet be determined exactly (43). We had hoped, indeed, for the long-promised edition of all the *Amphilochia*, which in the kingdom of Greece Constantinos Oikonomos
A in the month of March of the year 1857 was said to have prepared and was about to bring to light; but up to this point that hope has not come to fruition. For my own part, after having waited in vain for a long-desired edition, I had already collected materials sufficient to form a more accurate judgment on this work, and I at length found the opportunity to extend and increase the number of the published questions. How this was accomplished must now be briefly explained.
28. When in the month of October of the year 1857 I was inspecting certain Vatican codices at Rome, I examined the codex already cited, noted as number 1925, which his Eminence Mai had used, and I transcribed the entire series of questions together with some portions of this work not yet published. But in the middle of the month of November, I was forced to return to my homeland and left the work incomplete. The following year, I obtained in Venice, in the Marcian Library, a transcription of that same Vatican codex which Antonio Catiforo had procured for himself, who also diligently wrote out the Latin version of all the questions and augmented them with annotations. From that source, I completed what was lacking for me, especially in the longer questions, and I once again reviewed the Greek text regarding the eleven commentaries on Aristotle’s *Categories*, which I had then proposed only to edit; at the same time, I took care to transcribe for the most part the Latin version of the fourteen questions (45) not yet edited, which seemed entirely worthy of the light. Thus, at length, through repeated labor, I had procured for myself twenty-one questions (46) in Greek which had not yet been published; due to lack of time, I could not collect all the unpublished ones, and I read through the rest only with the intention of having an exploration of what each contained, when I should come to treat of the works of Photius; hence I noted down a few things in my papers sufficient for this purpose, reserving the rest for another occasion, in which I might, God willing, revisit Venice, a city most dear to me, and the Marcian Library, made even more agreeable by the distinguished urbanity of its prefect, the most illustrious [D.] Valentinelli. Which hope has not yet been realized. But now, collecting my writings which I had brought back from both Italian journeys, I noticed that the number of the *Amphilochian* questions published up to this point could be increased by me with a new accession; and although I could not present all of the pieces that remained to be edited, I judged that the greater part of them should nevertheless be given. These, though drawn from the manuscript copies in a very short time, I hope will not be unwelcome to the learned, to whom 313 questions will now be available.
29. But this was not the only fruit of my journey, in that 21 questions are now for the first time available for me to edit; furthermore, it was possible to discover a more probable number for the order and series of those same questions. In the Vatican, moreover, there are 17 questions which the Coislinian codex lacks (47), and the Vatican is destitute of six questions which appear in the Coislinian (48) and that one which we said above was peculiar to the Turin codex (49). If we add to the Coislinian codex, which we know provides 306 discourses, the 17 missing from the Vatican and the one from the Turin, we shall have 324 questions. Likewise, if we add the missing members to the Vatican codex, we are led to the same number (50). But in order that the varied order of the codices may be better perceived, we have placed below the text indices by which they are compared with one another.
30. Now, indeed, the state of time and the multitude of our own occupations did not allow us to review the text of the previously published questions and to equip them all with a Latin version; hence we leave almost everything already published intact. Nevertheless, given the opportunity of comparing the Munich codex 553, which contains the letters of Photius (51), with the London edition, we have suggested some corrections and variant readings regarding the questions translated from the letters of Photius into the *Amphilochia*. Furthermore, we have noted elsewhere what occurred to us among other studies as being opportune to note in their proper places. Therefore, since we were occupied with other labors and not at first intent upon a new edition of the *Amphilochia*, we at last decided, at the encouragement of friends, to contribute what we could to this distinguished collection of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers according to our strength: we have willingly made available those things which were at hand, the *Amphilochia*, which now for the first time come forth into the public eye together with those already edited but not yet collected into one. Then, we have marked with their own numbers those eleven questions which remain to be edited, so that a clear prospect of the whole work might be made and the order of the Vatican codex might be preserved as far as it is possible. It remains that, if we have produced anything in this work, due to the shortness of time, that is less than perfect and polished, if we have neglected anything in this province which we have undertaken that should by no means have been passed over, we implore the indulgence of the learned reader, and we trust that he already has a sufficient perspective on the magnitude of such a task, whereby dispersed and scattered parts are collected into one body and increased by those newly discovered.
JOS. CHRISTOPH. WOLF’S PREFACE TO PHOTIUS’ AMPHILOCHIA IN THE FIFTH VOLUME OF HIS CURAE PHILOLOGICAE ET CRITICAE IN N. T. BASEL, 1741.
A Whatever leisure remained to me (while I was engaged in writing my philological and critical commentaries on the New Testament), I devoted to publishing a portion of Photius’ *Amphilochia*, hitherto unedited, which you see at the end of the volume. Regarding this work, take note of the following. It exists in Paris, written in a hand that points to the eleventh century, in the parchment codex 270 of the Coislinian Library, formerly the Seguierian, for the catalog of which we are indebted to the tireless industry of the most learned Bernard de Montfaucon. The inscription, according to that catalog, p. 326, reads as follows: *Τα Ἀμφιλόχια, ἢ λόγων ἱερῶν καὶ ζητημάτων ἱερολογίαι πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον, τὸν ὁσιώτατον μητροπολίτην Νυζίκου, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν πειρασμῶν, ζητημάτων διαφόρων, εἰς ἀριθμὸν τριακοσίων συντεινόντων ἐπίλυσιν αἰτησάμενον.* That is: *Amphilochia, or sacred discourses and questions concerning sacred matters, addressed to Amphilochius, the most holy metropolitan of Cyzicus, who, in a time of temptations, had requested the solution to various questions numbering three hundred.* This same inscription is found in the Neapolitan codex, about which we shall speak shortly, and is read in the *Ephemerides Litterariae* of Venice, published in Italian, Vol. XXXII, p. 72.
B From this it effectively appears that they are called *Amphilochia*, or as Allatius names them, *Amphilocheia*, or as others name them, *Amphilochia*, because those Responses were written to Amphilochius, the prelate of Cyzicus, at his request. However, do not believe that this is the case for absolutely all of them. In the letters of Photius published by Richard Montagu, only six mention the name of Amphilochius. Of these, only three exist in the *Amphilochia*, namely letters 137, 163, and 178, with which responses 162, 255, and 178 correspond exactly. The other three, namely 168, 198, and 207, are missing from among those Responses. Conversely, in the *Amphilochia*, Response 141, which you have below on p. 708, is addressed to Amphilochius, whereas you search for it in vain among the Letters. Furthermore, many Responses, existing in the *Amphilochia*, are also read in the letters (as we shall soon show), but are inscribed with other names. Thus, Resp. 166 is letter 135, which nevertheless bears the name of his brother Constantine there. C Therefore, I prefer to conclude that various letters of Photius have been collected here and there and given the title of *Amphilochia*, because Photius had frequent exchange of letters with Amphilochius. I pass over some things contained in these that are not so much Responses as they are certain Excerpts which Photius obtained from others, for example from Chrysostom, etc. See, for example, below pp. 730, 800. It is certain that what is read in the *Amphilochia* should not be attributed to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. This was indeed observed by Francis Combetis, who exhibited the *De incircumscripta Filii Deitate* among the *Excerpta* of Amphilochius, p. 226 of his works, and was rightly corrected for it by Allatius in *De consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis*, p. 576. Yet Combefis himself acknowledged his error in the *Recensitis auctoribus Bibliothecae Patrum Concionatoriae*, p. 152, which booklet was published separately in Paris in 1662, 8vo.
As regards the subject matter of this collection, its greatest part is occupied with illustrating the more difficult oracles of the Old and New Testaments. The remaining part pursues topics now theological, now philosophical, of various kinds, now grammatical, now ecclesiastical and literary history.
The collection itself has never seen the light of day, although it exists copied out in various libraries. In France, the Colbertine and Coislinian libraries in Paris provide copies of it. The former is in codex 444, which Jean-Baptiste Cotelier describes as follows in his *Notes to the third volume of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*, p. 556: "Photius' four books *Against the Manichaean-Paulician heresy*, seen by Euthymius Zigabenus, exist in Colbert codex 444, along with the *Amphilochia* of the same most learned man, as I realized by the most certain signs, although it is truncated at the title, beginning, and end." The latter is in codex 270, formerly 139, from which, as we just mentioned, Bernard de Montfaucon exhibited both the titles and beginnings of the 308 Responses in the *Catalogus Bibliothecae Coislinianae*, p. 325 sqq., having added, by way of specimen, four Responses, p. 346 sqq., which we shall soon mention. In Italy, Rome exhibits a double copy of the work; one in the Vatican Library, the other in the Barberini, and this one written by the hand of Francis Arcudius. Leo Allatius is a witness to both in *Libri III de Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis perpetua consensione*, book II, ch. 6, p. 576. D "It is," he says, "a work various and full of manifold erudition, most necessary for theologians and expositors of Scripture, and the more to be embraced because it exists nowhere else, so far as I know, than in the Vatican, and finally brought in from the Lollian books under Urban VIII." And with a few words interposed: "A work so worthy and learned, most diligently transcribed with elegant characters by Francis Arcudius, eventually Bishop of Nuscum, a man most learned in Greek and Latin letters, and closely joined to me by the familiarity of our studies, who died two years ago, was placed in his library by the restorer of all good arts and disciplines, Francis Barberinus, for the common convenience and utility of the public."
A Regarding that codex [the Coislinian], therefore, let us not think of it as a complete copy of the *Amphilochia*.
For the Lollian [codex], see the *Epistles* of Lollinus himself, p. 326. Besides these, it is established that the Turin library has a copy of the same work, according to the *Ephemerides litterariae Venetae*, Vol. VI, p. 478. To these is added the Neapolitan codex, concerning which Allatius (*loc. cit.*) states: “Nevertheless, as years passed, a very ancient codex—or rather, a fragment of an ancient codex, eaten away by age and mutilated at the beginning and the end—was found in Naples. From it, twenty dubia and their solutions were transcribed; since there were no more, they were transmitted to me like a huge treasure by most learned men who promised their labor in illustrating them; but when they knew to whom they belonged and that the entire work existed, they neglected them.” This same codex was not long ago described more diligently by the illustrious Sebastian Pauli of Lucca, in an epistle to the illustrious Scipio Maffei, which is read in the same *Venetian Ephemerides*, Vol. XXXII, p. 58 sqq. There, indeed, on p. 65, this codex is said to have an age of 600 years and to have been transferred in the year 1717 from the Archive of the Holy Apostles to the Imperial Library in Vienna, along with a hundred and more other codices. Antonius Caracciolus had once procured it and sent it to Rome to Leo Allatius, who had had it transcribed by Neophytus Rodinus, a Cypriot monk, and had furnished it with various readings or emendations in the margin. A copy of this apograph, along with the epistle of Allatius to Caracciolus, still exists in Naples in that Archive of the Holy Apostles, from which the Abbot Nicolaus Falconius made another copy for himself, who prepared its Latin translation for the press in the year 1719. Furthermore, that codex contains only twenty responses, according to Allatius (*loc. cit.*), or eighteen by the count of Seb. Pauli (*loc. cit.*), where you may read the titles and beginnings of each, with a Latin version added separately, on pp. 66-72. The first response bears the number 25, while the last is 43, which when joined together make nineteen. If you add to this the epistle whose beginning you read in the same place, p. 72, after the inscription of the work, you will have the sum arrived at by Allatius. Therefore, Seb. Pauli (*p. 66*) says that these twenty responses have nothing in common with those three hundred given to Amphilochius. But I, from the Index of the Coislinian codex of the *Amphilochia*, have learned that eighteen are read there from No. 24 to 41. Also in the same order (except that Response 35 is read in a changed order after 39), and thus only one, which is 37 in the Neapolitan and begins: *Ότι μὲν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόνοια*, etc., is missing in that Coislinian codex. And let these things suffice concerning that Neapolitan codex. I see, moreover, that Casimirus Oudin, in his *Commentarii de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, Vol. II, p. 203, cites the Bavarian library, in whose codex 175 the *Amphilochia* of Photius are contained. But in the *Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae Bavaricae*, p. 67, n. 175, only these things are read among others: "Of the Patriarch Photius concerning the uncircumscribed divinity of the Son, from the *Amphilochius*"; where, without a doubt, one should read *from the Amphilochia*. For in these is read this Question, n. 37, of the Coislinian B codex. Therefore, let us not think of it as a complete copy of the *Amphilochia*.
D These codices which I have mentioned differ both in number and in the order of the Responses. Thus, Allatius (*De consensione*, etc., p. 576) calls the responses 313 from the Vatican codex. And I learned that exactly that many exist in the Colbertine [codex] from that part of the *Amphilochia* which I possess. For he who compared it—having been transcribed from the Coislinian—with the Colbertine, Francis Dionysius Camusatus, of whom more anon, notes several times that this or that response is had in the Colbertine under number 5, ch. 4, out of those thirteen which exist in that Colbertine above 300. Thus, at Response 116, *διὰ τί πρωτότοκον ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖ*, I read that it exists as No. 3, out of the thirteen beyond 300, and at Response 123, I read that it is No. 10, out of the same thirteen above 300. I have observed, moreover, that in the Colbertine, those things that exist in the Coislinian are sometimes wanting. To this pertain those two which you have below, p. 684, and no less Responses 95 and 96, etc. In the Coislinian at Montfaucon’s, 308 Responses are counted. Furthermore, the order of the Responses is different in each of the two Parisian codices. For although each corresponds exactly to the other up to Resp. 77, regarding the rest, however, they differ greatly from each other in the manner of their order.
As far as the *Amphilochia* themselves are concerned, about a sixth part of them exists in the *Epistles* of Photius, for which we are indebted to the learned industry of Richard Montacutius. I shall provide an Index of them for the sake of those who might perhaps decide to edit the *Amphilochia*, following the order of the Coislinian codex, in such a way that the letter 'r.' denotes the Responses of the *Amphilochia*, and 'e.' the Epistles of Photius. r. 128. e. 208. r. 129. e. 209. r. 130, e. 210. r. 131. e. 211. r. 132. e. 213. r. 133. e. 214. r. 134. e. 216. r. 138. e. 246. r. 139. e. 247. r. 140. e. 248. r. 163. e. 137. r. 164. e. 138. r. 165. e. 139. r. 166. e. 144. r. 200. e. 30. r. 201. e. 31. r. 202. e. 33. r. 223. e. 35. r. 224. e. 36. r. 225. e. 37. r. 226. e. 38. r. 227. e. 43. r. 228. e. 50. r. 229. e. 54. r. 230. e. 58. r. 231. e. 61. r. 232. e. 62. r. 233. e. 63. r. 234. e. 64. r. 235. e. 72. r. 236. e. 74. r. 237. e. 75. r. 238. e. 76. r. 240. e. 102. r. 241. e. 125. r. 242. e. 127. r. 243. e. 129. r. 244. e. 132. r. 245. e. 133. r. 246. e. 134. r. 248. e. 147. r. 249. e. 151. r. 250. e. 152. r. 251. e. 155. r. 252. e. 156. r. 253. e. 157. r. 254. e. 161. r. 255. e. 163. r. 256. e. 164. r. 257. e. 167. r. 258. e. 176. r. 259. e. 177. r. 260. e. 178. r. 261. e. 180. r. 262. e. 181. r. 263. e. 182. r. 264. e. 187. r. 265. e. 192. r. 266. e. 196. r. 267. e. 203. r. 269. e. 145. r. 270. e. 162. r. 271. e. 163. r. 272. e. 165. r. 273. e. 166. The total sum is 65.
Furthermore, there is no lack of learned men who have edited some of these Responses. Among these is the highly praised Combefisius, who, as we have already warned above, [edited] Resp. 37, *De incircumscripta Filii Deitate*, from the Tilian codex. (See his *Recensitos auctores Bibliothecae PP. Concionatoriae*, p. 152.) Among the writings of Amphilochius, and Resp. 125, concerning several Asterii,
A *Migne's note*: (to which, besides other works, we owe the universal Bibliotheca of Alfonso Ciacconio, which is circulated in manuscript and which I also possess, as well as his *Critical History of Literary Journals*, published in French at Amsterdam, 1734, 8vo, which he had received before he died prematurely in Amsterdam on October 28.) Camusat certainly had copied the entire work (the first and third parts of which were sought in vain among his papers) with his own hand from the Coislin codex, and had compared it with the Colbertine, and indeed had even made a beginning of a Latin translation, which I have not seen. He himself attests to this in his *Critical History of the Journals*, p. 96, just as he had signified to me by letter five years before this, that he was preparing an edition of all the works of Photius (in the review of whose *Bibliotheca* I am currently engaged), and specifically, among these, an edition of the *Amphilochia*.
From that part of them, therefore, which I possess, I selected those pieces which pertain to the exposition of more difficult passages of the New Testament, omitting, however, those which are already read among the *Letters* of Photius. I confess that not all of them breathe the same doctrine or the same diligence from this source. Nevertheless, most of them are so put together that they can both assist and delight the reader. Therefore, kind reader, enjoy them, and together with me you will give thanks to God, the Best and Greatest, that He has mercifully granted me both the health and the patience for bringing these labors to completion. Farewell, then, in the Lord, and await in their own time the supplements which I promised above.
III.
ANGELUS ANTONIUS SCOTTUS * TO THE BENEVOLENT READER GREETING.
Since it is established by custom and the institute of writers that, while they grant the benefit of public light to their own lucubrations, they explain diligently from the very beginning for what causes especially they have applied their minds to them; I wish you to be warned, friendly reader, that it was not just one thing which, while I was entangled in other and further occupations, was the greatest incitement for me to undertake and carry through this work, whatever its quality may be. First, the authority and command of the illustrious John Andres, prefect of the Royal Library, to whose erudition and benevolence I do not deny that I owe a great deal, urged me: for he, having proposed to himself the goal of bringing to light all the most precious *keimelia* [treasures] of the library, did not wish these *Amphilochia* of Photius—or as others write, *Amphilocheia* or *Amphilochika*—to lie in darkness; and he handed this commission to me, as I am bound to him by many ties, so that the edition and translation, undertaken with an eager mind, might reach its conclusion in good time. Wherefore, may I be permitted to use what Theodore Balsamon said of himself while he was commenting on the *Nomocanon* of Photius: *If something not quite fitting has perhaps been written... in the... interpretations, let it be deemed worthy of indulgence; for the greatness of the work is not our daring attempt, but the offspring of necessary obedience* (1).
Furthermore, I considered that I would be providing some pleasure, not to say utility, to lovers of Greek and theological erudition if I should publish these *leipsana* [remnants] of Photius in print and endow them with the Latin language. For the works of the man, although affected by some errors, yet *in speech most famous*, as Zonaras says (2), and *known for wisdom*, as Cedrenus confesses (3), have always garnered for him the greatest esteem and praise; indeed, they have consulted their own profit—
A Catholicos, if the other writings of the same author were to be brought into the light and view, that newest hammer of the delirious Greeks, Leo Allatius, has most clearly demonstrated (4).
Next, the example of certain distinguished men confirmed me: for when I had seen some Amphilochian Questions brought into common use in Greek and Latin by Francis Combefis (5), Bernard de Montfaucon (6), and Christopher Wolf (7); and I was not ignorant of the fact that many other *fragments* had been placed in the public view by the recently lauded Allatius (8) and by Francis Turrianus (9); and I had noticed that their editors had received favor, so to speak, from the republic of letters: I deemed it right and equitable to strive to enter into that same favor, albeit with unequal powers. In this matter, I have truly followed that plan which many writers had long since adopted; namely, that the celebrity which my little book could not secure for itself by the merit of its editor, it might seem to acquire through the name of Photius.
Finally, there was this further consideration, in which, although many might perceive a certain childish levity; yet you, most humane reader, who do not doubt that the human mind can be moved and influenced by the most trifling reasons sometimes, will surely recognize as much weight as you have perceived to be sufficient for an wavering mind to reach a decision. You know, no doubt, that after the Greek edition of Hoeschel, the other, Scott, undertook under the best of auspices the translation of that illustrious *masterpiece* of Photius, which is inscribed *Myriobiblos*, or *Bibliotheca* (10); nor does it escape you how well the learned played with the names of ΦΩΤΙΟΥ and ΣΚΟΤΟΥ in those times (11). Since, therefore, I also had these things in view, I thought that I too must descend into the same arena; and I would certainly have obtained all the *Diatribes* of this sort transcribed from the Vatican codex with little effort, and published them to the world, had not many grave obstacles stood in the way of my desires.
A B ...that writers, and Photius himself, an author otherwise most eloquent, departed from the ancient elegance of *Atticism*, and with what great obscurity, as a result of the same vice of writing, those *didactic* discourses in particular were clouded. For those *technical* and indeed *scholastic* words which had become prevalent at that time; the subtleties of arguments and cavils, by which the keenness of the intellect prided itself; and the involved prolixity of the *long-limbed* periods, in which the chief refinement of speech was constituted, are certain impediments, so to speak, which are repeatedly presented to the reader in order to grasp the meaning correctly. Hence it has come about that all the interpreters of these Greeks, when they offer their prefaces, pray for the indulgence of the readers, that they may willingly forgive the *slips* (παροράματα) into which they may have fallen on account of the difficulty of the works being translated. Add to this that Photius, in the letter which he sends to Amphilochius along with these *Dissertations*, himself ingenuously confesses that he did not use elaborate locution, but rather whatever words came most readily to hand (12): perhaps to suggest that he had neglected careful diction, and thereby had left more labor to be expended by the readers.
Since these things are so, in several places, to use the words of Fabius, I have taken care to explain *periphrastically* (περιφραστικῶς), or in more words, what could have been said in one or fewer (13). Nor do I regret this decision of mine; for I have followed the example of Tully, who said that *it will not, however, be necessary to render word for word, as unskilled translators are wont to do; since there is a word that declares the same thing, which is more or less in common use.* I am, indeed, also accustomed to explain with many words what the Greeks express with one, if I cannot do otherwise (14). And so, I have sometimes rejected the *literal* (κατὰ λέξιν) translation, as being less appropriate, both because the character of the Greek language seemed to be at odds with the Latin, and because I had proposed to myself to better consult for clarity, and not to torture the reader with the irksome entanglements of words. For this reason also, in the choice and arrangement of words, in order to set forth a plainer meaning for the readers, I have intentionally departed from the uncorrupted integrity of the Latin language: since the learned expect from works of this kind not the flowers of elocution, but the fruits of truths. And indeed, Clement of Alexandria openly professed that in his writing he had neither *practiced* nor *cared for* elegance. *For those who hold fast to words, and are occupied with these things, the facts escape them* (μηδέ μεμελετηκέναι, μήτε ἐπιτηδεύειν...... τοὺς γὰρ τῶν λέξεων ἐχομένους, καὶ περὶ ταῦτα ἀσχολουμένους διαδιδράσκει τὰ πράγματα), nor had he affected, nor had he followed... them.
These *questions*, however, as they were to be translated into the Latin tongue, how much difficulty and labor they entailed, those will surely perceive who will read them not hastily, but with attention; nor should they judge them by how they appear after the path to the meaning has been opened, but by how they were while that path lay hidden, and they should diligently weigh these things. For it is *proven* that even for young students, who have barely touched the threshold of Greek learning, how much they must sweat to establish the correct reading of manuscripts which have not yet seen the light: how much of the middle ages... D
A in those who depend upon mere expressions and are occupied with them, the things themselves escape. Elsewhere, too, he speaks of himself: "I do not," he says, "seek to cultivate eloquence; I am content merely to hint at what is meant; by what word this which I wish to present is indicated, I care not at all." My purpose is that, never affecting elocution, I may be content if I make my thought clear; but by what word that which I wish to expound is expressed, is of no interest to me. That the style, especially in the correction of versions, must be directed by this sort of rule, the blessed Jerome has taught at length.
Perhaps it was no less useful to insert B parenthetical remarks which were missing in the autograph, as the need arose, and not only to transcribe the words of the sacred Scriptures and other writers, whether brought in strictly or paraphrastically, in italics, as they say: for this, which caused me no great trouble, will perhaps somewhere be an aid to the reader. Furthermore, I did not think it irrelevant to indicate at the bottom of the page the places from which the words themselves were taken; and finally, to exchange the version of the LXX elders brought forward by Photius with our own Vulgate, which I think is more familiar to you, reader: with the exception of only a few places, where, as we shall advise, the context of the speech seemed to be at odds.
Moreover, I have by my own right inserted that mark which they call the final point, as often as the perfect and complete scope of the words demanded the sign of an absolute period; which indeed I had to do not once, since in our codex, as in the others of the same age, marks of punctuation occur quite rarely. Nay, I even took care to divide the individual dissertations into certain chapters, as it were; partly so that I would not propose the diverse observations and commentaries of Photius to be read in a single unbroken sequence; C partly so that the disparity itself, which generally exists between the length of the texts and the translation, might not be relegated entirely to the end of those same dissertations, and that something I know not what, abnormal, might not offend the eyes of those looking at it. These divisions, however, which our manuscript lacks, I found duly preserved in the Vatican manuscript, from which we obtained a large part of question 33; indeed, certain numerical notes painted in the margin are there, so that the heads themselves might be reviewed. But I, unless I am mistaken, distributed the whole discourse into more minute parts; which arrangement, having been undertaken from the very beginning, it was consistent to pursue even in the fragment recently mentioned; and thus what is contained in one head of the Vatican codex is often adapted to be filled out by two in our edition. Indeed, I am persuaded that by such chapters as these, that pleasure is procured for readers which travelers are accustomed to perceive by milestones marking the road.
Now, as for whatever we refer as received from the Coislin, Turin, Vatican, and Barberini manuscripts, we shall profess in the notes placed below in their own D place. But as for the two former, we endeavored to consult them only regarding those doubts which the first verses of the questions brought to us; since only these had been published by Bernard de Montfaucon and Giuseppe Pasini; but the latter helped us wonderfully in the other difficulties; for the most illustrious and also most humane men, Hieronymus Amatius, scribe of the Vatican library, and Joachimus Pla, prefect of the Barberini, communicated with me with the utmost kindness those things which the great Andreas had requested for the emendation or complement of the reading. Furthermore, where an error and its correction were plain to see, or the sense rightly led me to fill a lacuna, I did not wish to disturb men so distinguished for a matter of small moment, but I myself applied a healing hand to the codex, and restored from my own resources that which you will see indicated at the bottom of the page. You will find other notes thereafter, perhaps not inopportune, in which I discuss somewhat the Photian solution of the question, and what may be repugnant to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, what may profit us against the innovators, and finally what is supported by the knowledge of the orthodox writers, I shall set forth with such brevity as shall be fitting.
Whatever, however, may be the case in this matter, "What I have said," to use the words of St. Bernard, "may be said without prejudice by one who is wiser." To the authority and examination of the Roman Church especially I reserve all this...; prepared to amend it by her judgment, if I think otherwise.
CARDINAL ANGELO MAI'S PREFACE TO THE AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS OF PATRIARCH PHOTIUS, WHICH HE FIRST PUBLISHED IN VOL. I OF THE SCRIPTORUM VETERUM NOVA COLLECTIO VATICANA, A.D. 1825 AND AGAIN IN 1831.
1. The Vatican Codex of the Amphilochia of Photius. The Amphilochian questions hold almost as much fame in the sacred writings of Photius as his Bibliotheca does in the profane. Leo Allatius first published notice of this sacred work (whether you prefer to call it Amphilochia or Amphilochian Questions) and said
A that it is a work various and full of manifold erudition, most necessary for theologians and interpreters of Scripture; an assessment of the Photian writing by the most learned Allatius which I value much more highly than the malevolence of modern critics. The same Allatius taught us regarding the illustrious Vatican manuscript of the Amphilochia, that it migrated to the Vatican library from the library of Lollini Feltrini, Bishop, during the pontificate of Urban VIII. Allatius, however, supposed that this was the only manuscript of the Amphilochia, with the exception of the Neapolitan fragment, of which we shall speak shortly. Later, however, several others became known, such as the Turin Royal 31, the Coislinianus 270, the Colbertinus 444, which is old—of the eleventh century, they say—and is now the Royal Parisian 1577, and the Sevinianus, a recent Parisian one, and then later a Royal one itself. I omit the copy once made from the Vatican text by Arcudius, of which Allatius speaks in the aforementioned place; I also omit the copy prepared by Camusat from the Coislinian text, which Wolf used; finally, I omit the miscellaneous manuscripts of various libraries, in which some particles of the work are contained, such as the Tilian of Combefis, the Bavarian manuscript noted by Wolf and Andreas, and the Vindobonensis 29, in which is found Photius's synopsis of Aristotle's categories, which some (among whom is Cave) undeservedly distinguish from the Amphilochia. Finally, some Vatican manuscripts also contain, by chance, a few fragments of the Amphilochia in their miscellanies. Regarding all of these, whether distant or even Roman, I need little trouble myself, as I have no need of the help of any of them, since I possess the Vatican manuscript which I mentioned above as being the most complete. This is a paper manuscript of the folio size, of about the eleventh century, written elegantly in a Greek hand. Yet, two injuries had formerly befallen this manuscript: first, that its leaves had been disordered and inverted by an unskilled bookbinder; and second, that moths or dampness had partially destroyed its index and the first leaf of the work. Soon, however, some learned person restored the order of the material, writing in the margins where each leaf should be placed. Then, for the portion that had been ruined at the beginning, he provided, with the help of another exemplar, a supplement written in a recent hand on common paper, in such a way, however, that he took care to preserve the remnants of the ancient leaves separately in the volume, nor did he allow any of the ancient writing to perish. Andreas B attributes the merit of the restored manuscript to Allatius. That, however, was said to Andreas most falsely by some reporter—namely, that Allatius had written out these recent supplements with his own hand. For Allatius's handwriting is very well known to me and to the public, and the writing of the supplements is far removed from his nature, and is, moreover, indolent and nearly ignorant of the Greek language. Therefore, as I was transcribing the first Amphilochian question for myself, I had to look back more than once at those ancient fragments (which I have already said are preserved in the volume), so that I might provide a cure for the very grave errors of the new copyist and exclude this blemish from my edition. The most complete Vatican manuscript, therefore, contains 313 Amphilochian questions. Hence, in the manuscript, other works of Photius follow; namely: 1) An unedited and non-Catholic book concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, of which we shall speak below. 2) Another short treatise of Photius on the same subject, namely the second epistle itself, which occurs in the edition of Montagu, but here is furnished with a new title: *Another edition concerning the Holy Spirit; issued in the patriarchate after the return of the God-bearing one*; a short treatise written, of course, by Photius after his return from exile. 3) At the end of the manuscript are the four books of Photius against the Manichaeans, of which Montfaucon edited the first from the Coislinian manuscript, while Wolf edited the remaining three from the Holstenian manuscript, which the editor quite correctly suspects was derived from our Vatican one—a fact of which I have no doubt, since even the clause which seems imperfect to Wolf is exactly the same in the Vatican manuscript as it is in Wolf's edition.
II. The portion of the Amphilochia previously edited. Since, therefore, there existed many manuscripts of the Amphilochia in the libraries of Europe, Francis Turrianus, S.J., was the first C to translate six Amphilochian questions from the Bavarian manuscript, and he allowed them to be edited in Latin only in the year 1574 by Canisius in his *Sylloge of Ancient Readings*. These are in the Vatican manuscript 180, 181, 182, 185, 186; for I do not find Turrianus's first one in the manuscript; wherefore, when Basnage was repeating Canisius in the year 1725, he both edited the Greek text of the rest, and also placed the first only in Latin, because he did not have it in Greek. Furthermore, Turrianus had also mentioned the *Amphilochia* elsewhere, namely at *Epist. pont.*, p. 124, 165; *Ad Const. ap.* VIII, 6; *De jur. ord.*, p. 155; which the learned have mentioned for a long time. After Canisius, in the year 1616, Petrus Stewartius, S.J., edited the long Photian *Amphilochiana* concerning the gnomic wills of Christ (which is the eightieth in the Vat. MS) with the same Turrianus as translator, the Greek text of which Basnage subsequently provided. Now because Canisius and Stewartius published D these questions under the name of Photius, yet not under that of the *Amphilochia*, it happens that those learned men who since then have spoken about the *Amphilochia*, have been unaware of the aforesaid seven editions
A; among whose number are Combefis, Allatius, Montfaucon, Wolf, Gallandi, Andres, and Scott. Perhaps only Fabricius, in his *Greek Library*, suspected that these lucubrations belonged to the collection of the *Amphilochia*. Finally, I am surprised at Petavius himself, who, although he discourses at such length in his theological work about the Monothelites, has nevertheless remained completely ignorant of Photius's *Opusculum* on the gnomical wills of Christ—which was most suited to his argument—even though it had been translated into Latin and published by his colleagues so many years before. The third editor of the *Amphilochia* is Combefis, who in 1644, from the Gallican codex of Tilius, brought forth an *Amphilochian* question against the Ubiquitarians, which is the thirty-eighth in the Vatican codex. Combefis, however, erred gravely by not understanding the title of the codex, in such a way that he published a question written by Photius to Amphilochius as if it were a writing of Amphilochius himself. But then, having been admonished by Allatius, Combefis retracted the error, and he published the other [work], accepted from the same Allatius, concerning the Asteri (which in the Vatican codex is 312) in the *Auctarium Patrum*, p. 279; being otherwise so little informed concerning the matter that he was not ashamed to write that he was in doubt as to who this Photius might be who had sent questions to Amphilochius. Combefis, of course, was ignorant of what Allatius had written in his book *De consensu* concerning the *Amphilochia*; because, clearly, both Combefis’s *Auctarium* and Allatius’s own volume *De consensu* were being printed in the same year, 1648.
The fourth editor of the *Amphilochia* is Montfaucon B, who in 1715 published four [questions], namely: on Hercules bearing the horn of Amalthea, on the Sibyls, on the heresy of Eusebius of Caesarea, and on the Asteri (in the Vat. codex 107, 150, 221, 312). Truly, Montfaucon has deserved well of the entire Photian work, for he described its entire index—namely, of three hundred and eight questions—but the same man erred greatly, first because he said that he was editing from the *Amphilochia* those questions which appeared to be of greater importance; a judgment than which nothing more inconsiderate, nothing more false, could have been made. For if anyone would compare the *Amphilochia* now edited by me, and likewise those published by Scott and Wolf, with these short and very trifling [ones] of Montfaucon, he will find the praise proclaimed [for him to be], by Hercules, preposterous. Did Montfaucon, therefore, receive the index which he published from some copyist, while he himself hardly looked at the codex? Otherwise, it could hardly have happened that a man of such great standing, while scanning so many long and excellent questions, would neglect these and select the shorter and more trivial ones, honoring them with his own announcement and the prestige of the press. But see again, Montfaucon erred when he published these small questions as if they were all unpublished. Yet Combefis had already made the question on the Asteri public law; [and] the questions on the heresy of Eusebius and on Hercules occurred in the letters of Photius which had been edited much earlier by Montacute; a fact which certainly did not escape Wolf C: it remains, therefore, that Montfaucon was the first to bring forward the little writing on the Sibyls.
Whether I should call Spier, the fifth editor of the *Amphilochia*, I do not quite know; and I doubt it with good reason. For indeed, Theophilus Harles says once and again: "Justus Spier in the year 1738, in a certain book written in the German language, gave annotations on Photius’s *Amphilochia*, and at the end some things from these *Amphilochia* not yet published." Now, what Spier put in that German book, which I lack, I do not know; but since I see that the most learned German man, Wolf, three years after Spier’s book in which he hardly had time to extract the *Amphilochian* questions, did not say anything about Spier’s labors in his otherwise curious Preface, I do not know, I say, what I, distant in time and place, should judge concerning Spier’s work, which Wolf, being his equal in age and standing at the threshold, did not acknowledge. There now follows the sixth editor of the *Amphilochia*, Wolf, who is much more copious than the aforementioned, from whom in his philological labors forty-six *Amphilochian* questions (from 74 to 119) were published in the year 1741; which were then repeated in the year 1779 in the Gallandian *Bibliotheca*, vol. 13. And indeed, one might be allowed to expostulate against Gallandi: why, contrary to his own plan of collecting the minor works of the Fathers, did he accept the questions edited by Wolf, while omitting those edited earlier; unless I had already said that the others were unknown to Gallandi, a fact which his own Preface sufficiently demonstrates.
Among those who were concerned with publishing the *Amphilochia*, the next to us in age was Andres, a great man and very dear to me while he lived, who, while writing the *Prodromus* of the Neapolitan library’s unpublished works, long commended a certain fragment of the *Amphilochia* and was a great advocate that it should be given to the light. But what Andres wished to be done, that the illustrious man Angelus Scott, president of the library after Andres and an instructor of royal princes in literature, soon performed with great praise. Indeed he, who holds the place of the seventh editor, brought out at Naples eighteen *Amphilochia*, besides the Preface, with his own translation and scholia; having also used the assistance of several parts of the Vatican codex, which our distinguished Amatius submitted to him. Therefore, before me, six have edited *Amphilochia*: Canisius, Stewart (1), Combefis (2), Montfaucon (1), Wolf (forty-six shorter ones), and Scott (eighteen). The sum of the *Amphilochian* editors before me is, therefore, 74. I am finally the eighth editor, who present twenty *Amphilochia* in this volume: wherefore the number of a hundred is now almost complete D. Yet the Vatican codex contains three hundred thirteen. But nevertheless, we know that the remaining ones from among these have long since existed among the letters edited by Montacute. In addition, I have taken pains to choose for editing the *Amphilochia* which are for the most part very long, having deferred the shorter ones.
A Having duly weighed these matters, I judge that nearly half of the work still remains unpublished behind me.
Let him approach the twentieth, then some others, then finally the 260th. Several of these questions rightly reconcile passages of the Bible which have the appearance of contradiction, such as 6, 23, etc. Do we not behold the very inner sanctum of theology in the questions concerning baptism and the determination of life? Truly, those concerning the properties of the divine persons are also most subtle and accurate. Finally, are not those concerning the Eucharist, and Providence, and eternal punishments for sins, profitable for the regulation of morals?
1. Concerning my edition
. Now, the method of my edition, although simple, was not without labor and difficulty. For in the first place, to transcribe such a portion of a work from an ancient codex, to arrange it aptly, to punctuate it with orthography and pauses, and even to purge it of some errors, was no light task. Added to this was the strenuous effort of a Latin translation, by which I thought it necessary to explain Photius for the sake of those who do not know Greek or who pretend to know it. But in order to become a prompter editor, I preferred to appear a somewhat unrefined interpreter: therefore, whatever first occurred to my mind, I almost dashed down with my pen; yet composition cannot be polished unless it has been refined by a proper lapse of time. I took care, however, throughout, that the Latin translation should preserve the Greek truth. I have appended rare annotations; for readers could more easily do without them. Moreover, I have indicated the proper places for the biblical authorities, which are so often cited by Photius, in the margins of the book. I have distinguished the questions themselves, which are written continuously in the codex, into smaller articles, so that I might consult for the clarity of the discourse and make matters convenient for those who will cite the passages. Furthermore, I have preserved the ordinal number by which each question is noted in the codex, for the reason that the method of citing should not shift, even when the whole work is published. I can testify most truly that I have culled from the Vatican codex the most significant of all the *Amphilochia*; which, indeed, were to be commended either for their length B or for their grave and theological subject matter, or for the loftiness of their doctrine, or for some novelty, and which did not correspond either to the published *Amphilochia* or to the letters. Truly, there is such a store of good material in these that no one, as I hope, will judge as excessive those praises which Allatius, Wolf, Andres, Scott, and others have proclaimed with full voice regarding this work. Yet it is wont to seem a wondrous thing to me, upon reflection, how it could have happened that Photius, having been engaged in secular duties and offices up to his episcopate—to which a layman was suddenly raised—had attained such knowledge and skill in the divine Scriptures and more abstruse theology. However, there are three among the Latin Fathers whom we may with equal right set against the genius of Photius; and these are Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustus. The first of these passed suddenly from the forum and civic honors to the sanctuary, and yet is reckoned among the most acute theologians of the Church. The second, suddenly snatched from the secular prefecture of Liguria to the episcopal mitre, nonetheless soon learned such a wealth of sacred doctrine as his published works demonstrate, beyond those which were once most famous but which we now lament as lost. Likewise, Augustine, having been nourished on profane studies until adult age, soon before long shone forth as the greatest light of all theology. Now, he who desires to know the canons of sacred Hermeneutics, let him [look to] the first question of Photius.IV. Some controversies concerning the amphilochia
. C But come, since we see that this work was written to Amphilochius, let no one think that every part of it responds to questions perhaps proposed by this man. For there is here a customary habit of those addressing others, whereby, in order to seize an opportunity for writing, they invent a matter of such a kind. Thus I think Eusebius dissembled when he wrote to Stephanus and Marinus. Thus Theodorus of Mopsuestia, according to Ebediesu in his *Catalogue*, sent almost single works to friends as though he had been asked by them: and we know that this has been practiced by other Fathers of the Church, and not least by ethnic writers. Truly, it is evident even from this that these questions of Photius were not sent to one person, because many of them are sent in letters to various men: then also because many passages were treated by Photius in biblical Commentaries, and subsequently transferred into the *Amphilochia*. Therefore, it is rightly concluded from this that Photius, having discoursed much on sacred doctrine in his letters, in his commentaries, and in his homilies, at length rightly and usefully thought of gathering all these writings into one body; which, when he sent it for the sake of honor to his friend Amphilochus, the name arose from there—whether by the will of Photius himself or of posterity—of *Amphilochia*. D Fabricius indeed long doubted whether the authors of the evangelical catenae borrowed the passages of Photius, which they repeatedly cite, from the *Amphilochia*, or rather from his evangelical Commentaries, which once existed. I judge that both took place; nor do I think that the same material was used by others, but that it was used by Photius himself not in one place and not once. For in the catenae there actually occur many of Photius's passages which do not appear in the *Amphilochia* as we know them all today. And indeed, I myself exhibited a specimen of Photius's unpublished Scholia on Luke in the first edition of this volume after Apollinarius; and I would have offered more, had I not recognized that most of them were repeated almost word for word in the *Amphilochia* or in the Letters. To prove this to the readers, one must not spare suitable arguments. 1. The passage of Matthew 11:17, where they say "The children piped to you," etc., Photius interprets with the same words both in the Vatican Catena, codex 758, p. 28, and in the Amphilochian question 34, published by Scott. 2. The passage of Luke 2:35: "And a sword shall pierce through your own soul," etc., is illustrated by Photius both in the CatenaVaticana cod. 1933, p. 63, and also in Amphilochian question 176.
3. Luke 12:14: "Responding, the ruler of the synagogue." The various meanings of the verb ἀποκρίνομαι are briefly elucidated by Photius in the Catena Vaticana 1933, p. 368, and then more lengthily and learnedly in the Amphilochiana edited by me, 21.
4. Luke 16:26, concerning the rich man and Lazarus: there is a passage by Photius in Catena Vaticana 759, p. 66, which is written in published epistle 52. Furthermore, a passage against the error of Origen concerning the punishments of sinners, that they are not eternal, which is placed there in the Catena in few words, is, I suggest, omitted in epistle 52, but is discussed at length in the first.
5. Luke 22:36: "Now he who has a purse, etc." Photius treats this passage in Catena Vat. 1933, p. 557, and likewise most extensively in the first Amphilochian question, using almost the same words.
6. Luke 22:44, the passage concerning the bloody sweat of Christ: Photius explains it in the same sense and with the same words both in the Catenae Vat. 759, p. 211, and 1933, p. 562, and also in epistle 138.
7. Luke 23:25. Photius discusses in Catena Vat. 758, p. 78, the blood of Christ as the price of redemption, which itself is done with almost the same words in Amphilochiana 24.
8. Luke 24:31, the words "Their eyes were opened" are explained in the same way by Photius in Catena Vat. 759, p. 253, and in Amphilochian question 14, not yet published.
9. Luke 23:50, concerning Joseph of Arimathea: the narrative is found in Photius at the beginning of epistle 91. However, the same is written in Catena Vat. 759, p. 244. And I scarcely doubt that from that Oration of Photius on the Burial of the Lord, which Combefis saw in the Mazarin codex, but did not wish to publish because it lacked an introduction, I scarcely doubt, I say, that the Vatican compiler extracted this elegant fragment of Photius concerning Joseph of Arimathea, which I do not regret transcribing as a sample. For Joseph proceeds to Pilate, and so that he might grant him the body of Christ, he beseeches him with a composed oration as follows: "Give me, says Joseph, if you will, to bury the dead body of Jesus, whom all acquaintances have abandoned and departed, about whom many spectators gathered during the passion, but now no one remains, not even of his friends, as a taker to the grave; fear of the kingdom is absent from you; he has died who was accused of seizing the power of authority, but was seen to be innocent of every transgression up to the very claim of it; whom the prophet-killing tongue and voice and hands, while you seemed to be giving a more humane verdict, brought under judgment of death; grant me the favor of confession, by which you do no injury to others; for neither shall the crowd of the Jews be vexed by the earth once they know the enemy is being buried. They are rather distressed even seeing as a corpse the one hated by them; this, on the one hand, triumphing over their bloodthirstiness on the cross, this, on the other, drawing the mercy of those who see, and calling upon the cruel-heartedness of those who crucified him to be loathed; nor will they brandish the friendship of Caesar, saying: 'You are not a friend of Caesar if you give him to be buried in the earth when he is dead'; the completion of the request is without excuse, if only you will it." By these words, charming the soul of Pilate, he attains his goal, and receives the body of Jesus taken down, and deems it worthy of the customary care.
V. Now, just as we have seen that Photius borrowed many things from himself (as we had no leisure to pursue them further), so we have discovered that he also borrowed not a few things from others, as occasion arose or as the method of his intended writing demanded, even though he passed over the names of the authors in silence. At the beginning of the question concerning gnomic (individual) volitions, Photius says that he is therefore putting together this study because no one among the holy Fathers worthy of respect had brought it to clarity, or had said anything useful concerning this topic, with the exception of Maximus the Great. Furthermore, Photius immediately begins to pilfer word-for-word the work of Saint John Damascene on the Orthodox Faith, having suppressed the title of the author and the work: a fact which may be detected by comparing the text of Photius with the Damascene of Lequien, vol. 1, p. 187 seqq. To say nothing of the *Hodegetes* of Anastasius Sinaita, whose definitions Photius seems equally to follow in secret. Certainly, in Amphilochian question 40, Photius says that he is using an anonymous author, whom the distinguished Scott, the interpreter of Photius, timely warned us should be understood as the Damascene. The very extensive Amphilochian question 149, concerning the limit of life, Photius transferred secretly to himself from the storehouse of Patriarch Germanus without changing a word. Likewise, he took silently and word-for-word the brief question 152 concerning the obscurity of Holy Scripture from the prologue of Polychronius to Job: which short study, because it does not exist with the other excerpts of Polychronius on Job, was gladly published by me. Finally, he transcribed silently and word-for-word question 154 concerning the various editions of the holy Bibles from the published pseudo-Athanasian question, or even from the *Panarion* of Epiphanius: which I, perceiving, passed over in the text. Otherwise, so that I may not seem to accuse Photius too harshly, it must also be observed that Photius himself, in his own Prologue to the Amphilochia, and then also in question 1, chapter 10 (in which latter place he speaks with wondrous reverence regarding the earlier interpreters of the Bibles), manifests that he says he is putting forward, with seeds taken from that antiquity, far more accurate solutions to contradictions. And this statement of Photius is neither false, I think, nor arrogant; since these questions of Photius, whether biblical or theological, although they are not all of equal weight and dignity, yet they seem to surpass the writings of many ancients on the same subject: and indeed, for example, the evangelical questions of Eusebius of Caesarea—I have no doubt about preferring these Photian ones to them.
PREFACE OF THE SAME CARDINAL MAI TO THE AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS, WHICH HE EDITED IN GREEK IN THE NEW COLLECTION OF VETERAN WRITERS, VOL. IX, PP. 1–158. ROME, 1837.
A Regarding the Amphilochian questions of Photius, partly already edited and partly unpublished, and regarding the twenty of them that I long ago published from the Vatican codex, I have, I think, discoursed sufficiently in the Preface to the first volume. Now, having by chance obtained an apograph of these same questions from the Vatican codex, I have decided finally to entrust to the press whatever part of this excellent work remained unpublished, except for those items which, although they bore the title of Amphilochia, nevertheless already existed elsewhere, as for instance among the Epistles of Photius; although I have not been so scrupulous as to omit something simply because it had been mentioned or adumbrated elsewhere, perhaps in shorter or different words. I have not, however, added a Latin interpretation of the questions because I had to hasten; nevertheless, I shall at least set forth the arguments here in Latin, so that those who are ignorant of Greek may meanwhile taste the matter with the tips of their lips [summis labris]. Furthermore, in the edition I have indeed preserved the order of numbering as it is in the codices, so that if the whole work of the Amphilochia is ever comprehended in a single volume, each question may occupy its own place: here, however, I write the Latin arguments with continuous numbering. B The 130 Amphilochian questions of Photius, by which the edition of the entire work is now finally completed.
Arguments. 1. If God rested on the seventh day from all His works, how does the saving Word of the Father say: "My Father works until now, and I work"? 2. Why did the Lord use clay, and no other method, to heal the eyes of the blind man? 3. What is meant by "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh"? 4. If whatever is subject to necessity submits unwillingly to violence, and furthermore it is necessary that scandals occur in the world, is it not unjust that he who was compelled is devoted to curses, or that the punishment of sin is exacted from him? 5. If the ends of the ages have already arrived upon us, in what ages will the riches of Christ be shown to us? 6. Why are the children of God said not to sin at all, even though Scripture asserts that these are those who have been born through water and the Spirit? And yet we see many who, even though they have attained adoption through baptism, nonetheless sin. 7. How is it that, when David the ancestor of God says, "Man, his days are as grass," etc., his son Solomon brought forth this sentiment: "Man is a great thing, and a man is something precious"? 8. Why does the Evangelist call those seized by a demonic illness lunatics? 9. Why, even though Adam sinned and was struck by the penal decree of death, did his innocent son nonethless die beforehand? 10. That the sayings do not in the least contradict one another (although to some it seems otherwise): "I came to judge the world"; and likewise: "I did not come to judge the world, but that the world through me might be saved." 11. What is meant by "Their eyes were opened"? and how did the transgression of the commandment have the power of opening their eyes? 12. Why did Moses call the earth invisible? 13. Why did God forbid human beings the eating of meat torn by wild beasts? 14. How is it to be understood: "You shall not appear before me empty-handed"? 15. How do these sayings not contradict one another, namely, "Everything was very good," and then the distinction by which some animals are called clean and others unclean? 16. Why is a man recovering from heresy, provided he has an irreproachable life, admitted to the priesthood; but he who has been defiled by bodily stains, even if he has abstained from base acts, is nonetheless not promoted to the priesthood? 17. Why did the angel not stand by and prevent the thought of Mary before Joseph thought about dismissing her; but only after he came from thought to action did he stand by? And why did he call the virgin the wife of Joseph? 18. What do the words signify: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us, for the knowledge of good and evil"? 19. What do those sayings signify: "At all times let your garments be white, and let not oil be lacking to your head; and wise eyes are in his head"? 20. The words, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers," how are they to be understood? For many have taken occasion for stumbling from this. 21. How does that saying to the ancients, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," not contradict this saying: "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other also." 22. Since the Lord said: "You are of your father the devil," it is asked which devil He refers to, and who is the father of the devil. 23. How many were those who anointed the Lord with ointment? 24. How is it to be understood: "Every sin will be forgiven to men; but against the blasphemer..."
A against the Holy Spirit, there will be no forgiveness, neither in this age, nor in the one to come."
25. Since the blessed evangelist Mark wrote: "His kinsmen went out to seize him, for they said that he was beside himself"; by attributing whom to this structure of words, we shall not stray far from the evangelical narrative. 26. Why did God plant paradise, if he was immediately to drive man out of it? 27. As the divine Apostle warns: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing this, you will heap burning coals upon his head"; how are we to understand that, "You will heap burning coals upon his head"? 28. How is that saying of God to Moses to be understood: "Behold, I have made you a god to Pharaoh." 29. How is the apostolic saying to be understood: "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another," etc. 30. What meaning underlies these words: "Wherever this Gospel is preached, it will also be told what this woman has done, in memory of her." 31. What more congruent and more honorable sense can be devised by us for those words: "Against you alone have I sinned, and done evil before you, that you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." 32. Why, when the Savior’s disciples were baptizing, was John still baptizing? 33. Why in Genesis, when Moses recounts the genealogies of the princes of the family of Esau, does he set forth the names of the others simply, but coming to Aiah, he says: "This is he who found Jamin in the desert, while he was pasturing the pack-asses of Sebeon his father"? What, therefore, did he find? And why is he held worthy of memory? 34. What is meant in Deuteronomy: "But if you build a new house and put a parapet on it, you shall not bring bloodguilt upon your house." 35. Why did the Law forbid contact with a leper—otherwise, one who touched one shall be unclean until evening—since the Savior actually healed a leper and touched him himself, even though he could have healed him by a word? 36. What do the words mean: "It is permitted to hope, to provide a living dog for a dead lion." 37. What does the saying of Ecclesiastes mean: "Cast your bread upon the surface of the water, for in a multitude of days you will find it." 38. What does it mean: "He who digs a pit will fall into it." 39. What is the sense of the words in Ecclesiastes: "He who splits wood is endangered by it, if the axe should chance to fall; and he has troubled his face, and strengthened his powers; and the abundance of a man is wisdom." 40. To what do the words look: "A generation goes, and a generation comes; but the earth stands forever." 41. What sense do the words contain: "There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness; and there is an unjust man who remains in his injustice." B 42. How is that to be understood: "But if our injustice commends the righteousness of God." 43. If a man begets a hundred children, and lives many years, and however many days his age may be, he shall not be satiated with happiness, and there shall be no burial for him. I said it is better for him to be an abortion, which comes in vain, and its name is hidden in darkness, for it has not seen or known the sun. There is more rest for him than for the other. Indeed, what judgment or concept can this saying exhibit? 44. What do the words mean: "Live in good, and see in the evil day; see, since God has made this consistent for him regarding speech, lest man find anything after himself." 45. What are the coats of skins to be understood as, which Adam and Eve were clothed in after the transgression? 46. To what sentiment do those words call us: "If you offer correctly, but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still," etc. 47. As the divine Paul says: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression; yet she will be saved through the bearing of children"; how are the words to be understood, "she will be saved through the bearing of children." 48. How is God said to be everywhere; and how can the doubts which are brought forward by some against this opinion be dissolved? 49. When God himself divided the Hebrew people into Samaritan and Judaic, as he himself said he would do to Solomon, why do we reproach those who underwent the division ordained by God? 50. How the heavens declare the glory of God. 51. What is: "You have rebuked the nations, and the ungodly one has perished." 52. Whose voice is that: "Who is this King of glory?" 53. Why is the time of fasting predetermined by the number of forty days? 54. Since God called Israel his firstborn. 55. Concerning the opinions of the heathens which are found in our Scripture. C 56. The Scripture says the high priest wore a tiara on his head. 57. How Christ comes as an ambassador from the Father. 58. Why, omitting the vision, does Isaiah discourse about heaven and earth? 59. How that which is said concerning Job is to be understood: "Cursed be the day in which I was born." 60. What is that: "By myself I have sworn, says the Lord." 61. What is: "And a sword will pierce through your own soul." 62. What is: "Do not groan against one another, lest you be judged among yourselves." 63. Who are the adulterers and adulteresses. 64. What is that apostolic saying: "Be subject to every human creature for the Lord's sake, as using your freedom." D
A 65. If God is everywhere, why is there an accusation against the mystery of His presence in the womb of a woman? The adversary says: Certainly, the presence of God in a woman's womb is not an accusation, just as His presence is everywhere else; but nevertheless, how could the incarnation of God from her come to pass? 66. Whether the demons knew that if they repented, they would obtain forgiveness of sin; or rather, having once lost divine wisdom, they were also despoiled of the knowledge of this matter. 67. Why was he who was entirely leprous considered clean in the Old Testament, but he who was leprous only in part, unclean? 68. Why is the Spirit called the image of the Son? And what is the quaternion of the Pythagoreans? 69. Why did Jacob anoint the stone? 70. "Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee, that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest." 71. "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." 72. Why are we admonished to renounce Satan, but not in the same way to renounce wicked men? 73. Why was the name of confessor given to Samson? 74. Why was Christ crucified? 75. How shall the apostolic saying, "Signs are not for believers, but for unbelievers," be reconciled with the Lord's words: "Thy faith hath made thee whole," and: "He could not do mighty works there because of their unbelief," and others of the same kind? 76. If the earth was, how was it made? For it says: "The earth was." 77. If God created light, He by no means made darkness Himself; for these things are contrary to one another. 78. Why did God create wild beasts and reptiles? 79. To whom did God say: "Let us make man in our image and likeness"? 80. What is "in the image"? 81. You who call God good, why do you attribute such hardness to Him? For it is cruelty and savagery to inflict such a penalty for the sake of a little food, not only upon those who sin, but also upon their descendants. 82. Whom did Moses call the sons of God? 83. Since the law had not yet been given which would command that one honor father and mother, why is Ham condemned as a parricide? 84. Why is the son of Ham the sinner beloved? 85. Why is Abraham marked with the title of a believer, who said to God: "By what sign shall I know that I shall possess it [the land]?" 86. For what reason does the angel wrestle with Jacob? 87. Of what thing was it a sign that the bush burned and was not consumed? 88. Why was leprosy cast upon the hand? 89. Why did the angel wish to kill Moses? 90. Why did God command those hastening their flight to celebrate the solemnity of the Passover? 91. How is that saying of the Apostle to be understood: "All were baptized into Moses," etc., up to B "...and that rock was Christ." 92. How, with justice preserved, are children punished for their parents. 93. What is, "the infant configured." 94. Why God ordered the tabernacle to be made. 95. Why Moses broke the tablets. 96. How leprosy occurred in garments. 97. What the two little birds signify for the cleansed lata. 98. Why God ordered the beasts fit for food to be slaughtered far from the tabernacle. 99. Why God commanded the people to be numbered. 100. Why barley flour was offered for her who was suspected of adultery. 101. Why punishments were immediately inflicted upon sinners. 102. Why God commanded the censers of the seditious to be kept and stored at the altar. 103. Why God was angered at Moses and Aaron because of the water drawn from the rock. 104. Why heaven and earth were commanded to be called as witnesses. 105. How that is to be understood: "Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people," and: "Let the angels of God assist him." 106. Why, because of a slight error, Moses was commanded to look at the land from afar, but forbidden to lead the people into it. 107. What is, "in a little you persuade me to become a Christian." 108. What is, "who was predestined as the Son of God in power." 109. What is, "I have been forbidden until now, so that I might not reap any fruit." 110. What is, "the justice of God is revealed in him." 111. What that apostolic saying signifies: "Deliver him to Satan." 112. What is: "Unto the end, for her who obtains the inheritance"? 113. "O Lord, rebuke me not in thy indignation, nor chastise me in thy wrath." 114. "Because my bones are troubled." 115. "O Lord, I have cried to thee, hear me." 116. "With my voice I have cried to the Lord; with my voice I have made my supplication to the Lord." 117. What is meant by Michal blessing David. 118. Why David was clothed in an ephod. 119. What Adam was doing in paradise. 120. Why the lamb was sacrificed toward evening. 121. What is, "I will set my bow in the cloud." 122. Why the righteous Noah is found drunk, yet pays no penalty. 123. What is, "Lord, my heart is not exalted." 124. For what reason God appeared to Moses in the bush, and not in another kind of tree. 125. Why it was permitted by God for the divine David to fall into such a great sin. 126. Regarding the numbering of the people under David. 127. Why David is called a man according to God's own heart. 128. Why manna rained down in the desert in the morning. 129. Why it was said by God to Abraham: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee." 130. Concerning Jacob and Leah.
PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE: THE AMPHILOCHIA, OR DISCOURSES ON SACRED SCRIPTURE AND QUESTIONS
TO THE MOST HOLY AMPHILOCHIUS, METROPOLITAN OF CYZICUS, WHO REQUESTED A SOLUTION TO THREE HUNDRED VARIOUS QUESTIONS DURING A TIME OF TEMPTATION
A Finally, moved by the sincerity of your zeal, I have acquiesced in bringing your petition to a conclusion, as you had hoped; although there were many things, and indeed of no light moment, that might have diverted my mind from it. The first was that many holy men before us have, for the most part, already provided a fitting explanation of these complex arguments. The second was that not a few of these have been explained by us elsewhere. B Nevertheless, to run through such a multitude is a task requiring much time, and yet time is short, as the divine word of the Apostle suggests (II Cor. vii, 1), and evening is at hand; and for us, this is not only in the sense in which it is said of human life, but also, as you well know, the time in the present, by a particular rationale, is slipping away. How, then, could it be that a multitude of questions, summed up to the number of three hundred (for up to that point your inquiry regarding these matters—
A has stretched the pressure of our present time), would not both consume much time and disrupt the tranquility of our life?
And what of the fact that you used to propose these questions to me sporadically, and heard me in person rendering some of them plain (for it is surely reasonable to keep a memory of things heard)? Now, however, you demand that I undertake a new labor, and that I reach you having reduced them into a volume. Since, therefore, even lesser reasons might have posed an obstacle—and indeed for others they might have sufficed as an argument for excuse—nevertheless I shall not make use of them at all. But although there are so many and such great things that might demand the contrary, you have at last, as I said long ago, what you requested; yet in such a way that you will not find an elaborate diction of superficial study, but rather vocabulary that is accessible, and which does not entangle the reader—who is striving for the solution of doubts—in a multitude of things. Do you, in the meantime, not only know, as you are a good man, how to ask and to receive, but may you also appear to me all the more excellent by enjoying this gift. B
QUESTION I
Photii *Amphilochia*, or a collection of sacred discourses to Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, in which questions concerning Divine Scripture are resolved. However, that command of the Lord is considered first, saying: "Do not provide yourselves with belts, nor footwear, nor wallets. Item: but now, he who has a money-bag, let him take it, likewise also a wallet," and what follows. C
1. Many questions require a preamble, and escape resolution without a preceding foundation. Your own prudent inquiry asks the reason for such a kind of dispensation, according to common opinion and belief; wherefore it is necessary to preface this, and to anticipate the order for learning, that not all things which present the appearance of conflict are found in reality to be fighting. For many things often seem to be opposed to one another, when they are by no means so. Nor indeed does a conflict arise rashly or in any random way, either in speech or in deeds, but it arises and is created from the concurrence of many circumstances. Nor is this difficult to understand; for not only those who have learned D to philosophize about the ancients and to perform the acts of orators, [are able to discern this.]
professing ancient doctrines and practicing rhetorical arts, believe at first that they perceive great and infinite discord in them, which however, when the matters are diligently weighed, are soon absolved from all contradiction; but even in the very familiar usage of the common people, not a few things appear at first hearing to be repugnant, which, when recalled to the balance, their conflict is turned into harmony. If anyone, therefore, discerns the apparent dissension of daily affairs with an incorrupt judgment of the mind, and similarly in philosophical and rhetorical disciplines truly distinguishes those things that are discordant in appearance, but regarding our sacred doctrine does not act by the same right, but rather attempts to turn any superficial conflict of words into an insolvable contradiction; this person, I say, without the need for an accuser, reveals himself to be a sycophant and a bad judge.
B 2. Indeed, to begin from the practice of the many: murder is believed by the common people to be both the preservation of the republic and the subject of defilement; and likewise, commerce is an ornament to the city, and no less a disgrace. And why are these not opposites? Because, clearly, it is not permitted to kill a well-deserving citizen, nor one devoted to the city, nor anyone who is innocent; but it is right for an enemy, an evildoer, and especially a traitor to be put to death. Furthermore, he who violates another’s marriage, if he is caught in the act, the injured husband is permitted to exact penalties from him; yet if the crime is known from elsewhere, the case demands another judge. Again, those men devoted to an obscure way of life increase the city's benefits with their trade; but those who hold military ranks, or civil magistracies, or perform similar duties—if they chance to descend to those C businesses, they disgrace the dignity of their own life. There will be no end to examples if one wishes to pursue them all. Do you see how many things present a show of contrariety, which, when weighed, defend harmony? Therefore, it is necessary to use these considerations in our own Holy Scripture as well, whose utterance is that which you object to me, and for the sake of which the whole preamble of this discourse has been adorned.
3. Legislator Moses (or rather the common creator and legislator speaking through his mouth) says: "Non occides" (Exod. xx, 13). And again: "Accingite unusquisque latus ense; itote ac circumite castrorum portas; occidant singuli fratrem suum et necessarium ac proximum" (Exod. xxxii, 27). How then do these voices not legislate mutual slaughter? Unless because we understand that one must spare the innocent; but the one who is guilty of death, and who has violated the paternal laws, and has transferred the due obedience to the Creator unto idols, this one, I say, is to be delivered to death. I willingly omit the words "Adulterium ne facito" and "Cape tibi feminam meretricem, ac liberos nothos crea" (Osec 1, 2); D for they have a deeper sense regarding the present question; but yet, here too, the circumstance causes that which appears as a fight not to fight in reality. For it is not permitted that God's prophet, by hand, by tongue,
or by any other way, should be insulted; and a witness to this are the boys who, while playing and making a mockery of the prophet, paid the penalty of death for their insults to his person A. But you will also find someone who, because he did not strike the prophet on the face, fell into ultimate destruction; and what strengthens the difficulty all the more is that a wild beast tore to pieces those who had been insolent, and a different wild beast tore to pieces him who had carefully avoided the imitation. What then? Are these things not contradictory? Not in the least, and not by a long shot! For indeed, it is not permitted to act at all by one's own private judgment and impulse; but when God commands and the decision is brought from above, not only is there no place for the "it is not permitted," but also the penalty pursues mercilessly the one who has neglected it. Therefore, each of the examples from the Sacred Scriptures dispels the apparent contradiction; the one by the circumstance of an innocent and a guilty party, the other by the divine decree and the human impulse.
4. Many other things also, which at first sight appear in conflict with one another, are shifted into harmony once the circumstances are rightly discerned; sometimes it happens because of the place, sometimes because of the time, and occasionally also because of the person. Now, the dimension of time has not a few differences, but the dimension of person has many more: ruler and subject; leader and led; initiator and initiated; disciple and master; guilty and innocent. Again, there is a common division of person, [the B] mutation of the same, or the substitution. For another species arises when the character changes, while the person remains; and another happens when one is substituted for another. For example, God made Saul king, and in turn He took the kingdom away from him. "Yet three days C and Nineveh shall be overthrown;" yet the city waits for the appointed time free from harm and untouched. And there are ten thousand other things which, by the change in morals, subdividing the person, call the tumult of the mind to rest. And that Aaron did not pay the penalty for the golden calf, at a time when the sword was punishing those who were partners in the same crime, this very thing, I say, can be ascribed to other causes, and the contradiction of this matter can be brought to equity. Therefore, the diversity of persons is no small factor in reconciling dissonances; since other matters also take their momentum primarily from the person and from him. And indeed, in the Sacred Scriptures, there is much and frequent variety due to the circumstance of the person. Many things also, which, if the ignorance or malice of the reader were removed, have nothing dissonant, are nevertheless objected to as if they could not find consistency by any escape.
5. From such ignorance or malice, therefore, stems that D question: "Have no belt, nor sandals, nor bag," and also "But now he who has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag," which
A appear to be presented as contradictory and mutually exclusive. Yet, for my part, I do not now even mention the rest; but this one thing: how is it that the sequence and continuous synthesis of these sayings did not shame one from avoiding the opinion of a conflict, but rather urged one to come to an inquiry and to track down the depth of the commandment? For, since neither forgetfulness suddenly intervened, nor was the mind wavering, nor indeed was any force prevailing, nor was even a different aspect of the matter being suggested to the ear, how was it possible that the same Person, in giving a command, chose to signify things contrary to those He had commanded to be avoided? Yet perhaps it would be reasonable to take this as the premise of the theory; but also to change the time explicitly will oppose those who act craftily; because He says: "I sent you... But now I say to you." To adjust B a different and yet another commandment at one time and another, is not only not absurd, but sometimes it is even more appropriate than if one were to command the same things, since the difference in the timing necessarily requires different things.
6. But since the foregoing has been thus arranged, some who solve the question at hand say that the common Lord, when educating the disciples of old and introducing them to the stadium of poverty, allowed them to carry along nothing of those material things which are able to drag one down to the earth, lest they be hindered by things to which this flowing life, which leads to destruction, is attached. For usually, very often and especially for the more imperfect, the care for necessary food, and even for superfluous things which use does not require, is accustomed to bring in study little by little, and to work together a great deal of damage to the soul. For this reason, they say, the Savior, when they were recently C being initiated, forbade the disciples at that time to carry along anything of earthly and bodily things; but later, when they had finished the struggle without disgrace, and had given proof of how much they despised carnal things, and moreover, with the Lord's passion already impending, after which snowflakes of many temptations allowed them to surround the athletes, and an insupportable winter of persecutions and tribulations was received, for these reasons He permits the possession of modest property, which supports life, that it might not slip away. For since the vice of greed had been rooted out from the apostolic morals and ways from its very foundation, and the persecution was blowing intensely and in an insupportable manner, it was right to supply some consolation as travel-provisions for a life beset by calamities on every side. And by no means does one commandment D damage the other; just as if someone, after victories and trophies, were to lead a soldier away from the martial struggles for a while and give him to drink and all that peace bestows; or if someone were to imbue a child with certain rudiments while he is still attending to the teacher’s lessons, but then, when he has grown into a youth, were to exercise him in more profound laws and higher theories; and a flock thrives on other customs and ordinances, but the same path of life does not direct the shepherd.
7. But thus do some [seek] for an agreement in the things...
A that are proposed, and they do not love them any the less. For they say that when the disciples were first being instructed and were holding the rank of novices, it was necessary to allow their thoughts to be divided by no other thing, but to have their whole mind turned toward the learning and the handling of the doctrines of salvation; especially since the Master himself was present and was spontaneously providing not only those things without which life fails, but was also filling their hands so that they were able to distribute unlabored meals to many crowds. But when they themselves had already passed beyond the rudiments of the imperfect, and were close to a state of perfection, and the Master was, a little later, about to take his presence away from them by his voluntary and saving death, and was also to entrust the preaching to them, and was to promote them to the prerogative of masters and shepherds; then he declared that it was not forbidden for them at that time to carry with them the necessary viaticum of life: a custom which, begun at that time, gave rise also to the care to be expended on their followers; a thing which it is possible to recognize from the events that occurred afterward. For before, they were bringing and laying the prices of houses and fields at the feet of the apostles: and in return, what was of use was supplied to each one according to his need.
8. Furthermore, they also suggest that this should be well considered. B The Creator himself and Sustainer of all things, while he kept the disciples away from every worldly care and possession, nevertheless had a money-bag, and did not reject those who cast something into it. Wherefore, he does not by this precept forbid wealth entirely, but [forbids us] to be subject and addicted to these things: for he himself also, as we have said, had [things] by not having them: being for the sake of the needy, and as a consolation for those in want, and a certain diversion and remedy for the necessity. Just as therefore it was not contradictory for him to carry money-bags, while forbidding them to carry anything at all, so it is not contradictory that they once strove toward the rough and difficult summit of poverty; C but later, by the possession of a moderate amount of necessary goods, freed themselves from many anxieties, and obtained a relief for their extreme hardships. But besides these things, or rather before the things mentioned, when you see, they say, the reward of poverty to be riches, then you will more clearly, through reflection, understand that these things are not destructive to one another, nor does the commandment of not possessing fight against that which permits possessing, provided that you understand the former as spoken regarding the man who is accustomed to be disturbed by money; while the possession of personal property leaves you free from disturbance. For how would the generosity of the mind and the sublime study of poverty bring forth and germinate a manifold and wonderful abundance of riches, if D justice in possession and the teaching of poverty happened to contend with one another? And who is the witness? Who is the author of this argument? The common Savior and Lord of the race himself, who announced that those who leave all their own things for his sake will receive a hundredfold fruit; and he did not circumscribe the reward even up to these things, but further toward the greater, and
A he added to them the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven.
B 9. These things, then, are said by those who come after the first, maintaining that the sacred oracles are in harmony with one another. And it is clear that each party was empowered to draw a solution to the problem through the circumstances of the person. But other opinions, unlike those we have gone through, had their impulse from the same principles, yet they do not preserve the same ends, neither in relation to the prior ones nor to each other; for they, too, resolve the problem from the difference of the persons. They say that the former commandment, which introduced the law of poverty, was truly spoken to the disciples and applies only to them, and to those whose intensity of philosophy remains, like theirs, indissoluble throughout their life; and that the second [commandment] does not in any way infringe upon the law granted to the athletes of poverty, but while it sets forth the person of the disciples, it has its reference toward others. Up to this point, there is something common to each opinion. Then they depart into different directions: for one party proposes a person who is entirely averse to all things political and popular, and otherwise is neither capable of nor patient enough for the higher life. To these men, I say, it assigns the possession of a moderate amount of property, and allows them to be exempt from that legislation which sets crowned contests for the disciples. The other party, however, substituting the Jews in place of the disciples, sets forth the words of the second mandate as a prophecy against the whole nation, C which also came to pass in deed when Vespasian and Titus took up the siege of the city of Jerusalem, who, having subjected it by the law of war, showed the Jewish nation to be the work of the sword. For then, indeed, those for whom possession was baggage and whatever else was easy to carry, bearing these things, fled away to cities beyond Judea, away from their own metropolis; but those who were otherwise burdened by wealth, or held fast in any other ways, being required to stay in the city, were driven to purchase swords and daggers and other military armor, with war compelling even the unwilling toward the practice. And this, indeed, is what the Lordly mouth foretold beforehand: "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, likewise also his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." And this also to be foreshadowed from on high by oracles, the divine [word] announcing: "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears" (Joel III, 10). Thus, then, they say, the instruction not to have a girdle, nor shoes, nor a scrip D is in no way opposed to "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, likewise also his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
10. But to those who resolve the problem in this way, perhaps the Lordly words themselves will stand in opposition: "For when I sent you," he says. And, "But now I say."
to you"—not to others, but to you yourselves, whom I also sent to preach. Thus, the change of persons here finds no room for acceptance. A Nevertheless, what logic, what connection, does the passage, "But now he who has a moneybag, let him take it, and a knapsack," preserve with the command of poverty? For why would a poor man have a moneybag? And what prophecy of the destruction of the Jews does the taking up of the knapsack along with the moneybag signify? Indeed, if such an investigation of ideas is done with impartial judgment, it might well stand in the way of some, regarding the previously rendered arguments, and would not allow the solution to emerge beyond doubt. For as to having once forbidden the disciples [possessions], and later permitting ownership—how could the saying, "But now he who has a moneybag, let him take it, and a knapsack," be harmonized and brought into agreement with these commands? And the saying, "And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one?" For even if these were granted, the observance of the previous command is in no way recognizable in those who received it; otherwise, there would be no room for the moneybag. B Furthermore, the later command does not so much provide an opportunity to possess as it convicts [one] of the violation of the former. Since this is the case, it is nevertheless fitting to praise those sacred interpreters for their previous efforts and their pious mind in [the interpretation of] the divine proclamations. For indeed, those interpreters who followed them drew the beginning of their hermeneutical wealth from that source, having received the seeds and the first fruits of more accurate solutions. And this asserts all the more the right of the Fathers over us, and demonstrates that we are debtors of every observance, because it is through their sharp endeavors and labors that we can now see the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures advanced to its peak, leaving no pretext of ignorance or doubt to anyone.
11. Someone might perhaps say, led by the Spirit, C so as to escape the aforementioned difficulties, that many of the things which appear to be contradictions in the divine Scripture are righteously and justly said to arise from the ignorance or malice of those who approach the texts; for some, failing to discern the circumstances by which the contradictory elements are resolved, and others, acting with malice, make the difficulty worse. Yet the circumstance of the persons does not aid the present argument very much; rather, the diligent consideration of the sacred scriptures themselves will cast out the filth of ignorance from the purity of their meaning. Follow me, therefore, in your thought, and accompany my effort. First, the Master does not command the disciples to carry a moneybag, but permits those who possess one to carry a knapsack along with it. D Where, I ask, do these things disagree, and how could they be at odds with one another? To have and to proclaim, among the number of the disciples, those who keep the command of poverty, while indulging those who violate it, and to abrogate the rule [of poverty] for that matter? For the rigor of the rule is useless for an infirm mind; and he who, by a neglectful life, has shown himself to have disregarded the previous [command] of the law, actually hinders the further providence of the Lawgiver. It is granted, therefore, as we have said, that those who have a moneybag may also have a knapsack; or rather, the future
A manner of life is foretold for those who have not kept what preceded. But this does not appear in any way contrary to that commandment by which the perfected disciples, obeying, steadfastly maintained poverty. Do you see how the solution flows clearly from the very phrasing, without presenting any labor or subtle meditation: "But now," he says, "he who has a moneybag, let him take a knapsack as well!"
B 12. We see two classes now—as it is possible to find in every other commandment as well: some accomplish it, others violate the injunction. To those who have acted rightly, a labor of even greater magnitude is entrusted; but to the slothful, no further burden is imposed—nay, even the former is remitted, lest they perish entirely through despair. He commanded the disciples to possess nothing; nothing necessary, whether small or great, was lacking to them. They could find no occasion or cause to flee, for which they might cast off obedience. Indeed, they themselves testified that they had labored in no destitution while they were obeying that precept. "Did you," he says, "lack anything?" They answered, "Nothing." Since, therefore, the commandment was common, the abundance of provisions was also common. Nevertheless, some, contrary to their duty, had a moneybag, while others adhered to the commandment. Wherefore, he simultaneously rebukes the violators of the commandment and, at the same time, permits each to be carried by his own judgment, and compels no one by force. At the same time, however, if it pleases, he foretells to them their future life: "He who has," he says, "a moneybag, let him take a knapsack as well." For he who has already offended, having despised the commandment, C sufficiently indicates what sort of spirit he will possess in the future also, in a similar matter. On the other hand, approving the constant disposition of those who did accurately what was commanded, he bestows the highest perfection in the sphere of their struggles, and raises them with his admonitions to the summit of the religious life.
13. Wherefore he says to both orders, as the discourse splits: "Now, when my passion most especially approaches, and the great war against you grows strong, and the thoughts of many will finally be revealed." For those by whom the commandment above—though not so difficult—was violated, them, I say, the addition of the knapsack will follow after the moneybag; D on the contrary, those to whom it was a concern to beware of disobedience will place a conclusion appropriate to their prior deeds. Hence, those who have fallen from the sublime philosophy, and therefore also from the praise of poverty, will be overtaken by the anxiety and care of many things; and besides the moneybag and the knapsack, other things too, which the luxury of life demands, will beset them in crowds. But truly for those who have persisted zealously and bravely in the proposed work, since, he says, this struggle has been rightly and diligently performed by you, and you have established the labor of poverty as an immovable pillar of future struggles, it remains that you now be prepared, even more than before, for the death to be undergone for me: for I, too, am soon to undergo a violent death for the world. But it is well that you have already cast aside all worldly things, so that nothing of those things which could hinder might entice you, seeing that
A you come joyfully to the climax of all things, namely, to suffer death for my sake. It will be very easy for you to become eager, even to hand over your last garment, and to exchange life for death for my sake. For indeed the aforementioned words signify this more accurately than all others: not having a purse, the selling of a garment, and the sword; as if, when one who has finished the course of poverty will not even spare his last garment, but will give even that up, eagerly rushing toward the sword. Wherefore, he says, let him not sell nor buy, but he will sell and will buy: at once making these words neither a law nor a command, but at the same time predicting what is to be. As if to say: "I do not command this to happen, but having foreknowledge of what will be, I predict it, as the keeping of the commandment will pave the way for you even unto the final and glorious deed"; for that will persuade you even to gladly choose death for my sake, to be free from all worldly care, to pursue nothing corporeal, and to refer all things to my service. That the Lordly discourse, having long been accustomed to using parables, does not mention the B swords for any other reason than to make them a symbol of his own passion and that of his disciples, is clearly unfolded in what follows. For when the disciples answered that there were two swords, he asked nothing else of them, such as to sell a garment, or whether those who had the purse had also taken it along, nor did he shift their thoughts to other things; but he says: "It is enough," as if the object being signified were encompassed by the symbols, and these are sufficient to satisfy the purpose. For the two swords portray the whole necessity and announce the intention of the symbol; for of these, the one represents the mystery of the Lordly passion, and the other that of the genuine and true disciples of the Word, who, placing everything below the love for the Lord, strip off even their last garment, and being C stripped of all earthly things, and even of nature itself, as soon as the occasion calls the athletes, they run rejoicefully to death for the sake of the beloved.
14. But this theory, which demonstrates the harmony of the statements, does not rely upon the difference of persons—which the voice of Holy Scripture does not permit here—but unfolds the symbolic meaning of the words by the facts themselves and the consecutive order of the discourse. It is indeed possible to grasp the appearance of the battle not only in the ways mentioned, but also in many others, more numerous than those stated, the exposition and enumeration of which belong to a particular study, not the present one. Yet nothing forbids us from touching upon some of them, which also provide an answer to some of your other D doubts, if one should consider the matter with you. For many of those things which do not conflict at all, if partly spoken according to the economy and partly according to the order of nature, and you do not distinguish them, will make the semblance of a contradiction. For "economy" may be said...
A principally of the incarnation of the Word, which is beyond understanding. Yet in another mode, economy is understood as a remission or suspension of severe law for a certain time; or even as a concession granted for the sake of the frail minds of those receiving it, the Legislator thus moderating His own commandment. From the first economy, and from the second as well—for the latter does not abhor it—other various modes emerge. For instance, the Savior, when placed in agony, prayed to be spared from death B. And yet He had the power to lay down His soul and to take it up again. It is evident that unless one assigns the one to economy and the other to divine power, he will entangle himself in contradictions. In this place, therefore, by the name of economy we understand, as we have said, the incarnation, which by virtue of its dignity and efficacy is deservedly called economy. Yet the aforementioned name does not consist in this single notion. For even this notion is sometimes divided into two; of which the one accords more, and the other less, with the thing understood. For if one wishes to understand the agony and the deprecation of death C as pertaining to Him insofar as He became man, such a one will hold the term "economy" to be most fitting for the aforementioned statement. But if one should suppose that He did not suffer agony and deprecate death because He became man (for many of the martyrs and ascetics have approached death with voluntary will and joy), but rather that the agony and the deprecation of death were now "economized" in order to confirm the incarnation and to forestall and refute the fantasy of those who would suppose the shocking and paradoxical nature of the incarnation—whoever, I say, shall think in this way will find the term of economy, joined D to this second, lesser sense, to be a helper for the resolution of the conflict; yet, regardless of either side, the illusion of conflict is dispelled.
15. There are also besides these other and various meanings of the term *economy*, which nevertheless flow from the same origin. Finally, there are countless others that lead to doubt, which obtain a clear declaration through the judgment and discretion of the name which principally signifies the incarnation. And by this method, no less than by any other, it is allowed to obtain a resolution. For example, in this place: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?" and then, "I and the Father are one." To altogether foolish men and those of fickle mind, these statements seem contrary; but the wise discourse of truth, by referring the one statement to the immortal and blessed nature of the divinity, and the other to the human substance which Christ took in common with us, dispels every ambiguity. Nor would one depart from a just opinion if he were to explain with the same counsel also the statement, "The Father is greater than I." For while this sacred passage demands prudent hearers even by itself, it demands even much more that the aforementioned utterance, which signifies equality with the Father, be joined to it and placed alongside it. For if along with others
A the battle that appears in them brings forth harmony, just as that which says "greater" is referred to the cause, while "one" indicates the equality of nature; nevertheless, the discourse of the economy also, by taking into itself the "greater," constructs the equality of the Father toward the Son through the "one," free from insult. Nothing prevents those who bring forward arguments that create strife against them from being refuted by different approaches; since even that which has now been said, "The Father is greater than I," was purged of the difficulty by other arguments of mine, which have persuaded the minds of the auditors, and which, I think, carried away a solution that is not to be faulted.
16. B Furthermore, setting aside these things, and the necessity and the allowance, those who calumniously raise an outcry about the difficulty of these discourses prove the sycophancy of their authors. Wherefore the common Lord and Creator of the race and Savior also absolves David, who ate the loaves of the presence, from the violation of the laws. For as one who is the lawgiver, and who knows both the nature and the strength of the law, and for what actions the law was set to regulate, He often declared the insolent, and those whose transgression is produced by contempt, deserving of punishment. Nevertheless, to those in whom there is love and reverence for the laws, but necessity joined with infirmity weakens that love and reverence, He bestows the forgiveness of gentleness, and does not pass judgment upon them without the affection of mercy. Just as He also absolves the blessed David regarding the violated laws; not upbraiding those who had taken the loaves for an audacious contempt of the laws, but because the strength of nature was not C sufficiently responding to the purpose of the mind, setting this in the place of a defense, the merciful Jesus decrees absolution. And indeed many other matters of controversy are brought to clarity by this same method.
17. What need is there to go through the other circumstances? The mode of reading itself, if one adapts the proper tone of voice to each sentiment, blocks entry to every doubt; but if the appropriate manner of voice is changed from its proper meaning, a clear matter is turned into an obscure one. "I have chosen you," says the Savior to the disciples; and, "Have I not chosen you?" If, therefore, anyone should render both of these periods with the same tone of voice, or conversely, if he should utter the first as a question, and the second as he ought to have D uttered the first, he will drag a manifest matter into perplexity, and will place in fault those things which were subject to no charge. For He who had chosen, since He was conscious of His own choice, and was bringing this to the mind of the disciples, so that the ancient debt of benevolence toward Him might not be swept away by the currents of forgetfulness, and so that they might the more readily
A have it toward those who are commanded, it is clear that He is not forbidding or denying what He has done, but rather confirming it through the interrogation itself: "Did I not," He says, "choose you?" For it is common in speech to make questions of those benefits which possess the most manifest evidence, and which no one of those who have received them can deny. And the same rule might be applied to this also: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is true." And, "If I bear witness of myself, is my witness not true?" For even if one finds in another consideration a resolution to what seems to conflict here, nevertheless, no one would blame a speaker in a trial, even if some were to say—not as an affirmation—"My witness is not true," but rather as a means of uncovering and revealing through the questioning the frame of mind of the Jews, which was sunk deep in apostasy and malice. B If, however, one were to proceed in the reading by treating the assertions in the same format as the affirmations, he would truly fill himself with conflict and confusion, even though the wonder of divine wisdom is seen to be far above any assault or contradiction. Of the same consideration would also be that which says, "None greater than John the Baptist has arisen among those born of women"—a Dominical testimony; then, "But he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." For if the voice is uttered interrogatively, "But is the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven greater than he?" then neither is the aforementioned testimony destroyed, nor does any room for caviling remain. Indeed, no further skill will be needed for the aforementioned words to become clear. But this passage has also received special study elsewhere. Similar to this will also be, "Sleep you now, and take your rest?" C For it is not a declarative statement, but that of one who, by questioning, rebukes sloth. To this speech is subjoined another, consistent and congruent: "Rise, let us go from here." For there is no other way the sequence of the discourse could be more readily freed from all contradiction by a happy calculation than if "Sleep you now, and take your rest" presents in the reading an interrogative rebuke; and there are countless others.
18. Malignant, too, would be one of those accustomed to daring such things, who, D by confusing the cause, weaves together a wicked act; and, against the command, "If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also," he sets forth as if it were contradictory the Dominical voice brought against the one who struck Him: "Why do you strike me?" But where it has been clearly revealed that the cause of the matter is different, the accusation is at once [index: entries preserved]
A demanded. For if someone is suffering the loss of money or other possessions, or even of the body itself, and does not retaliate but leaves the judgment to the Lord of all, God commands that he should refrain from vengeance. But when someone stretches forth unjust hands, not so that he might inflict harm upon one of these things, but so that by hurling insults he might ruin the religion that is being championed 18, then we are commanded not to bear the insult with indifference, nor with silence to join the enemy in constructing a degradation of the holy object. This the divine Paul also, as a genuine disciple of the Word, accomplished in wisdom, acting in accordance with the command. On one hand, he deprived Elymas the sorcerer 19, who was plotting against the preaching, of his sight, both checking his attempt and demanding penalty; on the other, he struck the Roman tribune with fear, lest he should appear a voluntary traitor B to his own safety—which he could easily have secured—and thus yield to the enemy of piety; furthermore, he suppressed those who were framing calumnies against the faith with overflowing refutations. And indeed, the divine chorus of the triumphant martyrs, for the same reason, spoke boldly against the tyrants, weaving the argument for piety with unflinching tongue and stern C eyes, and refuting the defamation of impiety. For in cases where the tyrant nefariously hides the discourse of martyrdom within and tests the athlete with other torments as a kind of preliminary sparring, it is better to be silent and bear the harassment mildly. But when he has drawn back the curtain and begins the farce against piety without a mask, then O, then, it is the task of a person noble and dear to God, and an imitation of the Master’s work, to strike back with words and not by silence to betray the object of worship to the farces; rather, it is better to provide no handle for any reproach or scheme, both by true words and by the stance of the soul. Does someone plot against your money, your lands, or even raise a hand of insult against your body? It is fitting to bear it with soul-enduring patience, to soothe the burning flame of anger with long-suffering, and to suppress the insatiable thirst of avarice by contempt for the loss. But when the workers of virtue and the heralds of piety are dragged along and ensnared in evils by the enemies of these virtues, appearing like common criminals and impious wretches, then we shall not endure the injury in silence; but because we who are pious suffer unjustly, and because violence is brought upon the sanctuary of the Gospel, we shall have the courage both in mind and tongue. For in the former state of affairs, silence is a sign of admirable virtue; but in the latter, if by chance we hold our voice, we sharpen the D boldness of impiety against the Gospel word.
A Likewise, let Ananias and Sapphira be brought under the same standard of discernment, as they paid the penalty to the prince of the apostles, as well as that command by which we are bidden to grant forgiveness to those who sin against us seventy times seven times. For indeed, by means of the command, both Peter himself and we are taught to forgive frequently the sins committed against ourselves; but we have no command to overlook an insult against the Divine, nor did he [Peter] overlook it, for he demanded the ultimate penalty from those who had acted impiously and had embezzled the dedicated offerings, and had lied to the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, consider also the companion of the prince—one who bears a prerogative of honor no less than the other apostles—I speak of Paul, once again the teacher of the world. But this divine man, who had said: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse," B and again: "Alexander the coppersmith showed me much evil," is he to be acquitted of the apparent contradiction? For one would say that for the one who has been wronged to pray for justice from the aggrieved—that is, the reproach and the warfare against the proclamation—is a thing for which Alexander himself is to blame; but to return blessings to those who commit insults, insofar as they waylay us personally with persecution, this is what is ordained.
20. I am not unaware that some say that the words concerning the coppersmith used by the divine Paul do not hold the sense of a curse, but rather are a prediction of the evils that were finally to overtake him, as he was acting impiously and was fanning the flames of war against true religion; and that the herald was pre-announcing and signaling these things through his words: at once to draw the apostate away from such madness, and at the same time to introduce a consolation to his fellow-workers, specifically that the wrongdoer would necessarily be punished, and that his deeds could by no means escape the all-seeing eye of Providence. C And through these expressions we see that the downcast hearts of many were lifted up by Paul and recalled to confidence. Truly, if I nowhere saw anger or rebuke from holy men against the enemies of the dogma, I myself would seek no other escape from this supposed contradiction than that of a prophecy. But indeed, when the magician Elymas is called "full of all deceit, full of fraud, a son of the devil, and an enemy of all righteousness," and when he is bitterly punished with his eyes, and furthermore the "whitewashed wall" (whether or not he wore the insignia of the high priesthood before the beaten apostle), and as many other things as have been mentioned a short while ago, and as many others as are carried everywhere in the holy Scripture—these things, I say, clearly demonstrate to me how neither obvious nor safe a refuge it is to flee to prophecy.
D 21. However, what is in my hands now is not an exactness of interpretation, but merely examples of questions for which the solution is being explored; for I also know of another explanation for the passage at hand, which, leaning away from both the curse and the prophecy, finds nothing grievous or
A insulting heaped upon Alexander. For they say that the Lord, who is the fount of all loving-kindness and salvation, gives him over to the evildoers, not to punish His own creature or to judge her, but rather to recall her from evil deeds and to transform her toward a better life. In this matter, I pray, what is there of curses? What prophecy crying out for punishment? But in any case, just as it seems to me that the next words contend against one of the aforementioned opinions, so too do they contend against this one; for He adds: "Whom you also beware, for he has greatly hindered our words." But these words perhaps stand in the way of others; yet they agree all the more with those who interpret the passage as a curse.
22. Nor, truly, will the blessed Stephen B, the first of the martyrs, who met his murderers with blessings and not with curses, stand in our way, nor will the common Lord before him, who prayed to the Father on behalf of those who crucified Him. Although, in truth, the speech of the Savior contains something more profound and more mystical than can now be investigated according to its dignity. Yet why should the glorious-victorious martyr not be an advocate for our cause? For, seeing the Jews inflamed with wrath against him and drunk on their own madness, and having themselves entirely immersed in murder, while he himself already stood at the gates of his C martyric death—a time when all counsel is walled off by blood-guilt and offers no correction, partly because he stood upon the very edge of the razor, and partly because there is no profit in correction or counsel for those who are so possessed—what remained for the athlete was to snatch up the final remedy for his murderers; and so he entreats the common Lord not to lay their sin to their charge. Who is this? Surely it is he who had recently set forth a long admonition and doctrine among the Jews; and when he saw them being contumacious against his exhortations, and the more provoked toward impiety, then indeed, then most justly, he had D subjected them to those who test and decry them, calling them uncircumcised in heart and stiff-necked, murderers and traitors, and bearers of ancestral contagion, just as he showed and called them children of those who killed the prophets. So that not only is this man, filled with grace and wisdom and the Holy Spirit and power, no opponent to us, but he is rather of all men the most active fellow-combatant and defender. And if the true disciple of the Lord and first of the martyrs showed us by his deeds that he had pursued the same [path], it is evident that he did so regarding the Master as well; not to mention now "You are of your father the devil," and "O faithless and adulterous generation," and thousands of other things for which the Jewish nation is culpable, both having committed the same deeds and taught the Giver of the crown, which the crowned one clearly and undoubtedly demonstrated through the genuineness of his preaching and the longing of his blood; even if, with prayer and forgiveness, after all the rest
A of the methods of providence and philanthropy, the Savior of the race brought to himself those who had brought upon him the death of the cross.
23. But these things perhaps lead further away from the present subject. And indeed, apart from what has been said so far, the ambiguity of a name can by no means rarely disturb the sense of the Scriptures. For example, "It is not evil which the Lord does not create," and again, "The Lord is not the author of any evil." And how can these be reconciled, unless one discerns the twofold meaning of the word? For sins are primarily called "evils," of which the Divine is not the cause; but those things that are burdensome and involuntary are also called "evils"—disease, poverty, wounds, the locust, the locust-beetle, blight, the caterpillar, hail, and whatever else Providence B often allows to be sent upon the guilty—not to render the human race evil, nor to reshape the work of His hands for the worse (far be it), but rather to restrain those who are rushing into sin, or to wash away their stains, and by the fitting therapy of one who is suffering, to bring back the diseased state of the mind to something better. Such would also be the meaning of, "He delivered them up to worship the host of heaven," and, "He delivered them up to passions of dishonor," and, "He gave them a spirit of compunction, eyes that they should not see." For the homonymy of the word, unless it is discerned here also, causes the understanding to turn toward absurdity. C For how or when does God blind the eye of the soul? How does He deliver to passions, and to impiety and error, He who is the destroyer of these things? But once the meaning of the word is distinguished, the whole argument is freed from sophistry. For "to deliver" signifies "to hand over" and "to pass on," or "to push" and "to drive," but it no less signifies—and this is especially the intention of the Scripture—that He permitted, yielded, and gave way, allowed them to be carried along by their impulses, and left their voluntary self-determination to itself. According to this meaning of "delivered," none of the absurdities arise at all. For the Divine, by the law of philanthropy D and providence, draws away the human from passions and sins; but when, due to the excess of depravity, they cannot endure the restraint of beneficence and grace, and will not obey the One drawing them away, then, and only then, He yields to the stubborn being carried along by their own momentum, and leaves them to use their own will, so that, by not continuing further to restrain and rein in their inclination, He does not appear to destroy their free will, and so that the beneficence and providence might not be turned into an accusation against the ungrateful and indifferent.
24. It is according to this meaning that it is the custom in our holy Scriptures to use the words "gave" and "delivered," and whatever is similar to this, which attaches no blame nor any handle for abuse to the philanthropy and justice of God, as is plain to all. Thus it is said that He again hardened the heart of Pharaoh; not that, after taking it when it was yielding and obedient to His commands, He turned it into a hard and stubborn...
A on purpose, so that he might recall that heart from disobedience and a refractory spirit, after he perceived that the Egyptian was in no way yielding nor returning to obedience, but rather was hardening himself entirely in a contrary and repugnant opinion; God, who never violates the force of free will, allowed him to be carried by his own will, since he refused to comply with better counsel. B Nor will it be absurd if someone in this place understands the expression "he hardened" to mean that God, by issuing wonders, more evidently exposed the king’s hard and stubborn heart, and displayed his contumacy as if in a triumph, and imparted to the light of day a desperate and intractable wound of the mind, not yet sufficiently known to all. The magnitude of the wonders, since it exceeded all limits of exhortation and persuasion, and yet did not conquer Pharaoh’s mind, did it not demonstrate the supreme and incurable hardness of his heart? Thus, therefore, expressions like "God gave or delivered them into shameful passions"; and likewise, "And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart," frustrate any snares and cunning of calumny.
25. C 25. But why must I go through the other homonyms? Where even the syllable "one," escaping the laws of distinction, introduces no small confusion and disturbance to those who do not share in any of these. For indeed, this very thing is shown by the question at hand; and it is also accompanied by the negation that most opposes it, "no one." At other times it signifies the indefinite; nor does it deny the order of wonder and astonishment; but it is also carried toward the rare, and again sometimes toward rebuke, helplessness, and perplexity; and because a determination is also common among philosophers, it does not overlook triviality or other such things. D And the sacred Scriptures are full of examples; which, if one does not discern, and does not assign to each the propriety of the voice, there is no need for speech, as to how much error he will fill his own reasonings with. And this is evident from the very juxtaposition of the words; immediately, "Who is this King of glory?" and, "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us?" and as many as are such, signify a question and stir up no perplexity. But if someone, because of the similarity of the voice, were to force also, "Who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor?" and, "Who has given to him and it shall be repaid to him?" and, "Who is the man who shall live, and shall not see death?"; if someone, therefore, were to force these also, because of the same type of voice, toward the same meaning, he would fall far from the truth; for these, holding the power of a negation, do not accept the order of a question. For no one has known the mind of the Lord, nor has been his counselor; nor, indeed, is there a man who shall live, and shall not see death—
θάAνατον. Οὐδ᾽ ἑτέρῳ δὲ πάλιν τῶν εἰρημένων συμφέρεται, εἰ καὶ τῇ προόδῳ τοῦ ῥήματος οὐ διήλλακται· οὐδὲ τὸ, « Ἄνθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἱεριχώ· » τὸ γὰρ ἀόριστον ἡ φωνὴ νυνὶ σημαίνει τῶν ἄλλων ἀποστήσασα· ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ, « Εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, » τὴν τοῦ προσδιορισμοῦ χρείαν ἀναπληροῦν. Ἀρκεῖ γὰρ καὶ μνήμη μόνον ἑνὸς παραδείγματος τὴν χρῆσιν ἐπιδεῖξαι τῆς φωνῆς, ὡς οὐδενὶ τῶν προτεταγμένων συμβιβάζεται.
κς΄. Τίνα δ᾽ ἂν ἔχοι κοινωνίαν πρὸς τὰ προλαβόντα, B εἰ καὶ τῆς φωνῆς ἀπαράλλακτος ὁ ἦχος, τό, « Τίς ἀνήγγειλέ σοι, ὅτι γυμνὸς εἶ; » καὶ, « Τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς; » καί, « Τίς εἶ σὺ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην; » καί, « Τίς ἐπάταξε τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ υἱὸν Ἱεροβοάμ; » καί, « Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ κρύπτων με βουλήν; » Ταῦτα γὰρ εἰς ἀγανάκτησιν μὲν καὶ ἐπιτίμησιν ἀφορῶσιν, οὐδὲν δὲ ὅμοιον τῶν προδεδηλωμένων παριστῶσιν. Εἰ δέ τις καὶ ταῦτα εἰς τὸν τῆς ἐρωτήσεως μεθελκύσει νόμον, ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα λέγω, ἄγνοιάν τε κατηγορήσοι τοῦ Θείου, καὶ οὐ καταμέμφεσθαι τὰς πράξεις διὰ τῆς φωνῆς, ἀλλὰ μαθεῖν ζητεῖν ἐξ ἀγνοίας τὸν παρασχόντα τὴν τοῦ πρᾶξαι ἄδειαν· καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ, « Τίς εἰμι ἐγώ; Κύριός μου, Κύριος· καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ οἶκος τοῦ πατρός μου; » ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐμφανεστάCτην φέρει τὴν παραλλαγήν, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἀπαράλλακτον προάγει τὴν φωνήν· εὐτελείας γὰρ ὁμολογίαν ἰδίας, καὶ τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐχαριστίας γνώμην ἀναφαίνει· οὐ μὲν εἰς ἐρώτησιν, οὐδὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ πρὸς ἐπιτίμησιν ἢ ἀγανάκτησιν, ἢ πρὸς ἄλλο τι τῶν προειρημένων τὸν λογισμὸν διαβιβάζει.
κζ΄. Τὸ μέντοι σπάνιον εἴπερ τι ὅλως δηλοῖ τό, « Τίς σοφὸς, καὶ φυλάξει ταῦτα; » καὶ τό, « Τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; » καί, « Ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη; » Εἰ γὰρ καὶ μὴ πάντες, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν γέ τινες καὶ πεπιστεύκασι, καὶ τὴν φρουρητικήν τε καὶ κυβερνητικὴν καὶ παντοκρατορικὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν ἐκ τῆς περὶ αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸ σύμπαν εὐεργεσίας τε καὶ προνοίας συνιδεῖν ἠξιώθησαν, καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖθεν μαρμαρυγῆς ταῖς λαμπηδόσι τὸν νοῦν ἐλλαμφθῆναι. Πῶς δ᾽ αὐτίκα τὸ θαῦμα καὶ τὴν ἔκDπληξιν οὐκ ἀφίησιν ὁ λέγων· « Τίς οὗτος ὁ παραγενόμενος ἐξ Ἐδώμ; » καί, « Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος, ὅτι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ; » ὅπερ οὐδεμία τῶν προτεταγμένων φωνῶν οὐ μὲν οὖν οὐκ εἶχεν ἰσχὺν σημαίνειν. Προσθείη δ᾽ ἄν τις τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τό, « Τίς δώσει τῇ κεφαλῇ μου ὕδωρ; » καί, « Τίς ἄν με θείη κατὰ μῆνα ἡμερῶν τῶν ἔμπροσθεν; » καί, « Ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος! τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου; » εῦ-
εῦ- A χῆς μὲν γὰρ καταφυγὴν ἐξ ἀμηχανίας τὰ εἰρημένα δηλώσει, εἰς οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν προδιεσταλμένων συνενειχθείη· καὶ ἀπαλλαγῆς μὲν ἐξαίτησιν τῶν συνεχόντων, οὐ μὴν ἐρώτησιν, οὐδὲ προσδιορισμόν, οὐδὲ τὸ ἀόριστον, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιτίμησιν, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὸ σπάνιον, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ εὐχαριστίαν, ἢ εὐτέλειαν, οὐδὲ θαῦμα καὶ ἔκπληξιν ὑπογράφει.
κη'. Σὺ δέ μοι κἀκεῖνο προσεπιζήτει, τό, « Τίς ἀπατήσει τὸν Ἀχαάβ; » καί, « Τίνα ἀποστελῶ; » καί, « Τίς πορεύσεται πρὸς τὸν λαόν; » Φαντασίαν μέν τινα παρέχεται ὡς δυνατὸν ὑφ' ἕν τῶν προδιευκρινημένων ἀναχθῆναι· οὐ μήν γε καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάροδον εὑρίσκει, ἀλλὰ προκλητικῆς μᾶλλον ἐστι διανοίας, ἢ ἑτέρου τινὸς τύπον διασώζει. Τὸ δέ, « Τίς γάρ μου ἡ ἰσχύς, ὅτι ὑπομένω; ἢ τίς μου ὁ χρόνος, ὅτι ἀνέχομαι; » πῶς οὐχ ἕτερόν τι σημαινόμενον ἐπιζητήσει, δι' οὗ τὸ ἐκείνου βούλημα οὐκ ἐξυβρίσοι; Τὸ γὰρ βραχὺ καὶ ἄτονον καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιον τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς ἰσχύος ὁ τῇ ταλαιπωρίᾳ ἐκτρυχωθεὶς παραστῆσαι βουληθείς, διὰ τούτων τῶν ῥημάτων ἐκεῖνά τε ἅμα καὶ τὸν ἐπ' αὐτοῖς ὁλοφυρόμενον νοῦν καὶ ἀπειρηκότα ἀναπτύσσει. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τό, « Τίς ἄρα γνοίη, ὅτι εὕροιμι αὐτόν; » καὶ τό, « Τίς οἶδεν εἰ ἐπιστρέψοι; » κατὰ διαπόρησιν εἰρημένα, εἰ οὕτως προσληφθείη, οὐδὲν μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ἀμαυρώσει, εἰς οὐδεμίαν δὲ ἀμφιβολίαν τὸν ἀκροατὴν περιτρέψει· ἐκπεσόντα δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης σημασίας, οὐδὲν ἔλαττον ἢ ὅπερ ἐβούλετο δηλοῦν ὀρθότης τοῦ σημαινομένου, ἀπορίας αὐτὸν ἀναπλήσσει. Καὶ οὐ ταύτας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλὰς ἄλλας διαφορὰς τῆς προκειμένης φωνῆς παραλελειμμένας ὁ βουλόμενος τὴν ἱερὰν ἀναλεγόμενος Γραφὴν εὑρήσει, ᾧ οὐδὲν ἔργον οὔτε αὐτὸν λαβεῖν οὔτε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐκκαλύψαι. B
κθ'. Οὐ μόνον δὲ μία λέξις καὶ τότε βραχεῖα κατὰ πολλῶν μὲν ὑποκειμένων φερομένη, οὐ προσφυῶς δὲ παραλαμβανομένη, τὸν νοῦν τῶν ὀρθῶς ἐχόντων ἐπιθολοῖ καὶ διαταράττει, ἀλλὰ καὶ γράμματος παραλλαγή, ἢ πρόσθεσις καὶ ἀφαίρεσις, εἰ καὶ μὴ χαλεπὸν ἀποσκευάσαι, ὅμως ἄτοπόν τι ἀπαντᾶν εἴωθε παρασκευάζειν. Καὶ ἵνα νῦν ἐάσω τὰ ἄλλα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἔκτησεν εἴ τις μηκυνόμενον διὰ τοῦ βραχυνομένου καὶ γράψειε καὶ νοήσειεν ἐν τῷ, « Κύριος ἔκτησέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ· » εἶτα πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Ἀρείου γνώμην ἀποκλίνοι, κατὰ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεότητος τὴν γλῶσσαν ὀξύνοι· οὗ τὸ δύσφημον πολλαχῶς μὲν ἐῤῥαπίζειν καὶ διελέγχειν ῥᾷον, ἀλλ' οὐδὲν ἔλαττον καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἔκτησεν οὐ τῆς διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γραμμῆς, διὰ δὲ τῆς τοῦ ἤτα προφερόμενον ὁ ὑποδεικνὺς ἀνακαλύπτων, εἰς σιγὴν αἰσχύνης τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ φρονήματος τὸ λάλον θράσος συνελάσει· ἡ γὰρ μετὰ τοῦ μεγέθους προϊοῦσα λέξις οὐκ ἐλαττοῖ τὴν φύσιν, οὐ μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ συστέλλει πρὸς τὸ βραχύτερον, οὐδὲ εἰς κτίσμα C
κτίσμα A τὴν ἄκτιστον οὐσίαν κατάγει· μή τι γένηται· οἰκείωσιν δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ πρόσληψιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τῶν ὁμοφυῶν Πατρὸς ὑπογράψει καὶ Υἱοῦ. Ὁ γὰρ διαστατῶς πανταχοῦ συνὼν τῷ γεννήματι γεννήτωρ, καὶ μηδὲν ἀπότομον καὶ διῃρημένον τῆς ἐκείνου βουλῆς καὶ γνώμης κατὰ δημιουργίαν μηδὲ κατὰ πρόνοιαν πράττων, δῆλον ὅτι μετ’ οἰκειώσεως καὶ προσελήψεως τῶν βουλευμάτων τῶν τοῦ Υἱοῦ πάντα ἂν καὶ προαγάγοι καὶ προνοίας ἀξιώσῃ. Οἷς γὰρ ἀπαράλλακτον καὶ κοινὸν τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ ἡ φύσις καὶ ἐξουσία, τούτοις δηλονότι καὶ τὸ δημιουργεῖν καὶ προάγειν, ἀμέριστόν τε καὶ ἀδιάστατον, καὶ παραλλαγὴν τῆς γνώμης οὐ φέρον οὐδεμίαν. Ὃ καὶ ἡ παροῦσα συνεπιμαρτύρηται ῥῆσις· ἐπί τε γὰρ τῇ κοσμογενείᾳ τοῦ παντὸς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνακαινίσει καὶ σωτηρίᾳ B τοῦ παρολισθήσαντος ἡμῶν γένους καὶ καταπεσόντος εἰς συντριβὴν, κοινὴν καὶ τὴν δημιουργίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἐκδιδάσκει· ἥ τε γὰρ τῶν ὅλων ἐκ μὴ ὄντων πρόοδος, καὶ ἡ τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἀπονευσάσης ἐπὶ τὸ ἄμεινον ἀνάκτησις καὶ ἐπιστροφὴ, δῆλον ὅτι τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ Πνεύματός ἐστι δημιουργίας καὶ προνοίας· ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ συστέλλεσθαι καὶ μηκύνεσθαι γραφὴ, ὡς ἐπὶ παραδείγματος εἰπεῖν, τὴν ἀπορίαν οὕτως διασκεδάζει. Ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ἐγέννησεν ἀφαίρεσιν μὲν ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς ἢ ἐξ ἀγνοίας τοῦ ἑνὸς ν πεπονθὸς, κτισμάτων ὕπαρξιν ἐπεισάγει· λαβὸν δὲ τὸ ἀφαιρεθὲν, πρὸς τὸ ὁμοφυές τε καὶ ὁμοούσιον κατευθύνει· καὶ πολλὰ δὲ ἄλλα κατά τε τοὺς ἔξω λόγους κἀν τοῖς ἱεροῖς δὲ καὶ ἡμετέροις χρησμοῖς φωράσεις τις εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναφερόμενα σκέψιν.
30. Οὐ μόνον δὲ γράμματος ἑνὸς πρόσθεσις καὶ C ἀφαίρεσις οὕτω πολλῶν πραγμάτων καταστροφὴν καὶ ἀλλοίωσιν ἀπεργάζεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ τόνου χρῆσις οὐκ εὔκαιρος, τό τε ῥῆμα ἀνθ’ ἑτέρου, καίτοι τῆς γραφῆς ἀναλλοιώτου μενούσης παρέδειξεν ἕτερον, καὶ εἰς νόημα παντελῶς ἀλλοτριώτατον τὸν νοῦν ἐκτοπήσασα, ἢ δυσσεβῆ δόξαν ἢ γελώμενον λῆρον συνήγαγε· τί δὲ λέγω γράμματα; ὅπου γε καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πάντων βραχύτατον ἡ στιγμὴ κακουργούμενον ἢ παρορώμενον, καὶ τῆς οἰκείας μετατιθέμενον λήξεως, παντοδαπὰς μὲν καὶ μεγάλας αἱρέσεις ἀπέτεκεν· ἀφρόνων δὲ πολὺν χρόνον κατενεμήθη φρονήματα, καὶ τοῖς εὐσεβοῦσιν ὥστε θριαμβεῦσαι τὰ τῆς δυσσεβείας δόγματα, μακρὰ παρέσχε τὰ ἀγωνίσματα. Αὐτίκα, ἵνα τὰ ἄλλα παρῶ, ὁ μετάρσιος ἄνθρωπος καὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλος ὁ μέγας D Ἀπόστολος ἔν τισι τῶν αὐτοῦ γραμμάτων (Κορίνθιοι δὲ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὑποδέχονται) οὕτω φησίν· « Ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐναυγάσαι αὐτοῖς τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. » ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν τοῦτο εἰπὼν, θαυμάσιόν τινα καὶ τῶν οὐρανίων ἀπηχημάτων ἐπάξιον νοῦν τοῖς τετελεσμένοις
τετελεσμένοις A in the instruction of his wisdom. But the impious followers of Manes and Marcion, having seized this expression and captured it for their own impetus, then, by not allowing the punctuation to be placed between "God" and "of this age," have arrived at such a pitch of impiety that they not only commit the ultimate impiety, but also attribute to the sacred utterances the cause of fighting against God. They imagine that one God exists who holds the sovereignty of the creation of invisible and intelligible things, and that another is proclaimed as the Creator of the present age and of everything coordinate and of the same order with it. But this mind-destroying stratagem concerning the stated text, while demonstrably fragile from many angles elsewhere, is none the less refuted by the fact that they do not allow the punctuation to rest in its proper place; for the "present age" signifies at times the span of time itself, and at other times the awkward deeds which are accustomed to sprout up during this present life. So that even if one were to concede to them their mischief regarding the punctuation, the very quality of their thinking, when demolished, refutes them no less. For if the devil, being the sower and instigator of evil works and deeds, and the author of all evil, were to be called their master and creator and God—especially for the honor of those who, serving his wickedness, conform themselves to his words—no profit would be found in such apostate scheming; for even the idols of the nations, while they were not what they were said to be, were nevertheless called gods. For God, indeed, would in no way be said or thought to be the God of some creation or of things having a stable and known subsistence; but if he is the master of lawless passions and sin, in which he delights and revels, and in which he works incessantly to drag others by deception, so long as he works these things, no one will exempt him from this destructive and wretched sovereignty, nor yet from his rule.
31. I know that the sacred utterance of Paul not only avoids the opinion of the apostates through this kind of observation, but even if one were to omit the mention of the punctuation, their rashness would be refuted no less. For just as our true God and the Creator of all—God of heaven and earth—is also called the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and God of consolation, and God of peace, and yet he is not therefore not the God of other things coordinate and of the same order, but rather, from the fact that he is called by these names, God is implicitly understood to be the God of the rest as well; so too, when he is called the "God of this age," he is simultaneously considered and proclaimed the God of all things, both those that are referred to the intelligible realm and those that refer to the sensible. Nay, more: if the statement is taken in a broader sense, it easily eludes the snares of the calumniators once again. For "the God of this age blinds the minds of the unbelievers"—that is to say, he judges them unworthy of the contemplation of those who have been purified, through which it was in their power to have the light of the Gospel shine upon them. For the unbelievers of the present age are let loose to rebel and to strive against their own Master and Creator; but in the age to come, when every knee shall bow to him, in heaven
A and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess him, no cloud or mist shall be held up by any of them, whether out of apostasy, or contentiousness, or ignorance, to prevent them from acknowledging the universal dominion and power of God.
32. But, as has been said thus far, the observation of interpunctuation not only provides an opening for malice and error in the divinely-inspired sayings of Paul—though when carried out correctly, it dissipates the schemes of deceit—but also, in the very utterances of the Lord and Master of sovereign authority, interpunctuation contributes no small weight to either interpretation. For these same followers of apostasy, when they deny that this beautiful and most admirable piece of craftsmanship of the Lord’s creation—I mean the visible and exceedingly fair world—is the work of the Creator, and, instead, striving to assign it to some other absurd origin, they do B not wish to conclude with a stop at the declaration, “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made”; rather, by connecting with what precedes the phrase “in him,” they let the sentence trail off, placing the stop there. And why? In order that, by saying only that the things that are in him came to be through him—whatever the foolishness of their own minds might conjure up—they may strip him of the creation and origin of all the remaining things that have come to be. Do you see what a short step this is, once it is subjected to a proper judgment, becoming a pretext and a refuge for the ungodly, from which to derive such absurd and most impious notions?
33. I am not unaware that this very text and Master’s word has undergone other rebellions for this same reason. For the common and simple argument of the truth, after the words C “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made,” as has been stated before, places the stop there; but others place the stop after “made,” and bringing forth from a different beginning the words, “What was made in him was life,” they declare no necessary meaning, but they open a wide path for those who wish to trample upon the mystical and awesome beauties of our holy Scriptures. For why, when it is possible to be satisfied with the recognized [interpretations] that hold the very best of exegetical sense, should one overlook these and seek to find others, to adorn oneself with those that possess nothing of the kind, but only grant a favor to novelty? And I do not cast my vote against everyone, but only against those whose opinion my reason shows me to be establishing the truth. The leader of this path, D as far as my memory serves me, is the most learned—but none the less most errant—Origen. The Pneumatomachian [Macedonius] follows in his footsteps, although not in the same impiety (for he did not at once both set aside the stop and teach heresy through the passage), yet certainly [he follows him] in his
A innovation of the punctuation and the reading. The Pneumatomachian, having become an enthusiast for this, makes such a reading the very organ of his own impiety. For by joining "what has been made" to "in him," [both] by cutting the word from the preceding connection and by removing the stop from the subsequent interval, he draws this boldly and fearlessly against the Holy Spirit; and because of the voice of "has been made," he counts the uncreated nature together with those things that have been made and that are subject to creation, neither enduring the injury caused to the sequence of the words, nor having any other cause spurring him toward his impiety.
Apollinarius, for his part, while slipping into the imitation of Origen by succession, is no longer in the same way an imitator of [his] intellect. For the latter [Origen], even if he has what is curious, yet at least is not devoid of any other absurdity, and is not entirely lacking in any elegance; but the former [Apollinarius], while saying nothing of what is praiseworthy, plunges his zeal into long-winded ravings and incoherent thoughts; and it is little short of the proverb that he "recites the bean and the salt." But if such a placement of the stop pleased even the glorious Cyril, yet by as much as he is far from the opinion of the heretics, by so much is the difference of the unfolding of the passage demonstrated to be in accord with their [different] zeal. B
34. But for the fact that instead of seeking, as one ought not, to clash the divine Oracles against one another, it is better to inquire for the sake of learning, and even more so to be exercised in the discussion and consideration of the circumstantial readings and any other method similar to these—I know well that you will not need words [from me]; and I would not despair that you also deem yourself worthy to become a teacher of others. But not only in such methods is the apparent phantasm of contradiction in the sacred Oracles distributed, but [it is found] also in many others of which we have not yet made mention.
NOTE
Some, then, have read thus: "That which has been made in him," saying it instead of "through him." But how would it not be foolish if the Evangelist were about to say this, as if teaching us something new and unknown to men? Even an ordinary person could have said this about anyone: "Without him was made not even one of those things which were made through him." For everyone would say this about everything; since it is evident that as regards everything that is done, one could not say it otherwise than that "of the things which were made through him, nothing was made without him." Others, however, read otherwise: "And without him was made not even one." Then, "That which has been made in him was life"; for many things are devoid of life, such as the earth and mountains. There is, therefore, a weaving together and a confirmation of what went before; and then, clarity. For having said that "all things through him were made," he added, "and without him has been made not even one thing which has been made," that is, to say it briefly, "Nothing of the things made has been made without him"—the Father alone being excepted from his making, along with the Holy Spirit; since, residing always with them, he has rightly communed with them in the creation of all things. Some have read thus: *Quod factum est in ipso*, understanding "by him." But would not the evangelist act foolishly if he were to take upon himself to say this, as if he were to instruct men in something new or unknown? For it is permitted to anyone to say of anything: *Sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est per ipsum*. I say that anyone can say this of anything. For it is certain that in every thing that has been done, no one would speak otherwise than that of things done through him, not one was done without him. Some, however, read otherwise, *et sine ipso factum est nihil*. Then, *Quod factum est in ipso vita erat*. For many things lack life, such as the earth, such as the mountains. There is therefore a certain repetition and confirmation of the previous saying; nay, even a certain clarification. For when the evangelist had said, *omnia per ipsum facta sunt*, he added, *et sine ipso nihil, quod factum est*. That is, to speak more briefly: of things made, nothing was made without him. The Father alone with the Holy Spirit is to be excepted from his making: for existing always with them, by right and merit he was their companion in the creation of the universe also. Other fragments concerning this passage of the Gospel exist in the Catena on John edited by Corderius. See also Combefis, *Biblioth. concion.*, vol. I, p. 281.
Proverb concerning those who pretend to know what they do not know. For the prophets used to provide beans and salt to those consulting the oracles. Zenob. C 5, 25.
A The exercise concerning the aforenoted matters does not restrict its usefulness to those points alone, but provides great strength and power for methodizing and discerning the truth, and similar things. For as many things as are prepared into an ambiguous and conflicting meaning by the transposition of words, or terms, or names, or by their omission and excision, or by trope and metaphor, the one who has exercised himself in the aforementioned approaches, by applying the touchstone of precision here as well, will not with difficulty discern what is confused, and will fix that which is tossed to and fro here and there toward the discernment of truth. For instance, is it not easy from this source to refute that which misled the race of the Anthropomorphites? For the man who has taken the opportunity to observe the differences in such matters, and how confusion works much error, immediately recognized and distinguished that the things spoken by metaphor have one usage, while the propriety of the diction has another. Since the heretical minds received nothing of this into their thought—as many things as have been spoken figuratively and metaphorically concerning God—not wishing to perceive the difference between the trope B and the immutable voice, because they heard of hands and feet and eyes and smelling and mouth and words, they impiously and senselessly fashioned the divine to be of similar form to us, the simple and ungraspable and unshaped essence of God.
35. Thus, then, even if the heretical or contentious mind should snatch up any other part of the sacred Scriptures and contend to draw it toward impiety or doubt, if it devises its evil device in accordance with any of the things already discerned, it will straightway have its inescapable refutation carried against itself from that very source; but if it be in accordance with any of the omitted things, it will not be difficult to draw the same judgment also upon these from the things previously said, and to subject those who imitate them to the same refutations by which those who came before them were slapped down. And this is why it was not necessary for us to go through all the causes one by one along with the others; for we neither promised to collect the rudiments of these, nor is the theory and distinction of the omitted things hard to hunt down from the things aforementioned. And the fact that the other things do not, like these, spread and infect the many; and as many as you yourself have previously called into question according to the present and the previous demand, they have sufficiently received what is clear and the solution of the doubt.
36. But if anyone should posit this too among the superficial questions (for it is a great refuge for other heretics as well as for the iconoclasts; for often the sacred voice, while shaping a catholic C form, does not demand that the meaning be taken in a catholic sense, but by drawing the narrative toward certain determined and presupposed matters, it indicates a partial pronouncement), such is that which says: «All who came before me are thieves and robbers.» For the followers of Marcion and the neighboring faction apply to the catholic character of the voice Moses and the other prophets of God, and the Old Testament to be a device of blas- D
- A phemous of the Evil One; and yet it was not said against them, but against those who, a short time before the Lord’s coming, proved themselves to be deceivers and impostors. For if anyone imagines that this Dominical saying was directed against the demons, although it does not lead to any sacrilegious sense, and if he also presumes that the universal form of an expression does not always claim a general meaning for itself—nevertheless, a more refined subtlety, though not sufficiently in harmony with the evangelical sense, yields a place to this opinion following the aforementioned passage. Meanwhile, however, the insane and sacrilegious audacity of the enemies of God, while clinging to the universal form of the diction, thinks it has an asylum for its own crime in the Lord's utterances.
37. Similar also is that which says, "All things were made by Him," which is likewise an argument for error to the opponents of the Holy Spirit. For because they do not separate the most Holy Spirit from the universality of creatures on account of the universal character of the phrasing, they blaspheme Him as well. Six hundred other things the Holy Scriptures set forth in a universal schema, to which, however, they attribute none but a partial significance. As, for example: "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity," and yet virtue, or wisdom, or religion are not for that reason in the number of vain things. Then that passage: "All have turned aside; together they have become useless," and yet those whom God in each and every generation caused to be victors over vices and demons and tyrants were not of that sort. Many things of this kind anyone may observe at leisure: though what has been said so far seems to me to be enough. Certainly, we have also vanquished with a special writing the fury of C those who oppose the holy images, who labor under a similar malice and madness as other foolish men of the same sect. And that many questions require prior discourse, and that your doubts have been dissipated by former holy men, and by myself, with them as guides, and that I have examined the many causes from which controversies are wont to arise, my discourse thus far has demonstrated. Whether, however, I have accurately grasped everything or not, I would certainly not affirm; otherwise, if I were to affirm that I have brought forward not a few matters in response to your requests, no one, with truth as judge, would accuse me of speaking proudly.
QUESTION II
If on the seventh day God rested from all His works, how does the saving Word of the Father say: "My Father works even until now, and I work"?We see four operations of the Creator; of which the first is that from the very beginning of those things which exist...
A a stunt production and creation; in which sense it was said: “And on the seventh day God rested.” For the natures of all things that exist having been perfected and brought into substance within seven days, the Creator exhibited no further production.
The second B is that stability and conservation of creatures, from the time they began to exist up to this present time, not allowing even one species to perish entirely and return to nothing; and this power and conservation is called the providence and care of God. And that this power and action will never cease as long as this earthly creation subsists, the truthful Word is witness.
We see also a third operation of the Creator, by which each nature, acting, produces nothing unlike or inconsistent with itself, but, fashioning and forming that which is born from it according to its own properties and its own likeness, it exhibits a legitimate offspring in succession; and such an operation is designated by the name of providence and care. C But the three aforementioned operations—the one concerning the bringing into substance, the one concerning preservation, and the one concerning likeness—attain their end most perfectly. And to this same reasoning must also be reduced the immutable and constant succession of the order of substances. For the sun and the moon, in their risings and settings, conjunctions and oppositions, and other forces which the divine Word of the Creator implanted in them, change nothing, nor could they be discovered failing in the orderly course and revolution set for them from the beginning; nor could the remaining chorus of stars be convinced to change and dissolve the path of movement and order, appearance and occultation, imposed upon them from the beginning. D Nights succeeding to days and, conversely, days rising again after nights have preserved their orderly proportion whole and unadulterated. Likewise, the natures of the seasons, succeeding one another, have suffered nothing new, but have preserved that ancient and marvelous vicissitude immutable and constant. And it is evident that it is the Word of God, who created all things in wisdom, who contains and strengthens this order and proportion in created things; and this is also an operation that constitutes the work of the Creator.
There is, moreover, in addition to these, another operation: the benevolence of the Lord, especially watching over the human race; and this is twofold. For the former has for its object the body, by which diseases and countless other evils are expelled from his creatures; this the common Savior of our race used to do and perform when present, delivering mankind from all manner of sufferings. But the latter looks to the soul: for our Maker and Creator, cleansing and scraping away that which had been overwhelmed by many sins and had become defiled in its entirety by the countless wiles of the devil—through His own advent, which is beyond mind and reason—restored it to its ancient dignity, and recreating that which He had fashioned according to His own image, He provided it with strength and joy. Therefore, that action upon the work of His own hands bestows sight upon the blind, strengthens the paralytic, raises the four-day-dead from the sepulcher, and countless other things.
displays surpassing works, which, when the Lord performs them according to the rule and law of His own benevolence, the ungrateful multitude of the Jews reproaches, casting the honor due to the Sabbath as a pretext and a veil for their envy and malice; yet they hear from the Lord, in a manner at once lordly, instructive, and saving: “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” But the Lord stops the mouths of the ungrateful Jews—who were abusing and slandering the healing of the body because it took place on the Sabbath—and clearly instructs us that neither the Father rests from such works, nor does He Himself cease from working. From this response of the Lord, therefore, and from the diverse characteristics of His operations, it is easy for you to understand from which works the Father and the Son have rested, and which ones they do not cease from performing even until now. For the Creator finished the creation of substances long ago; but while He preserves those things which He created incorruptible, and by His providence cares that their essences remain unharmed and unadulterated, and preserves the established order and immutable path, neither the Father nor the Son, nor indeed the Holy Spirit, appear to have ceased anywhere. For of the supersubstantial, omnipotent, and all-creating essence, there is one and the same will, power, and energy; and it is manifest that in that hour when our Savior was performing His signs, the Son was working, while the Father and the Holy Spirit were co-operating with Him.
QUESTION III. Why did the Lord use clay, and not some other way, to heal the eyes of the blind man?
The Creator used clay when He made new the eyes of the blind man, in order that He might raise the mind of those who are in doubt as to how the first human was formed from the earth—since no observer or witness was present at such a creation—to a solid faith. For the workmanship, concerning the most precious of the members in the human body, being placed before the eyes of all, provides great strength and confirmation so that no one might doubt or express uncertain opinions about the rest of the body, for the forming of which no eye was present. For when someone sees that the best and most precious thing in us has derived its formation and substance from clay, how will he not confess, by an unshakable argument, that the other organs were also made from the same material and power? Moreover, so that you may clearly learn that in all those things by which the Father makes Himself known as God—I mean in power, glory, substance, and dominion—the Son is also perceived to hold equality and immutability, He took clay and no other material to refashion the eyes of the blind man; just as also the
A Father long ago along with Him fashioned man from clay. It is also shown clearly from this that the same God who now appeared in the form of man, and transformed clay into the substance of an eye, was He who also long ago fashioned man from clay together with the Father.
QUESTION IV.
What is the meaning of: "Hating also the garment spotted by the flesh"?B Let it be known that the wedding garment, as we are taught by divine Scripture, is a life according to virtue, and a manner of living which is free from sins and pure; those who are clothed in this are judged worthy of the mystical banquet by Christ the Bridegroom Himself, and are made to recline at that blessed and royal supper. But those who have sullied such garments are driven away from this wondrous enjoyment and suffer bitter dishonor. If we have learned this, the "spotted garment" mentioned by the divine Apostle—which he rightly and justly urges us also to hate—would be clearly understood. For he who is stained by sins and altogether filthy, he would be that spotted garment. Revealing this more clearly, he speaks not simply of a spotted garment, but of one spotted and defiled by the flesh, and whatever the flesh desires against the Spirit, it renders our life stained and spotted; this we must flee in every way, because it closes the doors of the mystical banquet to us, because it makes us unworthy of the noble Bridegroom, and because it drives us far from the fearful and saving supper.
QUESTION V.
If everything that is subject to necessity acts under compulsion and not willingly, and it is necessary that scandals come into the world, it is not just to subject the one who is compelled to curses, nor indeed to exact punishment for the sin.D The formulation of this argument has a certain plausibility, yet it is impious at its very door. For it demands a reckoning from God as to why He punishes something that is done under compulsion, and why He issues a bitter judgment against His own creation; for if it is necessary, he says, that scandals come, then our race will of necessity be taken by scandals; and if I serve against my will, why does the Judge, failing to attend to necessity, subject me to curses even though I am compelled? For, he says, "Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes" (Matt. XVIII, 7). For it was not fitting to curse and trample upon the one who has suffered injustice and been made a prey to tyranny, but rather to deem him worthy of compassion and sympathy; not to mention, before all this, that it was fitting for God to deliver His own creation from such violence. Thus, then, one might construct your difficulty even more sharply. The beginning of the solution, they say, is the stronger part; for this: "It was not fitting to curse one's own creation, but to subject the cause of the violence to punishment," is as if one said...
"It was fitting to curse man." For if A scandals were produced from somewhere else and not from our own free will, then reasonably would the word demand that some men not be subjected to curses. But if I myself cast the seeds of scandals, and since they have been cast, it is necessary that they be cultivated and produce thorns, then I, having procured for myself the punishment of the thorns through the scandals, quite rightly hold myself liable to the curse and the penalty; and you would not be judged worthy to implore pardon or benevolence in any way.
Moreover, those scandals are whatever impediments hold back the path leading to eternal life. And what are these? Adultery, drunkenness, theft, slander, and above all, homicide and avarice, and whatever other evils arise from these; these the human mind, created in the image of God, makes to enter into the world, having given itself over to sloth and effeminacy; and though created to work virtues, it makes itself a worker of iniquities. As soon as such desires have taken motion and growth from us, then they dwell and act in our life of necessity. For if the ancient enemy of our race urges and arouses our nature toward worse things, he B is never seen to prevail over us against our will, nor to command those who desire to do worse; but while we look for certain provocations and, as it were, consolations from elsewhere, as we ourselves slip away from the manly and noble sense of virtue, the counsel of the devil takes its place, and he becomes an auxiliary indeed, but not the primary author of our fall.
It is clear, however, that just as such scandals and passions harm and destroy the life lived according to virtue, so in the same way, the heretical and dissonant dogmas and thoughts of the impious subvert and plunder the discourse concerning piety; these men, having from the beginning gathered them together in their wicked minds and brought them to light, not by necessity but by voluntary counsel and judgment, filled the ears of their neighbors with blasphemy, and caused, through themselves and those who believed them, that scandals should necessarily come into the world. Against them C the divine judgment, with uncorrupted judicial sentence, hurls that "woe," having rendered themselves unworthy of any mercy, as it says elsewhere that it is better for such that a millstone be hung about their neck and they be cast into the sea.
The difficulty, therefore, from which one might think it was most strongly supported, is solved. And the curse is not directed against him who suffers violence, but against him who sows the scandals and through whom the scandals proceed; for as soon as he casts the scandals, they then necessarily dwell and act in the world. D
QUESTION VI.
Why did Moses make no mention of the kingdom of heaven, although the Savior clearly says in the Gospels that it was prepared for the just from the foundation of the world (27-28)?
1. The divine Moses passed over many intellectual matters; and the kingdom of heaven exceeds, both in its nature and in the excellence of its joys, all that which is perceived by the senses. For as Scripture says: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man" (29). It is not at all surprising, then, if Moses, who was worthy to behold God, did not describe the creation of incorporeal powers because of the coarseness and infirmity of his hearers, and did not even recount the kingdom of heaven, which is beyond sense, to a people living more by sense than by contemplation. For the opinion of some, who think that by the account of paradise Moses also included the kingdom of heaven—which is the same as the kingdom of Christ—does not stand up to critical reasoning. For that would seem far inferior to the kingdom of heaven: since paradise was comprehensible to the senses, and had the first parents as its inhabitants; and although it is the most beautiful of terrestrial things, it is nevertheless a part of this earth; and although it blossoms with beautiful trees and is watered by clearest streams, it nevertheless contains nothing more sublime than what is visible, nor does it exceed human intellect, as the kingdom of heaven truly does. How much, finally, the earth differs from heaven cannot be expressed in words.
2. But if, because the noble thief said, "Remember me, O Lord, in your kingdom" (30), the Savior promised him paradise, and someone on this account thinks that the kingdom of heaven is the same thing as the abode of paradise (for it would not be consistent for the thief to ask for one thing and receive another from the munificent God), he should rather consider how it was that the kingdom of heaven—which is the kingdom of Christ—was entirely unknown to the thief. For how could he have been moved to ask for things which surpassed the power of his reasoning and exceeded human intellect? Therefore, the thief in no way understood what the kingdom of heaven was, nor did he direct his mind toward anything definite and known when he poured out those prayers; but through such a petition he asked to be made a participant in some good and blessed enjoyment. But since, of all other blessings, paradise was more familiar to him (for, being known to the Jewish nation through the teaching of Moses, its existence did not escape the knowledge of the thief), for this reason the Master pledges paradise to him; and He does not bestow one thing in place of another, but precisely what the petitioner desired. He desired, for his part, to be remembered in the kingdom of Christ, which is to be accounted among the good and the blessed. In reality, he then attains that dwelling in paradise which the authors of our race had possessed before the commandment was violated. But if anyone [thinks that paradise...
was given to him as a kind of prelude and pledge of the kingdom of heaven, and that he would not be deprived of the kingdom of heaven either, this does not at all conflict with reason. We shall, however, know this more accurately at the general resurrection of all, at the judgment, and at the reward rendered for the life that has been lived. In the meantime, these things remain hidden in the mind of the Judge.
3. But indeed there was no necessity, nor was it the aim of Moses, to unfold the kingdom of heaven. For, as we have said, he passed over many things that transcended B sense perception while recording the beginnings of the world. But if someone should wish to say that the kingdom of heaven itself is also hinted at figuratively and in an enigma by Moses when he says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," we shall by no means oppose him. For we do not in any way affirm that Moses, who was deemed worthy of so great a wonder as to behold God Himself, was ignorant of such a thing and of such great import. Rather, he kept silent about what many were not yet able to bear, and he was very sparing of the ears of the unlearned multitude; in the meantime, he was casting some seeds into the more sublime and perfect minds, and was perhaps initiating them into higher and more wonderful contemplations. C Therefore, they say, while he writes of the creation of the sensible world, he pursues in detail everything that pertains to that matter; yet when he narrates the genesis of the heaven, he explains with equal precision whatever celestial things relate to the terrestrial world—namely, the dominion and nature of the sun, the moon, and the stars. But things that depart from the terrestrial fabric or adornment, and which properly belong to the supernal station, he does not describe with equal care. If he acted this way in these matters, how much more so in those things which are beyond what has been mentioned! The clear and accurate explanation of these more sublime things, I say, he left to the Creator and Lord of all, Christ our God; who, having dwelt with us inhabitants of the earth, and imparting heavenly doctrines D and divine mysteries, also taught us of the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore, other laws also, and promises, and threats, and blessings, which tasted of something corporeal, always pertain to the office of Moses; but the common Savior of our race, who took upon Himself the duty of liberating man from every error, announced heavenly and divine goods to us who believe—just as He also indicated to those who do not believe, how He will receive them not with things temporary and in time
suffering, A but rather those which have by an endless age the experience of painful things extended.
4. If, moreover, paradise was a training ground—for in it the exercise was set before the first-formed man—how can the same place be both the prize and the stadium? Therefore, paradise is indeed a prelude to the kingdom of heaven, but not the kingdom itself. And while it is blessed and highly desirable to dwell in that place, it is yet more blessed and more desirable to be sent from thence to the heavenly abodes. And that primary light, which, being poured forth before the creation of the sun, made the day, directs us to conceive of the kingdom of heaven as higher and more divine and truly a heavenly lot, rather than paradise; in which, for those deemed worthy to dwell, it will fulfill the need. And it would be with good reason that it preserves an analogy of the heavenly body to the kingdom of heaven, which the earth also preserves toward it; for the latter appears to occupy the place of a foundation B in relation to the visible heavenly vault itself, while that [heavenly vault] in turn will fulfill the place of a foundation for those deemed worthy to obtain their dwelling in the kingdom of heaven. There is, therefore, no room at all for doubting henceforth why the Lord Christ, during his saving presence among men, taught us of and promised the kingdom of heaven, whereas his servant Moses either did not mention it at all, or else mentioned it only as in a riddle; nor [is there doubt] whether paradise and the kingdom of heaven are the same or different.
Question VII
If the end of the ages has arrived for us, in what ages will the riches of Christ be shown towards us?It is not difficult, even if the end of the ages has arrived for us, to show His riches towards us, [for] the common Savior and Redeemer of the race. For we are, in fact, at the end of the ages, we who have been appointed to measure out the present world, which is already withering and falling toward its end; C but by the "ages to come," one must understand those which have their nature extended together with the unending enjoyment of the good things to come. Consider for me also it in this way: in the ages, the ends of which have arrived for us, the mystery determined before the ages for the common salvation of the human race received its end and was completed; this is the union and sojourn of God with men. But in the ages to come, there would be completed the ascent of men to God and a higher conjunction with Him; and our becoming gods by grace, no longer admitting of change toward the worse. Furthermore, in the ages whose ends we have attained, we are required to perform the commandments, and we strip for the struggle; but in the ages to come, we receive the rewards for what has been done, and we are deemed worthy of the prizes—at which time, then, the riches of the D Lord’s goodness and bounty will be dispensed to us most copiously, in an ineffable word and incomprehensible manner. If you will, in the present ages...
we reach the end of our life in a corruptible body, but in those that are to come, we shall trade our corruption for incorruption, and thus we shall pass through the unending age. And again, in the present, we endure sin, which rises up against us and troubles us; but in the ages to come, we shall no longer find it acting as a commander, nor working, nor even existing at all, nor able to exist. Many other countless things can be added to these, by which the difference between the ages directed toward an end and those which remain unto infinity is easily perceived. And thus the proposed words are not opposed to each other, nor do they fight among themselves. A B
QUESTION VIII.
How is it said that the children of God do not commit sin, when the same Scripture says that they are born of water and the Spirit; and yet we see many who have been made children of God through baptism committing sin?
If whoever is generated from water and the Holy Spirit is a child of God, and the children of God, as the inspired John cries out, do not commit sin, you ask and inquire how it is that after we have been deemed worthy of such great grace through the bath of regeneration, we are carried away toward sin. But before we resolve the words that appear to contradict one another, the apostolic statement itself must be examined as it is in itself: how is it that a man, having become a child of God, is utterly unable to commit sin? C Some, therefore, say that John himself, in explanation, adds: "because his seed remains in him"; for that seed is truly the teaching word; for "the sower went out to sow." If that seed strikes roots in the soul and remains, he who possesses this seed, as an assimilation to God who begat him, cannot sin. But if such seed is cast out of our mind, immediately the enemy’s seed is cast into its place, and the germination of tares takes its beginning. Many have stood closer to the truth, as it seems to me, in interpreting that apostolic word. Others, however, say more simply that neither the just man performing justice, nor the wise man fulfilling wisdom, nor any other person who derives his name from a virtue because he performs and fulfills it, will ever be the agent of sin.
But this, although it has been said by some, does not seem to have reached the height of the apostolic thought. For it is not keen to know, nor even to teach, that the just man acting justly does not admit injustice, nor that the wise man does not live intemperately while he is being wise. It would perhaps be better to understand it in this way: that he who is born of God and has conceived His seed within himself, namely virtue (for "every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights") and has been perfected in it, so that he has passed purely into its habit, not having the seed of evil mingled within himself—he, I say, cannot commit sin. That is to say, he does not have a will that inclines toward the passions, D
nor does he take pleasure in them. Such would be an investigation of this utterance in itself. A The difficulty inherent in the connection of these words might be resolved no less by each of the things said. For there is no doubt that he who has the seminal words sprouting within himself—whether they be seeds of virtue or seeds of piety laid down—does not in the least admit the sowing of the wicked one; but when we stand empty of the evil sprout, then we appear to be preparing ourselves for the reception of tares. Nor, indeed, would anyone dispute that he who practices virtue, while he practices it sincerely, is not rendered ineffective against evil; but when he has neglected good works, he is carried away toward worse things.
Although, as has been said, the opposition which seems to exist in the words at first B glance might be resolved by these arguments, a more proper and appropriate solution might be applied to it in this way. There is a twofold mode of the adoption from above: one kind is demonstrated by the sole generosity and grace of the one adopting; the other involves the contribution of our own diligence, by which the operation of the virtues is introduced. And the grace of adoption given from above, when it comes together with the practice of the virtues arising from our own will, transforms the adopted son completely into the likeness and character—inasmuch as it is possible for a man to imitate God who begat him. So, then, he who has become a child of God in this way, and has acquired an adoption so firm and immovable, receives an C unchangeable habit of goodness, and he hates sin and turns away from it, and does not wish to commit it in any way. But as for the one who has enjoyed the Lord's generosity but has not contributed anything substantial enough to show his adoption to be firm and to prove himself worthy of it through his works—that man, even though he has obtained the adoption which the Lord's generosity grants, because he does not confirm it with his own will and zeal, is easily carried away toward the acts of sin. Having left the seed given by grace in a way incomplete, he completes and cultivates with his own sloth that which was sown by the wicked one; and carrying this about in himself, he rightly comes to be called not a child of God, but a child of the devil. D
QUESTION IX.
How is it that while David, the forefather of God, says, "Man, his days are as grass," and so forth, his son Solomon declares, "Great is a man, and an honorable man is something precious"?
That divine David, while generally holding human nature in low esteem, and the wise Solomon, while magnifying it, do not introduce opinions contrary to each other; for not only do these two make such pronouncements concerning the human race, but you will also find them in many places in the divine Scripture, for it on the one hand lifting up our nature,
A and on the other hand disparaging and depressing it. And not only the Scripture, but also all those of our holy Fathers who have been mystically taught true wisdom from thence, establishing different opinions about the human race, are not seen to have introduced rebellion or strife among themselves or against others by this difference of opinions, but are found to have maintained concord and harmony. How, however, no strife or opposition to the truth follows from their making different pronouncements, it is easy to understand from this. Man possesses a twofold constitution and has lived a twofold life: one indeed before the transgression, and the other after the violation of the law. His constitution is on one side clay and ash, but on the other it mimics the omnipotent nature and the one that rules over all things that are. Therefore, whatever things lift man up and set him on high, or exhibit the magnitude of the dignity given to him, or the blessed and happy life before the transgression; and whatever things disparage and depress him, on one side showing the grievous evils B after the transgression, and on the other clearly demonstrating that he is dust and dissolves into the earth, these we say are what we record as the primary and dominant principles. From these, moreover, many other things are born; for as man is a boundary creature, being such that he is able, if he wills, to be made a god, and having no necessity, if he wills, to divert that impulse which lifts him toward worse things, he is worthy to obtain a thousand praises; but the foolish and brute-like man, not to say he who has become a partner in the malice of the wicked demons, is subjected to a thousand reproaches. And before all these, he who exercises his mind in the pleasures and delights of life is daily surrounded by six hundred evils, scarcely ever able to understand that saying: Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. But he who separates himself by reason from the world and from all the trifles that surround him in the world, enjoys the greatest pleasure, and before attaining the future goods, he enjoys in the present time, C as in an image and prelude, that great happiness. Therefore, neither does the father oppose the son—the father, I say, David, to the wise Solomon—when the one praises and the other disparages man, nor does divine Scripture fight against itself, nor even the divine chorus of our Fathers, now deifying human nature, and now holding it of little account and reducing it to the ultimate vileness. And besides what has been said, how would the affections of the body and our daily losses not depress us? Yet the conversion of the mind to contemplation and the purity of supernal pleasure, how would they not render our life blessed and happy? D
QUESTION X
Why does the evangelist call those suffering from a demonic disease lunatics?The evangelist calls those possessed by a demonic disease lunatics, not assigning the moon as the cause of the affliction, nor—
A that the moon provides the occasion for a person to be seized by evil, but he is striving to recount the miracles of the Lord in words customary and familiar to the common people. For it was not his purpose to speak in a refined Attic style, but clearly to teach the truth; and this would best be achieved if one were to report the events using the common, customary usage of words. Furthermore, the use of the term was not at all inconsistent with the proclamation of piety. For since many of those who had worshiped the sun and moon were about to become listeners to the miracles of the Lord, he frees them from their ancient and impious error by means of their own beliefs and usage of words, as if calling out to them and shouting: "O men, why do you offer worship to the moon and sun, and why do you consider them gods and benefactors, when from them, as you yourselves would say in your own words, you receive such great evils, and such great destruction feeds upon the human race? You ought to separate yourselves from the moon and the rest, since you are disposed so badly and so wretchedly, as you yourselves believe. But to Him who bestows freedom from these and ten thousand other sufferings, and who showers upon you eternal blessings, to Him you should offer that worship and render service purely." Thus, the use of common and customary language presents no obstacle to pious reasoning.
I have also heard some people saying that to be a "lunatic" is something different from being "demonized," according to the evangelist; for he would not have said "lunatics" and then added "and possessing a demon" in the same place. They say that he who is a lunatic is not moved by a demon, but by some other disease which takes its origin from rotting humors in the body. And these, they say, increase and attack more violently when the moon is waxing and full; for many other moist things and creatures living in moisture, such as oysters and the like, are seen to grow more at that time, not because the moon does this by an autonomous power—far from it—but by the secret operation of Him who made all things in wisdom and has implanted such powers within it. For he says that since the warmth of a tepid nature is in it, when it touches our bodies with its rays, it causes an effusion of the humors within us, but because the heat is not intense—not like the heat from the sun—it does not cause the evaporation and secretion of the diffused humors. When these humors are thus diffused in the body and stirred up, the disease grows stronger, and attacking the brain and head more severely, it confuses the living creature, alters it, and, hindering its natural functions, makes it break out and be convulsed. And for this reason, the public calls those possessed by such a disease "lunatics," and there is no obstacle to calling them so.
There is, besides this, another theory: that those whom the multitude call lunatics D are indeed demonized; but the demons, having a zeal to slander the works of the Creator to men, carefully observe the moon’s phases, and then make the attack and the affliction more manifest, so that they may wickedly
Question 10
A induce men to suspect the beautiful creations of God, and from that to blaspheme the Creator. But this discourse does not introduce the divine Apostle’s opinion as to why he uses such a word; rather, [it seeks to know] why the demons, lying in wait for the phases of the moon, then leap upon us more fiercely and strengthen their tyranny. Nevertheless, since many things have been said and nothing is disputed by any pious mind, let that which seems best to each person prevail.
QUESTION XI.
Why, when Adam had sinned and incurred the penalty of death, did his son, who had not sinned, die before him? BA deeper and more exalted discourse on this matter perhaps wishes to enter willingly into the abyss of divine judgments, surpassing human reasonings, except for those that have come down to our knowledge. Adam indeed receives his penalty, but his son dies before him, so that having seen with his own eyes the weight and affliction of death, he who was liable to it C might come to a greater awareness of his sin, and, entering into mourning and agony, might soothe the penalty for himself through repentance and grief for what he had dared. For every threat, and every penalty held over one, becomes a source of fear when the experience of evils comes to the notice of the guilty from some other quarter. For if Adam had not known his son dead, and had not known all the terrible things that death brings with it—not that great and helpless struggle, not the turmoil of the soul, not its separation from the body, nor all the other things that follow, [such as] dissolution, putrefaction, pestilential odor, dust, sanies, and worms D — Adam would not have seen in another whatever is terrible and intolerable in his own penalty; and seeing it, he understands more clearly the magnitude of his transgression; and for this reason he is led by the hand to repentance, and, bereft of his son, he now gains the salvation of his own soul. If, however, anyone should consider the death of the son less tolerable to Adam than his own death, he would find many fathers as witnesses to such an opinion, who often purchase the salvation of their own sons by dying themselves many times over. Therefore, according to this argument, the penalty defined for the son surpasses Adam even before his own death, as he is seized by a blow heavier than death—namely, unbearable grief.
But you, for your part, consider this third point with me. The whole world then had three men as its citizens; and one woman lived among them. Some of these were the parents, and others were the children of those who had begotten them. Adam is not subjected to the penalty D for the reason that this discourse has brought forward. And Eve, on one hand, is not subjected to death for the same reason, and on the other hand, because since she was the one and only woman, her disappearance would have dragged the whole race into destruction, with the power of procreation being removed. Moreover, it was not appropriate for Cain to undergo the death resulting from treachery—for he was indeed the worse, while Abel was the better; and how could it come to pass that he who was pure from all deceit and envy and every other such malice, should cast murderous hands upon his brother? It remains, therefore, that [he]
A he should proceed against his brother out of treachery, he who, even before this unlawful act, was grieved by the things which his brother offered to God, and was incited to envy against the one who had done him no wrong, and with a wicked mind and treacherous counsel turned his hands to fratricide. And see here, too, the wisdom and unsearchable nature of the Providence: for through those very means by which the wicked one thought he would hold sway by rising up against his betters, through those very means the prelude to his own downfall meets him; for the Word of the divine and supra-conceptual economy permits that the work of unjust and murderous hands should be Abel, and the son precedes his progenitor in death; but the power of Hades is weakened by that first blow. For if he had first seized upon Adam, a solid foundation would have been fixed for him, since he had received him as the first one condemned by the divine decree; but since he cast down the B innocent one through injury, his power is found from that very moment to be overturned, as one who, from the beginning, had posited a rotten foundation; and the death of the just man by way of injury becomes the prelude to the absolute dissolution of Hades.
QUESTION XII.
Concerning the fact that there is no contradiction, even if it seems so to some, between the saying: "For judgment I am come into this world," and the saying: "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."
The statement, "I have come into this world for judgment," and the statement, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world," not only bear no contradiction toward one another, but rather demonstrate great consistency and harmony. "For judgment," he says, "I am come into this world": for those who ought to see, being willing, are blinded; and those who were thought to be blind were shown to be seeing toward the light of the truth; for the former did not accept salvation, while the latter hastened to it when it arrived; so that, even if my coming, he says, has taken place for the salvation of the world, yet those who, by a wayward inclination of their will, arrogantly behaved toward their own profit, have made my presence a judgment upon themselves. Why then do you not bring down fire, nor shake the earth for them, nor open the cataracts of heaven, and drown their folly? Because, "I came not," he says, "to judge the world, but to save it," but to call it back; for this reason I am patient, for this reason I hold in reserve the judgment; for the time of my first coming is not a time of judgment, but of philanthropy, of compassion, of benevolence, of calling back. Thus, the divine oracles set before us not only do not bring any battle upon each other, but also, as you see, preserve the greatest harmony; and furthermore, *krima* and *krisis* coincide in many things, but also admit of a difference; for *krima* (judgment) signifies rather condemnation, while *krisis* (judging/justice) inclines toward the distribution of what is fitting; to judgment, therefore, the Savior has come into the world, that is, he has become [a source of] condemnation for those who
did not wish to look to their own advantage, nor did they provide understanding to recognize their own redemption. To them, therefore, our common Savior has become a judgment, not because he himself is the author of their being liable to punishment, but because they themselves transformed their own salvation into a deadly poison. For the text, "that those who see," and what follows, is not an indication of cause, but a declaration concerning those who, with a wicked will, have preferred the worse to the better. To declare themselves liable to judgment, then, and not to accept the common Savior, is proof of their own wickedness; but it in no way conflicts with the one who said that he came not to judge the world, but to save it.
On the contrary, he testifies that the boundless ocean of his goodness has drawn many away from error, and that he does not punish, nor penalize, nor condemn those who disobey and place themselves under judgment, but is kind toward those who are disobedient; for, as he says, "All day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." B The Savior, therefore, becomes a judgment to those who received him only through their own wickedness; yet he does not judge them, nor does he punish them, out of extreme kindness, and because he wishes to show that his former advent was not a time of judgment, but of economy and compassion. If, however, anyone wishes to force the meaning more youthfully and to change the word "judgment" (krima) into "discernment" (diakrisin) and "separation" (diachorismon), I do not think he will find this voice signifying this in the Sacred Scriptures according to any consistent usage; he may perhaps find thoughts that do not sufficiently demonstrate such meanings, such as: "Do not think that I came to bring peace upon the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword; for I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"; and, "whose winnowing-fan is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, and will gather the wheat into the granary, but the chaff C he will burn with unquenchable fire"; and other things of this kind.
Yet even so, the apparent conflict between these sacred sayings—I mean, the one where he says, "For judgment I have come into this world," and the other, "I have not come to judge the world"—will in no way be reconciled for him who would so arrange them. For the Savior came to make peace in the world and to reconcile to the Father those who were formerly at enmity with him; and indeed, having broken down the middle wall of partition, he joined those things which are below with those which are above and established them in peace. If, however, some have turned the peace into enmity for themselves, and have brought about discord instead of union, the cause is not in the One who provided the peace and the union, but in those who separated D themselves from those who were joined to the Father and were enjoying the good things of peace.
QUESTION XIII
A If to be in eternal punishment is much worse than not to live at all (for it is much better to suffer nothing than to be tormented with pains and agonies), why, they say, did God bring into existence those who were going to spend their life in sins, choosing the worse rather than the better?1. That it would indeed have been better for those who have fallen into the severity of transgressions not to have been born at all, our Savior Himself taught in the Gospels, saying: "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." But while for Judas and those like him it was better not to be born than to be born, this is not true in a general sense; nor is it better for God. For, on the one hand, being leads a person to the enjoyment of that which exists, and is a proclamation of divine providence and creation; on the other hand, that which lacks existence, besides the fact that it in no way proclaims the supreme wisdom of God, is not even able to partake of any good thing. Therefore, since being born is better than not being born, and being better than not being, it behooved the Divine, looking toward creation, not to choose the worse, but to bring about the better. Thus, it is in no way fitting for God, in place of bringing those who are to be into being, to leave them in non-existence—even if, in the case of the betrayer, the merciful Wisdom, after the manner of those who show pity, said regarding the law of those who are weighed in the balance that it would have been good for him if he had not been born. For besides this, even if it were most pleasing to the sinners, in the judgment of God it is in no way tolerable or worthy for them to be placed on an equal footing with the innocent; for the guilty not to pay the penalty would be, on one level, a good for them, but this is far from the just judgment of God, among a thousand other things.
B 2. In the same way, and by the same unchangeable sequence of logic, the bringing into being of those who are to come is better for them and most fitting for God; even if some of those brought into being, in the course of time, voluntarily and by their own will exchanged the better for the worse, and made God's wonderful and saving creation ruinous for themselves, striving to turn the best into the worst. Furthermore, if the Divine is always, and is established within the immutable and unchangeable bounds of His own nature, while everything that proceeds through generation is subject to countless changes and alterations, then he who argues that those who are going to sin should not have been brought forth by God, is legislating either that human nature should not have existed at all, or that it should have been brought forth immutable and unchangeable. C But this means either cutting off the entire human race from creation, or demanding that man come forth possessing the nature of God. It is easy to see that either of these is a monument to such great folly and impious opinion, and remains indelible. Besides, that which has not been made and does not exist at all cannot be good, whereas he who is living in sins can become good; and the good is clearly distinguished from that which is not good.
3. But beyond what has been said, the one who says that because they were going to
slip into sins, for this reason they ought not even to have been born, such a person says nothing other than that sin ought to prevail over the creation of God, even before it has come to pass. For if, because some were going to sin, the creation of God toward them ought to have ceased, it is clear that the power of sin would be greater than the activity of God; and further, sinning is a matter of human judgment and choice, but creation is of the Maker. Why then does anyone, leaving aside the cause of sinning, attempt to transfer it to the one who is blameless? Nor is such a person released from this folly by introduce the vote that those who were going to sin ought not at all to have shared in generation from the Creator, nor to have been brought to the light of the sun; B for such a person seems to be annoyed if someone who is sinning pays the penalty, but to contend that those who have not yet sinned should not receive punishment; for this is what it means to deprive those who were going to sin of generation and existence, and to cut them off from the creation of God. But indeed, through divine foreknowledge, to wish to condemn those who are going to sin, while seeking for those who have actually committed the deeds to be released from punishments, is something that neither human nor divine justice understands. And indeed, that no one should demand punishment before the sins, is a common judgment for all men and conforms to divine laws; but to demand punishment after the unrepentant sin is a demonstration of divine hating-of-evil and justice. How then could anyone, having pondered these things, think the opposite of what seems right to everyone? And how can one not deign to honor that which shows God to be a hater of evil and just? Then does this person not make himself guilty of the utmost madness and impiety? Why do you say that, in order for man to avoid punishment, he ought not to have been born liable to sin? For do you not openly say, even if you do not say it explicitly, that man ought to have been created impeccable, so that he might not be deemed worthy of the crowns by which those who struggle and overcome it gain prestige? And yet if anyone, being in possession of his own mind, and not being a fervent lover of sin, and fearing torments—if such a one, I say, had the opportunity of choosing either of the two—namely, either (lest those who sin should pay the penalty) to snatch the crowns from the heads of those who have acted valiantly, or (because of those who justly receive the rewards of the contests) not to let even sin go without punishment—would he not much rather prefer to see the brave athletes adorned with crowns, and those subject to their debts handed over to deserved C punishments?
4.
But in addition to what has been said, does the creation of men alone disturb you? Or does it plunge you into the same perplexity regarding the incorporeal and immaterial natures, which also enjoy the gift of immortality? For among those heavenly orders and that blessed lot, the one who fell away from there of his own volition became the leader of wickedness, the devil, and as many as turned their mind to his viewpoint exchanged the better for the worse; but the others of those immortal and divine choirs, D remaining constant in devotion and due modesty, lost nothing of their own beauty or dignity, but toward the common Lord and CreatorA continually raise up themselves, and having no satiation of the substance which bestows all good, they not only remain good by participation, but also assist the human race, yielding in this to the divine will, and become helpers and allies of good works. And as for those who fell, they tremble and shudder at even the very shape of the cross, fashioned in the form of the instrument by which the saving passion was accomplished, and they flee as far away as possible. But the others, standing round the divine throne, receive the rays of that blessed and fearful vision, as far as it is permitted to a created nature. And for those, because of the things they do and have done, the outer fire is prepared; for those, on the other hand, who have kept and do keep their free will in better progress and in the making of ascents, they obtain by divine decree the lot of ineffable joys and eternal blessedness.
B 5. You will surely say then, Why did that wicked one come to be, and how many orders apostatized with him? For it was fitting for God, being good, to have removed and prevented from existence such creations; for it would have been better for them than to be sent off to inexorable torment. But the consequence of these curious reasonings of yours will lead you likewise to the rest of the created things. For it would have been fitting for the earth also, once created, to remain immovable in its state and to be fortified in stability, and—not to mention its other passions and changes—not to be inundated by the waters, if not entirely, at least in the greater part, and, little less than when it was invisible and unformed, be overwhelmed by the floods. And the air, too, it would have been fitting for it to be pure and empty of all foreign mixture, and remaining salutary to men and other living beings, and not to be changed to a pestilential and mortal condition for those who are living. But if these things when brought into existence C had a limit set for them to change their nature—and not only these, but also things coordinate with them—it would have been better that none of these should have been brought into existence. Then, what does he do, this man who thus unbuilds the whole of creation, both that which is in the intelligible realm and that which is in the sensible, and who spares not even inanimate things, but weighs all things so harshly and subjects them to the judgment of his own reasonings, and is pleased with none of these things? He puzzles over the creation of man, one species of the things that have come to be; or he seeks for another God and creator (may He be propitious to us), and with a shameless face and unbridled tongue mocks the One who brought all these things into being, as being ignorant of the better. But why do I say he seeks for another God and creator? For by setting himself D up at the height of insanity and folly as the corrector of the creation, he strives to delete entirely from the minds of men the knowledge of God, which he has already expelled from his own. But these things, as summarized arguments, are, I think, sufficient to revive the memory even of things passed over; and so that those who formerly dared to contradict, as if an ox had broken in, as the proverb says, may not refuse to unlearn their errors.
QUESTION XIV
What is that which is said: "Their eyes were opened" (Gen. III, 7), and how did the transgression have the power to open their eyes?"And their eyes were opened," not as if the transgression had opened their eyes—far from it! For it is not written that their eyes were opened by the transgression itself, but after the transgression. For it says: "And the woman took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband, and they did eat, and the eyes of them both were opened." This is to be understood as follows: after the commission of sin, as a rule, B knowledge of the sin arises, and the magnitude of the transgression is recognized much more clearly. For the passion that was urging them on and the goad that was agitating the mind toward the sin having ceased and settled after the lawless act, then, truly, the reason, as if looking down from out of that deep fog and becoming sober, surveys what has been done, and understands better into what state and from what state it has been transferred. Possessing more awareness, and finding the conscience wounding and awakening it, it clearly distinguishes things which, while driven by passion, it did not perceive in the same way. Moreover, whoever yields to sin carries his senses, as it were, bound up by those things with which the devil, by tickling and soothing us, makes us effeminate and fills us with darkness, and as if mutilated in his power of discernment. But after the action, he brings before the eyes that which was attempted, and harshly uncovers what before he had concealed with many artifices. Then, by handing over to them the realized mass of the crime, he attempts to drive the one who has sinned into despair.
Therefore, "Their eyes were opened" is not to be interpreted in relation to the preceding time, nor before they fell from the command imposed upon them; for at that time they had eyes that were more open, not yet being deceived by the serpent's whispers, and they bore a mind watchful to see what needed to be done. C Therefore, they did not commit sin because they lacked sight, but on the contrary, they became blind in the very act of sinning; but after the sin had occurred, they regained their sight. The depraved enemy of our nature—evil from the beginning—knowing himself from what he had suffered, that after an evil action an understanding of the transgression arises, and that he himself did not turn to repentance, and having learned by experience that the prick of conscience follows sinners after sin, he urged Adam to sin through the transgression of the law: "In the day," he said, "that you eat of it, your eyes will be opened." Then, being a plotter of evil from the beginning and the father of lies, he mingles all the darkness of the lie with the wick of truth and says: "You will be as gods, knowing good and evil"—not as if they were blind while they were sinning, due to the love of transgression, but because after the sin D they received the understanding and sober realization of the crime.
A Why then, after their eyes were opened, do they first understand the nakedness of the generative parts and feel shame? Because passion, if not restrained by the laws of wisdom, governs more bitterly through those parts than others. And because, when the disposition for venereal pleasure is moved in an animal, the other passions are wont to spring up as well, and because from that time forward all other sins are brought under judgment; for before that time, the spiritual law and the law established by the reason of life used to remit them to the infirmity and infancy of the mind.
J. HERGENROETHER’S NOTICE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION. Among the first fourteen questions the three codices—Vatican, Coislinian, and Turinese—plainly agree in order and number. But the following question, the fifteenth, which exists in Cod. Vat. 1923, fol. 30-31 and is now published for the first time along with the Latin version of Antonio Catiforo, is absent both from the Coislinian and the Turinese. Hence it is that the question which is the sixteenth in the Vatican is the fifteenth in these two, and so on up to the seventy-sixth, which in those is the seventy-fifth; the Vatican codex always precedes the others by one number. Furthermore, the question which we now provide from the Vatican is of the same subject matter as the sixth; somewhat related to these is the seventy-ninth, where the discourse concerns the angels not being mentioned in the history of creation. B
QUESTION XV.
Why did Moses not make mention of the kingdom of heaven in the cosmogony, although the Savior says it was prepared for the just from the foundation of the world? (Gen. 1, 1 seqq. Matth. xxv, 34.)Now first edited by J. Hergenroether.
1. Some say, then, that because the Jews were imperfect and addicted to matter, and more inclined to the ruder beginnings of disciplines, and did not have enough strength to look with the eyes of the mind at those things which rise above the senses, for this reason the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven was not set forth to them by Moses, lest that tradition should hinder them as they were beginning to learn of the origin of the world and the things existing within it, and lest they should listen more languidly to the rest; for doctrine must also be measured by the strength of the listeners. What, however, they ask, could a clear instruction about the kingdom of heaven have hindered them? For the Jewish race was equally removed from recognizing the origin of the world and from comprehending the kingdom of heaven, although the former indeed falls under the senses, yet the latter surpasses the senses. C But it was necessary that they, since they were addicted to matter and intent upon earthly things, should rather be lifted up and exalted to the sublime by the explanation and doctrine of immaterial and spiritual things; for it is the art of an excellent teacher to accustom his listeners by mixing things that are familiar with those that exceed the senses, so that they may strive to ascend gradually to more divine things. For this reason, these people have even dared to assert that Moses indicated the kingdom of heaven figuratively and by a riddle. Where is this? In the very beginning, they say, where it says: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." For he soon explains the workmanship that exists under the heaven and in the circle of the earth; but by the name of heaven, placed before all other things, D he hinted at the state of things beyond the firmament and placed above the world. And this
A truth could not easily prove, both because it is too twisted, and because by speaking of the creation of the heavens he enlightened the Jews no less regarding the heavenly kingdom than if he had remained altogether silent; and there is much other opposition to this opinion.
2. Others say in their account of paradise that the kingdom of heaven is also included therein; for paradise is a portion of eternal goods and a perception of beatitude; wherefore also to the thief who asked B to have remembrance in the kingdom of God, the dwelling of paradise is granted. But perhaps this would befar lower than the kingdom of heaven. For the flowers and beauties of plants, the rivers and waters flowing around that place, the variety of beautiful fruits and the natures of herbs breathing forth sweetness and grace, and the face of the earth adorned and decorated in every way, and the temperature of the air spread out into purity and clarity and receiving the first rays of the sun—do not these make that whole region, from the delight and pleasure that charms the senses, of all places the most excellent? Nevertheless, the goods of the kingdom of heaven surpass it by an immense interval. “For neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love him.” C Moreover, paradise was not assigned to Adam as a reward for struggles and labors, but as a gymnasium rather and a stadium of virtue; but rewards and crowns bring a greater and more perfect enjoyment, and no one has ever heard of a stadium obtaining the place of a reward. Paradise, however, is granted to the thief as a kind of earnest and a prelude to future goods; for since there was no place at that time for the common retribution of eternal goods, it was not right that he alone of all those who from the beginning had been dear and pleasing to God should reach the end of ultimate beatitude and be perfected without those countless choirs of saints, as the divine Paul D also testifies.
3. Therefore, not a few have related the aforementioned as reasons why no mention of the kingdom of heaven was made where Moses wrote of the origin and constitution of the world; yet not a few have also called these into question. Perhaps someone might escape those aforementioned handles by saying that Moses did not mention the kingdom of heaven because the Scripture and the law could not by themselves bestow the kingdom of heaven. For what interest is it to me to learn of the kingdom of heaven, if I cannot attain it through the institution of the law? But the common Lord and Savior, since He delivered such an institution to us, setting Himself forth as an example (for it is contained in the Scriptures: “Where He began to do and to teach, through which it is possible to attain the lot of the kingdom of heaven…”
…”—since He has brought us back to such a manner of life—He has also bestowed a most clear and indubitable teaching and promise regarding the kingdom of heaven itself. But if anyone, having ascended to a better contemplation of the question proposed, should explain it, he would be doing what is most desirable and pleasing to me.
QUESTION XVI.
Why did Moses call the earth invisible? AMoses said the earth was invisible because it had not yet received the perfection of sight, the flood of waters having been poured out upon it; but rather, the strength and power of the abyss were present, which both surrounded the natural dryness of the earth and prevented it from putting on its own proper adornment—that is, the kinds of plants and herbs and the other beauty of flowers and fruits. Moreover, the earth was invisible because man, who had received the faculty of sight to behold it, was not yet present. And furthermore, it might rightly be called invisible because, light not yet having been created through which the visible is grasped by the faculty of sight, it did not have the radiance by which it might be served to the eye. So that if the abyss, having been divided into its own depths, had been confined, and the earth had been adorned with plants and the rest of the world, and man, who was to behold it, had stood ready, even then, if the nature of light had not yet shone forth, it would not have been visible either. It is clear that, in the same way, neither the air itself, which receives the rays of light and, becoming an intermediary, joins the energy of the seer to the object seen, nor the water either—light not yet having gained subsistence—would have been visible; although it was not being obstructed by other things, just as the abyss also was not, nor was it deprived of any adornment from within itself. For this reason, then, Moses, knowing that the air was borne upon the water, named “darkness” that which was above the abyss; for the illuminating radiance not yet passing through the nature of the air—for that which causes this did not yet have existence—it was not possible for the air itself to be visible, and much more so for the abyss, upon which the airy spirit was borne; wherefore it is fittingly called darkness. For to say that the divine Spirit was hovering over the abyss—does this not introduce a description of the Indescribable, and does it not restrict the divine providence and oversight from other creatures upon which It was not hovering? Perhaps it would not be worthy of theology to assign a place, in the foundation of the creation, to the uncreated and most blessed Nature, that is, to the all-holy Spirit. But if the Syriac tongue wishes the all-holy Spirit to be understood as being borne upon the waters, and as it were incubating upon them and vivifying them, I would not find fault; for it suffices to know that the all-holy Spirit is, from whence it is possible to understand, of a living and B creative substance and power. The earth, therefore, and the rest of the elements were invisible, according to both the reason mentioned and those previously given, except for one—that they had nothing obscuring them, neither the water nor the air. However, if anyone interprets darkness not as the privation of light but as the C D
A author of evil—the devil—and believes that the abyss is the powers that are under him, such a person would wander far from the truth and be full of an impious opinion, because he cannot understand the sequence of the narrative, nor the order and enumeration of those things that are created to be perceived by the senses, the history of which Moses wrote; nor does he understand the creation and theory of the incorporeal and spiritual nature, and the time which defines the tradition concerning these things in a wonderful order. The air is called the Spirit of God, just as all other things are his creatures and works: "For he shall send forth," he says, "his word and melt it; his spirit shall blow, and the waters shall flow," concerning which David sang of the earth melted by the southern winds. And it would have been called the Spirit of God in the same sense as that saying, "God made the heaven and the earth." For just as those are creatures of God, so also is that a creature and work of his; therefore it is well called the Spirit of God.
QUESTION XVII
Why does he forbid men from eating meat caught by wild beasts?God determined by this present precept that the life of wild animals and the life of men should differ; for to those for whom it is forbidden to have one and the same table, the law teaches that their other habits, way of life, impulses, and actions must also differ greatly. The wild beast snatches, is greedy, and is most impetuous in its movements, and knows no laws of kindness, community, or gentleness; it is fitting for a man to be pure and free from all these things. Likewise, it is an intemperate and unbridled animal in regard to other affections. Thus, the way of life of men, proceeding through temperance and instruction, would present these signs of distinction; and that which is not marked and noted by these signs will be rejected as if it were a wild beast, or something caught by wild beasts, in that it has cast off its gentle and rational nature. But if anyone were to say that he instructs and leads the work fashioned in the image of God toward purity through the abstinence from meats caught by wild beasts, and [seeks] to render it void of all filth that pollutes the taste and that which enters through the other senses (for the guarding and observance of one sense makes the others likewise pure from all impurity and filth), this would not be alien to civil providence and holy instruction.
QUESTION XVIII
How is that saying to be understood, "You shall not appear before me empty-handed"?Some, therefore, say that he who comes to worship God ought to offer gifts with a liberal hand, not as though God has need of these (for what could God possibly need?), but as though he who offers the gifts receives benefits at that moment. For when anyone is considered worthy to offer fruits to God, and to reveal his internal piety through external things, and through mediatory peace-offerings...
munion of the creature with the Creator, with one side receiving with a joyful countenance, and the other bringing faithfully and fervently, how could this not be an enjoyment of wonderful providence and benevolence? And what other benefit or providence could be more desirable and precious to a rational creature? What could be more pleasant and sweet? It would be more fitting, however, to understand here the virtues and piety, with which one must never appear empty before God; for whoever lacks virtue and piety, even if he seems to draw near to God, will neither see God nor be seen by Him; for the impious man shall not see the glory of God, neither shall the sinner recount His righteousness; nor does the Lord know, nor does He behold with eyes of benevolence and intimacy, those who work iniquity. It is necessary, therefore, that those who bear virtues and piety in their soul as gifts, thus draw near to God and fulfill the Lord’s command which exhorts us: “Thou shalt not appear before me empty.” It would also be fitting that questions concerning God and divine things should not lack prudence and spiritual judgment. For the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, nor will he who rashly throws himself into divine questions search out the truth. For He says, “You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss.” The spiritual man, indeed, examining and searching for the things of the Spirit with devotion, shall arrive at the finding of the truth, and his zeal will not be disappointed; for He who promised is not a liar: “Ask, and it shall be given to you; knock, and it shall be opened to you.” C
QUESTION XIX [al. XVIII]
How is it not contradictory to say, “Behold, all things were very good,” and what follows after this division, when it says that some of the animals are clean, and others unclean?
Many things could be said concerning this question; for even before us not a few have solved it. But one would not be far from the truth who said that the clean and the good are not opposed to each other; for evil is opposed to the good, and the clean is opposed to the unclean; but the unclean and the good are not, strictly speaking, opposed. If, therefore, after having said before, “All things very good,” he had later added that some of them were good and others evil, this would be what presents the difficulty; but since, after having said they were very good, he affirmed that some of them were clean and others unclean, he avoided the contradiction. This could be said more generally and reasonably. However, one must also understand this: the statement “all things very good” is spoken concerning the nature of created things; but “clean” and “unclean” are spoken concerning their use by men. For use and nature differ greatly from each other. For many things are by nature very good, but for those who use them, they become very evil, not because of their own nature, but because of the wickedness of those who use them. And that certainty may be applied to the preceding points from another source, the heaven is immediately present, wonderful D
A and a wise handiwork of what is very beautiful. But to those who fashioned an ensouled, rational, and divine creature—and who offered up to the created thing the honor due to the Creator, and to whom it was permitted to use as a creature that which is a fellow-servant—to these very people, that which is most beautiful by nature is revealed as deadly and most evil; the thing itself loses none of its own innate beauty, but because of the senseless daring and abuse of their fellow-servants, it has become an extreme evil for them. Thus, the beauty of nature is one thing, and the improper use of it is another. All things, therefore, are very beautiful according to the principle of nature; but the use of them is not beautiful for all, nor is it the same for all, not only when compared with human nature, but not even when the things themselves are compared with one another.
But perhaps this solution has not attained its proper clarity, and one must needs descend still closer. Therefore, we say this: that all things are indeed good, in relation to the principle of creation and nature; but that some of them are clean and others unclean is referred not to the principle of creation nor to that of nature, but to the principle of sacrifice and human perception. Creation and nature are not divided in relation to perception and sacrifice by any fixed measure, B especially since sacrifices and perceptions do not always stand in the same judgment in all respects; and that it was not from the beginning of creation that some things were distinguished as clean and others as unclean, but that they received this difference from a certain circumstance. For because the Egyptian people, among whom the Israelite nation was enslaved, venerated many of the animals as gods, and since they made evil use of these things that were quite beautiful, Moses—in order that the Israelite race might not be drawn away into that base usage, and might not attribute divine honor to irrational beings—rightly termed these things unclean. For they did not partake of uncleanness from creation—far be it—nor did nature possess the unclean; but rather because the Egyptian nation made use of them not cleanly, but quite profanely and impiously.
If, however, Moses did set some of the things held as gods by the Egyptians, such as the ox and the goat, into the category C of the clean, he did nothing against the aforementioned teaching, nor against his proper aim. For by calling some of those objects of worship among them "detestable," and by condemning others to slaughter, blood, and destruction, he kept the Israelites from their worship and equally from the harm arising to them therefrom; for that which is detestable, and that which is slaughtered and prepared for a feast, cannot be believed to be a god by those who are so disposed toward them.
Therefore, God’s creation brought forth all his works as very beautiful; and the nature of all things is most excellent. But the irrational and lawless uses of men, by profaning many of the created things, have caused some to be counted and called unclean; others, even if they have escaped this designation from uncleanness, have nonetheless provided the friend of God D with the occasion to perceive a different method, and to excise them from profanation; and by both ways
to remove A their condemnation, and to have availed to turn it away from them. For the impure voice designates, and the use puts that which is sacrificed into the belly, nor is it permitted to think anything divine or venerable concerning them, nor even to accept a light notion regarding their divinity. If, however, anyone should ask how Noah, with the Mosaic law not yet given, is said to have received the command to distinguish between clean and unclean, and to bring them into the ark? This is a figure which they call a prolepsis. For even if they were not named from those things by which animals were then known, but from those by which they were ultimately recognized, nothing is contrary to the propriety of the stated word. For Noah, who was more ancient than the law, did not write Genesis, but Moses himself, who established the law concerning clean and unclean things. But if those things which he later sanctioned were announced to Noah, it is not at all surprising; since, as the universal shipwreck had not yet arrived, he received an undoubted notification of it. But how he understood the difference between clean and unclean things, when he was ordered to distinguish them, can be perceived by those things which have just been said; for he who foresaw the universal shipwreck before it arrived, and received from God the grace to preserve seed for the human race, he, in no way whatsoever, was ignorant of receiving the intelligence of clean and unclean from above, even if the use of the names had not yet been frequent. B
QUESTION XX [al. XIX].
Why does a man who has departed from heresy come to the priesthood if he leads an irreprehensible life; but he who is liable to bodily stains, even if he abstains from unlawful deeds, is not elevated to the end of the priesthood?
The problem brought forward into doubt is this: why, when someone has left behind the most grievous of sins—namely, heresy—is he able to aspire to the priesthood (unless his other works prevent him), whereas he who holds orthodox views, but has stained his hand with the blood of his kin, or has violated graves, or has been carried away by bodily desire into troublesome pleasure, or has been guilty of some other unholy act, even if he should turn to penance and give assurance, not hesitating before those who judge impartially, does not become cleansed of his defilements? But indeed no one of such, even if other virtues bear witness to him, is considered worthy of the priesthood. C
This question is indeed ancient, and customary to be stated in such a way; but if any have rightly solved it, I would gladly become their disciple. I shall teach, however, perhaps if not others, at least you entirely: that those who were considered impious proceeded from a will that did not choose evil, but was investigating the good, and, having been deprived of the holy love of the best things, were carried off to the evil which they did not prefer; for from the beginning the terminus of their love was flourishing in the good; their unhappy end could therefore take refuge in the corruption and infirmity of nature; and these proceed from the worse things
A seeing them, the mercy of God looks upon them benevolently. But those who know from the beginning that they are doing evil, and yet strengthen their mind toward that evil, provide much advantage to those who are turning toward piety. For some indeed held fast to a good impulse, but, not having set this as their purpose, were carried away; while for others, the initial choice was of evil things, and their fall happened according to their purpose. And to some, that which was held as opinion seemed so best that they would pride themselves in that opinion, and would even choose death at times over the abjuration of their held beliefs; while others recognized their evil to such an extent that, even with no one else knowing, they would blush at their action in their own hearts, and deemed it a work of prayer to be hidden from all. Since, therefore, the aim was good from the beginning—for they looked toward the best—and the change, proceeding by way of knowledge, was laid upon a solid foundation, with true discernment establishing it, they for the most part keep the stability of their conversion to piety unshaken. But for others, the desire was evil from the very start. For it did not escape them that they were approaching disorderly things, and even though a change had occurred, it did not have the wherewithal to be anchored in immutability. For they added nothing to what they previously knew by which they might be more firmly established, but with their own free will breaking out in either direction, and not allowing one to know for certain toward which side it might incline, it is not easy to grant them full trust if they say they will not return to their former vileness. B Add, if you wish, this reason also: among the former, both the earlier and the later opinion are shown freely in the same manner, not to say that the latter acts even more strongly; but the second does not yield to the first, so that it becomes known to the multitude. Concerning the others, however, their sin triumphs; for men are fond of scrutinizing the affairs of others. But repentance, which is practiced in silence and in solitude, not only escapes the many by its obscurity, but it also has envy as a bitter examiner, not having visible and manifest purification; yet one ought not to cause any of the little ones to stumble. However, it does not show the conversion to all in the same way that it previously showed the knowledge of their sins. C
QUESTION XXI [al. XX]
What is the underlying notion in our sacred Letters for the word "answered"; both for that word itself, and for other expressions formed similarly to it? 4. Since there are many words of multiple meaning, so that not a few authors have undertaken the subject of a complete work concerning them; it will be no wonder, much less worthy of any controversy, if such words are also contained in our own sacred Letters. For even among those who studiously use the Attic tongue, there occur not only certain expressions in both the demonstrative and historical styles of speech that have multifaceted meaning, but also those in which one and the same word is divided into opposite senses. For example, Plato calls a virgin "un-yoked" (ἄλοχος), and seems to say something wise, for so she has not yet "mounted the marriage bed" (ἐπέβη λέχους);λέχους); A yet the same Plato, and many others, authors of no inferior standing, also designate by this word her who is joined to a man in the fellowship of the marriage bed. Again, we may hear "sophist" defined as: first, he who teaches the logical arts; second, he in whom the rhetorical style is well-trained; and third, he who turns the gymnastics of discourse among those approaching him toward captious strife. B For "stable" (σταθερόν) is found to signify not only what is stationary, but also what is strong, and warm, and sharp. And so too, "vulgar" (φαῦλον) denotes not only what is evil, nor merely what is base or unbecoming; but it has also encompassed the great, and the small; and likewise the easy, and the simple, and the harmless, and the accidental, and the altogether indifferent. Truly, even "to inquire" (πυνθάνεσθαι), though it seems to refer to one thing, is the root of various offshoots; for it is proposed at that time to mean to learn, and to investigate, and to ask, and such like. The term "offering-cake" (πελανός) denotes bread made of flour suitable for sacrifices; C it denotes also the foam settled around the mouth; but also a viscous tear, congealed and dried, like gum, and the like; and fourthly, an obol, the amount of money customarily given as a wage to diviners. And the adverb "face-to-face" (ὁμόσε) indeed signifies "from the opposite direction"; but the usage of the ancients shows it being adopted also instead of "nearly" and instead of "near." Furthermore, even for "now" (νῦν δή), it is proposed not only for what is present, but also for what happened shortly before. And already "elegant" (κομψόν) is divided into many meanings; for it denotes both what is clear and what is technical. The much-repeated formula "he said" (ἦ δ' ὅς) and "I said" (ἦν δ' ἐγώ) is a peculiar trait of Plato; D yet in truth, the "he said" (ἦ δ' ὅς) signifies, in general, "this man said," but also "he said" simply, the conjunction and the article here having no place; or rather, they do not even indicate a conjunction or article, but are parts of the whole word, whenever this expression has no reason of gender or number. Wherefore it is possible to see that it is not used in the feminine gender alone, so that it might mean "she said," but is also turned from the singular form to indicate a multitude, for it signifies "they said." But whether it also denotes "O friend," Critobulus does not yet provide sufficient credibility; but for now, such is what the "he said" signifies. The "I said" (ἦν δ' ἐγώ), although it has the same formation, is divided into these three meanings: into "I said," and simply "said," which is assumed equally for masculine and feminine persons. Furthermore, "to disturb" (θράττειν) signifies to confuse and to annoy; it signifies also to prick and to stir; but also to feel shame, and to be suspicious. And you will find "to be busy" (τευστάζειν) used under different subjects; for it is adopted instead of to be occupied with business, and instead of to plot, to go on an expedition, and to loiter, and sometimes to take care of; and to act earnestly and be active; and indeed to be eager, and to set out a meal.
A Observe also these common terms, how they involve not one meaning. For example, *epieikos* (fairly) is distributed into both "sufficiently" and "moderately," and into "aptly." *Epi korres* (on the cheek) signifies being struck on the head, and indeed also on the cheeks. Nor is *episkemptomenon* (contemplating) described by one thing, but it signifies the one leaning upon, and the one indicating, and the one commanding at the end, and, in addition to these, the one opposing. Likewise, among those with many meanings is *dysōpeisthai* (to be put to shame); for it declares being suspicious, and being afraid with misgiving, and having a gloomy countenance. Some of those who specialize in the Greek language, even if the elegance of the Attics is not at all present, accept this word also for "to be ashamed." And indeed, the custom of the common people uses this word for "to supplicate" and "to entreat." The word *deuro* (hither), while signifying "come" and "here," does not turn away from "come hither" either. B Observe also *gennaion* (noble), how it signifies both the kinsman and the good, but also the high-born and the brave, none the less. You might also see *atopon* (out of place) predicated not only of the evil and the base, but also of that which lacks a place; for they call that *atopon* too; just as it is also "unconceived," as that which cannot be guessed; but it further contains "the strange," and "the paradoxical," and "the wondrous," and indeed also "the non-rational." In addition to these, *arnoumenon* (denying/gathering) is assigned both to that which is being reconciled, and to that which is being acquired; and the keeper (φυλάττων) could be included under the same word. C Nor does *aei* (always) wrap itself in undivided meaning, but it is split into contrary parts; for it signifies "continually," which everyone knows; but it also signifies the contrary, such as "up to a point," and "until a certain time." And *heōs* (until) itself sometimes circumscribes a definite time, and sometimes denies the circumscription, for the time is extended toward the indefinite. Moreover, *antikrys* (opposite) flows forth then continuously, and straight, and in a straight line, and strongly, and wisely, and "straightway"; but also "simply" and "accurately." And if it casts off the final consonant, and the accent is shifted from the beginning to the end, it springs up as *katenanti* (over against) and *exenantias* (on the contrary). Do you not see also *ara*? I do not mean that which splits the accent and brings it into two parts, but that which is regulated by the same prosody, and is distinguished according to the matter in doubt; it signifies the syllogistic conjunction; and it signifies the expletive tonal particle; and it is used in place of "as it seems" and "as it appears." D Consider also *atechnōs* (simply) with its circumflex, into how many senses it is subdivided; for it moves forward in a multiplied way, with the meaning of "truly," and of "simply" and "perfectly" and "sincerely," and indeed also with that of "strongly" and "altogether." You might also find *atta* (some/what) being brought forward in different ways; for now it signifies "which things," now "some things," at another time "whatsoever," and at another time "at some time."
A And the word "wise" here, in the immediate sense, signifies one who has partaken of some wisdom; and specifically one who is devoted to logical arts; and next, one who excels others in understanding; in addition to which even the virtues know how to adorn. But it is also used for one who is apt, and who, towards whatever he may set himself, is seen to be prepared; whence they also say, "He was wise in doing evil," and "wise in pursuing virtue." B And not improperly might "divine" be joined to these; for this also signifies the divine, but it also signifies the mild, and also the wonderful and the copious. And "exceedingly" is divided into "very," and "entirely," and "clearly," and "perfectly." But also the word "meanwhile" contains different meanings; for it is placed for "meanwhile," and it is placed for "before," but also for "until a certain time," and it signifies "insofar." And the "avenger" (alastor) also signifies simply the evildoer; but it also signifies one who has committed murder with his own hand; but indeed also one who pursues such persons, as those who investigate unforgetable (i.e., heinous) crimes, and exacts penalties from those who have committed them; hence among them is also "Zeus the Avenger." You might find also that "pus" is divided into five significations: into the drops of the nipples squeezed out before the milk; and into milk itself; and indeed also into blood that has turned; and surely also into the milky humor which they also call whey; some, however, call "pus" also the new milk boiled with the yesterday's milk. C And it knows that "well then" (eien) can signify different things; for it is taken as the beginning of a discourse; and it is taken for assent and agreement; but those who take both meanings together wish it to signify the agreement of things previously mentioned in the discourse, and the beginning of those things that are about to be said; but they also use the word in place of "come now." And to others it is taken for "I hear" and "I understand." One could produce a volume of many lines, not [that I mean] if one should wish to grasp from everywhere all the polysemous words—for this is laborious and near to the impossible—but if one should wish to gather into one [place] those that are more common than others, and those that occur more frequently in speech; a work of which kind was completed by myself, as you know, at the time when I was departing from childhood. Now, however, the things I have said thus far are abundantly sufficient for the present matter. Indeed, I would not have extended my discourse for so long (for it has been my constant custom to guard against excess), had I not frequently noticed that many are still disputing about some words that are otherwise well-examined, and are applying effort to understanding them. D
2. But since there is such an abundance of polysemous words to be found in the writings of the ancients, whose life and course was spent especially in the knowledge of selecting words; why, I ask, should it not be permitted, even in our own sacred writings—whose purpose, however, is the instruction and persuasion of saving works—to employ the symbols of various subjects?
A And so, the word "answered" (ἀπεκρίθη), regarding which you say you have often felt hesitation—to leave aside for the moment its signification when taken separately, such as those terms which physicians understand so well: "digested by sweat," "excreted," or "poured forth from the vessels," for in this sense it has ceased—as it is used in the holy scriptures, it signifies, as everyone knows, a response to an interrogation. Often, it is also a filler word; at other times, it is the beginning of a discourse; and sometimes it denotes an acknowledgment of what has been said; likewise, it may be found to signify "he prayed" or "he besought," and you may even find it signifying "he asked." There are many obvious testimonies of the first meaning, which is known to all, such as: "Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." For in response to the preceding masterly interrogation, "But who do you say that I am?" the leader declares his own opinion and that of his fellow disciples. B And in the passage: "He answered, saying to them: He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none," the same meaning is observed; for he is instructing the crowds who had asked him how they might obtain salvation. Just as also: "John answered them, saying: I baptize with water; but in your midst stands he whom you do not know." For the word "answered" maintains the same usage in this place as well. There are countless others of this kind. But for the statement: "At that time Jesus answering said: I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth," it is clear, I say, that this is distinct from the aforementioned meaning, and it holds the place of an opening; for neither did a question precede it, nor did it follow someone else speaking, but Jesus himself, launching his discourse, offered thanksgiving to the Father. Likewise, the phrase: "The synagogue official, answering, was indignant that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath," and indeed: "The high priest answering said to him: I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." C And the following also holds the place of an opening to a discourse: "Jesus answering said: Whoever receives you in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, does not receive me, but him who sent me."
3. However, the words: "Jesus answering said to her: O woman, great is your faith; let it be done for you as you desire," do not refer to any of the aforementioned usages, but introduce a continuation of the discourse. For when the Canaanite woman had miserably set forth the affliction of her daughter, and had requested healing, and had patiently accepted the somewhat harsh refusal of her prayers, and had said: "Yes, Lord, for even the dogs eat from the crumbs of their masters' table," that word is added in sequence: "Then Jesus answering said to her: Great is your faith; let it be done for you as you desire." For it is evident that Jesus, having accepted the words of her gratitude and prayer, magnified her faith and granted the healing. With the same meaning, one considers the passage: D "Jesus answering said to him: Blessed are you, Simon
A Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you." For accepting in his speech the confession that proclaimed Him Christ and Son of the living God, he pronounces him blessed in return. Of the same kind is: "John answered him saying: Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, who does not follow us," and many such things. Now in the history of the divine transfiguration, where Moses and Elias B are set standing and speaking with the Lord, at the time when Peter was asking that three tabernacles be made for them, by the words "Peter answering," supplication and prayer are signified. Again, similarly in the passage: "Peter answering said: Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you upon the waters." For when Jesus was calling the disciples back from the timidity of their resolve and saying, "Take heart, it is I, do not be afraid," Peter, having seized C the opportunity that placed him in a position to supplicate, says: "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you upon the waters." For it is clear that the word "answering," in this place, signifies supplication and prayer. Just as also where the scriptures say: "Peter answering said: Explain to us this parable." For this too acts in place of a request or a petition. But to whom is it not clear that the word "answered" is sometimes set D also for "agreed" and "assented"? For when our Savior had announced the two greatest commandments in the Law, and the scribe had agreed and consented to the judgment of the Lord, the evangelist adds: "And Jesus, seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: You are not far from the kingdom of God." For it is clear that the scriptures indicated the agreement and consent of the scribe through the word "answered."
4. Furthermore, the word "answered" is redundant when, as the ruler of the synagogue, who had left his daughter struggling with a mortal disease, was begging Jesus to come and save the child, in the meantime word of her death was brought to the father, the evangelist adds: "But Jesus, having heard, answered him: Do not fear, only believe." For it is evident that even if the word "answered" had not been inserted at all, the rest of the speech would nonetheless convey the same meaning. Such also is the passage: "Peter answering said to him: Even if all shall be scandalized in you, yet I never will." That the word "answered" is redundant here is taught especially by the evangelist Mark. For, when going over this same passage, concerning which Matthew uses the word "answering," he himself, having no need of that term at all, writes: "But Peter said to him: If all shall be scandalized, yet not I." And so it is clearly shown to be redundant also in the history concerning Pilate, when he attempted to release Jesus from the murderous intent of the Jews; for of each of the
A two evangelists who used the word "answered" to construct his discourse, the god-wise Luke, when recording the same act, by not using "answered" at all, showed that the others used the term as something superfluous. For he says: "Pilate spoke again, wishing to release Jesus." And there might be many such instances; but our purpose is not to collect a multitude of testimonies, but to demonstrate the truth of what is signified by an example only, even if it were a single one, so that the meaning might be manifest. For the expression also which follows the healing of the woman who was bent over, "The ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation," if one were to remove the word "answered," the remaining part of the phrase would preserve its sense intact. And thus, I think, it is clearly demonstrated that the word "answered" often performs the function of a beginning, of taking up preceding words, and of a filler word, and finally, it serves for a request.
B 5. That it also possesses the power of questioning is clearly recognized from the speech of Peter, the chief. For the narrative, when recounting the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, and the death exacted for their lying, adds: "And his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in." Then it proceeds to say: "And Peter answered her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?" For what more proper meaning of the word "answered" could be thought of now than "asked"? Just as also that: "The Jews answered and said to him, What sign do you show us, that you do these things?" And likewise that: "Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you twelve?" It is certain in both these places that the word has the force of asking. But the word "answered" does not signify these things only, but sometimes it is not even directed toward any word spoken by mouth, but encounters the hidden thoughts of men, as in the case of: "Seeing this, the Pharisee who had invited him, said within himself: if this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman it is who touches him, for she is a sinner." Now certainly, although no question had preceded, nor does it serve as an introduction to the speech that follows, nor is the expression accommodated to any other of the aforementioned modes, the evangelist adds: C "And Jesus answering said to him: Simon, I have something to say to you." And by proceeding interrogatively, he chastised the impious thoughts of the man, and directed him to piety and faith according to his own clemency. For it is not permitted to doubt that the words "Jesus answering said to him" are directed against the secret movements of the mind in the same manner of exposition for Jesus that we mentioned. Of an equal form, furthermore, is that: "Jesus answering said to the lawyers," which in the same way was set against their disturbed and seditious minds, at the time when they saw the man with dropsy standing before D them, who, when they ought to have been moved to mercy, did not, however, turn away from their...
A madness. The same significance would also be provided by the words, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, If ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do [what is done] to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed into the sea, it shall be removed." For indeed, according to some superficial sense of the sequence, the word "answered" might be referred to the inward meditation of the heart, were it not that the divine Mark, reporting the passage more clearly, transfers the significance to the sequence of the discourse. For having said, "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away," he introduces Jesus following up the discourse and saying, "Have faith in God; for verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt B in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith." 5. If this passage were to be considered as an example of only one of the things mentioned, but could be drawn both to the beginning and the sequence of the discourse, and perhaps also to that which is redundant, even so the number of meanings would not be reduced to brevity, but would perhaps preserve its quantity. For it suffices not to reduce the multitude, even if some of the examples should be found capable of being referred not to one thing only, but to various meanings, since at least one of these might be found to fully appropriate the meaning of the one. For the fact that the various meanings of certain expressions coincide in some way C with each other is not a destruction of their multitude; since they are characterized not by what they have in common, but by what they differ in. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider each from its difference, and to keep the species unconfused, and not to destroy the difference that is in them because they are gathered into a community.
7. And not only do different meanings of the word "answered" escape us, as the discourse has shown, but also the word "asked" conveys at least the meaning of two things contained in our holy scriptures; of which one is also common to those outside, and is accustomed to request an answer; but the other is far removed from this sense, and signifies "besought" and "entreated," which appears no less frequently in the God-inspired oracles than the aforementioned. For the phrases, "asking for alms," and, "they besought him, Master, eat," and, "I pray thee, have me excused," and, "a certain Pharisee asked him that he would eat with him," and D countless others, let no one ignore the fact that they occupy the place of entreating and begging. But "asked" is also taken for "commanded," "enjoined," and "said." "For," he says, "Jesus having entered into one of the ships which was Simon's, asked him that he would thrust out a little from the land." For the utterance is not a demand for an answer, nor is it...
A a prayer, but it performs the office of a command and an ordinance. And this is known most of all from those things which precede and follow this locution: not only because the Savior, while He was using a teacher's discourse, and while He had the people eagerly attending to Him and rendering Him the honors due to a teacher, was right to speak with dignity, but because also a little later, while commanding Simon to perform a similar action, the evangelist substitutes the word "said" for "asked," having the same force. For, he says, "He said to Simon, 'Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.'" Clearly, both words, "asked" and "said," have an imperative force. But what I have summarized thus far seems sufficient to meet your need. For surely it will not escape you, being mindful of what has been said, which individual places of Holy Scripture might correspond to being an appropriate signification of the word. Furthermore, as to the other words whose various significations Holy Scripture uses, some have already been encompassed in my discourse, while others, as divine clemency looks more gently upon us, will perhaps be expounded presently.
QUESTION XXII [al. XXI]
Why, before Joseph determined to put Mary away, did the angel not stand by, forestalling and removing this concern; but only when he passes from deliberation to the act, does he arrive to prevent him? And why does he call the Virgin Joseph's wife?
Exposition on Matthew 1:18-20
CNot a few of our blessed Fathers have discussed the proposed question; and I know some of them have said that the angel stood by at that time and turned the just man from his purpose, so that he might not lack faith when announcing the Virgin to be with child, but might have the one conceived in her womb as a witness of the pregnancy. Perhaps others may have put forward similar reasons, according as the movement of divine wisdom from above drew them. But to me it seems that each of the things said and done at that time provides its own strength when it awaits its proper time; for what is untimely is wont, as a rule, to break the power of efficacy. When, therefore, Joseph had fallen into a poverty of deliberations, then the angel stood by, to put an end to the conflict of his thoughts. For when he was in uncertainty, and was fluctuating with contrary winds of counsel, the concern for action made this manifest: "For he wished," says Scripture, "to put her away secretly"; D yet he would not have determined to do this secretly or in any way, if he had been persuaded that her womb was swelling with illegitimate offspring; but on the contrary, since he was just and loving, and hated the transgression of the law more than any other, by law and by punishment he would have revealed the theft of the marriage, resolving every evil suspicion arising against her, and not betraying the protection of what is just. But he was not at all persuaded of this, as is evident. For the Virgin provided many pledges that were able to turn aside such a suspicion of her: the scrupulous diligence of her life, the holiness of her pursuits, the
A purity of her discipline, and above all her birth from an illustrious lineage (for she was born, indeed, of both a royal and a priestly tribe), and her consecration in the temple from her tender years. These things, and more than these, were far from removing the old man B from a suspicion that tended not only toward an accusation, but even feared an indecency. But again, he did not know that this conception was chosen by divine operation, for the work of God’s mercy toward us is above human reason and understanding. Therefore, being troubled in his thoughts, he was unable to discern what he might do to avoid defiling the title of "just man," and yet appear to be persevering in pleasing God.
When, therefore, he was being agitated by such things, and the inclination toward either side of human judgment had failed him, then aptly and opportunely came the angel, steadying his C agitated mind and teaching him where he ought to rest without anxiety. And he says: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is from the Holy Spirit; and she will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." No longer, he says, be in a state of helplessness, nor let conflicting opinions seem to persuade you to doubt what must be done: that which is born in her is from the Holy Spirit. But the presence of the Holy Spirit and the desire of the flesh, as you know, cannot come together nor claim the same act for themselves; a message past belief, but the gospel of a more incredible birth: "It is from the Holy Spirit," and "She will bring forth a son." See the Son even before the birth; and when he is born, let the prediction of this event be a testimony to you for the truth of all the gospels. For he who knows and proclaims the Son while he is still hidden in the bosom of nature, he is the craftsman of this flesh, created without seed above the reason of nature, and the guardian of virginity, as after the birth, so also before the birth, not breaking the seals. "And you shall call his name Jesus," but the naming also has its judgment from above; for "Jesus" means that he will save his people.
"Do not fear to take Mary your wife." For these words do not only take away all fear, but they also bestow the riches of great joy D and unexpected hopes. "Do not fear to take Mary your wife." Hearing "your wife" while she is a Virgin, you receive from the voice the purity that is removed from all communion with a man. For if, under the law to which she was joined, she preserved the virginity she possessed intact and undefiled, how could she have admitted the love of another? And if she still left any shadow of suspicion, I believe that having been made your wife by the law of betrothal, she kept herself greater and higher than the laws; how would she have endured to provide a place to transgress the law for another? And to incur reproach from his love, she who would not choose to depart from her virginity, even without reproach? You have, therefore, with you the indubitable testimony of her purity; therefore, "Do not fear to take Mary your wife." For by the same means through which she preserved the undefiled state of virginity toward you, she also provides you with incontrovertible arguments; your wife, he says, you see, and
she has no experience of him; if, therefore, regarding the person to whom the name of wife was applied, the Virgin showed them to be pure of any commerce with him, how is it not evident that this is also true of everyone else, concerning whom neither human nor divine word was seen to call her wife?
A Thus, therefore, the angel, through the appellation of "wife," teaches Joseph that she is free from every unclean suspicion. He might, perhaps, call her "wife" also because the just man did not deprive her of any of those cares which solicit a man regarding a wife. For in other respects he was providing for her and was not neglecting her; he spoke about her while she was dwelling at home, and, as the husband of a prudent wife would, he was eager to see her above every reproach and every calumny. B And if he also spoke of her as "wife" because Joseph held the rank of a fiancé, and as is the custom for fiancés, even if they have not yet entered the bridal chamber, it does not forbid them from being called husbands, so too he permits those who still preserve their virginity to be called their women; it is not fitting for me to reject this. For indeed, even the patriarch Jacob, with whom Rachel had not yet had commerce, manifestly calls her his wife. He says to Laban, after he had already completed the term of his service: "Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her" (Gen. XXIX, 21). Thus it is an ancient custom to call those women who are betrothed. So that from this it is possible to perceive that the appellation of "wife" C does not in the least intend to harm the state of virginity. That the name of "wife" does not contradict the name of "virgin" is made clear by the customary division of the species, dividing the nature into man and woman. For by the word "wife," not only are those included who have not known a man, nor only those to whom it happens that, while virginity remains, they pass beyond the bounds of adolescence; but the female is also included even before youth, or even if recently born. Just as, it is clear, they participate in the name of "man," both those who have begotten children and those who are numbered among youths, but also those who have descended in age even to infancy. Thus, therefore, D it is easy to understand from customary usage that the word "wife" does not take away that which befits virginity. For not once, but often, he calls Eve the wife of Adam, still adorned with virginal beauty and blossoming with the pure flowers of paradise, and far from the transgression, and standing by the Lord’s command, and carrying her own state higher than nakedness and the counsel of the beast; when (and it is not permitted to blame them for the very evidence of the facts) she bore undisturbed the senses of bodily pleasure, she who was often called Adam's wife, judged worthy of a better calling than that she should be rendered miserable by the battles of carnal desires.
QUESTION XXIII [al. XXII].
What does that mean: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil"?
I know, therefore, that some say this is an ironic statement through the
A words presented, and that it reproaches Adam for those things which, having imagined loftier things, he lost through his own imprudence—things which the benevolence of the Creator held in His hands. Others, bringing forward a related argument, think it denotes something else. For they say that Adam’s fall is being derided and mocked in the present words. And it seemed to others that the action was being ridiculed through which man, having ascended in his thoughts higher than his own nature, and having fallen from the order in which he was deemed worthy to stand by the Creator, was brought down. These are similar to those [interpretations] and have derived their origin from the same starting point, even if they appear to branch off into different offshoots. For my part, I would not think it wise to reject these, but I would assert that it is more consistent to understand that the sacred passage indicates a different meaning. What is this, then? Since Adam, instead of being under law, B snatched to himself the dignity of a lawgiver; instead of enjoying the care and tutelage from above, he entrusted the actions of his life to his own judgment and foresight, and thought he had the power, without divine assistance and the inspiration of the Superior, to distinguish the good from the worse—(for if he had not established and confirmed these things within himself, he would certainly not have taken it upon himself to exalt his own concept to the magnitude of the Primordial Principle, which possesses from eternity an innate and incomprehensible wisdom for judging and discerning the good from the evil, nor would he have dared to set his own impulse before that which rules over all and pours forth all graces of knowledge and discernment, nor would he, having set at naught the divine commandment, have entrusted the entire administration of his actions to his own judgment)—since, therefore, God says, he has provided the proof by his deeds, having entrusted the foresight of his life to himself, and C no longer wishing to submit to our ordinances, but having abused the free will given to him to the insult of the Giver, and having imagined himself to be as one of us, a lawgiver where he was to be legislated for, a provider not needing providence, a master not subject to a master, it is better for him to be cast out of paradise for these two reasons primarily: first, that he may not, by remaining in an untimely and undisciplined enjoyment of pleasures, fall into graver transgressions; and second, that by being afflicted with exile, he may learn from his very works and the experience of sorrows both the measure of his own power, and how much more profitable to him it was to attach the movements of his mind and conduct to our providence, and how incapable he is of discerning good and evil by himself.
I think that Symmachus also came close to this meaning in presenting the passage of the verse: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. III, 22). But the previously mentioned explanations of the verse would teach us not to look toward something else, if only we were accustomed to see in our sacred oracles, under the form of mockery, irony, and ridicule, things signified and portrayed that are opposite to what they purport to be, D and how far he lacks the ability to know good and evil by himself.
A For nothing prevents words, by reason of their scarcity and strangeness, from falling into error. But how would the speech framed by way of parable and similitude not dissolve the force of disparagement, irony, and mockery? For on the contrary, if what was said had [logical] sequence, every word would have to be guarded, which could soften the severity and bitterness of the insults. But the phrase, "as one of us," cuts away the force of the irony and softens the harshness of the abuse. For it is not the same thing to say in rebuke—and it lacks much of being so—"Behold, Adam has become one of us," and, "as one of us." The former introduces a blunt, vivid, and lethal mockery; the latter, through parable and similitude, tempers and diminishes the reproach, and provides a certain rationale at once for mocking and for removing the mockery, when it was possible from the beginning not to enter into the form of mockery at all.
B Furthermore, consider this as well: if the speech were that of one mocking, one deriding, or one using irony when saying, "Behold, Adam has become as one of us," what connection or sequence would the following words have, if one were not to wish to provide an explanation? For it is as if he were saying: "Since Adam, having fallen from the hopes by which he used to lift up his eyebrows, has, even against his will, subsided from his irrational impulse; since humiliation has succeeded pride; since the shame of nakedness has surrounded him; then what follows: for this reason it was fitting that he be cast out of paradise, lest the boldness that remained to him and the arrogance of his mind C might drive his hand—made more audacious—to the seizing of those things which he had not even dared to touch before." Do these things possess any rationale of sequence, or do they preserve a meaning free from contradiction? And yet, what follows does not show anything more than what has been said. For it says: "And now, lest he extend his hand and take of the tree of life and eat and live forever." For how is it not evident, if he is being mocked for having fallen from his hope, as is shown in these things, and having had all his strength changed into weakness, and having suffered the loss of the confidence in which he had been puffed up, and it was becoming that he be walled off from that from which he was previously excluded, as the failure of his own will and the shattering of his noble spirit were enough to turn him away from a second audacity; D it is manifest also that our mockery clearly brands his fall and the weakness of his youthful reasonings. But the act of preventing him from partaking of the tree of life . . . after the transgression, bears witness that he had enough strength to do what he previously could not. For no one forbids someone from something from which he is already naturally excluded. But these are a few things out of many.
It has been said, however, by some very learned men that the phrase, "Behold, Adam has become as one of us," [is] not [addressed] to the...
to be referred to the excellence of the Trinity, but C looks to the multitude of the ministering and incorporeal powers. For my part, beyond the fact that this discourse is subject to the aforementioned causes, I do not see what place it has to be inserted here. For it neither disparages the counsel of the serpent, nor does it appear that Adam had conceived a love of catching the nature of the angels. Nor was he far removed from the angelic glory, while he was passing his time in paradise and enjoying immortality by the providence of the Creator. For these reasons, therefore, I am not easily inclined to accept such an interpretation of the saying; especially because the part of speech taken up for the noun is fashioned into such a form. Perhaps even others have contemplated things more divine and more perfect than what has been said. But as for me, neither does the shock of so many and successive trials allow me to retain the memory of these things, nor does it afford any leisure to set myself to investigation; for into this state the envy of men has locked us, so that what I was ready to say from what I understood, according to your most inquisitive request, it was by no means D safe to say; although... the pretext of silence. But for a brief and summary answer, and for such a time, let these things said suffice. If, however, you were to add anything to these, you would return the favor no less to yourself than to us, your teachers. Perhaps indeed, if you yourself were to undertake something, with the Mosaic vision not far removing our ardor, especially with the evil and continuous affections diminished by the benevolence of the One who is more powerful, it might be possible to think of something wiser regarding the matters set before us.
QUESTION XXIV
How might the death of Christ be said to have been both voluntary and involuntary to the Father? And how, again, does it happen that the same death was at once voluntary and involuntary to the devil?
1. This question requires a discourse of more refined contemplation and discernment. Nor are arguments lacking by which each of these quite serious doubts can be demonstrated. Therefore, it is necessary that we first set forth these doubts, corroborated by their individual moments; then, that we proceed in convenient order to the solution of the same. Indeed, that Christ underwent the cross by the will of the Father, the Savior himself makes us certain, when, deprecating death from himself, he says: “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done,” at which time, obviously, that he might confirm the truth of human nature, he averted death and called it involuntary to himself. Nor only then, but also when he rebuked Peter, he said that his death, which he was about to undergo of his own accord, was decreed by the counsel of God; but that it was hindered by the machinations of the devil, and likewise by Peter, who for this reason was branded with the name of the devil to his ignominy. Yet neither was each moved by the same instinct of mind; but Peter by an untimely benevolence, the devil by hatred and persecution of our salvation. But otherwise, they flowed into the same in reality, although…
A even though they are moved by diverse intent, namely, that Christ might not suffer, whose passion provided medicine for the passions of human nature. For when the prince of malice, the author of evils, saw that immaculate and God-befitting body subject to natural and blame-less passions, he devised his snares and strove to put them into action. But again, observing in Him the splendor of Divine dignity coruscating through signs and wonders, he was restrained and drew back, and being reduced to wanting B and at the same time not wanting the Lord’s death, he fell from his craftiness into helplessness of counsel. Yet in the end, insanity overcame his fear. For the murderer was more delighted by his habit than he was deterred by the fear arising from it. Thus, therefore, our holy Scriptures evidently proclaim the death of the Son to have been voluntary to the Father, but involuntary to the devil. And yet, that this same devil urged or even primarily contrived the punishment of the cross, it is permitted to gather, as well as from many other conjectures, from this indubitable fact: that he himself stirred up the Jewish nation to the crime C by which the Savior’s murder was accomplished. But it is equally certain that the Son’s passion occurred outside the Father’s will; which will be declared more clearly as the discourse proceeds.
2. But since these matters have been brought into a sequence of formulation, it is fitting to reason and to consider that, even if contrary things are said concerning the same matter—the Lord’s death, I mean—they are not, however, said in the same way. For one part is spoken in so far as it is an affliction which Christ suffers; the other in so far as fruit is brought forth. And the fruit of His death was the salvation of the human race restored, and the tyranny of the devil destroyed. From this it is clear that this matter was pleasing and voluntary to the Father, D and was the summary of His whole providence for the human race. And why should it not be clear that Christ's death was foreign to the will of our enemy, and brought the greatest ruin upon him? For the murder of the Son, which was the result of the natural passion, was in itself neither pleasant nor acceptable to the Father, but rather most deserving of indignation and wrath; just as, conversely, nothing was more in accordance with the devil’s mind, nothing dearer or more lovely to him. Wherefore our merciful Savior, providing through that formula of His prayers forgiveness for those who had harmed Him, says: "Father, forgive them this sin; for they do not know what they are doing." So contrary to the Father’s will was the slaughter of the Son, that it moved Him to great anger, and it was necessary for the One harmed Himself to become an intercessor, so that, through repentance, they might be purified and escape punishment. Nor is it contradictory that the Father should have willed and not willed the death of the Son: for in that He willed it, the excellence of the fruit was the cause; but in that He did not will it, the deed itself, viewed in isolation, was the reason.
3. For just as if a general, seeing his champion receiving wounds, and by his wounds devastating the ranks A of the enemy, and himself striking down the leader of the war, rejoices indeed that the valiant man wins the victory over his adversaries
A, and gazing upon the wounds towards the paradox of the achievement, he does not grieve. But considering the wounds in themselves, and turning them over, he does not gladly look upon the wounded man who has girded himself with victory. So also the Father, in what he saw the Son strike down the enemy of the human race by the wounds upon his body, was of the joy fitting for God, and took pride in the valiant deeds of the Son. In what the beloved was wounded by blows and weals, considered in itself, he did not refer it to a choice. Rather, therein was the will greater than in the example; for there, while the wounds were beginning, since the victory was uncertain, the spectacle appeared bitter to the general, as the turning of the enemies was not yet present. But here, from the very wounds, or rather even before the bloodthirsty ones insulted the Savior with the blows, the trophy was seen shining; and it was in no way less than when the undareable things were dared by the most profane. For with God the things to come are also present, and the knowledge of both proceeds equally; and in this regard, nothing of the things that have happened, nor of things long past, nor yet of those now present, bears less weight. Nothing, therefore, is still accepted as impossible, that the death of the Son should be both willed by the Father and unwilled; nor that he should have been eager for it to be accomplished by the arch-evil enemy of our nature, yet bring a blow more grievous than all else as the outcome of that eagerness. For the wicked one, rejoicing in the blood and panting after the Savior—not yet with the joy reaching into his vitals—received the incurable, encroaching wound and the inescapable ruin. But the Father, not being pleased immediately with the shedding of blood, but especially viewing the outcome as it went forward, received it with great joy; not loving the slaughter of the Son in itself, but because of the outcome, as has been said, and embracing it even in this, transforming it into a matter of good pleasure.
IV.
And from this, if you wish, you have an opportunity arising for the solution of an old problem. For the problem—if it is not unknown to those who philosophize on divine things—is nevertheless more profitable to declare for the common knowledge of all: if the saving blood was given as a ransom to effect the deliverance of our race from captivity, who is the recipient? For to the Father, the slaughter of the Son was not pleasant; and to the robber and murderer—the devil—how is it not wicked to attribute power over the Lord's blood? D For many other things will present the solution to the question, of which it is not perhaps out of place to make mention shortly. But proceeding through what has been said, the Father receives the blood of the Son with the desire of the one who has accomplished it; but the evil one dared, and was bold enough to take it, but he received in return the overthrow of his tyranny.A And he even suspected this, and at the same time he leaped upon the cross, and at the same time he shrank back and withdrew from his God-fighting impulse; and I think that the strength of this doubt will no longer harass the ears of the pious. Nevertheless, nothing prevents us from coming to the promise. Since the ransom, broadly speaking, has a reference to two things—to be a release for those who are held, and to be seen as a gift to the one holding them; as a ransom for those held, the saving blood would be such, but as a gift to the one holding them, it is by no means so; since many other things belonging to what is properly called a ransom do not pertain to this ineffable and suprarational economy. For he who gives the ransom, since he can no longer be lord of what he has provided, suffers a necessary loss; on the contrary, he who receives it is increased in profit, and becomes lord of what was not previously in his power. Here, however, everything is the opposite. He who provided the ransom—for all things are in his hand, and neither the blood of Abel, nor indeed that of the martyrs, has existed outside his providence and hand—manifestly suffered no loss at all. For who would ever conceive of saying that he has an account of the blood of his servants and of those who were slain, and that after death he hears them as immortals crying out, while the saving and life-giving blood of the world is not kept unperished in the treasuries of his providence, preserved untouched by bodily corruption? B He, therefore, who provided the ransom suffered no loss; on the contrary, the lover of mankind gained for himself the salvation of our whole race. But he who thought he would receive it—because he only thought he would receive it—lost even that in which he took great pride and which he thought strengthened his tyranny. Thus the saving and sovereign blood holds the place of a ransom, for it ransomed us from captivity, but it differs from a ransom in that it was not offered to the one who had enslaved our nature by deceit; and in that, in a ransom, a great profit is seen with no accompanying loss, whereas in the case of the one holding the captives, the loss is double, or rather, complete. And if you wish, furthermore: whereas in other ransoms, agreements and peaceful words come first, here, while the ransom is being realized, the just judgment of God, which he had long ago most firmly decreed as a punishment against the enemy, inflicted it at this very time because of his misdeeds. And indeed, in the case of others, truces are always established for either a long or a short time; but in this present ransom, one cannot even in thought imagine anything of the sort, and how many other such things there are. So the argument does not have the necessity of presenting itself in the way that it can be presented in the case of a ransom properly so called. C For here, if ever elsewhere, the term is taken metaphorically. D
A 5. It is evident that we must not force those things spoken by way of metaphor to conform in every respect to what is accustomed to follow from the primary signification of a word. For it is necessary to bring back to a common type those things which have now been examined regarding the proposed problem, so that, for many things capable of gathering that same difficulty, one might introduce a solution from a ready and more general approach, and thus cast off what causes confusion. I do not mean by this—far from it—that one should not use the figurative sense of words. For their use is as familiar to us as those which are spoken in their proper sense, and if one were to remove them from the present discourse and from the interpretation of the Scriptures themselves—especially those which possess much similarity and proximity to things that provide no trope—one would close off the utility of speaking into a very narrow compass, so that there would be many things one could not even designate by name, or if one were to banish the literal meaning of words from our usage. Therefore, we should no longer condemn as useless those words which have their origin from a trope. But I would say that one must know the property of speech, whether it is being used properly or is applied to things by way of translation. One should use words as custom permits, but one must not, by necessity, gather and interweave their significations into the same nature. For this could become the cause of great errors, and difficulties will seem to arise—difficulties that, regarding the truth, carry no argument, but for those who do not use the significations according to reason, they devise the difficulty not so much against others B as against themselves by the way they use the words.
6. For example, we call those who have undergone the struggle for Christ "witnesses" (martyrs), and we say that they have offered their blood to God, and this is spoken well and justly; but each of the terms is spoken by way of metaphor. For indeed, from those whom political custom knows to call "witnesses"—those who are present for the confirmation of the truth of daily affairs and who bring evidence for those who are struggling in judgment—from these, we have given the name of "witnesses" to the athletes of piety. For in truth, they witnessed to the substantial truth, speaking theologically before tyrants and kings. And we say that they "offered" their blood to Christ, having transferred the offering from those whom Abel the righteous offered—the fat of the lambs—and Abraham the divided pieces, and Melchizedek the bread and wine to Abraham; and if you wish, he also who received the bounty offered the tithe to Melchizedek. It is evident that each of those who made an offering offered something other than himself, and without undergoing anything painful, nor having any of their limbs cut off. But the martyrs of Christ did not offer something separated from themselves, nor did they remain with their bodies intact while making that sacrifice. Nor, indeed, were they present at the summons of anyone to give testimony, but rather, of their own voluntary will, they witnessed that marvelous and theological witness. If, therefore, one does not distinguish the significations of the term "witness," and to one C
A who might contend to argue, will he not fill the ears of the more inexperienced listeners with perplexities? He would be nonetheless mistaken if he himself thought he was bringing forward a difficulty which the difficulty of the facts did not provide, but rather his own unskilled handling of the terms. For in this case, too, he will say, as I easily suppose: "If the witnesses offer blood, who is the recipient? If it is Christ, how can the lover of men be said to delight in the blood of men? But if the devil has received it, why would they have wished to offer their own blood to the enemy? And where is the judge who deals with equal law toward the disputants? And who are the disputants, among whom the witness stands ready to provide to one side the tipping point for victory?"
7. And how many such things could one take from those who are witnesses in civil matters and transfer them to the witnesses who are theologians, if one is possessed by a chaotic love of problems, and is not ashamed to tell tall tales and jest even in serious matters? For there is no task in answering the first shape of these objections: that Christ received neither the slaughter [of the athletes] nor the blood poured out because he was delighted by the gore of the athletes, but because he was pleased by their intent; just as it is also not appropriate to say that the witnesses were slaughtered for Christ and poured out their blood in a literal and not a figurative sense. But "offered" and "they were offering" and other such terms are to be reckoned among words used figuratively. It is not, therefore, necessary to inquire to whom they offered, just as there is no need to inquire how those whose bodies were rendered lifeless by the exhaustion of blood could be said to have offered [the sacrifice]; or how, moreover, they were offering, since they were not bringing something distinct from themselves, which is what those who offer in the literal sense do. For such things are so far removed from the form of a real question that it is better to overlook them, lest we happen to appear rightly subject to reproach because we are wrestling with those who are jesting. For just as it is ridiculous to jest in a serious matter, so it is most worthy of laughter to act seriously in ridiculous ones. But if certain locutions are indeed removed from manifest absurdity and do not refute themselves, yet create disturbance and confusion in the ears of many—namely, in men who do not know how to distinguish words that lack a trope from those that are shaped by the laws of tropes—it is easier, I say, if their differences are considered, to repel and dissolve the subtlety of this shadowy controversy. Voices must therefore be chosen and placed in the location where they are accustomed to be used. One must also know both circumstances, so that the significations and the property of each may be preserved distinct. D Let this be a specimen. A civil witness, while favoring one of the litigants, proves the other a slanderer: but the judge, meanwhile, renders an equal sentence to the persons. But in the case of a theological witness, where is such a state of affairs? Or from whence does such a one have any boldness of speech? Again, the athlete, striking his opponent with his hands and fists, and finally prevailing, obtains the crown of victory: but here, the one who is struck and wounded, and killed by fire or sword, or by other kinds of tortures that the executioner's cruelty has devised against human nature to lead men out of life—this one, I say, is adorned with the crowns of victory. And in ten thousand other [cases]...
A there are countless other differences. Why, then, would it not be absurd in both of the things signified to seek the same circumstances, or to force the things that belong to one to apply to the other?
8. Many of the names assigned to different things have a most manifest difference, so that not even one of those who have reached the peak of shamelessness or weakness would, without shame or reverence, transfer to the other what has been agreed [to belong] to one. But many contain a hidden B difference, such as "witness," "athlete," "ransom," "trophy," the "kingdoms of the lower world," and ten thousand others, regarding which it is easier for one who enters into the question to be himself deceived, rather than to lead others into deception in a hidden matter. Therefore, one must take as a rule—from those that have a most manifest difference and a completely superficial resolution of the difficulties proposed—and apply it to the common method, [and] to those things which, because they are very close in their relationship to one another, offer a more plausible semblance of deception; and thus, from those, save an unerring judgment also in these. Let the "pinnacle" [πτερυγίου] of the temple be an example. Those who care for the Attic tongue C call it an "eagle," and some even call it a "pediment," and they say it is a covering for sacred buildings, imitating in its shape the flight of the bird, which some indeed call a "wing." Others distinguish between the "wing" and the "pinnacle" of both the eagle and the pediment; for they say that what is signified by them is the stone structure built extending upward in front of sacred buildings. But indeed, if someone, proposing the "pinnacle," were to ask whether it would be spread out in the air and facilitate the bird’s flight while moving, or whether it would be drawn in and folded together, D and draw the bird into the shape of one at rest, I think that instead of seeking a solution to the difficulty, he would provoke laughter. Yet perhaps he might even be considered to be innovating, as whichever one someone might concede, he will be caught saying impossibilities. For the "pinnacle" can neither support the bulk and weight of the body if extended, nor if it has a retracted position; much less would it accept an extension at all. For would not those who put forward such things, instead of drawing others into a difficulty, much sooner lead themselves into ridicule? For I think every one of those who happen upon it would readily say: "O excellent people, these sharp difficulties might perhaps create a question in the case of one of the [other] meanings, but here neither can be said, and no pretext for difficulty appears to arise." Therefore, from those that have such a most manifest difference, it is easier, and involves no labor, to convert difficulties into ease, even regarding those that bear this difference hidden within them, by using the common rule.
9. The cross of Christ is a "trophy" [9.] set up against the devil; and it is the most splendid of trophies, since even its very sign, when traced in the air, puts to flight all the power [of the devil] together with it. And it is not at all in need of deeper consideration, if anyone—
A should choose to form the argument; for from what has been said before, it possesses the distinction most clearly. For instance, if the cross is a trophy, who is it that erected the trophy? If it is the victor, why is the Jewish nation falsely accused of Christ-killing? But if they themselves set it in place—and this is not even a matter of dispute—how is Christ said to have erected a trophy against the devil? Likewise, if someone, taking up the phrase regarding the kingdom of Hades, clearly also implies a king. Yet even Paul, the herald of truth, says 23 that death reigned from Adam until Moses, not only over those whose sin was according to the likeness of Adam, but also over those who sinned according to that imitation. But if he is a king, and to a king the dignity is attributed by law and the vote of the subjects—to whom this dignity belongs, how would it be reasonable that he should suffer the abdication of his rightful office in place of honor? For both expressions—and indeed, perhaps from the same source—provide both doubt and explanation to those who study the matter carefully. But especially from what has been said before, the answer flows readily. For it is sufficiently certain that the cross is called by the name of a trophy, with the term transferred from a trophy of war: inasmuch as Christ clearly overcame the enemy by his own power; yet not because he himself set up the cross: for the sacrilegious nation fixed it in the ground, not to be a trophy over the enemy, but as the execution stake of our common Savior. But He, having turned their malice into victory over the enemy, used the cross as a trophy. Therefore, neither did the impiety of the Jews erect the trophy, nor, on the other hand, did the Savior of men fix the cross for himself; but what they had fixed as wood for the Lord's punishment, He turned into the form of a trophy for the salvation of our nature. Likewise, the kingdom of Hades is spoken of, and death as queen; not because it obtained dominion over them by the decrees and suffrage of subjects—for these things correspond to what is strictly meant by the word "king"—but because, just as a king on earth exercises free power over his subjects, death, on account of sin, claimed the same for itself: and for this reason both death and the kingdom of Hades can be called by metaphorical titles. And indeed, before the cross, such authority of death against us was invincible, cutting off and extinguishing every hope of resurrection; but since the Lord's passion has altogether taken away its power, we say with justice and merit that its kingdom has been despoiled.
10. Therefore, I think it is possible, with a tongue that rejoices and speaks with boldness, to say how the death of the Son was both voluntary and involuntary to the Father; and how both of these can be seen to be spoken of concerning the enemy, the devil; and how indeed he underwent the cross for us, and the Lover of mankind poured out his own blood, yet did not offer it to anyone: for his goal was not to offer blood, but by his passion to save what had perished. Therefore, he did not offer it, unless to someone in a metaphorical sense.
A For it is permitted to use the word because of the similarity of the expression in the figure called a trope; just as it is prohibited to demand the property of the literal designation in this case. And it is clear that the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world neither offered nor has offered the saving and purifying blood of our race, even if the Father is said to have received with joy and a gladdened mind the blood of the Son on account of the utility of the passion. But even if these things have been discussed perhaps more fully than your inquiry hoped for, nonetheless they do not depart from the summary manner of speaking. For I do not forget that your virtue has often heard these things accurately set forth through scholastic exercises on our august dogmas. It is, however, easier, if oblivion has effaced anything from our thoughts, to recover the memory of what was passed over through the help of those things that are before us. B
QUESTION XXV [al. XXIX]
Whose is the voice that says, "Now all this has come to pass," whether it is of the evangelist, or of the archangel?
That this voice belongs to one who is astonished and marveling at the nobility of the deeds and the words, both this section of the speech and the context of the names show clearly. C For "Now all this has come to pass," he says, stands in place of, "How has all this come to pass?" How—oh, what a wonder!—has this astonishing thing appeared, and [one that is] full of ecstasy? How has the sun seen such a thing? How has it become known to men? And indeed, after announcing both the seedless birth, and the conception from the Holy Spirit, and the name of the Savior—which, because he saves, he has assumed, and his people along with it—and that [he saves them] not from some bodily diseases, for which the hands of physicians have often sufficed, but from the very sicknesses and pollutions of the soul, for which it is impossible to find a purification or remedy except for the divine benignity and assent; having therefore said what has been said, and naming the Savior from this common benevolence, he immediately adds: "Now all this has come to pass, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.'" But that the voice set before us is that of one who is astonished and marveling at the infinite sea of providence toward the human race, is evident. D
Whether the angel said this, or the evangelist himself, the words suffer no diminution from either side. For things which possess a certain great order often are accustomed to assume enlargement from the quality of the persons; and the
man who puts them forth does not lower the dignity of that ineffable greatness. Nevertheless, the relevant part of the discourse transfers the subject-matter rather to the Archangel. Nor should it seem absurd that the prophet is called as a witness of things subjected to the eyes and ears; for through names that are familiar and known to human hearing, an unwavering faith is the more easily produced. Moreover, he does not stop the testimony at the prophet, but carries it from there up to the universal Lord: for, "What was said," he says, "by the Lord through the prophet." B
QUESTION XXVI. [al. XXV]
*Why did Christ, having been born, permit the slaughter of the infants to occur on His account?*Your question is indeed a beautiful one, and it arises from compassion; nor does it appear to be among the lowest, but, I judge, it obtains a more agreeable verdict than other solutions. The cruelty of Herod needed to become known and manifest to all. Therefore, if he had displayed it against those who had already reached man's estate, nothing would have prevented the tribe of flatterers and parasites from concocting various excuses by which they might attenuate the immensity of such a crime; and they might have pretended that those whom he had slain were liable for crimes, and that it was not fitting for a king to leave such outrages unpunished. But in the case of infants, not even the most shameless fabulist will have any opportunity either C to think or to fabricate anything of the sort; but the inhumanity is revealed as exposed on every side, without excuse, and a deed of an incredible sort committed by a wicked mind, tongue, and hand is detected.
Besides, it was necessary that the first-fruits of the new and immaculate sacrifice, which was to expiate the wickedness of our race, should be so far removed from every fault committed by personal action as to be most pure, and that they should not defile the supreme sacrifice by their offering. For this reason, it was more appropriate that the choir of infants, rather than men bound by some faults, should be sacrificed before the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. D
A If you wish, furthermore, to see a consolation arising from these gravest of misfortunes, it is observable here. For infants are slaughtered whose life was free from sin, so that when some people suffer, they might not, by thinking they are suffering due to the gravity of their own offenses, render the wound from the sufferings of their soul more grievous or more bitter, nor fall into despair; but rather, having the innocence of these children and the daring of those wicked men against them as an example of comfort—and one sufficient to encourage patience—they might rise to thanksgiving toward Him who wisely governs all our affairs. B And indeed, regarding the fact that envy had no place to ignite (for what pretext for jealousy could newborn infants provide?), yet, because it was so shameless and unprecedented to set forth against them unto slaughter—it is not difficult to offer a solution to the question, nor to transition to the convenience of showing how the Christ-hating race of the Jews, while the Savior was benefiting them and curing incurable diseases, instead of praising Him and rewarding Him with wreaths of grace, condemned Him to the cross and a shameful death. For if, in cases where envy had no access, the ruler of the Jews pursued the innocent to death, what would those who were schooled and practiced in murder by him not have dared to do, especially with such great envy acting as their commander? For indeed, the works that one can see are great and wondrous, and they turn the attention, or the affection, of many toward them not at all less; and by as much as they excite the well-disposed to praise, sweet wonder, and reverence, by so much more does this detestable passion grow strong in the ungrateful and malicious, and it cloaks itself with unassailable power. C
But if it pleases you to observe more causes of this kind, remember that Abel, the first just man, owed nothing—as far as the requirements of his own deeds went—but was betrayed and subjected to death, showing that the shaky foundation of this vice’s root had already been laid. And since after him many wicked men walled round and roofed over his building to make it a fortification—and the Savior, having arrived for the benefit of the race, was about to plunder his kingdom—it was ordered that, as if some sort of bodyguards D and forerunners of the great King, they should be innocent and drenched in their own martyr-blood, dispatched and sent ahead to reach those held in Hades, to embrace them and, at the same time, to evangelize the Master’s presence and their common redemption; and by showing the slaughter they endured for the common Deliverer, and through them being confirmed that the Savior of the race announced by the prophets had arrived; and indeed, since Hades saw such a phalanx of ten thousand innocent souls arriving, it was to be struck with terror, and to have the complete destruction that was to come upon it shown through these preludes. For it is through the slaughter of those who were innocent, and so many of them at that, that He utterly casts down and takes away the right of death.
Furthermore, A there is added to the things already said the fact that the custom of divine Wisdom is most especially manifest here. In what way? It is the habit of the incomprehensible and inexpressible Wisdom of God to bring forth from sad things those which afford joy and pleasure, and to cause opposite outcomes to spring from their opposites. Immediately, it raised Joseph, who had been envied by his brothers, to the lordship of Egypt. For had not his brothers cast eyes of envy upon him, he would not have been sold, and had he not been sold and enslaved and remained in chains, not blushing for the freedom of his chastity, he would not have been detained in prison; and had he not been a prisoner, he would not have solved the dreams of those bound with him, nor would he have become known to Pharaoh, nor would he have been entrusted with the rule of Egypt after him. Do you see how much good flowed from envy and brotherly hatred, and with how many glories God crowned Joseph? B
Then another Pharaoh raged with hatred against the Israelite race, and the impious man devised the Nile as an executioner for the male infants. But from his cruelty it came to pass that Moses, instead of inheriting his own one house among many, which differed in no way from those of his fellow tribesmen, was reared in the palace of the Egyptian kings; thereby divine Providence showed that he who was being waylaid would himself become master over the power of those who waylaid him. For after soon meting out the penalty of death to the Egyptian who was inflicting injury upon his fellow tribesmen—and having been discovered, he fled from there, but then, fortified again by signs and wonders, he rose up against expectation and struck Egypt—he finally delivered his own people from their harsh servitude. And as for those whom the Hebrews were forced to serve, he delivered them with all their army to be suffocated by the waves of the sea instead of the waters of the river. C Wherefore, from the fact that the innocent infants of the Hebrews were killed in the river, the whole nation was redeemed from servitude; and the arrogance of the Egyptians, with their very troops, chariots, and captains, was plunged beneath the water.
And a person could collect and bring forward many such things from the sacred histories of the Church. By that same reasoning, through the execrable and immense slaughter of the children, crowns worthy of martyrs blossomed and were woven for those blessed ones, and it came to pass that they were made to stand before God in security and to join in that perpetual dance of ineffable joy and happiness with the incorporeal hosts, and to rejoice in the most blessed and perfect vision of things desirable. With what slaughter, and with what bitterness of torments, shall these be reckoned as worthy? Wherefore, it was so far from being expedient to hinder in any way the iniquitous and premature death of the infants, that it was much better for it to be permitted and carried out, so that they might be accumulated with such great and ineffable goods springing forth for them from thence. D
And let these things suffice for you, as a kind of sacred fulfillment of your desire for sacred knowledge. But if any one, having been initiated into the secret words of Paul, wishes to inquire further…
then we willingly, and acknowledging our debt of gratitude to the man, will learn together by common usury as long as we live.
QUESTION XXVII [al. XXVI]
How is it that, when we say that God is one, but there are three hypostases, we call the Father God, and the Son likewise God, and the Spirit in the same way, yet while calling the Divinity one and the hypostases three, we are no longer able to call either the Father Divinity, or the Son, or the Spirit, or A even the three together?
Certainly, the not calling the divine hypostases Divinity together—even though they are said to be contemplated in one Divinity, and, if you will, to be known and contained—this might indeed be granted a not unreasonable cause: that we cannot even call each one of those blessed and creative hypostases, considered in itself, Divinity. But why we call each of the transcendent hypostases God, yet no longer Divinity, this perhaps should be considered here. Or rather, before this it must be investigated (for from thence the sprout and the grounds of the present question took their occasion) B whether God and Deity are the same thing, or different. For if they are different, what is this, and what is it beside God? But if they are the same, how is each of the life-originating hypostases called God but not called Deity? Those who blame the form of the word, as if one is of a masculine type and the other is inflected according to the feminine mode of speech, and for this reason they are not said of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit in the same way, are refuted straightway by this fact. For although the name "Spirit" (in our tongue) is of the neuter gender, yet it is no less called God than the C Father and the Son; and the difference in the gender of the nouns was no obstacle to introducing this appellation, which the same gender of voice did not encompass. And yet more clearly than this, the word "essence," although it pertains to a different gender, is nevertheless proclaimed with equal right of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: for we call them persons of the divine essence itself, and of one essence; nor has the difference of gender ever prohibited a man from being called an animal or a substance.
What then must be said? Is it that, just as man, and D...
A humanity do not look toward different meanings, and yet the former is predicated of Socrates without hindrance, while the latter is not; so also the expression "God" and "Deity," although they do not contain different concepts, cannot similarly be spoken of the divine hypostases? But perhaps one of the more refined might say that this is an amplification, not a solution, of the problem, and does not escape the suspicion of begging the question. Yet one might learn from this how far it is from the precise truth; for there is no transition from a similar case to the matter proposed for inquiry, nor does it make the difficulty stronger, nor does it even drag in the reason for begging the question; rather, from this point, they would be refuted for not having approached the judgment correctly. For to see in natural science such an arrangement of names—in which the identity is not harmed, and yet it does not offer the same utility for being predicated—how is this a clear and irrefutable demonstration that one should not consider it difficult or irrational in B theology, which is far removed from matter, and which surrounds the human mind with the difficulty of deeper questions on all sides, in which it is not even easy to declare the precision of the object sought with any other term? How, in these cases, is it anything but appropriate to find such a use of terms, which, even if they are seen in material things by ancient and customary judgment, and do not depart from their identity, yet stand apart in the way they are predicated? Where, then, is the intensifying of the difficulty here, or the substitution of one cause for another?
I know some who think they solve the doubt by taking "man," and "nature," and "species"—which seem in some way to coincide into the same thing—but in the predication concerning Socrates, they bring forward diversity rather than agreement. For Socrates is called man, but he cannot be called species, nor nature, or, if you will, the form associated with these. C But it escapes them, as it seems, how one must judge names, and that all names which belong to physical things are clearly and purely borne by the subjects; whereas those which have proceeded from dialectical speculation, and contain a dialectical sort of meaning, do not have the power to extend to the works of nature/the subjects. Now "man" and "humanity," and indeed "Deity" and "God," are not inventions of logical subtlety, but names of an existing thing; yet even from these it is right to take certain traces that lead to the solution of the doubt. For when these are compared with one another—the names of things, that is, and those which carry a logical subtlety in words—they retain no small amount of mutual communion within their very difference. D For words attributed to individual things both include these names and are supported by them, and, as they come together, the names of the things and those things belonging to logical agility happen to welcome a communion with each other in their distinction. For they contain the particulars, and are also established above them, and are spoken in relation to those things, even if...
they are not of the parts in the proposition, just as is seen in physical terms, each one is produced consistently according to the nominative designation. A
Furthermore, we say that man, and the rational, mortal animal, are the same—indeed, even "risible" applies to both; yet it is not possible to say of the rest whatever is said about one of these. For the one is the property of man, the other is the definition; but neither of these would be called "man" of man—although, for the most part, these have allotted to themselves the identity of being the same. Nevertheless, the argument mentioned regarding man, and nature, and species, can also be received here, as it admits the judgment of these. For even when the logical terms are removed, each of the three is the same as the others. B
But regarding what has been said, one might raise an objection, transforming the heterogeneity of terms into an easy solution to the problem. But what would one say regarding what is about to be said? For man is substance and animal; but the same thing in man is "risible," which is a term for a physical thing, [and] it could not be called substance or animal; since, if it were, man would be many substances and animals. So it is not the case that whatever accompanies one of the things joined in identity necessarily follows the other, or else this argument requires distinction. For if one, by saying "risible," accepts the meaning of the property, it would be neither animal nor substance; but if they signify the subject itself through these terms, they do not gather any other things that did not belong to it from the beginning; and he would rather hold the position of not calling it a rational animal, nor a body; but not even that man is a substance, so that such a multitude of ravings might [not] be left remaining of Socrates. Nevertheless, even if, on either part of the division, it is seen that what accompanies one is not recognized as accompanying the other, the argument is found to be no less studious; for it was not necessary, if all these things were proposed to me, to demonstrate that they are made familiar by the difference; but it sufficed for the argument to show if any of the things spoken of in such matters also preserve their distinctness in their communion with one another. C
But whatever one might say—that none of the examples comes together in similarity to those posed from the beginning, neither is one the property of the other, nor the definition, but, as one might say, two names revolving around one subject, such as "garment" and "raiment"—how, then, do they say, in the prerogatives, is the one recognized in the same things, and not the other? I know, indeed, in the exercises, of an argument stated thus: that while "man" and "humanity" possess the same subject, [it is] D
A understood in not the same way; and you perhaps might recall this. For when we say "man," we contemplate the nature implanted in the hypostasis; but when we say "humanity," we contemplate the same nature of man, yet not as implanted, but as the mind, abstracting it from matter, considers it in itself. Thus "man" and "humanity" are the same, yet also differ in a certain way; wherefore it is not necessary that in all things in which one is observed, the other must also be seen. For in things in which they differ from one another, they would in every way also provide a different application. Hence we reasonably call Socrates a "man," but we do not still call him "humanity." For in the difference of predication, we shall indeed say that Socrates possesses humanity, and that the individual is contained by it, just as it is by "man"; for in such things their identity seemed to lie. Thus, even if not in the same way in which "man" is spoken of, humanity can also be aptly said of them. But one could plainly say that humanity is comprehensive of the individuals, and that Socrates possesses this, and that it is observed from the individuals.
B The argument concerning natural things is also ready to resolve the question regarding transcendent things. But let what we have hitherto explained be considered the work of young men who are perhaps still running in the dialectical exercises, but have not yet arrived at the prize which the recognition of truth bestows. For how is humanity both abstracted from the individuals and held by them? And how does it contain them, while it cannot at all be predicated of them? For "to possess" and "to be," even if they differ by a small change of letters, nonetheless signify a great difference in things.
C It would be easier to refute the objection drawn from identity: since, even if we grant that "man" and "humanity" are the same, it does not necessarily follow that one should be predicated by the other as a predicate. For Socrates is the same as "man," yet one is not enunciated [as] the other; for while "man" is properly predicated of Socrates, Socrates does not reciprocate the predication to "man": for Socrates is indeed said to be "man," but "man" is not said to be Socrates. Wherefore it is not difficult for diversity to emerge along with identity in certain names.
D The fact that what we have set forth, while attempting to persuade through comparison, does not exert the same force to solve the proposed question, is because in the examples brought forward there is something common, and something peculiar; but in divine matters, the one or the other equally enjoys the communication. What, then, will be the solution that from every side
[AND] all other difficulties be avoided? It has been shown in some way that not all things which return to the same point demand mutual communication in everything; and that the established use of the words "man" and "humanity" resolves the controversy in divine matters. A And so, one part of the question remains to be resolved, and it serves to ignite the desire of those who wish to philosophize, because that which is inequitable does not yet seem to have attained its explanation.
What then is to be said? And what else is more pertinent to the question proposed than this: that because the word "God" is accustomed to express nature, and is no less suited for indicating each of the persons, while the word "Divinity" denotes and expresses only the nature itself; B for this reason "Divinity," just like "nature," could deservedly be said to contain the persons, yet "Divinity" (just as not even "nature" itself) cannot be predicated of the persons which it contains. But the word "God," as being both comprehensive and expressive of the transcendent persons, is therefore used in speech with the consequence that we can call each of the three "God."
But if anyone, behaving insolently, seeks the reason why "humanity" indicates nature, while "man" indicates both nature and the individual, he has failed to perceive that while he thinks he is pursuing a reputation for wisdom, he is being carried off into foolishness, C as he interrogates the principles of principles and is drawn into demanding causes for things which have no cause. But these brief remarks shall suffice for the discourse [(52)].
QUESTION XXVIII [al. XXVII]
If from the same principle the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed, why will they not receive the appellation of brothers, and why would the Holy Spirit not acquire the name of Son?The procession, O excellent man, is taught in sacred doctrine as being at once and indivisibly from the Father, both to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. No argument, however, compels one to fall into the name of the Son, D or to assume the relationship of brotherhood; for one is not even able to conceive or say to the contrary, that the Son partakes in the Spirit who is produced, or has appropriated His relationship to Himself. But each of those who are deemed worthy to have the mind of Christ gladly offers the grace to both perceive these things and to teach them to others. For it is not because they are taught to proceed from the same principle, or that the Spirit will be jointly established with the Son in sonship,
A but rather because He acts in departure from His own proper characteristic; or that the Son, receding from the begetting which distinguishes Him, will be confused with the property of the Holy Spirit. For both proceed from the same principle, but not in the same manner, nor is the procession of each according to the same property. Truly, the Son has proceeded from the Father, namely as begotten, but the Spirit by way of procession, which assigns to Him another property; yet this procession does not bring to itself the notion of begetting. And so it is. Those things which are spoken of as proceeding from the Father according to different relations also have a different designation and a specific property in the hypostases, by which the specific character of the relations has been defined for them.
B But the true solution to the perceived difficulty is thus brought to evidence: if you desire also to take proofs of likeness from material things for the immaterial, there is no one who is ignorant that heat and light draw their origin from the same principle, since both are effects and emanations of fire. Yet no one of sound mind would say that heat, by illuminating the air, assists sense-perception in discerning visible things—which is, of course, the property of light; nor, on the other hand, would anyone dare to attribute to light, as it illuminates, the power of consuming the underlying matter; nor would one transfer to the other the name of that which provides the knowledge of existence. Thus, by this reasoning, things that proceed from the same principle, for the most part simultaneously and with equal dignity, but do not draw their origin according to the same mode, even if they coexist, nonetheless maintain their difference from one another without confusion or mutability.
C If you wish me to dwell on comparisons, call to mind D Adam, Eve, and Abel. For the procession from which the formation of Eve drew its origin was the rib of Adam; and the birth of Abel, the first-born son, flowed from Adam through generation. Yet Eve shall not be cast into the name of daughter, nor will Abel ever deny that he is a son, or fall and be transferred into some other condition. Moreover, that the sun illuminates and heats are certain properties that reach bodies and sentient minds alike; but the power of heating does not convert and transfer splendor into heat within itself, nor will the power of illuminating ever be changed into the designation or nature of heat. Rather, each power, observing the law imposed from the beginning by the Creator of nature, while neither the procession is separated nor the essence changed, is seen to preserve an unchanging and constant designation. If it pleases you to descend again from heavenly things to earthly ones, look at how the same plant produces fruit, and
flower, and leaves (for one must, perhaps, for the sake of those who hold a view entirely contrary, bring forward not one argument drawn from comparisons, but several, and by exposing their untimely subtleties as vain, refute them). For who, by gathering leaves together, would force them into the property of fruits? Or who would call the flower, from the shedding of which, for the most part, the appearance of the fruit is recognized, a fruit? But neither would anyone who is not ignorant of the nature of the species, and the operations of nature, and the diversity of things innate within them, transform or shift one of the aforesaid things into the essence of another. Thus, indeed, even in the coarseness of bodily operations and offshoots, things are seen to proceed from the same principle, and while retaining their own essence, they are observed not to be confused with one another, and they provide a manifest refutation of the objection proposed against piety, and expose the worthlessness of the mischief from those very things which are seen and held in the hands.
Moreover, if we proceed from nature to art (and observe how far the agreement with nature and the opposition to the proposition at the start is preserved), other and different comparisons will occur, and especially the potter will be shown to you, shaping from the same clay B and lump both chamber pots and basins fit for sacred rites. You would not, I think, find even profane men so shameless as to convert one of these vessels to the use or name of the other, or to confuse the property of the substance of either, unless they were oppressed by a pitiable wound of the mind, with a hopelessness of health.
But if you wish to return again to man, you will strike their objects more sharply. For from the same human mouth both speech and voice are poured forth, and are formed and produced by almost the same organs. C For while the rest are in common, speech is created, as it were, at the tip of the tongue, but voice rather at its root; and what is greater and more wonderful, speech cannot come forth without voice, but voice actually sustains and supports the form of speech in its very production, arriving and being brought forth at the same time. Yet even though such a conjunction and commingling intervenes, those who possess sound judgment will never be disturbed by any dispute that speech is not voice. Supported by these arguments, confirm yourself, freeing yourself from the apparent difficulty, and restrain the vanity of those who wish to cavil. D
QUESTION XXIX. If the Baptism of John, as the holy Luke writes, offered the remission of sins, what was the difference between it and the Baptism of our Lord?
A It is not obscure that the God-wise Luke records such an utterance in the evangelical teachings which he himself compiled; but that he attributes to the baptism which John the ministering priest performed the [same] remission is not equally clear; yet this shall be examined more accurately in what follows. Divine Matthew says, even if he does not preface his statement with "for the remission of sins," yet through what he said, "confessing their sins," he himself also allows us to conceive that the baptism was for the remission of sins. For if the confession is not in vain, but is the acknowledgment and victory over the things committed, we gain from these the remission as well. But thus also says the theologian who was a tax collector. The blessed Mark is so far from disagreeing with the God-speaking Luke, that he would not unreasonably be thought the source of his expressions; for he says: "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." B Thus from many places there proceeds a testimony by which faith gains confidence that the Johnian baptism was bestowed upon those being baptized for the remission of sins; and most especially because he did not even take that action upon himself by his own will, but became the executor of that liturgy by obeying the divine nod. For, as Luke says, "The word of God came to him"; but also the herald of truth himself says, "He who sent me to baptize." All these things clearly show that the baptism of the Forerunner was a gift of divine clemency, and that it was far more sublime than the Jewish sprinklings, sacrifices, and rites, through which they were once deemed worthy of the cleansing of sins as in a figure. But if this was better than those, it is evident that it also bestowed the remission of sins. For what was present C to everyone sees how inept are the comparisons upon which he relies; since the things he adduces as an example are not distinguished by a different mode of procession, but by the subject matter individuating them, and by the diversity of form—which all have no place in the divine persons; so that sometimes, as can be seen in St. Thomas, p. 1, q. 36, art. 3, ad 4, the similarities proposed against Photius are rather to its detriment. Nevertheless, so that all such Photian pretenses may vanish, I think it worth the effort to append here the contrary argument of St. Thomas on this matter: "I answer that it must be said that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For if He is not from Him, there would be no way He could be personally distinguished from Him: which is evident from what has been said above. For it is not possible to say that divine persons are distinguished from one another according to any absolute thing, because it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three. For whatever is said absolutely in divine matters pertains to the unity of essence. It remains, therefore, that divine persons are distinguished from one another only by relations. But relations cannot distinguish persons unless they are D opposite: which is evident from this, that the Father has two relations, one of which is referred to the Son, and the other to the Holy Spirit; these, however, because they are not opposite, do not constitute two persons, but pertain to the one only person of the Father. If, therefore, there were not to be found in the Son and the Holy Spirit two relations by which each is referred to the Father, those relations would not be opposite to one another; just as neither are the two relations by which the Father is referred to them. Whence, just as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit would be one, having two relations opposite to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical, since it destroys the faith of the Trinity. It is necessary, therefore, that the Son and the Holy Spirit be referred to one another by opposite relations. Yet there cannot be other opposite relations in divine matters, except relations of origin, as has been proven above: and opposite relations of origin are understood according to [that which is] the principle, and according to [that which is] from the principle. It remains, therefore, that one must necessarily say either that the Son is from the Holy Spirit (which no one says), or that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, which we do confess." Ibid. art. 2, in corp.
the lesser, how will it not much more exist in the greater?
Nor indeed, because each of the baptisms—both that of John and that of the Lord—bestowed the remission of sins, must the difference between them be ignored. For neither will one argue that the legal sacrifices, ceremonies, and washings, because they provided a purging of sins, were therefore in no way different from the baptism of John. But just as the Forerunner was B "greater among those born of women," so his baptism was superior to those of the Law. And just as the voice is lowered before the Word, the herald before the one heralded, the forerunner before the royal presence, and the servant before the master, just so the baptism of John, even if it provided a purging of sins, is considered deficient when compared to the Lord’s. He is the Forerunner of the King of all, the herald of the common salvation, a man esteemed and C the "greater among those born of women." His baptism is also a forerunner of the Lord’s and universal baptism, and more perfect than all the preceding ablutions, yet by a long interval inferior to the one to come. It purged sins more than the written law did, yet not in fire and Spirit, which constituted the perfection; for this is a gift and grace of the Lord’s operation alone, of his clemency, and of power worthy of God.
Since, therefore, none of these higher properties have a place in the rite of John’s baptism, for this reason some of our holy Fathers have dared to say that it does not provide the remission of sins. For much of the grace D of the baptism according to the Savior is lacking when compared to it, since it was distinguished in the parity of its benefit, and in no way possessed the same abundance of purification. Consequently, perhaps, they did not impute to it the remission of sins. For when the blessed Mark says, and the sacred herald Luke concurs, that the baptism of John is productive of the remission of sins, how—if the matter stands in any other way than this, by which our interpretation mitigates the rough contradiction and makes it admissible—would there not be a charge of rashness against one who would contend that the baptism of John does not grant the remission of sins, yet would wish to argue it to be miraculously more perfect than the ceremonies of the old law in this very respect?
To them, perhaps, a refuge might be available to reconcile the oracle of the divinely taught Luke with the blessed Mark, and to avoid the apparent disagreement between them. For by the words "Preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," they might say it does not signify the baptism administered by the Forerunner, but points to that for which the preacher John was sent. And indeed, the
thus A they might say that the blessed Mark distinguished between each of the baptisms, bearing witness that it did not provide remission of sins, nor did he himself confess that it provided such baptism; for this reason they declare that he spoke with both truthfulness and a most God-fearing mind: "I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
But if Mark has clearly taught us the distinction between the baptisms, attributing to the Lord's baptism the remission of sins and its completion in the Holy Spirit, while that of John was of water and was only called a baptism, it is clear B that Luke also, in preserving harmony with his fellow-evangelist and fellow-writer of history, also preserves the inviolable authority of the truth. And it would be said by him: "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," not, of course, regarding that which the hands of the Forerunner were performing, but regarding that of the Savior and our Lord, which cleansed all who were baptized of their psychic stains. For a little later he himself introduces John saying: "I indeed baptize you with water; but there comes one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose"; C then, to explain the superiority of the Lord's baptism: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Furthermore, Mark again, after having related elsewhere that the Pharisees and Sadducees fled from the wrath to come (and there was no other escape than to take recourse to baptism), adds: "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance," as if the baptism already provided did not have the power to bestow the complete remission of sins. But someone might posit that this was said by John not to those whom the sacred streams had received and cleansed of their filth, but to those who were indeed striving toward the baptism, yet had not yet been held worthy of that ablution. D However, even if one were to concede that the stated passage might apply even to those already baptized, yet not even this would necessarily be seen to take the remission of sins away from the baptism according to the Forerunner. For to bear the fruits of virtues is more the mark of a cleansed soul than of one whom many thorns of passions and innate tares have rendered defiled and corrupt; indeed, through that very production, sanctity might perhaps be recognized even more perfectly in a short time.
For, they say, that the baptism of the Forerunner did not provide the remission of sins, the Savior himself also indicated when speaking with Nicodemus concerning regeneration: "Unless one is born," he says, "of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
A heaven." And indeed, since John did not baptize in the Spirit, he did not usher people into the kingdom of heaven; and if he did not usher them in, he certainly did not grant them the remission of those things that prevent entry.
From the things that have been said, and from that from which the gathering of arguments has grown, and the discourse has proceeded to detain us for so long, it would be necessary to examine how much we ought to esteem that baptism for its usefulness. But when shall we desist from the disputation, and when will the mind be confirmed in a certain assurance? Let this, however, be as a brief diatribe preceding the solution, which has been extended thus far. Truly, neither does that testimony of the divine Mark, by which a second baptism is thought to be prescribed (for that is signified by John B the Baptist through that irrefutable oracle and apostolic utterance), have the weight to exclude the utility of the baptism, nor is whatever has been heaped up in support of the opinion of the mind that opposes me consistent with the truth; since, on the contrary, the entire uniform context of the sacred words of Luke is opposed to it, in which discourse is clearly held of only one baptism of John, and the remission of sins is handed down. And this is all the more true, because if the words of the blessed Mark seemed to offer some ambiguity of distinction, they ought to have been referred and accommodated towards indicating the one baptism of John. But indeed, the fact that John baptized in water, but Jesus in the Spirit, we recognize as the height of the difference, and it declares that which is incomparable by way of comparison, from which it takes away the remission of sins from the sacred rite of John. But even the fact that he sought, after baptism, from those who had been baptized, fruits C worthy of the preceding repentance, and exhorted them to demonstrate them, and not to shame what had already been achieved through their subsequent depravity, would be rather a confirmation and a proof that those who were washed were cleansed through the sacred rite of John in the streams of the Jordan, and not, certainly, a negation of the cleansing for those who were washed.
These things having been thus set forth, and since those things that seemed to stand at variance—some being cleared away, and others of them being brought into harmony—it is permitted, with a love of truth and a godly frankness, to both think and say that the baptism of the Forerunner did indeed provide the remission of sins, yet not of all, just as even the legal rites and sacrifices did not. For neither for murders committed D by deliberate intent, nor for violations of another's marriage, nor for those things upon which that fearful and heavenly fire brought down penalty upon the guilty, nor for many other execrable and similar deeds, did either the Law or the baptism of John provide cleansing. But as for all these things, the Law, where the providence of the first Lawgiver had not decreed a fine, seated the sword as judge; but the baptism of John, for the common...
A and saving [baptism], was pointing toward that which is by far superior in its own power. Thus, our Savior, reproaching the hardness of heart and disobedience of the Pharisees, and showing that they bore characters worse and more uncorrectable than those who lived in fornication and tax-collecting; and at the same time teaching who they were that were returning from sin, and from what sins they were being released, said: "John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him." The implication is that John, through his baptism, was procuring cleansing for those sincerely repenting B of tax-collecting, fornication, and such like things. He did not, however, release robbers, grave-robbers, or others who committed unspeakable pollutions; because these did not even possess the courage to approach and confess their audacity, since their conscience confronted them, and, like the laws, brandished punishment, not allowing them to be numbered with the others.
The baptism of the Forerunner, therefore, as has been said, did indeed provide remission of sins, but not of all; for this is the peculiar virtue of the Lord's most divine baptism. Yet it did provide [remission] while paving the way for the Savior's perfection; and it was a washing before the washing, C a partial remission before the complete remission, and an incomplete cleansing foreshadowing the one that makes perfect; but it granted no certain promise or guaranteed faith regarding future blessings. The divine and Christian baptism, on the contrary, grants us indulgence for all past sins; it even grants strength and fortitude, so that we do not again submit to desires according to our former lapses; indeed, it brings men into the kingdom of heaven, and, what is greater than all, bestows the adoption of sons of God. The baptism of John, however, provided the remission of those crimes which we have mentioned, but did not provide the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, and much less did it raise men to the dignity of adoption. D
QUESTION XXX (61)
How is it that, when our Savior says: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall without my Father who is in heaven?" (Matt. x, 29), Paul, who has Christ speaking in him, says: "Doth God take care for oxen?" (1 Cor. ix, 9). For the voice of the disciple seems to stand in opposition to the Master.
A That the providence of God extends even to the sparrows, and that His care is not limited by them, but extends also to trees and herbs, and simply to all things of which He is known to be the Creator, and that He bears a care for their preservation and wise governance that is immutable and continuous, B is clearly taught to us not only by other places in the Sacred Scriptures, but also by that reason innate in men, which requires that He who brought forth things out of nothing, and established them, should also preserve and govern what was brought forth according to the principle of providence appropriate to each.
Since our Savior Himself, in His love for mankind, was calling us away from our intense concern and exhausting labor over human affairs, and persuading us to be free and delivered from the anxiety of fleeting and decaying goods, He did not begin this most excellent exhortation with sparrows and other birds only, but also with the very herbs themselves. "Consider," He says, "the lilies of the field, how they grow; they labor not, neither do they spin; and then concerning the beauty and dignity of their raiment He added: "But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these, which are cast into the oven a little later" (Matt. vi, 28). If, then, God provides so much for things that provide such small benefit to men (for how long does the stalk of the lilies feed a flame? Or how long does a variegated flower create pleasure for the eye), how much more, and with what an incomparable difference, does He care for men?
Thus, indeed, not only is the birth, growth, and survival of sparrows left to God, and again their dissolution at their proper seasons, C but also that of the herbs in the field; for from the one kind the same logic of consequence passes also to other things of the same nature; and thus, not only are oxen, but even those very things that from their origin have obtained a less noble nature, are not abandoned by the help of divine vigilance.
What, then, is it that Paul teaches, that heavenly man, the tongue of the Spirit, whom it behooves to utter nothing discordant or contentious? Truly, while he was calling to mind the legal precepts of the ancients, which determine many things concerning brute animals, so that through them D he might school the rational...
for example that it is not permitted to one who takes the fledglings of birds from the nest to carry off the parents as well; A nor to cook a lamb in the milk of its mother; and, if you wish, nor to sow a vineyard with diverse seeds; nor to put on a tunic woven from different threads; and many things of this sort, among which is also that which says: "You shall not muzzle an ox that is treading the grain." That man, therefore, the learned doctor of the law—having been born in the use of this now abrogated law, and wishing to derive his exhortation from it, on the grounds that he who incites others to virtue must first possess it himself, and thus invite his listeners to imitation; or, if you prefer, that those who labor should not be defrauded of their due reward—himself, echoing these things from the law of Moses, added: "You shall not muzzle an ox that is treading the grain." Then, lest anyone should say, "What does the race of oxen have to do with the nature of men?" he adds: "Is it for oxen that God is concerned? For it is for our sake that the law concerning them was established; for its primary purpose was not set for them, nor does the Mosaic legislation aim at the governance of irrational animals, but these things were spoken for our sake because they were applied to other persons." B
For God C is indeed concerned for oxen, just as He is for all other creatures, but not to the extent of issuing laws and types of governance for them according to which they should live. Rather, when any decree concerning them has gone forth, it has laid claim to the contribution or application for the sake of human need and discipline. And that this is so is made manifest no less clearly by the rest of the animals, concerning which no legislation can be shown to have been enacted. For what law has been introduced concerning lions, or what concerning elephants, or unicorns, or dragons, or countless other kinds, some of which are seen to become tame, while others altogether shun the fellowship and proximity of men? When that blessed and divine man, realizing this indeed better than anyone else, as one who was a doctor of the law, the trumpet of the Church, and a sublime mind, both frequently declares in his many epistles that the providence of all things is to be attributed to God, and teaches that those laws concerning brute animals which the Mosaic text employs do not define their own standard of living, nor does D God have such an interest in brute animals that He would write down laws pertaining to their governance; but rather he hands down that these were brought forth and entrusted to writing for the instruction and governance of the stubborn Jewish nation, with most wise and hidden counsel.
It is evident, therefore, that the preacher not only does not contradict the teachings of the Master in any respect at all; but that those very teachings are strengthened by confirmation, especially when, by using different arguments for different matters, he appropriately accommodates the diversity, and does not in any way confuse doctrines distinct from one another in any usage; and he presents himself as a standard for pious men, as to how one ought
A to trace out the sense of the holy Scriptures, and not be carried away by the obvious meaning of words, especially where clear reason opposes it, and in matters where one might easily be misled.
Therefore, it behooves B a teacher, employing the common teacher of the Church, for those to whom religion is of the heart, and whose work is the discernment of wisdom, and who possess the grace of interpreting words from above, which illuminates man as he follows as a guide, to show even more evidently that such use of the holy oracles neither harms any of our holy dogmas, nor deserves any reproach, but rather works together to make everything consistent and irreproachable. For instance, if one were to draw someone back from inhumanity and lack of sympathy, or restrain a mind tending toward greed, or, as the saying goes 63, to lift up and support one who is limping on both knees, and to direct him toward the saving C and straight path—if one were to attempt to rescue each of these persons from their irrational, wayward inclinations—he would very aptly and opportunely add: "Hast thou not learned, O man, from the Mosaic laws and precepts, not to boil a lamb in its mother's milk, nor to sow thy vineyard, nor to make for thyself a garment 64 woven of heterogeneous threads of wool and linen?" Or is it not clear to all that these decrees do not primarily have as their subject lambs and maternal milk, nor indeed the vineyard, nor garments woven of D different threads? For where, in such things, is God concerned with threads, or vineyards, or lambs and milk, so as to subject them to laws, while providing in nothing for human nature, for whose sake all things were brought forth?
But it is clear that such things were provided for our sake from the beginning, and were set down in writing. Part of them—that concerning the lambs, and if you wish, the sparrows—were intended so that, having been tutored in sympathy and compassion toward brute animals, we might show much more humanity and mercy to those who are of the same race and share the same nature. Part of them—that concerning the vineyard and the ox—is so that we might not fall into greed, and together with it suffer other afflictions: for greed is the cause of many evils, and with it, for the most part, tends to vanish that which justly comes to us through frugality. Finally, the rest concerning the threads look to this: that we may not be variable and multifaceted in our minds, nor formed by diverse dogmas, or nations, or counsels, or words, or deeds, nor wretchedly and ridiculously at variance with ourselves.
Wherefore, not only does the method of the divine Paul, nor the light of the dogmas shed forth from him, lead the minds of pious men into any dissension or confusion, but even those who from thence have derived wisdom…
A can contemplate in a wondrous manner how the oracles of the Holy Spirit are to be reconciled with the oracles of the same.
QUESTION XXXI [al. XXX].
How is that saying to be understood: "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham"?
The obvious meaning of this oracle, if we do not inquire into a deeper significance, can certainly teach us that, just as God fashioned the body of a living being out of flowing, formless, and earthy matter, and shaped the dust into human nature and form, so in the same way, it is easy and not at all laborious for God—taking on the work as Artificer—to compose a human substance out of the more solid nature of stones, and to make the men fashioned from such a mass children of Abraham. For it is no less, not to say much more, amazing to reduce and adapt dust into the flesh of a man than to transform the hard nature of stones into the function of a living body.
B Besides, not only did the first man draw his wondrous origin from the mire, but the wife of Lot, too, having been hardened into a pillar of salt, proclaims a divine power which we can neither express nor grasp with the mind, while by an irrefutable prodigy it shows that the casting off of her original nature took place without manifest corruption C, and demonstrates the generation of another form and substance; and that which had been, was no longer; and that which seemed impossible to human thought to come about, subsisted without the dissolution of the prior form. God, therefore, who performed such miracles, and that too when He was exacting the penalty of a violated commandment from one poor woman—He Himself, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth—what would He not do out of His philanthropy, if He perceived that the condition of stones was more opportune for raising up children to Abraham? For it was not as easy for the Jews to multiply the children of Abraham, of whom no small part of the race was cast away, as it is for God to create many children for him through the stones.
But if anyone wishes something prophetic to be declared by this saying, the stones which the Precursor then mentioned, from which he predicted that children would be raised up to Abraham, are in truth those who, when the Savior died of His own accord and salvation and life were rendered to the whole world, having been broken and split D in obedience to the suffering of their Creator, and having become as it were pregnant by the miracle, gave birth to and brought forth many men into our religion. And in their own trembling,
they recalled men from the audacity against the Redeemer and from error, leading them by the hand to the knowledge of the truth, and providing them with opportunities to look upon the gift of regeneration; whom the communion of faith knows how to consider and name A sons of Abraham, even more than those who are children of blood.
But if your God-loving mind seeks to advance from the literal sense toward some higher contemplation, the Gentiles, who were hardened and stiff-hearted, might be understood by the name of "stones"; from among them, the inheritance of Abraham has been fulfilled, as they were changed from their hardness to see the salvation, and from the error of Greek myths to the initiation of the Spirit. Yet B I think that you would not, even in this way, appear far from the goal that the discovery of truth, obtained through meditation in the stadium of the Church, has fixed and established (68).
QUESTION XXXII
What is signified by, "Whose winnowing-fan is in his hand," and what follows? (70)Since the Forerunner, in preaching the Savior, C among other things that he detailed concerning Him in the sacred teaching, also says, "He will baptize those who come to Him in the Holy Spirit and in fire" (for the word "baptize" reveals and represents the richness and the abundance of the grace of the gift; for by providing redemption and the adoption of sons, He floods us from every side with the ever-flowing streams of grace)—having spoken these things, which are for salvation and full of many benefactions for us, lest it seem to some that our Savior had the will and power to grant such great gifts and to heap such great benevolence upon us, but had no way or account to punish and chastise the guilty and the disobedient, he therefore D added, correcting their error: "Whose winnowing-fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor." As if to say: He is not only beneficent and an abundant provider of good things for those equipped to receive them, but He is also an avenger of unlawful works and a punisher of transgressions.
"For the winnowing-fan is in his hand" means: The punishment to be meted out for evil deeds is ready at His hand, just as the reward is for good works. Wherefore, that discerning and dividing power and authority, which separates those liable to punishment from those worthy of the benefit, is ready at hand, or before his hands. Therefore, the grain, by whose name the just...
A flock is signified, he gathers into the supernal granaries, in which storehouses neither moth nor eating consumes, nor do thieves dig through and steal. But those wicked men, to whom the eternity of punishments is added as the crown of evil, he is about to deliver to the unquenchable fire which contains eternal torment.
It is likely that B by "the winnowing fan in his hand" ‹the action of Christ› is signified in an enigmatic way to be prompt and ready; for he does not separate the better from the worse through meditation, nor through delay, nor through the investigation of arguments, but he distinguishes the portion to be saved from the condemned immediately and suddenly. For he willed, the separation followed, the judgment came forward, and the avenging justice went forth together; for all things are present before God in a single act. Since the power of punishing C is indeed an attendant and minister of the judgments of God, just as is the abundant, benevolent, and exceeding all gratitude remuneration, by which the better things are dispensed to us.
The sacred oracles truly call them "grain," who, having guarded the nobility which they obtained from the beginning, have preserved even to the very production of fruit the pristine and salutary seed entrusted to nature by God, untainted and pure. But "chaff" and "food for the fire" they call those in whom the intermixture D of tares springing up has suffocated the culture of the Spirit, and intercepted the perfection of the fruits, nay rather, has cast away the beauty of the fruits that was hoped for, into the useless condition of straw (71).
That, however, "He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire," is not to be understood as if there were two things, which by the alternation of their nature produce the single virtue and perfection of baptism. For of what thing would the most holy Spirit there still have need for his operation? And what would that fire joined at the same time be, which would fill the vacuum of a deficiency? But that "in fire" is added here now, in order to announce the power and efficacy of the Spirit to cleanse. For since the gifts of the most holy Spirit differ among themselves, one of his divine operations is to both cleanse and destroy what is wicked, and fully refashion the entire nature of those upon whom he has come; and it is impossible that anything defiling it might still lurk and remain hidden.
Therefore, when he had said "in the Holy Spirit," he added "and fire," so that you might say, "in the Holy Spirit," who cleanses and consumes our degenerate passions; from which, having been cleansed through that operation which is at once fiery, efficacious, and endowed with the power of melting down, we merit to attain holiness. For our God
A is a consuming fire, both of every other ruinous wickedness, and of whatever has crept into our nature through negligence and has defiled it (72).
QUESTION XXXIII [al. XXXII]
How is it that, when the divine wrath had come upon Corah, Dathan, and Abiron, and when the rest of the multitude ought to have been struck with terror and, fearing the danger to their own souls, ought to have restrained their haughty and desperate spirit and become mindful of their transgressions—they, nevertheless, showing nothing of the sort, murmured against Moses?
B Truly, this happened because they were a multitude abandoned to irrational impulses and entangled in overly daring reasonings, and they imagined that the Divine is charmed or enticed by the incantations or circuitous schemes of Moses, and is persuaded to favor whom he favors; and that for this reason, punishments are let loose against those who vex his fellow tribesmen. Indeed, it seemed to them, wandering in these deliberations and carried along by their own audacity, that by their rebellion they were terrifying Moses and diverting him from his enterprise, and that he would no longer provoke God—with whose aid C he called down punishments upon the ill-doers—thereby delivering their fellow tribesmen from the divine wrath. For they imagined that, because they themselves did not apply to their own minds the rein of unbiased judgment, imperturbability, and right reason (72)—but instead regulated their judgment according to their passions—not only Moses, but the common Lord and Creator himself, was subject to these same things.
Moreover, a moderate punishment, when mixed with the disposition of men who are not excessively stupefied, often becomes a cause of conversion and repentance; for the mind, fearing the punishment, D tries to soften the severity through submission and is guided to recognize its duty. But a punishment that is inflicted as most extreme because of the enormity of the crimes, is so far from aiming at pardon that the soul—even though it ought not to—casts itself into desperation and madness, and, when it cannot show its anger in deeds, breaks forth into impiety and abuse. Yet it is the case that one who is more afraid ought rather to be turned away from forbidden acts, to be directed toward that which instructs, and not to set himself in array against his own salvation. For it says: “When he struck them” (this, indeed, was the disease of Israel, as among lesser ailments), “then they sought him, and they returned, and rose up early to God.”
How is it not, then, a sign of one who is utterly senseless and calling down heavier penalties, not to be moved even by the intensity of the greater evils, and to exchange it for repentance? And
A he who is not brought to his senses by the moderate degree of punishment might perhaps provide many hopes that he will be brought to correction by a greater one. But he who is not educated even by this, and does not consider it more desirable to be sober than to be deranged, confesses his failure of mind to be incurable. Moreover, he who not only is not turning himself toward the better, but even becomes worse, appears to determine that the remainder of the punishment is not an excessive penalty, but rather a complement to meet the just measure, if not with his tongue, at least by his deed. "You have sinned," says the Lord, "be quiet."
But the Hebrews, besides committing other sins, and grieving excessively for the men who were deservedly paying the penalty, not only did not keep silent (for indeed the retribution was not equal to the crimes), but they rose up to murmur against their leader, and through him they broke out against the common Lord and Giver of good things, striving to hide one smaller crime with a greater one. Therefore they would have received a destruction similar to those of old, and would have perished to the last man, had not the propitiation and prayers of Moses stayed the disaster.
But if the people, who had received the law, suspected C that the lawgiver of virtue and religion relied upon magical incantations to turn God, and that through these he exacted penalties from the vexed men—and that this was the main way in which God and Creator looked upon human deeds and restrained sins—the question proposed indeed has an ready solution. But the solution itself reveals another impiety of no less moment; and the crowd, if by chance they were deceived and led astray by such suspicions, are worthy not of one death, but of many: especially since the Magi in Egypt were confounded not once, but ten times, and their frauds were detected most evidently through the miracles of Moses, and they themselves had their own eyes as witnesses to these things, so they could have no defense. Besides, who could divide the sea by incantations and jugglery, and strew a path for his own people that retained no traces of moisture, yet show an impromptu grave to the enemies? Furthermore, how could he provide food from heaven, and prepare a table, and accomplish the other things which Moses, relying on divine power, brought to pass for the salvation of Israel, while appeasing and supplicating the Divinity?
But those men were indeed not undeservedly punished with the penalty of their murmuring. But among our predecessors, because no question arose concerning the things that have been said, therefore no solution was devised. It is for you, however, to weigh whether this very explanation arises from true speculation or from a loquacity that is ashamed of silence.
QUESTIO XXXIV. AD AMPHILOCHIUM
A In that place of the Gospel, who are to be understood by the "children who piped to the Jews, and they did not dance; who wailed, and they did not lament"? For if we are to understand the Precursor and our common Lord by these "children," does not the absurdity of the expression also dissolve the blame of the Jews? For not obeying children is by no means to be censured.
Nimirum (it will surely be admitted) that, while some part of parables and similitudes may maintain the type of its proper application, it is not the case that they contain names corresponding to names in all respects; nor are the persons who are compared, and those to whom they are compared, to be so twisted as to agree to the letter where no comparison is intended, or to maintain a similitude that is never disturbed; nor is it necessary to seek in the remaining part of the words and things a conformable interpretation in every detail. For nothing ever affords the occasion to apply either the things that are brought into a parable, or every part of the parable itself; and it does not force these things to reconcile one with another, or command that everything correspond to the uttermost detail.
C For the discourse of history and of narrative, even when the expression is conveyed in living speech, must take care that words are applied which hold together with each of the nouns of the subjects; nor does it allow, so that the speech may be finished in all its numbers, anything to creep in that is either simultaneously observed or inserted in passing. But the diction of a parable or similitude does not necessarily submit to the same laws or allow itself to be subject to such precepts. Why so? Because history, and other things of this kind, and narration itself, impart the knowledge of unknown things and hand down the beginning of cognition to the hearers; therefore, they require that words be connected with things as accurately as possible; nor do they admit any word that is discordant, or any fact that is improperly disposed or difficult to understand; for such things would overturn the end and erudition proposed to them, and would not provide knowledge of the facts.
But it is first of all clear that a parable and similitude are assumed from things already known, and that those who construct them choose things already familiar as being more conducive to persuasion; and those who use this method have no other chief aim than to provide persuasion to souls, and to bring the hearer to assent, so that he may embrace the exhortation offered as a provider of salvation, or may accept simply that which is proposed as useful or possible. Since, therefore, the use of parables and similitudes has been introduced into discourse for this reason, subtle observations, and the distribution of each of the single parts of the notion, and minute applications and mutual relations, are left either to a secondary concern or to no concern at all.
A And this is seen frequently, not only in our sacred Writings, but also in other things which encompass the divine and pure enclosure of religion: although these latter are also highly esteemed for their wisdom. Therefore, no law commands a child to [seek persons] of defined character, or requires a repayment reserved for others; for the order [of those] designated as indefinite is sufficient to fulfill the intention of the parable.
The aim, therefore, of the Lord’s parable and comparison is very clear and manifest, in that it intends to point out the Jewish nation, which was unwilling both to accept what was profitable through things that excite hilarity—that is, through a common and prevalent way of life (although it was fitting to be inclined toward and drawn along by the like)—and was also unwilling, through a life withdrawn from the multitude and restrained (even though it knows how to put even the more pious to shame), to produce B the paradoxical; but rather, they were so turned away by neither of these that they were not led to put off and cast away their own licentious and intractable [disposition] toward piety. And it further interweaves with the persuasion a rebuke, in that the multitude of the Jews, not doing penance, cuts off from themselves every excuse and forgiveness.
But the parable does not care to investigate curiously the names and things from these [parables] which are of no necessity or salutary admonition, according to those who comment in this way. For who are they who "have boldly encountered the heat of the day and the ice of the night in sacred labors" C and, having brought in others after them to a similar labor, "who had received an equal wage, cast an envious and wicked eye" 57? And who is that "judge of iniquity, who feared not God, and regarded not man; and then, at the clamoring of a widow, converted his insane pride into mercy" 58? Surely, neither of these could by any means be adapted to any particular person without much aberration from the purpose and futility.
Now, concerning those "virgins, of whom five were foolish, and five were wise" 60, whose defined person will they represent? And as for the time in which these indeed entered, while those were excluded by the Bridegroom 61, what could that be? For the time of the common judgment has not yet come. D And in many other things, if one were to seek certain persons and things, and should strive to subdivide the parables down to the smallest detail, he would be tormented by weighing and fluctuating; not so much because the condition of the parable carries this with it, but because curiosity and inept quibbles tend to result in ignorance rather than in the discovery of truth.
Again, who are they who would not even give the husks to satiety to him "who had traveled into a far country, and had spent his substance with riotous living" 62? And those hired servants...
A who are they? If the human race, being divided into the just and sinners, is signified by the two sons introduced into the parable, how is it that this youth desired to be as one of the father's hired servants? But the elder son, who obeyed his father in all things, and afterwards looked with envious eyes upon the conversion and salvation of his brother, and was provoked to argue against his father concerning his justification, how, I ask, could he be applied to any specific person? From which it is evident that it is not permitted to inquire solicitously into all parts of a parable, nor to demand a reason for every minor detail, but rather to direct one's attention solely to that which is indicated through the substance of the matter.
Furthermore, to what person would one attribute that rich man who had a steward accused of squandering his goods B? And who would one say were his accusers? Moreover, the retribution of happiness for Lazarus, and of incurable evils for the rich man, how could it have taken place while the common judgment had not yet arrived? And as for the conversations between Abraham and the man condemned to punishment, which the parable brings forward C, how could they occur, while the torments imposed silence upon the rich man (and indeed his own groaning and weeping put a bridle upon other voices); and Lazarus ought not to have directed words to the man once he was already condemned. In the same way, therefore, and by the same law, neither will the children in our parable be able to claim for themselves the nature of specific individuals; but D even for the properties of the more familiar term they have had a place in the aforementioned parable.
And these things seem to be proper to the parable; for it belongs to its very enigmatic character—in which this present one also is brought forward—that it should also contain itself within other concepts of the mind, which are not understood by many listeners. And the Savior's own word clearly hints at this, when He said to the disciples: "To you it is given to know the mysteries, but to them in parables 68"; that is to say, it is permitted to you to expand the understanding of the parables through a most accurate and, down to the smallest detail, derived cognition and revelation of the mystery.
Wherefore also the apostles said, "Declare to us this parable 69"; and this [was] also the Synagogue of the most disobedient Jews, "seeing they did not see, and hearing they did not hear 70," inasmuch as these kinds of parables and similitudes provided this to be seen and heard. For even if the multitude of the Jews, with a hardened heart, and of their own accord closing their eyes to the light of religion, "seeing did not see, and hearing did not hear," nevertheless the parable, as it stood in no way opposed to their disposition (for it was overshadowed by ambiguity), did not provide any occasion for ignorance; but rather it reproached the manner of their apathy—that, whereas they ought to have sought,
and to have understood from these sources what they did not understand, as the apostles were accustomed to do; yet they did not lay up in their minds any discourse of the things unknown.
A This difficulty of parables and similarities, the Book of Proverbs also indicated by the addition of parallel expressions, when it sketches the wise and intelligent man who has perfected his mind through proverbs: "He shall understand," it says, "a parable, and the dark sayings of the wise, and riddles 71."
But this doctrine, drawn not unwillingly from the properties of the parable and similarity, B can still serve to solve other various questions through the method already set forth. And this, which will be more aptly stated, in proportion as it more accurately clarifies the concepts and the words of the established doctrine, to that extent it proposes a more proper solution and applies it specifically to our single question.
For in our sacred oracles, the name of "children" is used in a double sense: namely, "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me 72;" and not far from this meaning, "Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven 73." Then again: C "Brethren, do not become children in sense, but in malice be little children 74." So that "child" might signify two, or rather even three things; since Paul, that man wiser than any other in divine and human matters, and who knew how to adapt suitable words to related concepts, has proclaimed: "Because therefore the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he also in like manner partook of the same, that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death 75." For it is clear that here the word "child" does not denote the simple, innocent, and guileless, nor yet the foolish and easily led in mind, but simply signifies human nature.
D For which reason the Forerunner and the Redeemer could be called children with the best right, because they partook of the nature of children; and what is more peculiar and proper, because they showed much mildness and, amid their manifold sufferings, a gentleness and manners not unlike those of children. For they exhibited those very manners of children expressed in themselves, while they neither brought down fire from heaven, nor punished the wicked with the sword, nor chastised them with openings of the earth, nor drowned the stubborn in the sea; but, placing themselves in the likeness of children through lenity and placidity, they instructed those to be taught with speeches accommodated to a childish capacity, according to that saying: "I gave you milk to drink, and not meat 76;" and furthermore, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now 77."
So that they can by all means be accounted and called children, neither by an absurd nor insulting way of speaking, and both the
A one who baptizes in water and the one who baptizes in fire, according to the rationale of their nature, and according to what is the more honorable and more sacred of those things signified. But the boys, acting like children in their folly, were the crowds of the Jews, who, being moved neither by the singing nor by the lamentation, did not depart from their negligence in either case, nor did they choose to seek the removal of their own wickedness.
But you, while you hear the Savior often called a lion, B and hear that our adversary is also pointed out by the same name as a roaring one 79, and again hear the Creator of the visible and invisible creation called a worm: "For I am a worm, and not a man, a reproach of men and the abjected of the people 81; but also 'their worm (and this is a form of most cruel punishment) shall not die 82,'" as you were wise in living among those things, and you pull the one of the lions to the image of the Lord, while you adapt the other to the ancient-evil beast; and indeed, you are not embarrassed to interpret the worm now as referring to the seedless, undefiled, and untilled flesh of the Savior, C and now to deem that it signifies the bitter and inexorable punishment of the afterlife; so, too, regarding the children in the Gospels (78), if you use the customary knowledge of sacred things, and assign and distribute to each what is its own, you will find nothing obscure or incomprehensible.
But there is much other use of such names scattered throughout our sacred Writings; just as with the "lion cub," one indeed roaring and seeking food from God 83; but the other reclining and rising up, and awakening the race from the ancient fall and the possession of death (79). Also, there is Lucifer, who "rises in the morning 84," and who "more perfectly illuminates D the hearts of the faithful with the light of divine knowledge"; and the other Lucifer, who is condemned to the darkness and, due to his voluntary rebellion, is deprived of the intelligible and blessed radiance 86. Similarly, there is one serpent which deceived Eve 87, and another whose imitators the Savior’s word urges us to become: "Be, says he, wise, as serpents 88."
Furthermore, it is recorded that there is the King of all, whose entire creation is the "work of his fingers" 89; and likewise, there is a king of the evil and most wretched things of life, whom we ought to avoid by all means, and than whom death itself is no more terrible 90. Again, there is the lightning, which, because of the turbulence of the air, falls from heaven 91, and to which the terrifying and majestic presence of Christ is compared 92. And observe also how "sacred darkness" is mentioned, which places the divine pavilion of his concealment toward God at Sinai.
A and there is another darkness: the one that is outer, and the other through which that very state has been prepared and made ready. B Thus, indeed, there are many voices in our sacred treatises; but even in those where the Attic tongue prides itself, I am divided into opposite matters; and this, I think, follows a law—for one who knows how to distinguish things that do not have their distinction readily at hand. For each of the aforementioned names allows those who wish to distribute them freely and without impediment, and without confusion, to signify powers and active natures that are opposed, as they are naturally able to be brought under the same meaning. It is clear that this mode of duality in names is removed from the theory of homonyms. For that theory, so to speak, does not know the cause according to which things that are different have come together (since some are brought forth through a certain likeness), and logic does not admit either of these; but rather, it is the nature and the ineffable that varies, even while they attain the same name through those things that are opposed and contrary. But let these things be interjected incidentally, for the sake of delight and relief, to soothe the theological spirit, which is oppressed and vexed by a laborious pursuit of holiness (80).
QUESTION XXXV [al. XXXIV].
How does that exhortation of the Prince of the Apostles, which says, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you," C not contradict the Dominical precept, which warns those who are led to the tribunal of kings and governors, for the sake of rendering a reason for our faith, not to premeditate their responses?D Since both these oracles, O most excellent man of sacred philology, although they bear a difference in name, nevertheless aim at the same goal; surely the one does not fight against the other, and it is not far from the truth that these things, which lead to the same admonition, bid us also to fashion our understanding according to the same rules. For the phrase "to be ready" signifies that one should never delay in the face of questioning; nor does it suggest that we should hesitate in our reasoning when responding to those who ask. And the command "not to premeditate," and not to make the time of free profession into a time of deliberation, nor to be troubled by the struggle itself when one is already in the midst of it, tends toward the same end,
A and is squared with the true meaning. He, therefore, who is prepared, is already delivered from meditation, anxiety, and doubt; and he who carries a conscience delivered from this burdensome condition has no need of premeditation, nor of practice bouts, nor of being divided against the struggles and exercises that are upon him.
But that which has been well premeditated, and which has issued forth into the thoughts as immovable, brings to bear a judgment regarding time and the ordering of life that is without hesitation. When this is set forth, the champion of piety, with the grace of the all-holy Spirit cooperating with him, is ready both to grant to those who desire to learn the benefit that comes from teaching, B and to those who attempt to mock and ridicule the precision of the dogma, to bring forward, with a firm and unshakable resolve, both the refutation of the wandering opinion and the blamelessness of piety. For fixedness and stability of mind render those who look toward learning more attentive, and it knows how to strike back at the malice and toil of those who abuse.
Therefore, the aforementioned things are so far from fighting against one another (as is now plain for you to observe), that if there is anything that resonates and agrees, no advantage is left behind for others; nor would the theory and examination of the proposed scriptures be anything other than a second rank belonging to confession and agreement. C If indeed, as some say, it was spoken to those who have leisure before the struggles, so that they might not be negligent nor hold the truth in low regard; and again to those who have entered into the struggles themselves, so that they might not be moved by fear toward sudden judgment and examination, and thereby shake the firmness of the faith that is in them; then such a division of the words according to the difference of the subjects, and such a settlement, with nothing being contrary, becomes a great and incontrovertible testimony to the Lord’s providence and cooperation.
Persecutions are quiet, but do you have leisure for the study of the holy scriptures. They are fanned into flame against piety, and they rage—do not be fearful, nor troubled. D Do not look toward what remains, if such should be the case, of the preparation, nor show to the tyrants a soul that is showing signs of fear. For you have the Master for whom you bear the struggle, who not only fulfills what is wanting, but also grants cooperation and power much more abundantly.
QUESTION XXXVI
A In what sense is it said, "Let us make man in our image"? And what is the "image" here? And what is the archetype? For it is necessary that with every image the archetype be also considered.On the image and the exemplar, in the text, Gen. 1, 26.
That man was created in the image of God, some have taken to mean the faculty of reasoning and free will, while others have referred it to dominion and the authority to rule. For in either of these it is possible for the creature to reflect the image of the Creator, and for man to be called an image, and, if you wish, to be said to have been made in the image of God, so that from this it is possible to know both the image and the archetype—[the image] according to the nature of the archetype, or rather according to the nature and [the Creator] who possesses the reasonable cause of the gifts, bestowing the likeness according to grace upon him who was kindly brought into existence. B Therefore, that Father who followed Gregory the Theologian in particular—from whom, above all others, he learned to think and teach worthily concerning the Spirit—ignoring a change in a single syllable of the word, unites both the name "image" and "in the image" into the same [meaning]. Why? Because he saw that no sacred dogma was disturbed by this interpretation, and that for the ears of men, whose salvation was a matter of concern to that praiseworthy man, the same concept was indicated by either word.
But since delicate ears, those which mistake fussiness for wisdom, seek out a difference between the image and the thing made in the image, certainly these are not unworthy of pardon and indulgence, and we shall speak of these presently, so that the flow of our speech may not be broken now. For there exists a certain opinion of some which is contrary to the doctrine set forth; for C observing that reason and intellect belong to the angels, they endeavor to weaken the truth of those who affirm that man was created in the image of God as regards reason and intellect, and they seem to conclude that this is not a property peculiar to human nature, nor do they allow that which is indicated by "in the image" to be explained by reason; just as if some necessity were pressing upon them, so that that which in one property D [does not depict it as belonging to the archetype] (even if it makes the image clearly imprinted) [does not allow one to confess that the thing depicted can be truly depicted].
A Likewise, for the same reason, they think they ought to reject "dominion"—even though the Sacred Scriptures, by the connection of the sequence, clearly indicate that the phrase "according to the image" is meant to signify the dignity of dominion. For the text of the sequence runs: "Let us make man according to our image, and according to likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and the cattle, and all the earth." B But these men, not even persuaded by this place of Scripture, do not admit that the power of dominion is signified by "according to the image," for this reason, clearly, because the nature of angels also possesses the faculty of ruling. For the Prophet Daniel clearly proclaims a "prince of the Assyrians" and a "prince of the people of the Jews." And somewhere he who saw God face to face also says: "He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God." Therefore, just as the power of reasoning and of free will is common to angels and men, so also is the power of dominion and of kingship.
But what of this? If, indeed, it were added to the oracle that man alone was made according to the image of God, then perhaps an obstacle might be found in the nature of angels; because it is in them, too, that those things are observed by which the Divine nature could be represented. But if nothing of the kind is found written there, the communion between the angels and the human race not only does not take away the dignity given to us at creation, but is even valid for providing a paradigmatic proof of the truth. Thus, therefore, neither because the angel possesses a rational and intelligent nature, ought man to be deprived of this power.
C But to whom does it concern to oppose those who hold correct doctrines? Not, in my judgment, do they seem to attack those [doctrines] so much as they turn the refutation upon themselves. For here, the rectitude of thought and a theory conforming to the Scriptures has been elaborated with the utmost care, especially by our blessed Fathers, so that whatever has been omitted by it might be supplemented, and that which can be in harmony with the opinions of pious and wise men might be consistent. But those who struggle to disturb the correctly established teaching with quibbles and are eager to pursue innovation; D these do not perceive that, while they seek an estimation for their sharp wit, they themselves are being torn away from a religious and pure manner of thought. For these [are being dragged] into a shameful and their own...
A inescapable refutation, as they are seen to have exposed themselves. But let us pass them by.
Whatever has been objected against the idea that man, according to the simplicity of the soul, was created in the image of God, is of that same brand. It is so not only because, as in the angels, so also in the soul itself, the nobility and excellence of the most noble nature and of the incorporeal divine beauty are seen, as in a mirror; but also because in the threefold identity of the faculties (intellect, memory, and will), the distinction avoids confusion; and indeed because the word proceeds from the soul's nature which brings it forth, while being distinct from it and maintaining a relation of opposition with it, yet without being separated from the nature of the spirit, nor unlike it.
These things, moreover, could certainly B carry with them the truth that man was fashioned from the beginning in the image of the Creator. For you, there are other examples, and still others which are sought from here, that are supplied without scarcity. For wisdom, operative power, immortality, and many such things, when expressed in man from that first and incomprehensible wisdom, operative power, and eternity, bear a likeness to the divine nature. But if anyone should prefer, as if from various colors, to have a most similar image of God expressed, and should assert that the most beautiful and most fair form of man is selected and fashioned from all these, he will not only show that the image pertains strictly to our nature, but also, in my judgment, will not miss C an even more elegant accounting of the cause.
Therefore, there is nothing that we should imagine—from the aforementioned works—as to what is the image, or what is the archetype, or what that is which was created in the image of God; even though by the name of image one could understand each of those excellent and noble properties which we have enumerated thus far; such as the faculty of reasoning, in which man has power, and whatsoever else was recently adduced. For these refer to the image of the ineffable and incomprehensible [nature] which we contemplate in God—namely, of the dominion, wisdom, creation, and that Word of His, which can neither flow away nor be perturbed, and is consubstantial with the Father. And certainly the operative power, the authority of dominion, the faculty of reasoning, and the participation in wisdom D could be the image to which man was formed, provided that he is not himself that image (if anyone does not consider it superfluous to weigh these things subtly and to pursue the power of names to the letter), but is made according to it; so that both the image and that which is in the image may be more clearly understood, and it may not happen that we are ignorant of the exemplar.
But if anyone should prefer to reduce these things at once to the image and the exemplar (that is, if he should reflect that man is not, according to these properties, the image of God,
A but is formed toward them, he would not be unreasonably said to be formed toward God. Likewise, if the things in man, as the immaterial in matter, received the strength, as having been produced, to image the producer (and these things came about by divine grace and the gift to man), in a reasonable sense man might also be said to have been made the image of God.
Wherefore the divine Gregory also said: “And he breathed the breath into himself, which the Word knows to be a rational soul, and the image of God.” For that holy man, delighting in a concise B style and in a brief weaving of words to express a range of many meanings, makes his own statements nearly inter-woven in this mode. Wherefore, here too, having said “breathed the breath” (which concerned the creative power of the soul), instead of unfolding this differentiation in his interpretation, he declared it very concisely: “Which the Word knows to be a rational soul, and the image of God.” And expanding on that same thought, he said: “Which created the rational soul and brought it forth; C this the Word saw to be the image of God.”
Thus it is possible to gather the interpretation of the theory into two parts, and again to expand it into three; or rather, if one should wish to refine and investigate the proposed theory in detail one by one, there would be four things to behold, through which the relationship of the thing imaged to that which is stamped preserves the image. For the Divine is that in which the God-befitting perfection of powers, which is above cause and every comprehension, shines forth. And there are also the rays of these D faculties, which express the beauty received from thence by divine clemency, and which for this reason draw to themselves the title of image, under which man, fashioned according to the image now spoken of, has a fourth. So that those who seek the image and the “according to the image” in different things do not stop their inquiry at three, but also add a fourth, which they had not even sought.
Therefore I believe the renowned Gregory, being somewhat remiss in great accuracy, was satisfied with the image and the exemplar. For it was not his intention to divide the scriptural passage and to increase it into as many parts as he could; but, having a panegyric and public speech, he adopted the theory to fulfill the need, carrying it along with the multitude.
Some have taken “according to the image” for...
“in the image,” for they suppose that man was made in the image of God. But this line of reasoning, even if it might appear worthy of acceptance, will in no way harm the truth; and he who adopts this second interpretation of the stated oracle would not, in my judgment, love to be pulled away from it, nor would he seek to be.
There are to be found authors who—and by this explanation, that phrase “according to the image” is B immediately referred to the properties of the divine Person before the fall—say: let that which is “according to the image” be spoken of the Word, in such a way that it pertains to the incarnation and advent of the Word. For if, they say, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” and was made man “in all things” “without sin,” then we would be rightly censured by no reason if we were to say that it was according to that holy and sinless image—which indeed destroys all sin—that even the first parent, Adam, was fashioned and created.
And you have another method, proceeding as a corollary from such an explanation, and you have both the image and the archetype, and according to what image Adam was fashioned into the nature of man. For since the Son is an immutable and consubstantial image of the Father, and having been made man as we are, and having formed one person with the assumed nature, he C showed man to have been raised to that same condition of his own; and according to this form of the incarnate Word, and the idea of this, the divine wisdom, which foresaw and disposed the things to come, was led by the abundance of its own benevolence to form the first parent of our race with pure and creative hands.
And these matters have been, as I judge, elucidated with the greatest clarity and diligence. For let the madness of the Anthropomorphites be cast back into the heads of those who, in their insanity, think to drag down God—who is without any form, limitation, or comprehension—to human form and shape. For they did not even wish to conceive in their minds this thing, which is easy to understand and obvious to anyone; namely, that if the Divine is from eternity, and not D through the Word...
of descent from the heavens and through the motive of mercy towards men, had possessed the human form, the assumption of our nature by the Son in the last times would have been in vain.
Moreover, God would not be pure (O delirious mind!) if the genital parts in Him were not distinguished according to the male and female sex. For when the sacred Oracles say, “In the image of God He created him,” they immediately add, “Male and female He created them,” inasmuch as the image adorned not only Adam, but Eve as well, and through them it was appropriate to the entire human race with equal honor. For if man had been fashioned according to a corporeal appearance and form of God, such an impious error being premised, not only would those impieties follow which have been spoken about God, but also that the venerable Divinity would be defiled by human perturbations; for that which has human form can by no means be free from human perturbations.
B The error of the Anthropomorphites is followed by these absurdities; and those who, together with ethnic superstition, mingle our theology—which is worthy of and venerable to God—and who exhaust themselves in trying to reduce them to the same state, have not blushed. But since there are other and varied absurdities that follow from this, which break forth all the more, they clearly evince the insanity of those who have miserably cast themselves into this opinion.
A refutation of similar madness might also be the myth of the much-erring Jews, who, while they do not admit that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, nor wish to concede the dignity of the divine nature to the Holy Spirit, meanwhile, in attributing to the Son and to the Spirit an incorporeal (creative) power, do not notice that they are forced to raise them to the divine nature; for if anyone asserts that God said to the angelic orders: “Let us make man in our image,” he has bid farewell to shame. C For whoever concedes that the image of God and of the angels is one and the same—and that it is God Himself, and yet is endowed with incorporeal faculties—he reduces the nature of God and of the angels to the same thing, and removes every distinction between the Creator and the creature. For can the nature of things whose image is the same and immutable admit of diversity?
D And these absurdities have reached this point, yet we have barely touched upon a few of them. But so that the beauty of the truth might shine forth all the more by the juxtaposition of absurd opinions, we have thought it necessary to set forth those things which it would be far better if we had neither inserted into matters already explained from the beginning, nor admitted into our own minds.
QUESTION XXXVII
QUESTION XXXVII
A How is it possible that the precept, « An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth », does not contradict the saying, « But I say to you, do not resist evil », which is to say, do not retaliate in kind, nor take revenge upon an enemy?
It may indeed be said—as has already been philosophized by those before us concerning this question—that these things do not contend against one another, nor does the establishment of one result in the destruction of the other; but rather, the first is a sort of path and preparation that leads one through an imperfect form of governance toward the perfect one. For he who has accustomed himself to conform his behavior to the Law, is more easily rendered ready to make a choice of the better things, and to run toward and adjust himself to higher actions. But how could this be considered an opposing mindset or action?
B Besides, the Law restrains the bold and rash hand of a man from inflicting damage upon his neighbor through the threat [of punishment], and prevents wrongdoing through fear. Grace, however, not imitating the Law, takes care to ensure that admonition suffices in the place of retaliation; indeed, it commands that the commotion of an angry spirit be lulled to peace by gentleness. And what could exist that achieves greater harmony than this, instead of discord?
And indeed, it is not contrary for [a ruler] to demand the retribution of justice from one who has begun unjust actions, while also enjoining the limit of immense kindness and patience, and calming the agitation of the soul. For the one is human, while the other is more divine: of these, the former is blameless, while the latter is worthy of praise.
These things, then, may be said, and the difficulty may be resolved by them. Perhaps it would not be amiss to add that the first sentence refers to the judge, that he may not exceed a just punishment, but that the yoke of retaliation be proposed to those who are to be punished, and that the eye of justice be recognized as incorrupt. C But the second pertains to him who brings a matter into judgment, while he corrects and abates the bitterness of revenge through the riches of clemency; so that he may not seek an increase of evil, nor multiply the very thing he hates and deems worthy of punishment by returning like for like, nor make his indignation insatiable.
QUESTION XXXVIII
Some raise this doubt: If the Godhead in the Son is uncircumscribed, D is the flesh which He assumed also everywhere? For where the Godhead is, it is necessary that it also be present. Or, if it is circumscribed by place, is it separated from Him who assumed it?
Tractate on the ubiquity of the body of Christ.
It was not to be wondered at that those who seek to be pious, and who desire to obey religion and the Christian...
A mysteries, while knowing that the Godhead is uncircumscribed and everywhere, should raise this doubt: whether the flesh which the Son assumed is stretched forth everywhere along with Him who assumed it, lest it be thought of as separated, or whether, being circumscribed by place, it denies the assumption? For indeed, against this perceived difficulty—or rather, against these toys of folly that strive against the infinite—lest we seem not to revere the things that are to be revered, let our discourse transfer the exercise to a discussion of the soul and the body.
For what forbids one, if he wishes, from saying: How is the soul united to the body while not being circumscribed by place? For according B to the wisdom of those who trifle, it is proved that that which does not share a common circumscription does not admit of union. And how (to speak more closely and through perceptible things) when the body is colored, does the soul, existing as it were among the colors, remain itself incapable of receiving color? And when the body is compounded from four humors, does the soul remain pure from the disposition arising from those humors? And while the body consists of fullness, and not of emptiness, proceeding in a cycle through succession, the soul is seen to be superior to such states; and a thousand other things?
And conversely, one could also treat the argument in reverse. For he who has no wish to deal seriously with serious matters, but C loves to pride himself on sophistical arguments in the manner of charlatans, will ask: If the composition of the body is united to the rational soul, how does it not also—like the soul—become a substance recognized as being united to itself, and why can it not command? How, too, does the body not avoid touch? How is it subject to colors? How is it not immune to gravity, weight, emptiness, and fullness; and a thousand such trifles? And (to utter in one word the mother of these trifles, from which these juvenile arguments found an entry to invade our discourses), if the soul is joined to the body, why is the soul not the body, or the body not the soul?
But if to utter such things concerning the soul and body excites D laughter, and if even now, while the weight of the difficulty lies in natural things, this prattling chicanery is seen as such even by men who are almost untrained, how much more is it altogether ridiculous to utter such trifles concerning the divine Word and the human nature assumed by Him, even for those who cannot distinguish a joking matter from a difficulty? Here, however, I shall add our own—or rather, those things which can be gleaned from the works and sufferings of our most merciful Creator. How is it that the Godhead, when the body was pierced with nails, was not also wounded, was not pierced by the lance, was not crucified?
A How, when the human nature truly assumed was suffering all these torments, was the Godhead together with the sufferer, and yet unable to be touched by them? How did it even escape death in its own substance?
Although Christ our God is said to have died most truly for our sake (in that He delivered His own flesh unto death for us), and to have dwelt in the tomb, and by His three-day resurrection to have inaugurated and founded the resurrection common to all; yet, those who would for this reason blaspheme, calling the Godhead passible, shall be rendered speechless by those things which were just now stated, drawing out the refutation from the union of the soul and the body, and by other arguments of this sort. But as for those who are not led astray by such an error, but are addicted to another no more tolerable than that of the men mentioned, and who think that for B the sake of the union of the divine nature, the local circumscription of the flesh in Christ should be rejected—both those absurdities regarding the soul and body, and these regarding the sufferings of Christ, seem to proceed equally from their own propositions and to tend directly to their own refutation.
He who grants, my friend, that the Deity is everywhere, how will he not simultaneously grant that it is present everywhere in its entirety? For this pertains no less to the divine dignity than the other. But if it is entirely and wholly everywhere, and the Son, together with the flesh assumed, possesses one C subsistence; even if He is present here everywhere, while human nature is defined by place, and time, and beginning, and end, and countless other things; yet no room at all is given for a separation to be conceived simultaneously. For he would be imagining the Godhead as circumscribed by place even without the assumed flesh, who would conceive that God is everywhere by parts, and not that the whole is present wherever He is present. And yet, this, even if not in these very words, is what he says who asserts: "Unless the humanity were dilated along with the divine subsistence of the Word, it could not be united to It." For D dilation, or extension, or anything of that sort—and not even by these things is He present entirely to those to whom He clearly attends—all these things have a place in substances which admit of division; and the same things would rend asunder the simple and indivisible substance of God.
If God, as being everywhere present and containing all things, is divided, then you must surely seek in Him extension, and that which is congruent with other things, and thus circumscription, and the sharing of it with others. But if you flee from imagining this as injurious and unworthy of God, [alt-version omitted]
even if you do not flee, as long as the mind is not driven away from intellectual operations directed toward motion, or, if you prefer, from common notions, you would be able to feel shame more easily at your great absurdities, placing yourself forward as a proctor of such difficulties. Thus, he who thinks himself great fastens his own passion and ignorance upon the Word when saying: "If the flesh is united to the Son, it is either everywhere and has therefore become infinite, or it is separated from the Divinity, as it is unable to extend itself along with It." A Yet it is much more consistent in thought that, if the properties of the soul were present in the body, or if the soul were characterized by the attributes of the body, then a union would never result between them from any source; nor indeed, even if one were to grant it, could the concord of the joined things be preserved. For this would be a mutation of one into the other; but a mutation differs from a true union, to use the proverb, no less than the frontiers of the Mysians differ from those of the Phrygians. B And he who investigates the hypostatic union too minutely, and repels and rejects consistent notions, is unaware that by this way of thinking he is judging that the Son must be turned into the substance of the flesh, and is suspecting confusion regarding Him who cannot receive the extension, passion, or any addition of material flesh, and who possesses a divine nature.
And I have not yet spoken of the Divinity being present to the flesh through the hypostatic union, and being present everywhere, even if they are referred to a different sense and different notion (for the argument that knows and defines the "everywhere" does not place the nature that has been united outside the scope of the common visitation; for God does not separate from the presence of His providence all those things of which He willed to become the Creator. C But he who defends the presence that is according to the union assigns this only to that which has been united.) But if, even according to a different notion, one defines each kind of presence, nevertheless, he who dares to argue and cavil about one, would be proven not to refrain even from the other. For he who uses the same reasoning, how, he would say, can the Divine be present everywhere, when none of the things to which It is present can become immense with It? D For when that One is present to each of the things that exist, each thing is not present along with It to the others; but they are contained within their own limits, and by their own nature are prevented from reaching further; and thus, to be present everywhere is not the property of all things, nor can the creature reach where the Creator reaches. The Divine visits things endowed with a soul, yet things lacking this do not exist together with Him in them. Is it for this reason that the latter are bereft of the divine presence? But He is present to inanimate things, and yet not to these again
A, since they have become outliers to such a presence? For the young man’s babble suggests that things which do not extend along with Him Who is present everywhere, do not experience His illumination at all; for indeed the strivings of the sophists are not wisdom. But these are the summary points; you, if you please, shall add the remaining things from what has been said.
QUESTION XXXIX
How is it that, when Jacob had taken two sons from Rachel, Joseph and Benjamin, Moses afterwards, in enumerating the sons of Jacob, says: "Now these were the sons of Balla: Gera, and Noeman, and Anchis, and Ros, and Amphim, and Omphimin; and Gera begot Arad"? And then he adds: B "These are the sons of Rachel, whom she bore to Jacob." Since, therefore, Rachel bore only Joseph and Benjamin, how does the book of Genesis say that these others, just mentioned, were born to Jacob from Rachel? Solve this difficulty.
The very oracles of the sacred Eloquia interpret themselves. For when the Scripture had enumerated the children of Jacob, and did not need to pursue their history further, but wished to reach the third generation, it starts not from the immediate parents themselves, but from the first root, from whom they descended in a direct line, and to whom the divine promises predicted a prominent glory of an increasing progeny. Therefore, while Moses is reckoning the grandchildren of Jacob in the fourth generation, who C had Benjamin as their grandfather, and is indicating their multitude, he falls back to the promise and to him who had received the promise; he takes and mentions the primary cause of the increased lineage rather than the second and third participants of this promise; and he says: "These are the sons of Rachel, whom she bore to Jacob"; and thus, retreating in part from Benjamin and from his line back to Rachel and Jacob, he refers to them as the origin of the others whose series had been described.
From this, indeed, you can gather by way of a corollary that it is common in the sacred Eloquia to call grandchildren "sons," just as it is to call the children of brothers "brothers," not only when they are referred to one another (that is, to other children of brothers), but also D when they are compared with their paternal uncles. For we find clearly that just as those who are distant by the same degrees from a common root are called brothers, so too those who, primarily indeed from them, and then from kin
B who are compared with those set in a higher degree, attract to themselves the appellation of brotherhood: just as he who is now called a cousin when compared to an uncle, whether near or distant. For indeed these, too, according to the idiom of the Scriptures, embrace the designation of brotherhood.
Such is also that which is said by Moses after the death of Nadab and Abiud in Leviticus to the sons of Oziel, Elisaphan and Misael, or Misadael (for the writing is double): “Come, and carry your brothers from before the sanctuary outside the camp” (Levit. x, 4). For indeed, he called them brothers here, not those who had issued from the same maternal womb, but yet those who did not derive their origin from different loins. For indeed Nadab and Abiud were the sons of Aaron; but Elisaphan and Misael were the sons of Oziel; and Oziel was the brother of Aaron’s father. If we wish to apply names according to the custom received among us regarding their mutual relations, we would call Oziel the uncle of Aaron, but the great-uncle of Nadab and Abiud; furthermore, we would call Misael and Elisaphan the cousins of Aaron, but the uncles of Nadab and Abiud. But yet the narrative of Moses loves to call them brothers.
And many other relations of kindred, among our sacred Scriptures, both of the Old and of that in which grace is announced, can be seen to have drawn to themselves the appellation of brothers: as also that which is said by the beloved disciple and theologian: “There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas” (Joan. xix, 25). For it is clear that the generation of the blessed Virgin had no communion with any other offspring, to whom Joachim and Anna might be referred, through whom the relation might have attached the designation of brothers (22).
QUESTION XL
[Scotto, Coisl. Taur. XXXIX]. (23)In Exodus, when that command of the Lord urged Moses: “Stretch forth thy hand upon the waters of Egypt, and upon their rivers, and upon their canals, and upon their marshes, and upon every gathered mass of water, and it shall be blood” (Exod. vii, 19), D and since the wonder had clearly attained its limit, whence was other water found which provided matter for the incantations of the sorcerers toward a simulation of the miracle?
Some of our blessed Fathers say that since it had the sea itself as a neighbor (siquidem...
A and the seven mouths of the Nile—from which those who served in preparing drugs carried off water—they submitted the sea’s waters to the incantations of the sorcerers, so as to overspread them with the feigned color of blood.
If, however, anyone paying attention to the proposed oracle, from which the question arises, should carefully weigh both what precedes and what follows it, he will perhaps find that the river indeed had been changed into blood, but not the remaining bodies of water—nor those that consisted of springs or were confined in other ways by their own boundaries. For when Scripture narrated how, the miracle having been performed, that incredible event proceeded in its individual parts, it says: “He turned all the water into blood” (24); yet it did not say "all" simply, but immediately added, "in the river." Then, “and the fish died,” not simply all; for not those in the sea, but those in the river. “And the Egyptians could not drink water” (from where?) “from the river.”
B In the same manner, where the beginning of this portent is described, the act not yet being set forth, the same thing is implied. For Moses says: “You shall stand upon the riverbank” (26); and a little later, announcing the divine command, Moses adds: “Thus says the Lord: By this you shall know that I am the Lord. Behold, I strike with the rod that is in my hand the water that is in the river” (not that which is in all the land of Egypt, but “that which is in the river”), “and it shall turn into blood, and the fish” (which ones?) “that are in the river, shall die,” and then, “and the river shall reek.” Furthermore, “The Egyptians shall not be able to drink water” (what kind?) “from the river” (27).
C Therefore the passage of Exodus proposed, which lies between both of the texts just adduced and which reports the divine command, can be understood in the same sense and for the same reason—if indeed it is consistent with the Sacred Scriptures and dear to God never to disturb the mutual harmony of the oracles—as the second narrative; and this [is that statement]: “Stretch forth your hand over the waters of Egypt,” meaning not over all waters whatsoever, but over the fluvial ones. For it adds, “and over their rivers.” Even though one river flows through Egypt, and many do not intersect it with their channels, Moses therefore designates the Nile with two terms, D namely, waters and rivers.
Conseguently, he also understands by the streams of the river, and its marshes, and every gathering of water in it, those things which were related to it. And certainly these fluvial effusions were changed into the nature of blood: “And there was blood in all the land of Egypt” (28), that is to say, in that part along which the river flowed, and in which there was wood or stone that could hold water and contain it in its channel. For the wood in houses, and the stones, or whatever was in the open air, were not...
A exempt from the common trial of the river waters.
I am not unaware, however, that some have understood "wood and stones" to mean wooden and stone vessels; yet for their refutation, it is sufficient that no mention is made of pottery, glass, or other materials from which such vessels are fashioned. Furthermore, it is quite different to speak of wood and stones, and to imply vessels which art and industry fashion as containers for liquid substance 30.
If, therefore, the water of the river and all the streams of the river were turned into blood, but the waters found in other parts of Egypt were not likewise transformed, it would have been no difficult matter for the Egyptian sorcerers to take water from elsewhere and impart to it the appearance and semblance of blood. And indeed, for the imitation and display of the prodigy, it would have been more suitable to take sweet, potable water than salt, undrinkable water, since the diversity of the material would have lessened the similarity of the feat.
But if all the waters of Egypt had been turned into streams of blood by the rod of Moses and Aaron, first of all, it would not have been reasonable to subject those who were oppressed to the same punishment as their oppressors, and to torment with thirst those for whose sake such miracles were being performed. B Furthermore, neither does Pharaoh appear to have been troubled by the affliction to such a degree (since it was possible to drink from another source), nor is he seen to be urging Moses to free the Egyptians from the plague, as he had indeed done in the case of the frogs and other such things; even though the torment of thirst was more grievous than the annoyance of the frogs. Then, thirdly, if the Egyptians had known that all the water in Egypt was turned into blood (for the miracle was performed to strike terror into their madness and to soften their hardened hearts), they certainly would not even have attempted to dig around the river so that they might drink water; for they would not have been able to drink water from the river.
Others, who have aspired to transfer the sacred Scriptures from the Hebrew tongue to the Greek language, have translated this in agreement, Symmachus saying: D "And all Egypt dug round about the river for water 30 to drink, because they could not drink from the flow."
A This reasonable observation is added, namely that that river, which the Egyptian race called a god, worshipping it as a dispenser of fruits and a life-giver, and into which they used to cast the infants of the Israelites to be destroyed, became unclean, corrupted, and unfit for drinking. For the blood of those infants also cried out from the waters, just as the blood of Abel did from the earth. It was necessary for the Egyptians to pay the penalty for their impious superstition, by which they attributed to the water—a thing subject to countless disturbances and corruptions—the dignity of an eternal, imperturbable, and immutable nature; and [to pay] for the injuries they had inflicted through the slaughter of those same innocent infants: for they had been brought into the light, only to be deprived of light B against the law of nature. Meanwhile, the merciful nature of God delays the punishment to be inflicted upon the Egyptians, but He chastises and instructs in another way, by harming and scourging the inanimate object through which they had dared to commit the crime of murder and the act of impiety against God.
But if one were to concede that the waters throughout the whole land of Egypt were transformed into the substance of blood, it is not shown to be difficult, even in this way, that the sorcerers of the Egyptians might appear to emulate the divine operation through their own malpractice. For since the miracle had been foretold to Moses, and Pharaoh and the Egyptian enchanters had perceived it, and had known from the transformation of the rod into a serpent C that the threat would certainly proceed to fulfillment (for what had already occurred was a testimony to what was about to happen; and they were eager not to appear inferior in their mechanical arts), they naturally knew that He would transform the waters under the open sky, wherever they existed, into blood. Once the miracle had been announced, but before the divine operation had yet come forth, they drew as much water as was sufficient to create an illusion, and prepared and stored it away, so that when the time came, they would appear to have an abundance of water; by adding to this the color of blood, they would diminish the wonderful nature of the divine operation through the illusion of a lie.
Some have stated D that at the time when Moses was turning the river waters into blood, the fabricators of falsehood were also present, employing their own wicked arts; and that while the greatest part of the water served the miracle of Moses, no small portion was set aside for the use of the magicians. But this is contrary to history, and unworthy of the marvelous and most wise prudence of Moses; for [by such an act] he would have made his most bitter adversary a partner and participant in his own virtue, and would have made an irreconcilable enemy his companion and ally.
A And otherwise, would the Egyptian have willingly fallen into such madness as to make the river he worshipped a brilliant monument of his own blood-guiltiness, and to defile it with gore, and to transform the object of his veneration into an abomination; even if the color was not the work of a deceived vision?
And to say that all the Egyptian water became blood when Moses was working the miracle, but that the magicians, being in need of unchanged water, took that which had been changed into blood, and deluded the sight of the beholders so that they imagined the watery hue in place of the red dye—this, besides having no trace of such a thing in the historical narrative, also prepares the magicians to boast beyond measure. For that which was imagined to be blood, as if it were water, because it truly retained the nature of blood by the art of the magicians, contributes to their bragging, and produces a double trick instead of a simple one: the change of blood into water, and the changing of the water back into blood.
There are some to whom it occurred to say that after Moses had returned the water from blood into its own nature, then the enchanters exercised their trickery of sorcery upon it.
Others, however, affirm—and indeed more correctly than the rest—that by the wonder-working power of Moses all the other waters of Egypt were changed into blood; but those which were reserved for the use of the Israelites remained immune from the change. For it was not consistent that those should be vexed for whose sake the plagues were brought upon the men who rose up to oppress them; B or that at the same time they should avenge them, and at the same time punish them through the vengeance; and that which is the abundance of proof from the like of the remaining nine plagues, which were subsequently brought upon the Egyptians, is that Israel was shown to be afflicted by none of these. Since, therefore, the water among the Israelites remained unchanged, the enchanters, taking it from there, used it as material for the imposture of their own trickery.
Thus, therefore, it is possible to see from many directions that there is nothing difficult in the fact that Moses, by working the miracle, turned the nature of the water into blood, and that the enchanters of the Egyptians were not deprived of water, through which the appearance of a phantom might gain the name of a miracle C (23).
QUESTION XLI
How is one to understand the words: «I will harden the heart of Pharaoh»?Some say that God is said to harden...
[There is a gap in the source text here, as the printed text transitions to the start of the commentary on the question.]
Nonnulli quidem docent Deum hoc sensu dici [in the sense that God is said to...]
(32) For the significance of the division of the waters, some dream that it happened between Moses and the magicians; I have rephrased what was "in-tactus".
(33) Regarding this question, some ancient scholiasts of the Holy Scriptures have touched upon it: Theodoret, D. Augustine in his *Questions on Exodus*, Lippomanus, and Nicolaus de Lyra. Let there be added, if you please, Abenezra and R. Levi; and among the more recent, Menochius, Clarius, and Grotius.
to harden the heart of Pharaoh, [is because] while He patiently waited for him during the time of his disobedience, and did not hand over either him or his nation—who were fellow-disobedient—to utter destruction, but rather inflicted punishments in a more philanthropic manner, He granted him license for haughtiness, so that he might disregard the things commanded. For by his using that forbearance of God as an excuse for greater disobedience and madness, he is said to be hardened by God, inasmuch as the divine philanthropy, in a certain way, contributed to his disobedience and misanthropy, and in a way, cooperated with it.
B But indeed, many receive this interpretation of the passage with unoffended ears and embrace the exposition of the words as pious; yet, perhaps, it does not provide an easy solution to the objection. For God did not inflict the plagues upon Egypt in order to display His own forbearance, but to break the madness of Pharaoh and his ministers, and to put a stop to their intolerable and bitter ill-treatment of the Israelites. Nor was it God's primary intention to destroy the Egyptian race, but, by the fear of punishments and chastisement, to make them more sympathetic and philanthropic in their disposition toward Israel, and to render them more amenable and humanely inclined toward providing an escape for them from their captivity and hardship. Therefore, the interpretation brought forward at the beginning of the discourse does not fit the proposed passage, nor does it, by hitting the mark of the meaning of the words, achieve an unshakable consistency.
C Yet it cannot be said that we are in need of a more correct judgment if we interpret the words «I will harden the heart of Pharaoh» in this way: "The heart that is already hard and indomitable, I will show to be even more so, [suffering it to be such] as is not even softened by the presence of death or punishments." Indeed, the hardness of the heart of Pharaoh and of those who, imitating his mind, exchanged humanity for ferocity, was shown and proclaimed to all; for truly, neither so many nor such great calamities could soften their hardness and obduracy, nor dissolve the power of [this] blindness. D Even before the mind of Pharaoh was hardened in cruelty and misanthropy, it was evident that it would not be induced to be merciful, but it was not yet evident that he was so hard, so proud, and so inflexible; nor had he become so known to all by any of his deeds, nor had he built for himself such an indelible monument, as when, being scourged by incredible prodigies, he nevertheless remained in the same inhumanity and bestial rage.
But if anyone wishes to interpret those words more plainly, and understands «I will harden» as "I will permit and allow it to become hard," certainly this explanation does not deviate from a religious way of thinking; but he does not approach the...
A interpretation of this passage by focusing on a specific or private reading, but rather takes refuge in a common solution, through which many other difficulties are resolved by a general rule: such as, "He delivered them up unto vile affections"; and, "God delivered them up in the lusts of their hearts"; and, "Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate mind"; and, "He hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them"; and, "God hath given them the spirit of remorse, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear"; and, "God hath hardened their heart"; and, "Thou hast turned aside our paths from thy way," and countless others. For although each of the aforementioned sacred oracles is set straight to the clearest and most stable sense by other methods of explanation; yet this common mode, which applies to all such expressions, is nonetheless sufficient to refute the cavils of those who obscure the truth, and it does not present the interpretation through B long-winded detours. For that word "delivered up" and "gave," and each of the words mentioned, if taken as "permitted," "did not prevent," "allowed," does not signify that God exerted force upon the will, so that He acted against its inclination, or compelled voluntary choices to obey an involuntary impulse, and robbed their deliberations of free choice; but it signifies that, by defining on equal terms what is within our power and what is not, He separated them, neither dragging those who were unwilling toward the good, nor calling back those who were willing from their purpose. Whoever, by this method, transforms those equally forceful and ambiguous terms, which seemed to many to present difficulty because of the equivocation inseparably joined to them, is able to hold a view that is not only safe, but that also serves as a single rule for resolving many controversies.
How, therefore, will the words "permitted," "did not prevent," "did not restrain," "did not change by force," and the like, be understood in place of "delivered up," "blinded," and C such like? It is because in human affairs, if someone could have encountered/prevented/cut off a crime or some other fault, but did not prevent his neighbor from sinning, he does not escape censure for having shared in the fault with the perpetrator, and he might justly be said to have "delivered up" the fallen man to the passions. For it was in your power to guard your neighbor, yet you, not restraining him, compelled him into his concupiscences. He stretched out his hand to seize what was not his own; you, if you were present and had the power, should have drawn him back. He cast his eyes upon the enticements of luxury;
A if it is in your power to stop him, restrain him. But if you neither restrain him, nor draw him back, nor check him as he is carried away, your deed is no less than that of him who has fallen into the transgressions. Thus, he who is able to check wicked actions, but does not check them, might himself be said to be a co-worker with the perpetrator of the wicked deeds. B To use in the same way, with regard to God, those modes of speaking which we are accustomed to employ concerning ourselves, would be neither inappropriate nor incongruous. On the contrary, the Greeks often make use of such expressions, and the custom of our own Sacred Scriptures is frequent in this regard, and that—C in numberless instances where there is an incomparable and supernatural difference from human things (namely, regarding the divine will, and the power, and the good pleasure, and similar things)—does not merely not speak against the adoption of such expressions, but rather even confirms the undertaking. For in those cases where the will, and the power, and the good pleasure put forth their own proper operation as entirely unimpeded, the aforementioned transposition of words is proven to be close to sacred discourse. But enough of this to demonstrate to you the elementary diagnosis of the question.
QUESTION XLII
How is it to be understood that which Isaiah, inspired by the divine Spirit, declared: “You were angry, and (we) have sinned?” D For “we have sinned” could be understood not as implying that we chose actions which are contrary to the virtues; but simply that we failed to attain the things which we had proposed to ourselves and had striven for. For he can also be said to “miss the mark” who intended to accomplish one thing and directed the impulse of his mind toward his goal, yet fell into the opposite, and instead of those things he had chosen, is seized by unexpected outcomes. For such also is (that I may meanwhile leave aside the other examination of the things spoken) that which says: “The way of a man is not in himself,” and, “Unless the Lord build the house, in vain have they labored who build it.”A And that: “He will not take pleasure in the strength of the horse, nor will he be well-pleased in the legs of a man.” And: “They who make counsel, searching deep in their own reasonings, and not through the Lord.” For indeed these men, instead of not falling away from their zealous purpose, not only missed the mark, but even brought the woe upon themselves. Similar, too, is what is said to those who trusted in Egypt: “You have taken counsel, but not by me, and [made] covenants not by my Spirit, to add sin upon sin, you who go down to descend into Egypt,” B to whom both the refuge and the hope of help is turned into shame and reproach. For indeed each of the things mentioned, and many other similar actions, being separated from the impulse from above, would not attain the proposed end; nor will contemplation advance to action, unless the rich mercy of the beneficence cast down from above [precedes it]. But if God is even angry, because someone leans upon his own counsels, how is it not necessary that he must entirely miss the mark, and fail to attain any of the things which were brought forward for this purpose, for which his judgment was striving?
But this application of the theory, C as regards the adduced oracles and whatever is on par with them, demonstrates that the meaning is fitting and appropriate; yet it does not define what [the passage itself] intends, nor does it plainly resolve the difficulty proposed from the beginning; since both the words that are the subject of this
Diatribe
, and the other apparatus of Holy Scripture passages, call for being directed to another meaning instead. What, then, must be said, if not that in the passage, “Thou wast angry, and we sinned,” it is by no means implied: “Because your wrath went before, sin prevailed over us”? For this would not preserve the divine just judgment, nor does it introduce man as blameworthy, not even in those things in which he acts wickedly by his own will; but it transfers the cause of all evil—which is not-responsible—down to the guilty one through blasphemy; and indeed it even transforms the free will, which was from the beginning of our creation, and [given as] a gift to the servant, into subjection and servility. For if, because God was angry, we sinned; and anger gave birth to sin; but when anger is ineluctable, compelling [one] toward a fall, who shall resist?Therefore, there is no way D by which the sacred voices can be twisted toward such delusions; especially since there are other and yet other testimonies both everywhere in Holy Scripture, and also even in the same prophet, which both testify and prove the contrary. For he says: “Has the Lord’s ear been weighed down, so that it does not hear?”
A but your iniquities have divided between you and your God; and because of your sins He has turned away His face, so as not to have mercy (30).» Thus, it is not from God’s turning away that we sin; nor from His overlooking and not hearing does the strength of sins arise; but it is from those things in which we sin and transgress that the turning away, and the wrath, and the abandonment of God proceed. And again: «We looked for judgment, and there is no salvation; it has departed far from us.» Why? «For our iniquity is great before you, and our sins have stood against us; for our iniquities are with us, and we have known our transgressions; we have acted wickedly, and lied, and departed from behind our God.»
And the ancient Lessons, as well as those in which grace is renewed, are full of such modes of expression. Where, then, would be the wisdom and understanding—which now teaches that the wrath of God is the cause of our sin and turning away; and now that sin brings forth the turning away and the wrath?
But this examination and study of the arguments has indeed clearly shown that the oracle proposed does not declare that wrath produces sin; yet what the oracle itself intends it has not yet clearly explained. We ought, therefore, to employ another mode of exposition, and perhaps these words intend this: “Your clemency and mercy have often warded off B angers stirred up against us from elsewhere; therefore, when error hung over us, and insurgent enemies rushed upon us so that our vengeance might be committed to them, your grace and kindness forestalled them, and both scattered their counsel and snatched us from both their assault and our own error. But now, since nothing of this kind is seen to be ordered by your providence, but rather wrath arises in place of your kindness and clemency, it follows without impediment, as no one is preventing it, that we should err. For there, many were the refuges of our salvation, because your compassion and providence directed our weakness; here, however, because wrath is kindled by our C ardor toward vices, and no one restrains the assault, we have ourselves, by our own counsels, fallen into the very pit of sin.”
Moreover, since He who foreknows all things—and indeed, even before creation, knows them better than if they had been created—has weighed the depravity of our mind and counsel with incorruptible justice, and has joined wrath with judgment, and has appointed the penalty of sin; while divine clemency and kindness are so disposed toward us, who shall be able to revoke the decree, or to soften the adverse sentence by time? Which indeed is wont to happen, for D
where the time of judgment is anticipated, anger A usually sets in. Thus, the advance of our own wicked desires, occurring both through lingering enjoyment and through deliberation, kindles the movement of divine anger; the work perpetrated from this source has summoned the decree of punishment from that anger upon us. And it is clear that the Hierophant, wishing to represent the implacability of this anger, its unchangeableness and unhindered nature, understood it—in the words provided—as something concurrent and anticipating. For the judgment and anger of the punishments and retributions that have come upon us on account of the sins we have committed are completed and brought to an end by an unhindered, unchangeable, and implacable force. B If you wish, furthermore, to understand why the matter of anger is, on the one hand, limited entirely to judgment, and on the other, proceeded with in action once the decrees have been issued—the former concerning the impulse of sin, and the latter concerning the sin performed—he says: "You were angered, and we sinned." For since anger is divided and molded into two parts, and the former is viewed in the moving forward of the sin, while the latter is viewed in its perpetration, it is evident that the former anticipates the lawless deed, whereas the latter follows and accompanies it. Thus, the anger concerning deliberation precedes the wickedness, while that which is ignited by the bold act accompanies and adheres to it. Therefore, regarding the former deliberation, it is possible to say, without hesitation and with godly thoughts, that "You were angered, and we sinned," for the anger concerning the deliberation pre-exists the sin; but regarding the second, it is neither pleasing to God nor consistent; for we do not sin because of the anger, but because we sin, C we draw the anger upon ourselves.
It would be similar, too, if one were to take the impulse from this point and, by attacking it with logic, show it to proceed through a smoother and more compassionate meaning: "You did not restrain the impulse when our mind was moved toward wicked deeds; but foreseeing what would happen as if it had already happened (for your all-seeing eye beholds even that which we have not yet done), you allowed the anger, too, to take its beginning of movement from the meditation upon bad things. While this is carried over us on high, sin pounces upon us more boldly and finds an easy passage. For because the hatred of evil within Your philanthropy toward us is giving way, and because the justice of compassion is retreating, the prey becomes vulnerable to the enemy. For if we had had anywhere to dissolve Your moved anger into kindness, sin would also have shrunk its boldness into timidity, D and our own spirit, being aided and strengthened, would have rather shaken off its attack than fallen into its traps."
Perhaps, however, it would be viewing it closer to the truth, even if one is not lifted up to higher conceptions, if we were to change the "You were angered, and we sinned" into "You were angered because we sinned," and "Because we sinned, You did not restrain the anger against us."
A For the particle that connects words and thoughts in the mind—that is, the "and"—our sacred Scriptures, as well as the elegance of the Attic tongue, often like to take in a causal sense, and examples of this are well known to all. However, I have no leisure to list the documents of Attic writers, but, mindful of two passages of Scripture, I leave the gathering of the rest to your own diligence, if it should be of interest to you. Thus says the sacred Psalmist and father of the incarnate God, David: "Give us help from tribulation, and vain is the salvation of man" (Ps. cvii, 13). Here, indeed, that "and," in place of countless other examples, suffices to show that it is to be rendered in a causal sense; as if to say: "Give us help from tribulation; for vain is the salvation of man." And Isaiah himself (and it would be more appropriate to demonstrate, through the same word and the same book, that the conjunction "and" is taken in a causal mode) said: "Woe to those who make a counsel in secret, and their works will be in darkness" (Isa. xxix, 15); for no one would doubt that the "and their works will be" was spoken in a causal sense; for this reason the "woe" is also leveled at them.
Thus, therefore, this also, "You were angered, and we have sinned," will be understood without labor or agitation of mind, since the custom of the sacred Scriptures opens a way for us, by which we may promptly and with unimpeded ears arrive at the right understanding, and keep the catholic profession, acceptable to God, intact in the place of the proposed difficulty. For it is a common opinion, and especially among pious men, that God is angered when we sin. And it is to be remarked that the present interpretation, the more moderately it proceeds with the others adduced, the less it needs words laboring in a vicious circle, or those that twist the mind through subtleties, and no one can abuse it.
C But let it not be wearisome to weigh the matter further: for the sacred Oracles are a fountain of waters useful and salutary for the soul; and the more we delve into them with meditations, the more abundantly do the graces of truth flow forth from them. Therefore, that saying seemed difficult: "You were angered, and we have sinned," while it was thought to be said absolutely and to be understood concerning the entire human race. For how could anyone be able to avoid sin, where divine anger itself has brought it in? And what just punishment for sins would be inflicted, if we were dragged against our will by force into iniquity? Where would free will consist? And could not countless other absurdities erupt, for which the proposed oracle is not rather the cause? But if anyone...
A should not force it toward a universal sense, but rather keep it restrained within its own proper limits, it will be seen to be blameless of the majority of absurdities.
What then is it that I say? That the statement was brought forth by the Prophet regarding the Israelite nation, and not regarding all men in general; and that it leaves no room for doubt or dispute, the very inscription of the prophecy testifies. For he says: “The vision which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah” (Isa. I, 1). Indeed, even where he makes mention of other nations and reveals visions, still the narrative of these, for the most part, B concerns the Israelite people; for at times the foreigners filled the role of a scourge against them as they walked contrary to the ordinances of the Lord; but at other times, he delivered the power and victory of the foreigners into the hands of those who held fast to the Dominical commandments, for his divine providence willed it.
Moreover, even a short time before the passage proposed, to pass over the rest and leave no doubt for anyone that the prophet meant the Israelite race when he said, “Thou wast angry, and we have sinned,” he spoke C in this manner: “Where is He who brought Moses up with his right hand, with the arm of his glory? And he led them through the abyss, as a horse through the desert, and they did not stumble... Thus didst Thou lead Thy people, to make to Thyself a name of glory. Look down from heaven, and behold from Thy holy habitation, and of glory... For Thou art our Father, because Abraham did not know us, and Israel did not acknowledge us” (Isa. LXIII, 11 seqq.). And it would perhaps be tedious to recount everything.
Since, therefore, it has become most clear that the statement, “Behold, Thou wast angry, and we have sinned,” was said concerning the Israelite race, it remains to inquire also why it was said. For the Hebrews, enriched with many incredible D and nature-surpassing wonders—having seen, on the one hand, Egypt scourged with ten plagues on their account (Exod. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI); on the other, pursuing enemies destroyed and routed without hand or spear (Exod. XIV, 6 seqq.); on another, the liquid nature of the sea providing dry ground for them to walk upon (ibid. XX, 1 seqq.; Josue III, 15 seqq.); a column of fire shining by night for a straight path; and a cloud of light covering the rays emitted by the sun, so that the journey might be made more pleasantly (Exod. XIII, 21 seqq.); bread provided from heaven in the Mosaic tongue; and both sea and land preparing for them a table of impromptu sacrifices (33); water from the—
A rocky crag gushing forth unceasing fountains: when the Hebrews enjoyed all these benefits and gifts, which can neither be expressed nor understood, and when everything that concerned them was in a certain way selected by a special lot, and they were not contained under that common providence and vigilance extended to other men, they emit words of this kind: “God, who bestowed all these things upon us gratuitously and out of His sole kindness, would not have permitted us to sin, had He not allowed His excessive and ineffable care and vigilance toward us to be turned into wrath.”
Israel could say and think these things while lamenting, not affirming; not by putting forward a dogma, but by stirring up compassion; not so as to deny that he himself was the cause of sin, but so as to make a prayer of lamentation and indict his own deliberate wickedness. Wherefore, he also interweaves other words capable of moving the paternal love and mercy of God: “Thou art our father; Abraham did not know us... from of old Thy name is upon us,” and whatever other things are conjoined that have the power to draw forth sympathy and kindness, as if he were saying: “Alas, after what an abundance of gifts and glory heralded throughout the whole world, in what sins am I caught, and I am found to have become B an object of reproach and mockery!”
But if the Hebrews are everywhere observed to be divided into two parts—for some of them make a calf for themselves, abandoning God, and these pay the penalty for their crime with slaughter and death, subject to the Mosaic sentence, or rather to the just judgment of God; and some, furthermore, offer incense to God, but for them the earth’s chasm becomes an impromptu tomb; and flames sent by God devour others, that they might avenge the crime of murmuring; whereas others, on the contrary, betaking themselves to the mercy of God and to good fruit, become spectators and witnesses of that incredible prodigy; and the limbs of the former fall in the desert, and they are judged unworthy of the promised land, while the latter do not fall short of the attainment of the promises; and other innumerable things—since, therefore, the Israelite nation was thus distinguished into two parts, of which the one includes those who repent, the other the perverse; nothing prevents us from saying that the thoughts and confessions of those who repent are that: “Our iniquities have multiplied before Thee, and our sins have answered against us, for our wickednesses are with us, and we have acknowledged our iniquities; we have sinned and lied and departed from following our God,” and whatever other things pertain to the same confession and compunction. C But [the complaints] of the murmurers, and the ungrateful, and the senseless are the blasphemies that say: “Behold, Thou hast been angered, and we have sinned,” or if you prefer, also: “Why hast Thou led us astray...” D
NOTE
(35) I think this must be referred to those who, having survived the punishments of the people, were penitent. It is evident that among the first of the Hebrews there were men of this kind. Exod. XXXII, 26.from thy way, and hardened our hearts, that we should not fear thee?”; and all things of the same desperate opinion are such offshoots A and burst forth.
For even if the things said subsequently could be interpreted by other reasonings, and brought into accord with the connection of the sequence and the consistency of the consent—yet the way mentioned is sufficient to dispel the mist of the reasonings and to dissolve the cloud of ambiguity. Nor is it to be doubted that the words of blasphemy pertain to the senseless mind of the Hebrews. For since those who constituted the part of the senseless, hardened, and incorrigible men were accustomed to murmur against God and His ministers, and to rise up, it is consistent with them also to take that care, that they should transfer the causes of all evils—insofar as they think themselves to be the authors of them—to the very fountain of all salvation and the source of all good things.
But I have said what I have said: I entrust these things to those who have been gifted with the critical faculty by the power of the most holy Spirit, that they may harmonize them and, more than others, embrace and approve the things that are better. B And at the end of the discourse, the memory of the version of Symmachus came to me; had we brought it forward from the very beginning, there would certainly have been no need to devise such great arguments and reasonings for the solution of the difficulty. For he rendered that statement thus: “Thou wast angry while we were sinning,” which provides no ambiguity and invites no inquiry; but it sets before us a sense that is clear, and one that is better than to be left in doubt. For we know, we know clearly, all of us, that the Divine is angered on account of our sins. And it is not unclear that such a version is not only sufficient in itself to dissolve the difficulty, but also that it renders not a few of the aforementioned solutions even more confirmed, nor does it diverge from the others, but allows them to remain in their own proper uses. C
QUESTION XLIII [al. XLII]
Why, when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave instruction to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, did the apostles and His disciples not baptize in this way, but rather in the name of the Lord Jesus?
1. One may see, then, some of the holy men standing against the difficulty, not by them for whom the question is dissolved…
but by those means through which they might obtain pardon who were unable to observe what was commanded, and thus absolve them of the charge. A Indeed, they admit that the disciples did not baptize in the way they had been instructed, but that they imparted baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, using this formula by reason of a certain economy and providence; and that they adapted their judgment to the time and the pressing need, performing this mystical and sacred rite according to the utility and acceptance of the neophytes. For that which they saw stood out to the minds of the crowd above all else, and caused perturbation to their thoughts, they considered this to be what must be especially provided for and zealously anticipated. B Now this affirmation seemed the most difficult of all to hold, namely that Christ is the Savior, and especially that He is the Son of God and God, and that His commands must be obeyed. Therefore, they put before the rest that which they saw most in need of instruction, and judged that through this they should initiate the multitude of those approaching. Wherefore, they did not impart baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but by invoking the Lord Jesus, they cleansed those washed of their sins with the laver of regeneration: ministering the sacred office with the invocation and calling upon the Lord, and at the same time teaching those who were worthy of this purgation that they attained adoption through Him: for only He could bestow the status of sons of God by grace, in whom the dignity of Sonship and Godhead resided naturally and from eternity: from which fact also the unity of nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is seen and manifest. C And those who believed they had obtained adoption through the Son would then not seem slow to agree that He who bestowed this gift is also God. Thus, then, it has seemed to some to resolve this controversy.
2. But I am not able to see how anyone could attempt, through such arguments rather than others, to cast a snare instead of untying the knot, and to weave an entanglement no weaker than the one mentioned above for drawing tight the difficulty of the controversy. D Indeed, this demonstration would rather be an accusation of the disciples, and a discord between them and the Master. For the reason given for the discord is not the removal of the disharmony, but the rendering of a judgment on the matter, and the premeditated preference of one’s own will over the Lord’s will. And what greater necessity is there than that sacred knowledge be manifested, and that the nature of the Trinity, as one power and one substance, be revealed in joined names? And yet the disciples had not been recently initiated, nor were they still in an imperfect condition, nor had the voluntary Passion of the Savior not yet been accomplished, nor did the consideration of the matter until a suitable time require the greatest knowledge of the doctrine: but after the cross, after the death, after the burial, after the plundering of the realms of Hades, and…
and after He had risen from the sepulcher and inaugurated the common resurrection, then, at that very moment, the power over all things earthly and heavenly—which He who by nature possessed it already held, and in His human nature also received—that regal and saving law He inscribed, not on stone tablets, but on tablets superior to any earthly material, namely, in the minds of the Apostles. He spread it abroad like a certain edict and program throughout the whole world, by which those approaching the faith were to be initiated and perfected. "For going," He says, "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; B teaching them to observe" (namely, and before others, that which is now being introduced) "all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
3. What could be more urgent than this holy and saving command? And what need is there for human judgment, since the Master's voice transmits the doctrine and places its own seal upon it, more secure than any other guarantee? C Yet, even if both the urgent requirement and the disciples' opinion were to point to the same and equal necessity—both the Master's law, I mean, and the disciples' judgment—and no different meaning were discernible, it would still not be tolerable to place the servant's language ahead of the Master's regarding a sacred doctrine. But if by the decree of the disciples the Master's own command is rendered antiquated, is this not a grave audacity, which affects the grace of forgiveness with insult? Namely, that the Master's judgment is not deemed to be among the necessary requirements, while the servants' inventions are esteemed as being so? And that one overlooks that which we cannot confess to be ignored without madness, while that which leads to the condemnation of the one who chooses it is loved and preferred? D Now, if the disciples had neglected and violated the force of such a great commandment, and had rendered themselves truly guilty of transgression, how could they have exhorted those who heard their sacred teachings to obey the Master's commandments, to be conformed to them, and to rule their own lives according to their prescription? For he who, through the very violation of the commandments, strives to make others obedient to the commands, takes away from himself the license to demand from others that they not commit what has already become a sin. What could the enemy find more opportune, by which he might attempt to adulterate the teaching and cast the ultimate insult upon the Gospel?
4. These and many other such considerations, proceeding through pious and impartial reasonings, and objecting to the solution that has been deemed sufficient, suggest investigating another interpretation of the question, by which the ruggedness of the obscurity is widened into the smoothness and evenness of understanding, and the vexation of ambiguities will be scattered. For that the all-holy and life-giving Acts of the holy Apostles, which perfect piety, report that Baptism is administered in the name of Jesus Christ, no one gifted with a sound faculty of hearing will dare to deny. Nevertheless, what...
B meaning such words and names unfold and interpret, it is no longer within everyone’s power to understand. For Peter, the chief of the Apostles, while urging the Jews to repentance and offering them forgiveness for the slaughter they had committed, says: "Let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." And again, being prompted by divine inspiration to baptize the centurion, he deemed Cornelius himself and those with him worthy of regeneration, ministering to them the gift of remission in the name of the Lord. Furthermore, at Ephesus there were disciples who had been baptized only with the baptism of John; upon hearing Paul teaching, history records that the Apostle laid his expiatory hands upon them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they might receive the heavenly gift of adoption and enjoy the visitation of the all-holy Spirit. And ten thousand other such things, drawn from a similar pattern of words concerning baptism, are easy to grasp without labor. C Nevertheless, as has been said, the easy interpretation stored in the recesses of the sacred mind, unless it attains to learned judgment and meditation, will not be freed from obscurity or apparent contradiction. For an unreflective assent to the words themselves, and the admission of the words just as they sound, has given birth many times to many other absurdities, and even now it would not merely divide the venerable mystery of regeneration into two rites, but would exhibit many others sprouting from that division. For since others would draw their origin from the first increment, in such a way would the unique and indivisible religion—and the uniform and singular institution of the sacraments—be led into a multitude; a variety of rites which cannot be removed at all, unless the first introduced diversity, which ruined the prerogative of the divine commandment, be removed at the same time.
5. D See into how many parts the unthinking observance of words, as we have often said, cuts and divides the divine and heavenly grace of adoption, among those who do not wish to penetrate to the inner sanctum of the truth. For according to their institution, those who are overly attentive to the words, one rite baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ, another only in the name of the Lord. Which, then, of these formulas shall we use in the administration of the sacred rite? For the expressions do not have anything that varies or is preferred so that those who wish may use them; and whoever nullifies one of those mentioned has opened a way through which others also will have the license for their own nullifications. And so, I think, they will force all these rites to be set in battle against one another by those who celebrate baptism according to the Lord's institution. But if there is free license in the formulas of mystical adoption to remove this and add that, who will now prevent others from devising other initiations besides those mentioned? How much more just is it, and beyond all controversy, to firmly retain that formula over arbitrary ones, which the very tongue of truth has...
A proclaimed, or is it holy and raised above all cause to perform the regeneration according to this word?
6. I have not yet, however, brought forward the refutation of this invincible opinion; namely, that those who have begun to desert the rite of the Lord’s initiation will, even if they are unwilling, forge countless methods of the one adoption, and will expose this grace to mockery. For they will baptize, and no longer with the priest leading the divine invocations, but with the neophyte himself, before he is initiated, seizing the mystagogical act for himself: so that he does not cleanse others, but himself, in the bath of regeneration. For it is possible to find in the holy Acts of the Apostles B themselves that Ananias, one of the disciples, ordered by a heavenly vision to enroll in the choir of the apostles the persecutor and fierce enemy of religion—who had not yet become Paul—when the mystagogue had removed from the initiate, by the touch of his hand, the bodily darkness from his eyes, then indeed Ananias said to the man, who had received the vision of his mind as well as his eyes: "Why do you delay? Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord": you yourself calling upon it, I say, not some other person initiating or chanting the divine invocations. What do you say? Was the initiate, before he had received the initiation, already a mystagogue? Was he who was in need of regeneration becoming the author of regeneration? Was he who was to be initiated by the hands and lips of a priest invading the dignity of this office and placing the consecration upon himself? For the surface of the letter, relying on which they abolish the Lord’s precept, compels them to conclude this, even if against their will. C This, then, is another mode of initiation, similar to none of the aforementioned. But what when the prince of the apostles, writing general exhortations to the Jews in the dispersion, steering with the course of his tongue and the speed of his writing with both hands, announced the baptism of a good conscience, not indeed standing upon a divinatory tripod, but speaking with a divinely-inspired soul? Will you not immediately, seized by this expression, proclaim the invention of another consecration—a new bath, forsooth, purging sins, and not to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor to be celebrated in any other of the modes mentioned, but one which is an interrogation of a good conscience unto God? Oh, into what absurdities do they entangle themselves, who prefer the unconsidered pronunciation of words to the truth of things! Why, furthermore, should D I now mention another example less troublesome, not to say the most burdensome of all? The clear trumpet of the Holy Spirit, Paul, that man raised to heaven while still mortal, sounded forth strongly and clearly that we were baptized into the death of Christ. Do you hear, man? But the same Paul had said before, "As many of us as were baptized in Christ." Therefore, there are now two formulas of initiation, according to the opinion of those who proclaim that words are to be used without any judgment.
A
7. What, then, must be said? For an impartial examination of the proofs does not only convict those who—not content with the Master’s own words—falsely imagine that the disciples handed down various formulas of initiation different from the Lord’s; but it also seems to intercept those who, while the Lord’s own sacred account is set before them, introduce other ways of speaking that do not in every respect preserve the unchanged character of that account, or show it to be without fault. But the fact is that there is nothing of the kind; for they do not establish a counter-law to be practiced in place of His decree and commandment, nor do they claim for themselves the prerogative of that law, but rather, they refer the very concept of rebirth solely to it, and signify and proclaim this same thing through a variety of expressions. What, then, must be said? What else other than what has already been said? It must be said, namely, according to a general notion, that all the terms that signify rebirth function as certain gleaming torches which are reflected back into that divine, original, immortal, and eternal fire. Yet they themselves are not that cleansing fire, nor is the regeneration performed by them; rather, there is only that one [fire] which bestows grace and adoption beyond expression, while these torches point to it—some more clearly, others somewhat more obscurely—yet in such a way that they signify mystically and collectively one and the same initiation to us. For to those who are lovers of vision and who have received from the Spirit the grace to discern the meaning of names and phrases, each of the things spoken of individually proclaims baptism into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But to those who receive the sound of the word only upon the threshold of their ears, while leaving their inward faculty of judgment deaf, it would be an occasion for falling into countless errors. B
8. Nor does this happen only in the present case, where many, neglecting the substance of the matter, cling to the bare words; but it happens in countless other matters as well, through which the heretical weeds that have sprung up in the Church cultivate no nourishing fruit, but rather cause poisonous drugs to sprout. But piety does not act in this way; rather, it pursues the Spirit everywhere more than the letter, and it harvests the fruit of piety and enjoys its nourishment without any grafting of serpentine seed, with not even a trace of the old serpent being anywhere apparent. C For how could one say that "to baptize into Christ" is a different law of baptism? And how could "to baptize into the death of Christ" be another? For if each of these were a law of initiation, they would contradict one another; and by whatever arguments you might try to overthrow one, you would at the same time be overturning the other. Similarly, if these expressions had the force of an established law, that formula of initiation pronounced by the Lord’s own mouth would not undeservedly appear useless and superfluous: or D rather, they use a blind inner judgment, and are accustomed to be carried about by countless errors.
A And that idea again introduced, with greater force and dignity, the abrogation of all these things mentioned; wherefore the formulas already often spoken of would mutually cancel out. But what is it that he says? That he did not make it his primary work to baptize? "Lest," he says, "some envious people should say that I was seeking glory for myself by the multitude of those baptized, and lest I should afford a pretext for calumny to those who are accustomed to attack all that is best with their envy, and thus should make the salvation of those being born again a matter of gain, insulting the gift of the Spirit with my own praises." And it is possible to see through countless other means how glory, praise, and honor are signified by the word "name."
B 9. Now, by means of these things, such a theory proceeds even to the details of the names. For it creates a differentiation and distinction of persons; and sometimes it proclaims a certain imitation and likeness of the person who initiated some magnificent deed; at other times it signifies the observance and keeping of commandments. For this reason, the Israelites are also said to have been baptized into Moses (41); as if, imitating him, they crossed the fluid element on foot with dry feet; and having made him the leader of the deed, and having placed all their hope in looking to him, they were seen to be superior to the snares of the Egyptians; and in those same currents in which they themselves did not even moisten their feet, they saw their pursuers submerged, and they rejoiced with a double joy—both at the C unexpected ruin of their enemies and the miracle of their own salvation beyond reason. The teacher of the world holds to a certain connection of this kind, and what he says: "As many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death." For by the words "were baptized into Christ," he certainly teaches that we perform the regeneration according to his rite and the handed-down ceremony; but by the words "into his death," he certainly does not say that we perform the washing of regeneration with the invocation of the Lord's death—far from it; for the lawless Eunomius dared this crime (42)—but that those baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as if in sacred symbols and D cryptically mystical enigmas, imitate the death of the Savior, and portray and set forth what he willingly endured: representing his three-day sojourn in Hell by the triple immersion, and by the same number of subsequent emersions, the resurrection accomplished on the third day, by the benefit of which the restoration of the old Adam and his renewal are simultaneously depicted for us. Since even the very act of being baptized into Christ, and into his death, and into one body, and into the name of Christ, and others of this kind, insofar as it pertains to the figure of the names and words, is not greatly
A different; but in the significance of the meaning, and in the distinction and proclamation of the matter, they show as great a difference as can be. 10. That the name, however, signifies the power of the preaching in another way, the initiator of Paul, Ananias, clearly teaches, when he feared to suffer the things which it was likely one should expect from Saul. For upon receiving the Divine oracle that he should instruct the persecutor in the sacred mysteries, he says: «Lord, I have heard from many concerning this man, how many evils he has done to thy saints in the city of Jerusalem.» B And then he added: «And here he has authority from the priests to bind all who call upon thy name.» And yet, it was no task or concern for any of the faithful merely to shout the name of Christ, nor, without the rectitude of the dogmas and the faith which he taught in the mysteries, to have this invocation as a mere replacement for the life-saving message, uttered only by the lips. But he calls those men truly callers upon the name of Christ whom faith in him adorned, who held a zeal for the evangelical mysteries, and who strove with the highest endeavor toward piety. And what was this other than to believe and preach that our Savior is the Son of God, and consubstantial with the Father; C «For I,» he says, «and the Father are one»? And furthermore, that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is not in the least alienated from his own glory and divinity. For he who proceeds from the paternal substance in a natural—or rather, in a most supernatural and ineffable—manner, ought to bring with him the glory and power and force of the one producing him, and to preserve the character of that ineffable substance undefiled. It is certain, moreover, that the Son, who is the splendor of the Father, carries with him everything whereby the begetting Father adorned the form of the Begotten through the rays of divinity, and made manifest their conjoined nature. D With this theological initiation, therefore, the multitude of the believers was imbued. And they are rightly said to have invoked the name of the Savior, because they preserved the true rationale of the doctrine of which he himself was the forerunner.
11. But the argument, progressing, will establish the probability of this opinion by other proofs as well. For the oracle of Christ, so that it may recall the initiator of Paul from fear and consternation—him whom he shudders at and fears as if he were an enemy of the saving preaching—says: «He is for me a vessel of election.» It adds: «To carry my name before the nations and kings and the sons of Israel.» This is to say: not only has he deserted from the enemy’s host, but he also stands as a champion of the afflicted faith in the front line.
A For it is by him that the divinely inspired preaching, besieged and shaken by the impious, shall be upheld and strengthened and set firm, immovable. This is what the power of the "name" signifies in this place: true faith, the disposition of piety, the preaching of theology, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Word. Since what would have been so difficult, and what supports would it have needed, if it were simply and with a single word addressing the Lord? For even the demons themselves sometimes cried out the Lord's name, along with some addition. But it is clear that now "name" refers to the preaching proclaimed through Paul, and the worship referred to God, for the sake of which he who once was a persecutor gladly endured ten thousand deaths every day, teaching, exhorting, initiating, and preaching the faith according to which the Savior had instructed him in the mysteries. B "For I," He says, "will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake."
12. And so you see the constant use of the "name." Why? So that the persistence of the word, by frequently signifying and making clear the same thing, might, as it were, through the sense of hearing, impress the mystery of religion upon the mind, and that we, bearing this like a royal seal impressed upon our hearts and looking unto it, might not turn aside into the manifold ways opened up by a variety of words. Paul suffered intolerable things for the sake of this mystery and regarding the precision of the faith; for it was not on account of a mere name, nor for a short composition of syllables, that he was outlining the fearful and great nature of the faith. C Hence it is possible to hear again the sacred words instructing us: "Is not this he who destroyed this name in Jerusalem?" For how could a word—a brief breath of air—have caused destruction, if that word contained no meaning in itself, nor expressed any theological sentiment, nor was able to impress any defined dogma upon the minds of men, nor had an existence of longer duration than its own utterance? But it is clear that now by "name" we must not understand the common one, which is carried about by all, but that which announces and signifies the mystery of the entire piety and the precision of the preaching that proceeds through the whole of our theology. For such a name—or rather, the perfection of the faith—is both deepened in our minds and takes hold of a foundation established by the God-loving will of those who believe and by the steadfastness of their conviction. D This name Saul once persecuted, but the same man, afterwards called Paul, carried before nations and kings, showing it to be insurmountable and unconquerable by his own deeds, and having brought over many of the nations from impiety to this, he initiated them into piety. Therefore, whenever the Scriptures say that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or according to any other similar form of speech, we must understand it worthy and fittingly, following the
A proclamation of the Savior and His teaching, by confessing that the apostles perfected the regeneration, and that they instructed others to do the same, neither thinking, nor speaking, nor acting anything outside of the Lord’s command.
13. But perhaps it might occur to some to argue—to avoid saying wrangle—that if the disciples baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, why are they said to baptize in the name of Christ or other formulas of this kind? This question has already been sufficiently answered in what has been said above. For it suffices, as a substitute for many other things, to attribute this controversy to the custom of our sacred Scriptures, and for him who undertakes this matter to handle it not with undue curiosity, but with a desire for the truth. For it is found that other styles of discourse also have their own particular idioms according to their form; and anyone who has recognized such an idiom does not allow his mind to wander into other inquiries. This is to be observed not only in divinely inspired words, but it is also something that the Attic tongue studiously ornaments. Nevertheless, nothing prevents us from explaining this idiom a little more fully, although the argument has not neglected this part in the previous discourse either, in which we did not omit to trace the causes of things. For in the expression “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and others of the same kind (whose meaning is one and the same, despite the difference in sounds), one may rightly and justly understand the faith with which Christ imbued the disciples, and they in turn the world; for this can be signified by the name, because Christ Himself is the author of piety toward God; and because in the mention of Jesus and the Lord, we are taught that the entire mystery of the Word incarnate for our sake is contained and visible. Furthermore, every pious person, with this mystery as a guide, can tend and be directed toward the perfect knowledge of God—not, indeed, by contracting and confining the sense of the dogmas within this brief utterance (for that would be the case if the word were uttered in its naked sense), but rather by expanding and perfecting it through faith and the consummation of piety. And if, in the end, one wishes to hear this as well: the Son is indivisible and inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, since He is a partaker of the same incomprehensible substance, power, and authority. However, the Son was seen and touched after He assumed our flesh, becoming, of course, visible to our eyes and palpable to our touch. “For that which we have seen,” he says [John 1, 1, 2], “and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life; and the life was manifested.” Since, therefore, we have been taught about the incomprehensibility and unity of the omnipotent Trinity by the One who, because of the infinite ocean of His love, offered Himself to be known to us and opened the ineffable mysteries to us—by the consubstantial Son, I say—and have been led to the rest of the knowledge of the mystery, we are rightly and justly, whenever we do anything according to the handed-down dogma, to refer the thing done to the author of the dogma.
A 14. In what way, therefore, Paul announced the name of Jesus, and with what significance of the name, has been made clear thus far; especially since it did not escape any of those whose heart the grace of his words touched. For at one time he taught and by preaching manifested the venerable and merciful incarnation: at another, he confidently theologized the Trinity, at the same time proclaiming the other power of the mystery, divinity. But there is nothing better to hear than his own words, “Who, being the brightness of his glory and the image of his substance” [38, 39] (namely, the Son, the brightness and image of the Father), “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” For he did not obtain the lot of divinity by succession, nor, by setting upon it and snatching it from another, did he clothe himself with power; but from the beginning, he was of the same substance and nature, and was not capable of undergoing any diminution of this. For this reason, fearing nothing at all that was difficult, he “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” And again: “One God and Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things” 42. Thus, indeed, did he proclaim the economy of the Word and confirm the theology of the Trinity; and this by not removing the unity from any of the three hypostases, but by referring them equally to it; and by not saying that one [person] rules and provides for all things, and another for only some, but that the three persons have joint and equal concern for the creation of all things that exist, and for their lordship and providence.
C 15. Do you see how the teacher of the Church bore the name of Christ? He continues further: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son who was made to him of the seed of David” 43. Here again, the Trinity is proclaimed: God, and the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit; and the incarnation of the Word is proclaimed simultaneously. And when he said “Son of God,” he added that by which the Son is distinguished. For when he was already known and distinguished by many other properties which belong to no one else besides him, he became, as he says, the author of his own resurrection, a thing which had never happened before. And the Holy Spirit, by overshadowing the fetus, brought it about that the consubstantial Word should come forth from the seed of David to be born, and at the baptism rendered witness to the true sonship and the consubstantial Divinity. I would, I think, produce satiety for the hearers and seem excessive if I were to write down all the passages of the illustrious Paul through which he theologized the Trinity and preached the mystery of the incarnation, bearing the name of the Lord before nations and kings. Wherefore we shall be content with what has been said; especially since the rest, if anyone wishes, may be gathered without difficulty. And in this same way, the rest of the venerable chorus D of disciples also preached and taught. And just as they preached, so also they baptized. They preached, however, as the hypostatic wisdom had trained them to theologize and preach; of which…
one dogma—and second to none—was that the laver of regeneration should be performed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that by the invocation of these persons those who are baptized should be led to regeneration. Thus the divinely chosen choir of the apostles imparted the gift of remission to those initiated; thus Paul baptized those whom he baptized; thus, carrying the name of the Savior before the nations and kings, he spoke with boldness; according to this sense he cried out, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing." A And it is in no way less than the other dogmas.
16. B Do you wish for the chief of the apostles to be a witness for you as well? For although he might not appear, in the mere sound of the words, to be in agreement with the custom and practice of the Church, if we will search out his purpose diligently and with a love for the truth, he will be seen to be no less—nay, even more—emphatically confirming and establishing this holy custom. For, traveling throughout Judea no less with miracles than with sacred doctrine, that man who was sitting at the Beautiful Gate, whose feet and ankle bones had been paralyzed—him, I say, he restored with a word, and miraculously made him stand sound: "In the name," he said, "of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk." And while the formula of the utterance was brought forth with an ineffable power of grace, he himself, the prince, in explaining the force of the word and interpreting the concept subject to the name, warned those who were astonished by the miracle that the very one whom they had rejected and condemned to the punishment of the cross was he whose power had healed an incurable disease. Furthermore, he taught that by this term he was designating the sum and confession of the faith of the name. For listen to what he says: "The God of Abraham and of Isaac hath glorified his Son Jesus." And in order to declare his meaning more clearly, he adds: C "And through faith in his name, his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know." Listen further: "Yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness." For, about to perform the miracle, he traces the cause of that medicine to the name of Jesus Christ; then he transfers the name to faith, which is the mystery of religion. Then again he calls the faith in him by the name, as if fearing lest his hearers might forget that the name had been used by him in place of faith. Then he adds: "And the faith which is by him," that is, the faith preached by him. Do you see how the name now signifies the faith in Christ? And the faith signifies the religion preached by him? And that this preaching solidifies the foundations of the lame man? So that if no other testimony existed, even this one, brought forth by the chief of the apostles, would suffice to make manifest clearly what the sacred Scriptures insinuate when they say that proselytes are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and other such formulas. Thus, then, Peter spoke when he was demonstrating the divine efficacy; and the beloved among the disciples decreed likewise; Luke subscribed to it; Paul taught it; and the assembly of the rest of the apostles preached things equal to these; nor D
for it was by no means possible for them even to conceive in their minds that they should deviate from the vital truths—preached in harmony with it. A Thus, the name of Christ is faith in Christ; and faith in Christ is nothing else than the sacred doctrine and the mystery of the Economy handed down to the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.
17. But if a desire has come upon you seeking to abound in more arguments for this same theme, you will not fail in your purpose from this point either. For, first of all, there could be no solution more reasonable for the difficulty stated at the beginning than the one already clearly given, which brings to light the knowledge of the question. Secondly, the solution that certain others have devised is not free from criticism; indeed, it has already provided not a few handles for censure, and for you, should you wish, it would provide even more. For if the name of Christ, B even when merely spoken aloud, offended those first proselytes, why was it necessary to introduce it while baptizing? For that which was proposed as the cause of distress could not have provided any remedy for the disturbance; rather, it would have further exacerbated and inflamed the mind. For things that are grievous are better mitigated by silence rather than by proclamation to those who find them offensive. C And even more would it have kindled their anger to keep silent and disregard those names which were known to the majority of the Jews—I mean the Father and the Spirit—and to superinduce the invocation of the Son, whose very name they could not bear to hear without distress [(45)]; for, once introduced, it was all the more offensive in this way. For when it was joined with the names held in honor, the hearer was divided to either side—both the one that caused distress and the one that brought joy—and he was disturbed only by the single innovation of the addition. But if those that were known and held in honor were passed over in silence, while only that which gave offense was proclaimed, was it not to be expected that the Jews would immediately flee and stop their ears, struck as they were by a twofold, or rather a manifold, innovation, and receiving the dart of distress more bitterly and sharply? From which it resulted that they were only the more exasperated, and were rendered altogether incapable of even approaching the proclamation.
18. The adversaries say: The Jewish race could not endure to confess Christ as God; therefore, the choir of the apostles baptized in his name. D And how could this argument have any reasonableness to mitigate by means of that which inflames, and to heal by means of a wound? And how would the contrary argument not be more reasonable and more prudent to propose? The apostles did not baptize in the name of Christ; for those being initiated into the mysteries found it difficult...
A and indeed were carried along by that very calling. Would they not rather have been leading men away from baptism if they were attempting to baptize in this way and preaching the opposite of what they were doing? But they baptized as they wished, they say, not as the Master taught; and their opinion prevailed, so that with time and custom the dogma of the Teacher was invalidated. But who, then, was eventually inflamed with such zeal and endowed with such power that he restored the commandment of the Savior once it had been consigned to oblivion? By heaven, they can neither name such a person now, nor will they ever be able to do so. For who would have listened to this man, after the Lord's mandate had already been abolished? And this, indeed, not by common men, but by those who were the teachers of the rest and the heralds of faith in Christ. Who, I ask, could have restored the Lord's commandment to its proper order? Especially when that design of the disciples—if the discourse of the adversaries is to be believed—had already spread throughout the world and was becoming habitual to all who were being initiated into the mysteries. And yet, before that innovation regarding baptism had been made public, it would not have been difficult to establish the Lord's law; but once that innovation had reached the ends of the earth, who could have expelled the rite that was already prevailing, and recalled the one that had indeed been handed down at the beginning but had since been completely suppressed? For if, on account of the morose minds of the hearers, there was no place found for the Lord's command when no other formula for initiation had occupied their ears nor been inscribed and impressed upon their minds, how then, among those already imbued with the apostolic rite and initiated, was access to the former rite to be hoped for, while the other sat opposed and resisted, having already obtained B invincible strength? You see, therefore, that it is demonstrated on every side that those who had been eye-witnesses of the Word and true ministers, the course of whose life tended toward sealing their love for the Lord even by death, could not, I say, have failed to ensure that his commandments remained whole and inviolate.
19. But what will you say? Who would not be seized by shivering and fear when you hear the severe sentence of the apostolic decrees? Which not one or two, nor many individually, but the entire chorus of the disciples decreed—intent not on invalidating the Lord's commandment, heaven forbid, but on establishing it. Where, then, are such dreadful threats? The laws of the apostles, passed with heavenly suffrage, are to be heard, which proclaim with the clearest voice: "If any bishop or presbyter (listen, man; although there is no need for singular attention, since it is evident that nothing other than the Lord's tradition is being sanctioned by these) C if any man, therefore, against the instruction of the Lord, does not baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him be deposed." And they do not stop the penalty at this point; but if those who baptize even attempt to exchange names for names, let them not at all... D
A be thought to escape the same punishment; for none the less do they also insult the Lord’s teaching. Nor would they escape, even if they were to observe the invocations as they received them, but were not to combine the formal rite of immersion in baptism, but rather to perfect—or more appropriately to say, to complete—the one being baptized by a single immersion instead of three; nor, if they perform the other parts of the commandment but baptize into the death of the Lord, are they absolved from the charge. They fall into the same judgment and conviction; for the violation of similar things incurs a similar penalty. For even those who have dared to baptize in any other manner, or those who have seen fit to administer the baptism by the invocation of Christ or of His death, equally incline toward the setting aside of the venerable command.
20. Are you listening, Paul? But be patient, and prepare yourself for struggles after [having received] crowns: you again ravage the Church, you again receive letters from the Jewish high priests, and, having become Paul, you slip back into Saul. And how, having taught such things, do you again say that all are baptized into the death of Christ? And now, with the apostles and those who labor with you, you exact penalties from those who dare to baptize in any of these ways; yet now, being by yourself, you not only say it in a corner, but you also preach it—and you do not just preach without writing, but by a letter, indeed to the Romans, commending the preaching in writing, you attribute the highest authority to baptism conferred in the death of Christ. But the herald of truth would refute in this way those who bring in the innovation of baptism and slanderously claim that he himself assents to their opinion:
21. Yes, he says, I acknowledge that the baptized have been baptized into the death of Christ, but I do not acknowledge that baptism is administered by the invocation of His death. God forbid! But I say that this gift of remission is perfected as the Savior Himself has delivered, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but that this is a symbol of His death, because through three immersions and as many emersions it images and represents His three-day burial and resurrection. Therefore, I did not say simply, "we were baptized into His death," but having placed first "As many as were baptized into Christ," I thus added "we were baptized into His death," C by the juxtaposition of differing concepts and names, teaching that baptism is not administered according to any one of these alone—for in that case I would be convicted of thinking and saying things that are at the greatest variance with one another. But through the saying D "We were baptized into Christ," I declared that we were baptized according to His mystical rite; but by the saying "Into His death we were baptized," I signified nothing else...
than that the saving baptism bears the likeness and image of His death, which opened up to us the fountain of immortality. B It is one thing entirely to speak as we have declared, and another to affirm—which is a position we have condemned—that the mystery of regeneration is customarily performed with an invocation of the death of Christ. We have not, therefore, changed our mind, nor have we reverted to the Judaic epistles which we have already censured: for we have inscribed the heavenly doctrines not on tablets of stone, but on the most firm and unbreakable tablets of the soul. They, rather, strive to transform Paul into Saul, and slander him in other such matters, although those whom it pleases to wrongly understand and calumniate my words are ashamed to confess this very thing. I, indeed, C likewise embracing and sanctioning the common sentiments of my colleagues in the apostolate, deem those men worthy of no pardon who dare to baptize in any way other than according to the Lord’s formula of initiation; even if they use the three names of the Trinity, and even if they omit nothing else; yet if they perform the baptism with a single immersion; or if they do not even commit that, but baptize in the invocation of Christ, or into His death, or devise any other novelty beyond the tradition of the Saviour—I hold him who has been caught in even one of the aforementioned things, or anything similar, to be without doubt guilty of the same condemnation. For it is not because the quality of the names varies that a light crime is committed, but because the commandment is violated, and therefore the guilty party is struck by damnation. These things Paul, the orator of the Church, defending its custom and practices, confirming the Saviour’s commandment, D closing the mouths of those who have dared to act in opposition, and sealing the decrees of his predecessors in election and apostolate, proclaims. But what do you say now? Is it possible to accuse others of transgression, while you yourselves become teachers of transgression? And to receive penalties from others for transgression, while you believe yourselves to be exempt from the daring deed? And indeed, if others were sinning—if they were indeed sinning—those men ought to have paid the penalty, as the cause of the sin was given by them to the others. But let these things said thus far suffice.
22. Now it remains to see with one glance from what arguments the solution to the original problem proceeds. D It proceeds firstly from the distinction of the meaning of each word, and from the differentiation of the confusion: so that we may clearly know when the proper name signifies the Lord Himself, when it denotes the glory and honor of the one named, and when it denotes His doctrine and preaching. Furthermore, it supports the solution to gain the knowledge that the likeness of meanings does not always follow the pattern of the voice. For neither the phrase "into the death of Christ," nor "to be baptized into Christ," nor for that matter "into one body," will present the same meaning due to the pattern of the expression; but inasmuch as these things, in the pronunciation of the words and names,
and configured, they differ just as much among themselves in the diversity of their meanings. To these, add the demonstrations which flow from the solutions of the consequent absurdities. Furthermore, if the disciples had introduced their own novelty to the master’s law, that law could not have been restored from elsewhere thereafter; indeed, its abrogation would have continued until now, and there would have been no restoration of that custom which currently flourishes in the Church by divine grace. Moreover, the supporters of this definition are the princes of the disciples, Peter and Paul; and what is far more grave and B dreadful is that the synodical and inexorable judgment of the apostles strikes those who dare to perform baptism in any other manner than that which was commanded by the Lord, and who decree counter to His supreme authority. For this reason, the Church, propagated throughout the whole world, baptizing according to the tradition of the Acts and apostolic preachings in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, after having purified the baptized by regeneration, is accustomed to chant with a melodious and clear voice: “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” And it does not hesitate to proclaim that, just as we say that those currently baptized in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit have received baptism and have put on Christ, so too did the choir of the apostles, administering the laver of regeneration with the invocation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, when they were said to baptize in Christ and in the name of Jesus Christ, and similar formuli.
QUESTION XLIV [al. XLIII]
What is signified by that which is said: “At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oil be lacking upon thy head, and the eyes of the wise man are in his head”?
To wear white, for those to whom a life according to the ancient laws was a matter of earnest concern, was taken as a symbol of sacred joy and a holy state of being; and, indeed, the anointing of the head with oil was made a token of the same disposition. Wherefore our Lord, turning us away from the imitation of the Pharisees, said: “But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head with oil”; meaning, let not anything gloomy or dejected be joined to the achievement of thy fasting. Since, therefore, the
A white garments and the oil adorned the body for those who lived under the Law, and signified a life established in joy, so too does the Word, from these external examples, exhort us to keep the mind bright and adorned. And it will be bright and adorned if its garments are white. Furthermore, they will be white when they shine forth with the purity and splendor of the virtues, without any malice staining them, and are translucent; and without these, there is not even piety toward God. For this B is indeed what brings forth the virtues, and causes them to spring up, and shows the chorus within them to be harmonious and concordant, and weaves, as it were, the bridal garment worthy of the heavenly chamber, and prepares the soul to be clothed in it, and serves as the procurer of salvation—to which the anointing of oil is especially applied and prepared. And the Word says: “And let not oil on thy head be lacking”; describing by the oil a drop of earthly olive, the almsgiving towards one's neighbor; of which he commands that our head never be lacking. For if one has shown mercy once, he has not yet brought mercy to its perfection; rather, if he has many times overlooked the one in need, he has caused his former good action to be an accuser of his own soul, not blushing to be convicted as a contemner of virtue and almsgiving; and what he did, he shows to be not of virtue, but of some C circumstance.
And observe the depth and thoughtful nature of the expression: “Let not,” he says, “the oil be lacking on thy head.” For even if one has anointed himself many times, yet in that which he lacks in being enriched, this becomes a deficiency of his former action. And from another side, the power of this expression is found by reflection; so that he who uses the oil does not bring as much benefit to those receiving mercy as he bestows profit and gain upon himself. For this reason, he calls the overlooking of mercy toward those of the same race a deprivation of his own enrichment and benefit; and not simply a deprivation of some part of those things which are in the body, but of the most sovereign and most vital part, namely, the head. But such indeed is what is said to be lacking in those by whom the head is anointed. For many, neither admiring the possession D nor the use of oil, take on the love for the fame and reputation acquired through it; and some distribute a portion of what they have, and these things not even to them are of great concern, wishing to acquire for themselves the name of oil; others so that they may appear to the multitude as being superior to wealth, and contemners of those things which are much sought after; others for some other reason having nothing to do with virtue. Of these, even if mercy seems to flow, it does not flow from the head nor is such mercy directed upon the head; for it is not in the judgment of the intellect and in uprightness, but in a restless mind and the care of desires. Which, therefore, could not profitably and healthfully pour forth and abound for one giving not much, but is withdrawn from him in the manner of a punishment and unhappily, and does not yield a drop of benefit to those who deprive themselves. But he who does mercy solely for the care of the needy and for the propitiation of his own soul and for the laws of virtue, he truly pours forth the gift from the head and from a right intention, nor does he deprive his own head of that enrichment.
It is clear that by the successful attainment of almsgiving, other virtues also grow and blossom alongside it. For who, truly bearing within himself the precious treasure of mercy—mercy that is not purchased—could cast an envious eye upon his neighbor, or stretch forth a tyrannical hand, and that same hand which has not yet ceased to pour forth the gushing stream of mercy? And who would be a robber of others' marriages, having his mind anointed and softened with this oil? But furthermore, how shall such a man exact usury from his debtors, the man who distributes to the more needy even that which his paternal inheritance has passed down to him? Therefore, by this one virtue that makes mercy gush forth, he who has first taken hold of this grace as his guide will marshal and render familiar to himself, as if they were cohorts and allies, those other virtues that are akin to it and follow in its train. B
He who has performed this act of mercy with zeal and wisdom shall, moreover, have his eyes in his head, that is, he shall possess the capacity and power to look upon and distinguish the worse from the better. For as for those who distance themselves from the deeds of mercy and compassion, their eyes and their power of discernment are no longer in their head, nor do they serve to enlighten and guide the one who uses them, but they have become eyes in the loins or the belly—or rather, they have become a footstool, trampled upon and rendered useless, leaving the man blind and wandering in deep darkness. If, however, the head of a man is Christ, the Scripture exhorts us always and at all times to look towards Him, and to fix and raise toward Him our entire contemplative and theoretical attention: "I foresaw the Lord always before my face, that He is at my right hand, that I should not be moved." But indeed, "As the eyes of a handmaid are unto the hands of her mistress, so are our eyes unto the Lord our God." And such will be the gain that the ambitious and the wealthy who seek to take us by storm shall do so in vain. And truly, while our eyes are perpetually fixed upon the Lord, the snares that the enemy lays along our path are idle and inert, and they have no power to hold our feet. For He Himself is our Creator and Provider, He through whom we trust and believe in seeing, and with invincible strength He will draw our feet from the enemy’s snares and make our path of salvation smooth and level. Thus, the way in which the command, "Let not the oil be wanting from thy head," should be understood has been explained. C
If, however, instead of "Let it not be wanting," the verse were to be read in the text as "Thou shalt not be wanting" (for such a reading of the words is also found), there is no obstacle. And in that way, the passage, "Let thy garments be white," ought, as has already been stated, to be taken as a symbol of the virtues; while the command, "Ne deficias" ("Do not be wanting") "in oil upon thy head," shows that, as you adorn your mind with the brightness of right intentions, and clothe it with spiritual adornment and the splendor that follows from these, this precious oil and ointment—which depicts the grace and free gift of the Holy Spirit—ought not to be delayed from imbuing and anointing your head; and D
A may it fill you with every holy and blessed contemplation and perfection. But if Christ is called and believed to be the head of the Church, that is, of the faithful, he nevertheless joins the poor to himself in another way, and refers the alms given to them to himself: “For in that you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it unto me.” Through the preceding words, the Preacher exhorts us not to neglect the anointing of our head with oil, which is to provide alms to the needy perpetually. For through them we bring the oil to Christ, our head; but enough on this point.
I am aware that some hold a worthy opinion, held by many, that this cleanses those pollutions that follow from our birth and the filth of fleshly desire. They contend that this purifying and saving regeneration is signified by the preceding words of Solomon. For he exhorts one who foresees the coming of Christ and the mystical perfections through him, to prefer above all things that pure and shining splendor of garments, and that whiteness reaching even to the soul, in which B the head is also anointed with oil, the most perfect ointment through the Holy Spirit; and from which the head directs the senses, providing from itself the stream of perceptions. And since almost all the remaining words are adapted to the theory presented, and that interpretation is made familiar to all other explanations, there should be no doubt for anyone that it has been considered well and accurately. But as to this: “At all times let your garments be white, and let not oil be wanting upon your head,” I do not know how it could be proved to be fulfilled, since it only has occasion once. But to offer an exhortation to one who at that time could neither understand it nor be moved to the work—I do not know how one could easily cast aside the vain sense of this. Perhaps, however, one may be understood to wear white garments at all times who, after the purifying baptism, clothes himself with the splendor C of virtues and in every way prevents the darkness of sin from approaching him. For such a one wears white at all times; and such a one would surely not be lacking the ointment upon his head, always meditating on the things of the Spirit and watering himself with the streams of grace from thence. And if Solomon might have possessed the prophetic grace in fullness, reviewing things divine and human, he predicted the word whose work was destined to arise in future times. D
QUESTION XLV. [al. XLIV.]
That which says: “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?” how is it to be understood? For many have placed this as an occasion of scandal.
It is no wonder if he who is weak in mind should take offense—
A at those things in which salvation and utility shine forth for many; but it is a wonder if He who voluntarily assists the blind, should sustain the task of enlightening their intellect and leading them by the hand, and no longer judge them unworthy who see the truth. For indeed our Lord and Savior has become to those who are perishing an obstacle and a rock of scandal and a stone rejected, though placed at the head of the corner; not that He Himself became these things, but that He appeared so to those who are in error.
Therefore, in this place also, it is not because He was rejecting His mother—as the godless mentality of the impious would have it—nor because He was holding her who gave Him birth in contempt, that the Savior uttered this word. For how could He who, according to the imperfection of His age, was still, by the law of nature, subject to His mother B and preserved for her who bore Him the prerogatives throughout, how could He, once He had reached the perfection of age, feel more imperfect and ungrateful toward His mother? So then, these words are not of one rejecting His mother—far from it—but of one interpreting another certain thought. For where is it consistent, where is it free from contradiction, that He who, through loving-kindness, deemed it worthy to come forth in flesh, and He who was well-pleased to compose for Himself a human form from undefiled blood and to be enveloped in it, should then refuse to acknowledge her as mother and deprive her of the intimacy of words, C after He had already in reality accepted, admitted, and bestowed the relationship and truth of the matter? And if He were going to deny her—oh, the audacity of the tongue!—why did He accept her at all in the beginning? Why did He also put on a form, the shape of which He considered a reproach? For the boldness of the tongue has rushed even as far as this; but the madness of those people gives proof of their condemnation, both by this and by many other things.
Perhaps, too, someone, not far from the evangelical testimonies, might formulate an opinion and say that the Savior spoke this word, not as taking away the honor from His Mother, D nor much less as denying the innate relationship and affection—nor is it far from being full of fitting rewards for the mother—but as preferring the salvation of men and the teaching leading to this end above the care for her; for whose sake both mother and birth and the non-emptying emptying of the paternal bosom and the sojourn among men and the lifestyle and the voluntary cross and the death of malefactors, and then the burial and resurrection, were all intended to restore the strong mind; and because He could not act as Jesus, unless He followed this way and path. For the Savior was teaching, along with other saving doctrines, that one should not prefer father or mother or wife above His soul-profiting doctrine and the inclination toward Him: “For whoever,” He says, “will not leave father or mother, etc., is not worthy of me,” that is to say, whoever will not prefer my saving exhortation and counsel and love for me, he is fallen from eternal goods, and is fallen from the blessedness which those who have preferred my laws and divine love over kindred ties enjoy forever. The facility and fulfillment of this commandment [not further translated as page ends]
A the Savior makes clear, being the first to perform it himself, and in his teaching to his hearers, he places the need and grace of the mother ahead of others—saying, as it were, "Just as I, while teaching you and concerning myself with your salvation, have considered the maternal bond a secondary care, having chosen your salvation foremost, so it is necessary that you, too, for the sake of your own salvation and the keeping and observance of my teachings and laws, exchange all kinship and affection that proceeds through bodily bonds." For this reason, he did not permit the man who asked to go and bury his father; not to provide an occasion for despising a mother—far be it, especially one who is devout—nor for ignoring the dignity of a father or insulting his desire; but exhorting us in every way to prefer spiritual B salvation to every bodily union and disposition. Perhaps someone, as has been said, thinking that he is not depriving his mother of the prerogatives of honor, but reserving them for her in the same degree, might attempt to argue this, upholding the fitting veneration and reverence due to a mother. Yet this comparison explains the manner by which the one being compared descended to a lower rank, but it does not liberate it from a diminution of honor.
C I know some of our blessed Fathers—whom I have often admired and accepted in many things—whom, however, I would not admire in this opinion, as they have descended to such a frame of mind in their rejection of an impious view: that when the Mother of Jesus, experiencing some human feeling, was boasting of her Son, and sought to speak freely and be filled with joy because she was the mother of such a Son, and for this reason approached while the Son was teaching; and as was natural, desired to be glorified along with the Son who was gaining glory through his teaching, and to be a partaker of his praise—for this reason the Savior, who cleanses others of the passions of the soul and who wished to deliver his Mother from such weaknesses, uttered a voice full of rebuke, saying: "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" D But if those to whom it came into mind to say these things, and by whom they have actually been stated, had subjected the context to examination, they would have perceived that the Mother showed nothing of the sort, nor did she bear a proud spirit. For she did not arrive as a messenger while the Son was teaching, nor did she enter into the midst of the assembly, nor did she interrupt the discourse of him who was teaching, nor did she say anything haughty or boastful; but standing outside very modestly, she merely signified her presence—and not even by word, but she used her appearance as a sign to announce it. How would this be [the act] of one seeking glory, or soliciting veneration, or [displaying] pride from the greatness of her son? What else would a servant, whose own necessity had invited him to cry out to the Lord, have done? Therefore, that word of Jesus Christ was not a rebuke to his Mother, nor was it any manner of calling out a fault through censure; for it was by no means a fault. But what was said silenced the mocking laughter of the Judaeans. For since the hostile and ungrateful Judaeans were now saying these things through calumny—
and insult to the Savior: A “Is not this the carpenter’s son? And is not his mother and his brothers with us?” And again: “As for this man, we know not whence he is.” Furthermore, even then, when He was teaching and introducing spiritual salvation, the crowd [of them] was envious and malevolent and burned with calumny. And when there was no room for calumny, they would take refuge in their habitual abuse, and would again bring forward His mother and brothers for censure and disdain, saying, as it were: “Whom do you teach? And who do you imagine yourself to be? Are you not the son of a poor woman? And your brothers differ in nothing, whose life is supported by the work of their hands? Behold, they are standing outside, seeking you.” [They meant:] "Cease your teaching and move toward your kinsmen, leading a life equal to theirs, instead of rising to the dignity of a teacher."
The Savior, therefore, as was His custom, setting Himself against these people who were acting wickedly, and at the same time answering them with forbearance and gentleness, says: B "I am so far from being ashamed of my mother and brothers that I not only do not reject her whom nature gave me, nor those whom [my] conception placed in my kindred, nor do I consider it a shame or a reproach, but I do not even disdain to call those whom you see as hearers of the holy and saving words my fathers and brothers, provided they fulfill the paternal will, even if they have neither nature nor conception to support the aforementioned bonds of affection. 'Who then is my mother and my sister?' Why do you twist these designations of mine into an insult and a reproach? I am so far from being ashamed of these that I have resolved to join true disciples to myself with these very designations and relationships." And it is possible from this to see that the words uttered were not only not at all lacking in gratitude, nor a dismissal of a mother's status, but that He provides for her the greatest and most fitting honor. C For He awards her such veneration and honor and the justice due to love, that He even brings those who perform the paternal will, and who have been raised to such a height of virtue that they have attained some great and excellent glory, into the maternal relationship and calling, by which the name of "brothers" also now enjoys honor. For where would it have been reasonable, if He had judged it to be a rejection of relationship, and where would it have been just, if He had deemed it right to set aside a calling, for Him to bring this forward as the crown and head of good things for the heirs of the kingdom of heaven, and to have a place to bestow it? Therefore, it is most evident, as has been said before, that the utterance, "Who is my mother?" etc., is not only not for the insult of maternal love and reverence, but that it gathers for her appropriate glory and praise from every side. D And thus, the foolish men might be turned towards the opposite of their vain boasting, and directed toward the pious and proper divine wisdom, just as with the saying: "What is that to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come." For if one should carefully
A meditate upon these things that have been said, with divine grace cooperating and assisting the labor, he will discover that He is awarding her glory and honor rather than expressing contempt. For in the matter of miracles, there was nothing common between the Mother and the Son, since it was of the Godhead to perform miracles by Its own power, while it was not of human nature to do so by itself, but through the Word who assumed it. Yet, even in those things in which there was nothing common between the Mother and the Son, see how He establishes the excellence of the honor even when it seems otherwise. For when His mother asked Him to perform a miracle, after He signified that this was not common to Him and her, and that the time had not yet come when it was fitting to perform signs, He demonstrated such reverence and honor toward His mother B as was stronger than both the time and the prevailing power; so that the aforementioned words are so far from diminishing the maternal glory, that on the contrary they make it much greater. For to consider it more valid than the time and to overstep the laws of the sequence observed in miracles, and then to perform what was proposed by her—how much more does this prepare honor and reverence than if these things had not been said and demonstrated? For through the things He was saying and doing He was, as it were, clearly showing, saying: "The communion of nature does not introduce a communion in performing miracles. 'What is that to me and to you, woman?' Neither is the time present that is fitting for divine works. Yet, that you may know, and all those whom need has brought together to see and to hear, that I preserve the maternal rights toward you inviolate, and that I am the One who established the law for children to render veneration to their mother, or rather, that I prefer your reverence and obedience and glory C over even those things that are considered fixed in the order of nature and the suitability of time, behold, I change water into wine, making those things that I spoke of secondary to your request." For the phrase "What is that to me and to you" is not said here in the same manner as it was said to the man who sought for Him to be an arbiter for him regarding his paternal inheritance. For there He said, "What is that to me and to you? And who has appointed me a ruler and judge over you?" In that instance, He confirmed by action the refusal He made in words, and He did not choose to become a judge of a low and earthbound profit, but the prohibition through words was followed by a setting aside through deeds. Here, however, by using the form of speech, He did not reject the mother's intent D concerning the miracle, nor did He add a disapproval of her request. But after He had taught the excellence of divine works in the communion of nature, He granted the work in concurrence with her petition; clearly, as it has been said, frequently establishing that maternal affection and dignity are of more weight with Him than both the suitability of the time and the peculiarity of the miracles.
QUESTION XLVI [al. XLV]
A How does that which is said not conflict: "It was said to those of old: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also"?First, because He who said "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill" is the very one who issued both decrees; therefore, no one, whoever he may be, contradicts himself, and he who says he is not abolishing the law would not have uttered those words that would abolish it, especially not at different times and in different phrases, but rather in the same words and in sequence. Therefore, these things are not contradictory; indeed, they are very far from it. But while the law, having the character of legislation, regulates and prepares the judge to maintain an incorruptible opinion and an inexorable verdict, and provides an impartial eye of justice for those called to judgment, that which says "do not resist an evil person" is equivalent to B commanding not to attack or take vengeance for unjust deeds against him who initiated them. And this no longer pertains to the judge, but rather calls the injured person to gentleness and forbearance. This also makes the one who has done the injury blush and turns him from his boldness and madness toward repentance and humility, unless he be a beast wearing the form of a man, and it adorns the injured person with the crown of gentleness and philosophy. For the law does indeed give him the power to exact punishment from the one who has caused him pain; but if he diverts this power into philanthropy and takes pity on his fellow man, directing his just anger only against the leader of evils and the ancient enemy of our race, he is truly the one who ennobles the free will C of human nature and dissolves human debts like the common Lord. For the nature of opposites does not connect with anything else; but the struggle proceeds by the very same means by which it advances. You have received authority to punish by law the one who has done you an injury; if you do punish, it is uncertain whether you have trampled upon the reward for vengeance, or whether you have preferred to suffer rather than to act, and have performed the act with a human and brotherly will. But if you do not punish, you have erected an indelible column of philanthropy and gentleness, and have left behind an example for life of being directed toward one's fellows in a humane and merciful way. D Moreover, the most lovable and blessed thing is that through this act you are being raised toward the divine imitation and goodness, and you even become and are recognized as a son of God by grace, as the substantial wisdom and truth affirmed: "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." But if you wish to consider the laws further, investigate their harmony from this side as well. He who [considers] an eye...
for an eye, but asks that the judge not excise it, manifestly restrains the boldness against the unjust out of fear of suffering what cannot be avoided. But the virtue of not retaliating sets the injured person above a pathetic disposition, human resentment, and the need to declare the action worthy of admiration. By either method it is possible to see philanthropy advancing and pure mercy poured out upon those of the same race. If philanthropy and gentleness consist in both actions, it is clear that neither wars against the commandments, nor is the removal of one brought about by the other. For how could both in a similar way have prepared for the salvation of men—the one checking the impulse of those stretching out unjust hands, and the other placing the injured above every infirmity of soul, and not allowing them to serve the passions of insult? And the one, showing what kind of person inflicted the blow upon what kind of person, and how the one who ought to have suffered punished his superior; many other things also, through both these saving and useful commandments, run together and are fitted into one.
QUESTION XLVII
[Al. XLVI.] B Being that the Lord says: "You are of [your] father the devil," we ask whom He calls the devil, and whom his father?On the father of the devil, or on the passage from John VIII, 44.
Those who preceded us have held diverse opinions regarding this question. For some say that the father of the devil is he who has risen to the summit of malice and in himself has multiplied the fruits of the wicked one, and has many times brought forth such deeds as even the wicked one himself had not dared before. If this is so, nothing hinders the father, having become inferior C through the birth of those things that proceed from him, from assuming the rank of son; while he who in a certain way begat his own begetter has been transformed into the paternal habit. As Cain, if you like. For he brought forth many devils: that is to say, after he conceived the actions of the devil, he gave birth to those things—not yet possessing boldness to resolve the pains of childbirth—attempting to deceive by a lie not some other person, but Him who knows all things even before their birth, approaching his brother by treachery; and directing a snare against his dearest vitals, hidden under the pretext of love; carrying out murder with a fraternal right hand, and being the first to pollute the earth with human blood, D inflicting an incurable blow upon his progenitors. And what they say, that he exacted the birth-pains as a reward, so as not to exult in secondary births, they prove to be laboring under manifest folly and contradiction, along with whatever else is of this kind. But even if it is possible to understand similar things from opposites in a proportional manner: just as he who reaches the extreme of virtue through the frequenting and efficacy of that which is most holy, and multiplies grace within himself, and becomes useful and saving by his offspring, is said to be bringing forth a spirit of God: "For through fear of you, O Lord, we conceived in our womb and were in labor and gave birth, we brought forth a spirit of your salvation upon the earth"; so truly, a man who has reached the extreme of malice, conceiving the seeds of the wicked one within himself, and multiplying his birth and offspring, could deservedly be called one who spawns a devil and is his father.
A Others admit neither of these, but believe the serpent is called the father of the devil. Why? Because, first, when the serpent conceived his calumny, he brought it forth with his tongue. For before man was formed, and before the serpent existed—since he who had fallen away from the angelic wisdom and order was not yet performing the works of the devil, though he was striving to be evil and had no place for transition—therefore the reptile which is the serpent, having conceived the devilish thoughts, might deservedly be called the father of the devil by his tongue. But these and other such things for the explanation of the saying, as to who is called devil and who his father, have been philosophized upon by others. For my part, it does not come to mind to admire the aforementioned solutions, nor do I think they are the work of learned men. Those who might be more capable of understanding these things would indeed be able to form a better judgment about them. But the things that hinder me, and perhaps another, from grasping the perfection of this matter, I pursue with reasoning. B First, nowhere in our holy Scripture was I able to find—neither in the more ancient [texts] of the law, nor in those in which grace shed a more brilliant light of piety—anyone ever called the father of the devil. And indeed, many and manifold periods of the text record the memory of that wicked and destructive disposition; but they teach that the arch-enemy of our race is named Satan, and devil, and apostate, and Assyrian spirit, and leader of the passions, and ruler of the spirits of wickedness, and other things of this kind, [as well as] author of evils. Sometimes they even teach that he who has conceived its deadly seeds within himself and has been adopted as a son through the birth of error is, rather, the son of the devil. Hence the divine Paul named Elymas the son of the devil; but I find no other person whom our sacred discipline—or Scripture, as they say—affirms to be the father of the devil; but this one thing at least is nowhere either known or named as such in the idiom of the Holy Spirit. C Second, neither where they believe mention is made of him are they able to provide a firm opinion. For the people of the Jews did not strive to raise themselves up to God as a father; but they were eager to ascribe God to themselves as Father, and themselves as sons, being from Israel. Neither was it the intent of our Creator and Savior to declare the Jews to be children of the father of the devil. For this would have been to them another cause for boasting; and He would have converted and transferred them to another whose reproach and name they did not yet possess; which would not have been the result of one who saves. But it is clear that He named them sons of the devil, whose habit, both in name and in mind and in the imitation of works, they make use of—which was harsh and abominable for them to hear. For when the Jew ascribed God to himself as Father, and the Savior wished to show them that they were lying in that, but were making the devil their father by the things which they did, what would the discourse have accomplished by teaching that a father of the devil is named as the father of the Jews through the divine oracles? D
A For the voice of the Savior, directed to the Jews by way of reproach, proposes nothing of that kind for them. For one who is ignorant of the obvious meaning and the interpretation of the reading, and who does not attend to whom in particular the tongue of the multitude is prone to speak rashly, is led astray and spontaneously finds a father of the devil, whom no usage nor the appellation itself makes known as existing. But if it be considered by a mode of interpretation, and if it be fitted and explained according to preceding reflections, the devil himself is announced as the father of the ungrateful Jews. And he whom the uncurbed course of the tongue, omitting the interpretation, fabricates and announces as the father of the devil, has no existence in any way.
The Savior, however, bringing forth the word by way of reproach, when the people of the Jews said, "We have one Father, God," says: "Do you dare, then, and are you not ashamed to call God 'Father'? Or are you not of the devil, in that you wish to do his commands, showing yourselves to be his children?" For whoever is formed and fashioned according to whose commands, he is also rightly named his child. B And what commands were the Jews eager for, if not those by which the devil was glorified? Receiving glory from one another, devouring their neighbors with calumnies, defiling the most beautiful things with envy, plotting murder against the Savior, and preparing his death both in tongue and in purpose, preferring falsehood to truth, making guile, calumny, and avarice their life, and all other things similar to these, through which they also manifestly claimed for themselves the kinship of the devil, as their author and sower.
Moreover, the oracular text brought forward and connected does not, indeed, indicate that some father—I say, of the devil—is named. Rather, it suggests that the devil is announced to be and is named as the father of the Jews. For He says: "He was a murderer from the beginning," C clearly the devil, and not some other father of the devil. For to whom else would that, "a murderer," and that, "from the beginning," apply? And that, "standing not in the truth," if not to the devil himself, who whetted his tongue with a lie against the Creator, but sweetened it with guile and held it out to the first-created, and after he had fraudulently enchanted her with words, cast her out from the boundaries of life in paradise and eternal delights, making the place of immortality a prison of death? For God did not make death; but the transgression of the first parent, having accepted the counsel of the serpent, brought forth death. Therefore, the devil is also a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; and they, seeking to kill the Lord, and always preferring falsehood before the truth, preserve intact the form of their begetter.
D It is manifest from what has been said that the devil is named as the father of the Jews; but it is neither possible to find the nature of a father of the devil, nor any appellation revealing it, nor even by thought. That which was proposed from the beginning
the final period of the question—will perhaps seem A to those who are content to gain nothing from the deeper things, to signify a father of the devil. But everything demonstrates the contrary, and it agrees with the thoughts preceding it, showing that the devil is the father of the Jews themselves. For, since a twofold attack of the thoughts of the whole proposed discourse has occurred, revealing now the imitation of the begetter by the malice of the begotten, and now establishing the similarity of the begotten by means of the begetter, and furthermore passing from the begotten to the begetter, it brands the similarity as unchangeable and shows their kinship to be in no way spurious. Therefore, he says: "When the Jew speaks a lie, as even now when calling God his father, he speaks from his own." For the inheritance belongs to the father, the riches are the father’s. Therefore, from his own, the Jew speaks, having entered upon his paternal inheritance; for he himself is a liar just as his father is. It is clear, therefore, that this section of the discourse not only does not harmonize with those who fabricate a father for the devil, but also defines the devil as the sole father of the Jews. But let these things have the form and manner of an exercise, B while avoiding for the time being the appellation of dogma, until the higher discourse appears, and, having taken hold of judgment by its power and having filled the sacred desire of those who philosophize through their life, it shows that the inquiry extended beyond the understanding of the many was not, and is never, in vain.
QUESTION XLVIII
How many are they who anointed the Lord with myrrh?I do not find the same opinion prevailing among those by whom the effort has been made to investigate these matters. C For some, rather simply and superficially—that I might not say ignorantly—divide the persons of the women by the different appellation of those who have recorded this history. And they say that there are four of these, having directed their attention, I believe, to nothing deeper than the mere quantity of the evangelists. But for others, the persons are reduced to two: they say one is venerable and chaste and the sister of Lazarus and Martha; the other, while having met with a different description, is yet but one, and this is she who, after a life of wantonness and public vice, passed over to the struggles of virginity; and that concerning her, both Matthew and Mark, but also Luke, discuss; and that they have narrated the same history D while reporting it in different words. Others, too, reduce them all to one, bestowing no firmness upon their opinion, and indeed not even deriving from the quality of the persons any such supposition, which yet would carry weight. For Apollinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia are the progenitors of this view. But as for me, neither the words of the Savior, nor the deeds of the women beloved by God, nor the difference of the time, nor even the judgment of those who saw and heard the event, permit me to say that there are but two. Other things no less important than these prove that there are three, and that there are neither more than three nor
fewer than these. A First, then, is she who is recorded by Luke, which is taken into the history before many of the acts and teachings of Jesus; for after this, he sends the disciples out to preach, and the multitude is fed miraculously with the five loaves, and the opinion regarding the Master is stated by the disciples, and the divine act of transfiguration is performed beyond mind and reason. "For it came to pass," he says, "after these sayings, about eight days, and taking Peter and John and James, he went up into the mountain to pray; and as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and dazzling," and so forth. But indeed, the seventy disciples are also appointed after this, and parables are woven into his admonitions; and it is clear that the passion was not yet imminent, nor had the councils of the murderous Jews gained strength through their resolve and plotting.
From the circumstance, the difference between the woman in Luke and the others can be as clearly and indubitably perceived as one might wish; for the histories of each of the other two introduce the memory of them when the Lord's passion was already being set in motion by the machinations of the Jews: the one is mentioned six days before the Passover, and the other two days before the passion. And the act of the one is described by the beloved and virgin disciple, who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha, and who was known to be among those loved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and who among them moved wonder in those things pertaining to the reverence of life; and she, too, celebrating those holy mysteries six days before the Passover, made her home a holy temple. In addition to these is the third and last, who anointed the Lord two days before the passion, about whom Matthew and Mark arranged their narrative: therefore, the discourse reasonably proclaims them to be three.
And observe from this as well: the one is called a sinner simply by the name of malice, and she D sees Jesus in the house of the Pharisee, not of Simon the leper, and she reclines there, having been invited by the one providing the banquet to partake of his table. This woman sheds tears before the ointment, and she bathes the feet of Jesus and wipes them with the hairs of her head, and she takes courage to love, and then acts freely and anoints his feet with the ointment; at this action, all those present are silent, and no one casts any reproach upon the woman. The Pharisee alone, however, was recognized as being troubled by the action in himself at that time. For he says: "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what manner of woman this is who touches him, for she is a sinner." Then Jesus restrains him with his own words and closes his mouth, while he exalts the action of the woman and honors it with fitting praises, and returns to her as the reward of her act a great gift, the remission of sins; and not even this is sufficient for her, but he also adds salvation to her sentence
saying, “Your faith,” he says, “has saved you.” Such, therefore, is the A account in Luke, which is distinguished from the others by so many differences.
The one recorded by the beloved disciple B has a very manifest difference, in that she is of noble birth, of a celebrated house, and of a wonderful life; and she had just received back her brother, who had newly emerged from the gates of Hades; so much so that he was reclining at the supper with Jesus, while Mary herself was serving, at which time she also brings the ointment and wipes it with her hair, not performing this godly work for any recompense, but rather devising a kind of atonement out of gratitude for the miracle that had occurred regarding her brother. At this, all the disciples silently approved of the deed, perhaps pondering the magnitude of the miracle regarding Lazarus and holding the woman’s piety in reverence. But only the slave of avarice, the huckster of the betrayal, grumbles at the deed; and Jesus, bringing into the open the sickness by which he was gripped while doing this, said to him, “Let her alone; she has kept it for the day of my burial.” This is instead of saying: “You are intent upon my death, and for this reason the price of this ointment is most precious to you; but she, by the things she has done, puts your lawless act to shame and teaches, even if you are too hardened to learn, that he whom you are eager to betray, she sacrifices to and worships as God.” But this was the sister of Lazarus.
The remaining third woman among those who poured the ointment upon the Master, C of whom Mark and Matthew have written, is renowned for the stain of fornication. She arrives at the house of Simon the leper—who was not then suffering from leprosy, but had long been afflicted by the disease and had at that time been cleansed by the philanthropy of Jesus—whom the harlot also, knowing well from what abomination of skin he had been transformed to what appearance, conceived a good hope that she too might be delivered from her spiritual defilement. She was granted permission to approach Jesus, and indeed when she approached, she does not touch him with her hand, nor does she wipe him with her hair; for she did not dare to touch the body of the Savior with any limb, but keeping him untouched by her defiled flesh, she bestows honor through the ointment and the sacrifice; and having broken the alabaster flask, she pours all the ointment onto his head. And then not only the Pharisee, nor only the traitor, but also not a few of the disciples are indignant. Yet the indignation that arose in different ways did not flare up from the same intent; but Simon, indeed, was imagining nothing lofty regarding the healer and Savior; Judas, meanwhile, was held by the passion of avarice; but the apostles were being overcome by pity for the poor—not so that they placed the love of the Master in the second place, but because they knew that he himself preferred mercy to sacrifice. D For “I desire mercy,” he says,
A and not sacrifice. Moreover, in their reverence for the Teacher, they considered it an awesome thing for the woman to pour the ointment upon his head; hence, too, Jesus, by means of her indignation, draws the disciples away, saying: “She did nothing daring, but has performed a good work.” And these things were for the well-meaning disciples; but to Judas, again bringing his plotted betrayal into the middle of the enigma, he says: “By pouring this ointment upon my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial.” “You are indignant,” he says, “that the ointment is being emptied; of how much indignation is it fitting to judge the one who in his heart is meditating the betrayal, death, and grave of the Master and Teacher? Do you have a care for the poor? And how do you desire the slaughter of Him who has neither a roof nor where to lay his head? As for Him on whom you pour none of your own possessions, do you think his company burdensome and intolerable? In matters where you ought to lay aside much of your own, filling the need of those who are poor by mercy, how will you bear their companionship without being bothersome and in a philanthropic manner?
B Therefore, without any presumption or prejudice, it is possible to perceive and say truthfully that one of those who anointed the Lord with ointment preceded the others by a long interval. The others, however, conceived this sacred ministry around the time of the Passion; and of these, one was six days before the Passover, and the other two days before the Passion. And one was a sinner, the other an adulteress, known more for their passions than by the appellation of the Lord. The last one takes her name from her brother; and one in the house of the Pharisee anoints the Master’s feet with ointment and washes them with tears; the other, in her own house, does not even know the time for tears; rather, she welcomes Jesus himself with a banquet and rejoicing, and also him whose sepulcher the saving voice showed to be a workshop of birth and a place of resurrection. But she, too, pours the ointment upon his pure feet and wipes them with her hair. The remaining third one arrives in the house of the leper; she also carries precious ointment, but she does not touch the Master’s limbs in the least; rather, having suddenly broken the alabaster jar, she pours the ointment upon his head, by art and zeal forestalling those who, if there were any, might intend to prevent the deed. And one has the city as a witness of her intemperance; for in the city she was called "a sinner." The other has the village; the other, finally, kept the palaces of wisdom and purity. And against the first, the Pharisee alone is indignant; against the sister of Lazarus, Judas alone; against the last, even other disciples, and the prey of avarice, who was again the traitor. And to the sister of Lazarus, no reward is promised for the pouring out of the ointment; for because of a benefit and gift bestowed upon her beyond reason, what was accomplished by her was a thanksgiving. Only the betrayal and impudence of Judas is then recognized and rebuked. And one finds the forgiveness of sins in Luke, receiving a reward for both the ointment and her faith; but for the one in Matthew and Mark, a memorial is promised to be proclaimed forever throughout the whole world. Different is the reward announced to each of the women; yet the reward of one does not leave the other without a reward. For both found the forgiveness of sins, and both...
proclaim it by that sacred anointing throughout the whole world, and they have been judged worthy that their memory should be carried through the ages, crowned with praises. A Sed quod unamquamque decuit ut consolatio et beneficii acceptatio annuntietur, hoc dictum est. For the apostles censured the one for misusing the ointment, both wasting it and lavishing it in vain; while the Pharisee complained of the other, because, being a sinner and known as such, she had nevertheless set her mind to do such things, and she thought she could remain hidden from the Master, by whose life and way of living the woman was known. Wherefore to the latter was announced the reward of the remission of sins; to the former it was predicted that her action would be published to all, and that she would be called blessed by all. But to the sister of Lazarus neither of these at all is returned as a title of reward. For she was not laying down a pledge of a benefit or grace she hoped for, but because she rejoiced, having miraculously received her brother back from the dead—as he was one who, by a newer life, was a prelude to the mortification of death—she was grateful to her benefactor, and according to her will and power, she rendered Him an honor. B Besides, the others were imperfect, and indeed were burdened by the weight of their sins; they had need, therefore, of some consolation and assurance that their action had been accepted, and that they would not be disappointed of their hopes. For this reason the Savior of our race distributed the promises to them in a manner suitable and appropriate. But she who was more perfect, and who was still enjoying the sight of the miraculous spectacle with her own eyes, did not need to wait for greater promises; she was content with the miraculous spectacle and the promise of the Lord, common to all who have believed, that he who believes in Him shall possess the inheritance of eternal life which cannot be taken away.
Why is it that against the woman in Luke no one of the disciples, not even Judas himself, is indignant, while against the sister of Lazarus only the traitor is? And against the adulteress, not a few of the disciples are? The reason that no one of the disciples is indignant against the first, nor even the traitor, is that Judas was not yet so violently possessed by the disease of avarice, nor had Satan yet made his heart a well-prepared instrument for betrayal. The other disciples were not led to indignation because they did not yet carry the words of the Master concerning almsgiving deeply imprinted in their minds, nor had the care for the needy so taken hold of them. Moreover, they saw the woman weeping, and not pouring the ointment upon His head, C but anointing His feet; and they had not yet learned from the Savior that His passion was drawing near; all of which things were sufficient to keep them from indignation. D Furthermore, even if none of these things were present, if any indignation had sprung up in any of the disciples, it would have been prevented from coming to light. For the Pharisee, having anticipated them, incurred the charge of reproach; and thus [his conduct] would have been an admonition and cause for the silence of the others. But against the sister of Lazarus they are not indignant, for
A the well-disposed among the disciples, restrained by the reverence of the woman and by the miracle then taking place, and because she herself did not pour the ointment upon his head, but rather reverently anointed his feet; Judas alone, however, takes offense, beginning already to burn with avarice and to be besieged by thoughts of betrayal.
Yet concerning the third [instance], as has been said, even if the other disciples and especially Judas grumble from a different frame of mind—the one, as having already been overcome by force by the betrayal, and being no longer able to endure the flame of avarice setting all his inner parts on fire, and [being indignant] that the Teacher was seen to be regarded with religious awe and honor by the others; but the other B disciples, having now—as has often been said—great concern for almsgiving and love of the poor, and thinking that their view did not differ from that of the Teacher—for they did not consider it seemly to allow a harlot to pour ointment upon that immaculate head. Moreover, seeing the Teacher neglecting all things and hurrying toward the cross and death—for he already predicted the passion to them continually—if therefore our Teacher, it was likely for them to reason, is prepared for death, what is the profit from the pouring out of this ointment? Of what benefit from it will he partake, whom the death of criminals awaits shortly? Wherefore the Savior, correcting their opinion by means of opposites, says: "She has done this for my burial"; as if to say: C For the reason that you opine that the ointment ought not to have been poured out—as if I myself despised everything and were already disposing myself to death—for that very reason the woman’s deed seems to have proceeded as something more worthy of mention. "For in my burial she has done this." And truly, toward those of the disciples who were of good intent, the word of the Lord is directed primary according to this understanding. But toward Judas, as has been said—for in accordance with the difference of thoughts into which the company of the indignant was divided, it was fitting for the Master to bring forward a word suitable to each separate mind, and for the hearers to accommodate the Lord’s response to their own individual conscience. But indeed, concerning the women who were deemed worthy to anoint the Master with ointment, that they were not more than three nor fewer, I think the things said are sufficient to provide D a solid and unshakable argument to those who believe that it is not more accurate and honorable to contend than to learn.
QUESTION XLIX [al. XLVIII].
How is that saying to be understood: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but whosoever blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the age to come"?My blessed Fathers have spoken as it was befitting to state these things according to their own times; and
A no stain of heretical opinion pollutes their words, nor do they provide any pretext for heresy. But now, those things shall be spoken which provide no less force against the former crime, and describe more clearly those who flee from it. B Therefore, sin is not forgiven to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, because they have left themselves nothing through which they might be judged worthy of remission; for the forgiveness of sins is given through the Spirit, as the Savior also testified, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose you retain, they are retained." He teaches that the forgiveness or condemnation of sins is clearly of the authority and power of the Spirit. Therefore, the purification and acquittal of sins is performed by the Spirit. But he who blasphemes against Him, having removed himself from His saving grace, how could he be purified by Him, or be acquitted of the punishment and debts owed by him? And I think that those who observe this accurately have no further question to present as to how he who blasphemes against the Spirit shall not find forgiveness for his sins.
But if the washing of regeneration is C performed through the Holy Spirit, and the gift flows from thence, and grace springs from that fountain, and these men mock and blaspheme it as though it could provide no benefit or gain—for what can water and oil, touching the flesh, do to effect the removal of the deeply impressed stains of sin and spiritual passions? He, therefore, who has been carried away into madness to cast this blasphemy against the spiritual regeneration, and against the gift that is lacking in none of the most excellent things, and for this reason, refuses to be perfected by the spiritual grace, but mocks and holds it in derision—this man, and all through whom this blasphemy creeps, shall find forgiveness for this blasphemy neither in the present age nor in the future. For the Savior, also confirming this, said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." But if the title "Spirit" is used not only for the most holy Spirit in a particular way, but also more generally for the holy Trinity ("For God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth"), it is manifest that he who blasphemes against the Spirit—that is, he who lets loose a blasphemous tongue against any one of the supernatural and consubstantial D hypostases of the almighty and supernatural divinity—even if he appears to be innocent of abuse and defamation regarding virtues and life, nevertheless, being held and examined by a far greater sin, he shall in no way find forgiveness, neither in the present age nor in the future.
Consider from this as well: the Savior is called "Son of man," since He truly became man and is said to have willingly submitted to human weaknesses; in which the human nature, having been seen,
Question 49
The Savior therefore says through the preceding words, that because of the human actions of the Son of man—that is, from the irreproachable passions—some blaspheme and deride Him, such as that He hungered, that He thirsted, that He struggled in His passion, that sweats poured down from Him, that He said He was sorrowful while troubled by the fear of death, that He prayed, that He asked for the cup to be taken away. From these human things, therefore, one who has been scandalized—and by means of which the Savior provided Himself to be truly known as the Son of man—he is more easily able to cast off the scandal, to flee from blasphemy, and to receive forgiveness of sin; for as he sees the eyes of the blind recreated by a word, the lame rebuking their affliction by running, the man dead four days laughing at the power of death, and whatever other things the Savior showed Himself to be doing by divine power. For each of these has an invincible strength, if only one who is scandalized is not willfully and voluntarily evil, to deliver him from error and the blasphemous disposition. And if all these things are carefully meditated upon in the mind, how will they not more quickly convert the one who was drawn into blasphemy by the humble and human things?
But he who acts wickedly by blaspheming of those works which are divine and excellent—seeking how he might produce evil through that which is good; now saying, when he sees Jesus casting out demons, "He has a demon," and again, "In the prince of demons He casts out demons," and now, when He had reformed the eyes of him whom birth had deprived of sight, heaping on him reproach and dragging the miracle into insults, saying, "This man is not from God"—he, therefore, who by the more divine and transcendent works is not made better, but rather is carried away to the worse and is goaded into madness, and who, by those things through which he ought to have admired and celebrated the Benefactor, insults and blasphemes Him; by what other things could he be converted and sing a palinode, and flee to repentance, and receive the remission of his impiety and his war against God? Clearly, by nothing else.
He, therefore, who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit—that is, against the divine signs—and has not even by them cast off the former blasphemy, nothing else will correct him. But if he is not corrected, from where will the forgiveness of sin follow? Wherefore, reasonably and as becomes God, the saving Word declared that he who has contended to turn the divine works into blasphemy is unworthy of all pardon, having shown himself the fountain of forgiveness. For he has left no pretext for himself; neither by the correction of his insults and blasphemies, nor—far from it—will he be judged worthy of remission. D You saw Him eating and drinking, and therefore you call Him a glutton and a wine-bibber; you saw Him receiving sinners and tax collectors, and does this incite you to reproach Him with the friendship of tax collectors and sinners? But there remain for you the exalted things, through which, withdrawing from even these insults and fleeing to repentance, you will find forgiveness; because He spoke with a woman, and that Samaritan woman, and asked her to drink water, [humanitate...]
A you were compelled to think lowly thoughts about Him? How is it that, just as you seized upon the Samaritan woman as an occasion for a baser opinion and reputation, you did not likewise accept her as a teacher of a loftier one? "Come," she says, "see a man" (calling to a whole city as she urged them), "who told me all that I ever did." Do not even these things make you an observer of things more divine and lofty? But because He asks His disciples, "Who do men say that I am?"—taking this question as an occasion for madness—do you consider Him one of many? And how is it that you do not ascend to the God-befitting opinion, hearing Him say to the one who gives the answer, "You are the Son of the living God," B "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven"? And, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? Are these things human, or do they belong to the omnipotent and merciful Divinity alone? But these are words, and you have not yet accepted the witness of sight? Do not the actions themselves immediately stand ready? Seeing those blind from birth celebrating the regeneration of their eyes and, by the evidence of their sight, casting off the affliction from their birth; seeing the deaf hearing, and the foundations of the lame made straight by a word, and the dead being raised, and rocks C breaking at the Lord’s passion, and the sun darkening, and darkness wrapping around in place of rays and great brightness, and tombs being emptied, and the dead forestalling and celebrating with the living the common resurrection?
Seeing these things, how have you not turned away from everything through which you gathered scandals for yourself and wounded the Judge, and did not demonstrate correction by fleeing with great diligence and speed to repentance, so that through it you might gain the forgiveness of your sins? But you do not even allow the burning of your heart to be softened by these things; rather, you contend all the more to strengthen your contumacy and struggle against God. And now, on the one hand, with a study of the Sabbath that is overly curious and untimely, you disparage the divine signs that are above the Sabbath; D now, on the other hand, not having an occasion for blasphemy when you see the race liberated from the demonic wound on the Sabbath, you take refuge in Beelzebub; now, however, when you are entirely unable to invent this pretext, you have resolved to make death, murder, and slaughter your helper and ally; and him whom that four-day-old state could not yet hold, even though dead, you again reach out your wicked intentions and hands to return him to death: "For the Jews sought," it says, "to kill Lazarus as well." And finally, you condemn the one who performed these miracles to the cross and death; and you seek a guard; and you place a watch over the corpse and the tomb; and, most shameful of all, surpassing every impiety and leaving no room whatsoever for pardon, you pilfer the resurrection with the fiction of a theft! Nor, suffused with shame at the greatest of all miracles from eternity, are you converted, but even more meditate against that which is more pre-
-B eminent in works; and rather, he practiced the evil deed, in proportion as he surpassed others in excellence. Therefore, having shown no change or repentance for the dignity and invincible power of the Godhead—that is, of those spiritual operations and actions—from any of those things that shine forth so brightly, he instead stained and branded himself with human, base, and soul-destroying notions. Nay, he even added to his daring deeds an increment of greater insolence and war against God, C making it clear and most manifest that such a person, leaving nothing to himself whereby he might choose the better over the base, or dissolve the debts of his past by warm and swift repentance, shall not be deemed worthy of relief at all, neither in the present age nor in the future.
There are those, moreover, by whom that "neither in the present age nor in the future" is accepted in another way, and the solution to the difficulty is brought forward more simply and readily. The Mosaic law, they say, punishes with death him who has blasphemed against the Divine, granting him neither pardon nor remission; and this is what that phrase signifies, that it is not remitted to one who blasphemes in the present age. Therefore, D they say it is reasonable to think that he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall be judged by God also according to the future age and shall have the penalties of his blasphemy exacted by Him; but that in the present he is to be subjected to extreme punishments, the Mosaic law invoking a curse upon him who has cast his tongue against God—that is, who has assailed the Divine with blasphemies, of whose substance and lordship the Spirit also is—and legislating that he be stoned and deprived of life. Thus, it is clearly proclaimed that God is the Spirit, even if it does not so seem to the impious, in whom the Creator of nature also wrought works beyond nature, saying, "By the finger of God I cast out demons," A calling the Spirit the "finger of God" because of the unity of substance and the absolute power of operation. "In the Holy Spirit," He says, "He casts out demons," not because He could not of Himself, but teaching that in all His divine works, the operation of the Father and the Spirit, as of like substance and like nature and inclining toward one and the same will, is present together. For this reason He also said, "My Father is working until now, and I am working," and, "I do not speak from Myself," and that, "By the finger of God I cast out demons," and whatever other things tell of and teach the common nature and power and the unity of efficacy and will. I know, however, that some have said that at the time when the Lord's answer was put forth, it had a restricted force. For indeed, since the resurrection had not yet taken place, nor the ascension into heaven been demonstrated, B nor the Spirit yet made the disciples spontaneous and universal orators of the world, these most excellent things not yet being in existence, he who blasphemes against the Son of Man and strikes against men shall find forgiveness. For to them, the dignity was overshadowed by the flesh. But to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, neither in the present
A age, nor in the future, will the forgiveness of the blasphemy be granted. For there was nothing preventing these men from perceiving the supernatural power and the rays of the Godhead shining forth through it. Others are drawn to such a meaning by the words that precede. To what does this refer? To the laver, they say, of the forgiveness—that which is perfected in every holy thing and in fire—in which, while he who was not yet freed acted, it was not possible for him who blasphemes against the divine Spirit to find forgiveness, for it was impossible for him to become a participant in the regeneration and the purification that comes therefrom. Therefore, rightly does he who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit obtain no forgiveness at all, neither in the present age, and for this reason, nor in the future.
Question L
Of the blessed Mark the Evangelist who wrote: "His friends went out to take hold of him, for they said that he was beside himself." In what sense, while fitting the context of the words, would we not be led far astray from the evangelical narrative? B
Question L [al. XLIX]
By various interpretations we have found this statement to be addressed; for it is possible to take the words "they said that he was beside himself" for what the Evangelist said instead of: "They said that he wishes to depart from them, he intends to leave them, in order to migrate to others." And those who support this meaning bring forth the holy Luke as its advocate; for they say that, in handing down the same history, he speaks: "And the crowds sought him, and came to him, and held him so that he would not depart from them." But those who declare the history which the divinely speaking Luke records to be different from that which the divine Mark announces, have passed over into a search C for further clarification. For they say: "Here indeed Jesus was in the house, and he was teaching the divine things, and the crowd was being healed, and they did not even provide him an opportunity for eating bread because of the continuous annoyance; and those from his side went out to take hold of him, and having come to him, they held him so that he would not depart from them." If the history, therefore, has this difference, how could it be said that both are speaking of the same subject matter? But it can be said to them that, even if the history is different, yet the ambiguous part is uncovered and clarified for easy understanding through that which is admitted: the former showing that he was detained and held in the place where he was, and that he should not desist and withdraw from them; and that, longing for his teaching conversation and rejoicing in the enjoyment of his miraculous works, they devised his detention. For the friend of man, Jesus, often used to leave this place and the crowds who were annoyingly pressing upon him there, transferring the salvation from his teaching and divine work to others. Yet these men take "to take hold of him" as meaning "to prevent him from speaking and teaching," while the words "he is beside himself" they turn toward the natural powers and the established disposition,
A which labors are wont to bring on; they bring forward such an interpretation. By the length of time, they say, and the continuity of the teaching, those who were near him thought that he had fallen into immeasurable labor, and that he had fallen into an ecstasy and infirmity of vital tone and innate strength; for whatever they themselves perhaps experienced by the perseverance and the perennial pressure and tumult of hearing and of the multitude, this they supposed the master also to have suffered. Therefore, they say, those who were near him—that is, those who were more familiarly disposed toward him—went out to hold him back, since they felt much concern and providence for his relief and the intermission of his labors, so that, having separated the master from the multitude, they might provide food and other necessities by which the body is freed from labors; and they went out, perhaps, from a place suitable for rest and tranquility, to which they had gone to recreate themselves. The second interpretation, therefore, not being set against the former, thus wishes to clarify the evangelical oracle.
B There are also those who, looking toward the wickedness and the blasphemous and undisciplined character of the Jews, hear that phrase, "He is beside himself," according to the obvious meaning—that is, that he had an ecstasy of mind and had become a wanderer from his established state. For such is the hatred of the Jews toward Christ, that they did not shudder to invent all injuries and calumnies against the Savior. For, being entirely fuming with envy and zeal C and differing in no way from those who are insane, and in truth having suffered an ecstasy of innate judgment, they were projecting their own passion onto him who had freed many from such diseases. For they, seeing him working divine things which are above speech and thought, imputed what was against God to him, because he was demonstrating the Sabbath to be a day of salvation and a feast of miracles, and seeing him by a word removing the fabrications of demons, they blasphemed, saying that he casts out demons in the prince of the demons; they did not deem it bold to accuse him of an ecstasy of mind, and even to make themselves witnesses of blasphemous words, stretching out their violent and bold hands against him. Yet, in this way, these people say, D this explanation does not conflict with their opinion, nor with that which says, "Those who were near him went out to hold him" [Mark 3:21]. For even those supposed brothers were not themselves disposed toward him in a familiar and pious manner; but they too were scandalized, not purging themselves of Jewish senselessness from their association and living with him, often providing many occasions for disbelief toward him at the beginning, and demonstrating a disposition no better than the other Jews, even if afterward they recovered themselves through the struggles of martyrdom, and the divinity of Jesus, which before they did not even admit with their tongue, they proclaimed to all with blood and slaughter. But I, for my part, [believe] that the supposed brothers were scandalized in the Savior and held an opinion of him at the beginning not worthy of God, on account of the covering of the flesh and the condescension of the Word, which is beyond sense, with
A extraordinary and great things, and not being able to raise up and lift up one's thought to the paradox and the magnitude—the venerable Oracles teaching me this—I am not ignorant; but that they have proceeded to such a point of wickedness, as to allege that he was demon-possessed and gone mad and accused his mind of infirmity, I am not able to put forward nor to concede in the same way.
QUESTION LI
Why did God plant paradise, being about to cast Adam out of it immediately?
B That things which are ineffable and beyond being inquired into C and comprehended are possible to be attained in contemplation by Paul and those who are like Paul, is neither impossible nor slippery. But as for us, who are dragged down by the flesh and the weight of its desires, even if others hold out to us a benevolent and guiding hand, we cannot make for ourselves a secure path leading to something higher and above us. For this reason, also, the admonition says, "Seek not things more difficult than you, D and do not examine things stronger than you." But since the fountain of wisdom and goodness, welcoming us with kindly promises, exhorted us, "Ask, and it shall be given to you; knock, and it shall be opened," having confidence in this declaration of substantial truth, we have knocked and have asked, and whether it has been given and opened, the discourse shall demonstrate.
We say that God planted the paradise, not intending to drive Adam out of it immediately; for he ought not, nor could he, having fashioned Adam with his hands and having planted paradise, immediately make him an exile from there and from the blessed manner of life appointed for him. But he, having dissolved the law of the commandment into abrogation, transformed his other joy into sorrow and brought upon himself the ejection from paradise. For just as God did not make death, but fashioned man as a pledge of immortality, so neither did he exile him from the holy place nor from blissful delights; but the first citizen of paradise himself, by the counsel of the serpent, having preferred transgression to the commandment, wrought for himself both death and the ejection from paradise.
Secondly, the Divine is not accustomed to overlook the failings of men, to withhold the wealth of beneficence and gifts toward them; nor did He desire to exact the penalty for failings, while the audacity had not yet proceeded into action. Thus, also, knowing the one who apostatized from His providence and goodness among the bodiless powers, and yet having brought forth the portion that apostatized with him out of goodness, He creates the apostate as a day-star, in no way depriving him, from the things into which he later plunged in the darkness of ingratitude, neither of his creation nor of his brightness; but seeing him as an apostate and falling like lightning from heaven, He allowed the penalty to be inflicted for his pride: such is the economy and discretion of the Creator regarding His creatures.
A For this reason, even if Adam were destined to sin and be cast out of paradise, it was no less fitting for the Creator’s goodness to establish man as a rational animal and to bring forth the paradise in which he lived in blessedness, rather than to withhold the most beautiful of earthly works because of Adam’s transgression and the exaction of that transgression. For the Divine always does its own work, perpetually causing the springs of kindness and goodness to gush forth, while visiting punishment upon daring sin; it allows the blow and the wounds from the transgression to remain incurable, yet does not allow man himself to be destroyed. And so, the transgression was foreseen, and the ejection was foreseen; yet paradise, the most beautiful artifice of earthly works, was not withheld from coming into existence on account of Adam. Therefore God brings it forth, and restores Adam to a pleasant life, though He did not allow him, having transgressed, to remain in it and enjoy the delights which he would have enjoyed had he kept the law; for the incorruptibility of justice did not permit it. B Thirdly, even if He placed the formed Adam in paradise, He did not thereby establish such a great and significant artifice for him alone, but quite as much—if not even more—for all those who come from Adam, whoever have preserved the super-beautiful and lovely molding of Adam and the unstained and indelible [typum] of the divine image. How, then, would it have been good, how would it have been wise, on account of one transgressor (who, moreover, was not deprived of the common enjoyment in later times), to deprive such a great multitude of paradise, by neither creating that holy place nor bringing it forward?
To these things, furthermore, one must not overlook this: it was necessary for the first-formed Adam to have care for some action and operation that did not cause injury, so that man, who is a rational animal, might not be idle and without understanding. C For one who managed this well, crowns and glory were to follow; and for one who neglected it, punishment and ignominy. But for one who inclined toward the easier path, punishment necessarily followed. One should not, therefore, bring forward the same arguments regarding paradise and the ejection; for the sake of what would one inquire and contend as to why crowns were being woven and prepared, if that was not yet paradise, and if Adam and his exile were being accounted for? But regarding all things whose production the kindly and creative goodness had chosen to establish, those who demand an account of them—even if they do not confess it—would subject them to the same questions, not being satisfied with the wisdom of the Creator. D One may also observe this: for how else would Adam, after his sin, have known by sensory discernment that he was deprived of his enjoyment, had he not become an exile from his life in paradise? And being deprived of this knowledge, how would he have been seized by sorrows and pains? Without anything of those things that bring sadness touching and pressing upon him, from where would he have known the magnitude of his sin? And how would he have become penitent and beseeched the divine benevolence, so that he would not be utterly and eternally deprived of forgiveness and remission?
A If, however, anyone wishes to consider this point—that for this reason He established paradise, even though Adam was going to sin and be driven out from it, so that He might not appear to have fashioned man as mortal from the beginning, by failing entirely to provide a place suitable for immortality and free from sorrow, labors, thorns, and sweat, but rather to show that all things done and ordered were fitting for Him and proclaimed the wisdom of His ineffable providence; and furthermore, by one of the material creatures, to prefigure and announce in practice that the whole of creation, at the time of His second and fearful presence, shall change into a better state, with no material unsuitability opposing the creative and divine will—for the chief of the disciples taught us that the heaven and the earth were to be renewed for the better, confirming the truth of the doctrine by the promise of the Master—this, too, would not be far from a God-loving judgment.
Besides this, it was not fitting that the most beautiful of all earthly works should be created last, but [it was fitting] that it should be established from the beginning along with the completeness of creation. For it was necessary for it to appear at the creation, since it was required that a dwelling and an extraordinary lot be assigned to those who had successfully contended against demons and passions. For the divine [Numen] is accustomed always to propose and provide rewards in advance: "For come," He says, "you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." B Therefore, paradise also needed—whether or not our first forefather was soon to be cast out of it—to be established before the combatants and the contests of which it was seen to be the prize, but to be established concurrently with the creation of the world, so that it might not be thought to have been a work of second thoughts and repentance, but rather [a work] of the judgment and goodness of Him who wisely established all things from the beginning.
QUESTION LII [al. LI]
Divinely exhorted by Paul: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing this you will heap coals of fire upon his head." How are we to understand, "You will heap coals of fire upon his head"?
C D The discourse of anagogy calls "coals" the apostles of the Lord and the martyrs, who were kindled by the divine and—needless to say—cleansing fire which burns up and consumes all wickedness; for "God is our fire, and a consuming fire" destroying wickedness. And the Psalmist also sings: "Coals were kindled by Him, as He bowed the heavens and came down," and, as it were, clothed Himself in our flesh as a cloud that veils the lightning flashes of His divinity. Again, he also calls "coals" the painful and bitter torments that burn and consume, according to what is said: "The arrows of the mighty are sharpened, with devastating coals," that is, dissipating and...
and desert-making punishments, which possess the power to consume the culprit; and in many other places one may find the [punishing] powers called coals. According, therefore, to the second meaning, he calls punishments and penalties "coals," transferring and shifting the name from the coals that are of the sensible fire which consumes earthly matter and burns with flame. He exhorts one, therefore, to feed the hungry enemy and to give drink to the thirsty; that is, to benefit and do good in many ways; for feeding and giving drink describes the totality of beneficence through a part. Then, he says, by doing good to the enemy and being disposed toward him with humanity, "you will heap coals upon his head."
B The word "heap," therefore, being divided into a double meaning, is supposed to bring forward a double understanding. The one, "heap," might manifest that which is "pile up from above," through which the sequence of the interpretation is also guided. For he says [and at a time to come] the fruits of hatred will seize the enemy: you, through whom he may not arise to render evil for evil, but rather by welcoming the one who has grieved you with benefits—which make us like the Divine—make the just and unerring Judge ready simultaneously to heap up all punishments and penalties against that shameless and imprudent head. "For vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." How then is he humane? How is he compassionate? How is he a benefactor, who arranges and meditates such things regarding enemies and pursues C the vengeance and punishment of that man? Certainly because he himself did not ask for these things, but he himself was doing these things in order to keep the divine commandment and to repay the enemy with benefits. But if the insulted Justice has provoked the Judge to vengeance, it would no longer be a matter of one who receives the judgments of Providence dissembling regarding the vengeance, and not being struck with wonder and praising the incorruptibility of the Judge. To do good and at the same time to seek to take vengeance upon an enemy is incompatible and [is a sign] of a confused mind, one inclined toward either of the contraries, and one that dissolves into vanity the profit of the good deed. But an action done for the benefit of [a person] with a sense D of freedom from malice and compassion for a human of the same kind, and for the sake of the commandment and for the sake of being made like unto our Father who is in heaven, belongs to one who has attained to the perfection of virtue. And this person would not gladly contemplate the punishment of an enemy, much less would he seek to take it. But when God judges and demands an accounting from him who has committed the injury, it would be a mark of the same piety toward God not to demand an accounting from the Judge, nor to be vexed at his judgment.
The one meaning, therefore, of "heap" sends us to such a contemplation; but the remaining meaning signifies "you shall collect," and "you shall take away," and "you shall deliver the head of the one who hates [you] from the coals." The power of the words might thus indicate: doing good, he says, and rendering good things to the enemy, [and the coals grazing upon and more quickly consuming the]
if one takes them away from him and provides for their removal, will find a great reward and the cause of soul's salvation. For in calling back his neighbor from bodily harm—which passes over even more into damage and ruin of the soul—he recurs to the imitation and likeness of the Master; for the one who saves a soul, he says, is like the one who created it. B But how are the coals gathered and removed from the head of the enemy through beneficence? Because the enemy, being greeted with food and drink and simply treated with kindness—even if not because of the good itself, yet because of his own comfort and enjoyment of the good things—ceases from enmity and desists from his plots; and slowly recovering his senses from his passion, and laying aside the burning and inflammation that is in his thoughts on account of the enmity, he will come to love and cherish and acknowledge his benefactor; and from there, slowly becoming accustomed to avoid the slandering tongue and the deeds by which his neighbor suffers harm, he becomes a lover of virtue. And who would ask for a greater reward than this for feeding and giving drink to his enemy? Or what is more useful than this? But if after such a benefit, the one being treated with kindness does not wish to desist from his wickedness and baseness, such a person would be a beast, rather than a participant in human nature; yet you, nevertheless, have heaped upon his head the coals that were consuming him, through your intent and zeal; and you have received a reward no less, nor have you in any way destroyed the character that bound you to the likeness of the Divine; but he, carrying himself entirely, has cast himself into punishment and unquenchable fire. C Some, however, have understood these "coals" as the deeds and admonitions that kindle and warm the ruling faculty, and which transfer and dissolve the great storm of enmity into a peaceful calm; these, they say, the benefactor heaps upon the head of the exasperated one, and thus expelling the deadly enmity and strengthening the sufferer in love, he has liberated this man from a great and destructive disease, and has secured for himself the blessedness that comes from this.
QUESTION LIII [al. LII]
How should the saying of God to Moses be understood: "Behold, I have given you as a god to Pharaoh"? D
The interpretation of the question arises from the words that follow; for it adds: "And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet; but you will speak all that I command you; and Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh." As, therefore, God used Moses to minister the plagues against Pharaoh and the Egyptians, so Moses used Aaron; he himself giving the order, having been ordered by God, but using his brother as a minister to Pharaoh. And the action preserved an absolute likeness in the analogy; for just as God [dealt] with Pharaoh through the intermediary of Moses, so Moses [dealt] with Pharaoh through the intermediary of Aaron to finish the divine portents. God commanded Moses in the desert of Horeb to cast down the rod, and it was transformed into a serpent; and simply whatever
Moses had been entrusted to perform through miracles, he communicated and committed everything to his brother, and through him he performed the stated miracles; so that it became clear what is meant by the words, "Behold, I have given you as God to Pharaoh." A
QUESTION LIV [al. LIII]
How should the apostolic saying be understood: "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another," and what is connected to this?There are holy men who have the grace to reveal the meaning hidden in the depth of the apostolic sayings, for whom the proposed text is expounded. Accepting their interpretation, your own diligent study regarding these things persuades us to take care; nor, if something else wells up from Paul's sayings, shall we neglect to derive it. For when he had said, he whose tongue was the instrument of the most holy Spirit, "You were called to freedom, brothers," and had taught that the children of grace are not subject to the servitude of circumcision, nor are they obligated to be held and afflicted by the heavy and difficult yoke of the law—lest, thinking that they were granted freedom to do even those things they should not, they might turn the opportunity for freedom into an injury to freedom, cutting sub-segments for the flesh and the passions, which sprout and spring from the flesh—for this reason he added: B "But through love serve one another," as if to say: C Having been called from a harsh servitude into an unexpected and blessed freedom, flee the dominion of the flesh, through which servitude is made heavy for you, and do not submit to its laws. It is manifest that the servitude of the flesh is the creator and artisan of many other passions and wickedness, and it schemes to devastate the beauty of virtue and freedom. [But it] also attempts to expel love from human minds. Therefore, he says, to pass over the other uprisings of wickedness for now, which are the offspring of the flesh and the carnal mind, against this conspiracy and strike coming from that source against you—I mean that which kills love—struggle bravely, and do not provide any pretext for this soul-destroying dart of sin to find a path within you. And this will be, perhaps, not laborious nor difficult to accomplish, but both easy and salvific; for if through love you serve one another, every dart of wickedness cast against you will be rendered ineffectual. For striking against the shield of [our] mutual concord and friendship, it is quickly shattered and, repelled, falls into a feeble blow, and at the same time fills the one who cast it with the shame he deserves; since service toward one another through love secures that help which is from above, and brings about a pure and blessed freedom through the peace which is among you, and causes the subsistent peace, our Lord Jesus Christ, to dwell in your hearts. D
Then he adds that the sum of the law is to love as
A one’s neighbor; and he establishes and demonstrates the high and beneficial nature of this love through sacred reflections. And, by setting forth through the consequences that befall human life, he tightens and strengthens his teaching; for since the generality of men do not wish to be made wise so much by laws and threats—which bring punishments over a long period of time—as by those things that are visible and transient and show that punishment is approaching, he does not bypass even the exhortation arising from these. Therefore, he says, as it were: If neither the desire for freedom moves you, nor does the profit of servitude to one another call you, nor that this indeed is the desire of the Spirit, and the contrary is the desire of the flesh, nor that the achievement of love is the fulfillment of the law, then at least be afraid of the destruction and ruin of one another. For to bite and devour one another with envy and slanders and the accusations from which even envy B gains license, how would it not be detestable? How is it not to be avoided? How is it not, even without exhortation, to be shunned? Therefore, one must be careful not to fall away from love; for to slip from this is to be swallowed up into battles and factions and quarrels, and it prepares [men] to arm themselves against one another, and these things bring about your destruction and ruin. And consider how he introduces love here; even though the discussion was primarily leading him toward the putting aside of circumcision. And with this intention set before him, the good of love is nevertheless intertwined with that purpose. Why? So that those disputing with one another—those who made a pride of circumcision and those to whom Paul’s exhortation was better—might not divide themselves into factions and quarrels and contentions, which are seen to follow quickly upon the biting and devouring of one another; of which things he himself, philosophizing in a most excellent way, would, in my judgment, be the one who removes them, C and teaches those near him to philosophize as well, instructing them in words just as in deeds.
QUESTION LV
How may the sacred oracle, just as it is better than every accusation, also be shown to be inaccessible to it? Namely: "Amen, amen, I say to you," he says, "wherever this Gospel is preached, what she did will also be spoken of in memory of her." For if one were to define "Gospel" as the action of the woman, he does not seem to escape the charge of idle talk; but if one defines it as the whole Scripture of the disciples who composed the excellent works and deeds of the Master and common Savior, this also does not seem to maintain the consequence; for these had not yet been committed to writing.
Your difficulty, then, in approaching this is quite keen, yet it is not laborious, nor does it require much attention to perceive the consequence in the proposed divine oracles, and it is much better to establish this than to thrust upon it a pretext of foolishness. For, first of all, even if D the Gospels had not yet been written, the divine works of Jesus were nonetheless being proclaimed to all by the unwritten word. And if even before its birth each one is clearly...
A knowledgeable, what prevents the Gospel, which not long after was destined to receive Scripture as well, from being proclaimed? Where then would one find room for any inconsistency in the words: "Wherever this Gospel is preached, it shall also be told what she has done"? If, moreover, one understands "the Gospel" to be the very pious act of the woman, not even in that way would the stain of babbling attach to it in any B respect. For He did not say simply, "Wherever it is preached, it shall be told," but: "Wherever it is preached, it shall be told in memory of her." That is to say, He will raise up glory for them in an everlasting memory of her, and will cause the account of her love for God to echo everywhere and be admired. For the holy Scriptures are accustomed to accept the term "memorial" to signify praises C in a glorious manner, and to indicate a glory that is flourishing and thriving with the passing of time, as in: "In everlasting remembrance shall the righteous be," and: "Their memory perished with a sound," and many such things. And He rightly adds glory, and predicts the holy service of the woman; for since those men were heaping blame and reproach upon the God-loving act of the wise harlot and were bringing her D into judgment through their censures, for this reason the Savior, passing over other things, concurred with the act that took place, and set forth praise and glory, so that the fame of the deed might be spread abroad everywhere. For it was necessary, toward those whom they were dividing with bitter rebukes and confusing the soul, to exhort and refresh them with the opposite, and to restore to her a joyous and exultant mind, and at the same time to curb the recklessness of those who were accusing her. It is as if the Savior’s word, proclaiming the act that was subject to your accusations, were crying out that not only is it absolved from every charge, but it shall be preached everywhere, as it will demonstrate the flower of prudence eliciting a beautiful and unfading bloom from harlot-like roots, and will show a wondrous disposition, and that she had received a thought more sublime than befits a woman, and had known God and worshipped Him with divine sacrifices, whom the human form was concealing. Therefore, even the ends of the earth will be seen offering up beatification and praises to her.
QUESTION LVI [al. LV]
What meaning is it logical and blameless to investigate and understand through the words of David, which say: "Against You only have I sinned and done evil before You, that You might be justified in Your words, and prevail when You are judged"?
The unique solution to this difficulty, and one that aligns with Davidic wisdom and resolves what seems to make the words inconsistent and prone to disagreement, is this: the answer is not to that clause, "Against You only have I sinned," but to the clause, "That You might be justified in Your words," even if it held a place closer to the preceding one. But it would be rendered more properly and wisely if, indeed, it were taken in reference to those things which precede from the beginning; for example: "Have mercy on..."
my God, according to thy great mercy, and according to the multitude of thy mercies blots out my iniquity, that thou mayest be justified in thy words and prevail when thou art judged.” As for the other things lying between, they do not sever the sequence either of the meaning or of the order. What then are the words by which God, in showing mercy, is justified? “Or do you first declare your sins that you may be justified,” and: “I do not desire the death of the sinner, as that he should turn from his wicked way and live,” and again: “I do not desire the death of him who dies, but turn and live.” For these words justify God, affirming them with acts of loving-kindness and fulfilling them with compassion and mercy. For even if they are later in time than the Davidic sin and repentance, yet in David they are not later in prophetic knowledge. For the psalm itself no less engraves David’s repentance and confession and mercy over his fall than it foretells the captivity of Israel in later times; and it foretells that they, in type and figure, are found worthy of mercy and kindness as he has requested, and it heralds by prophetic knowledge that exultation and gladness shall be heard, and that bones which have been humbled shall exult and be made firm by a sovereign spirit, and that Sion shall be made good by divine favor, and the destroyed walls and ruined parts of Jerusalem be rebuilt. In the Davidic words, therefore, far from being fashioned for the transgressor, with the modes joined together in a straight line, nothing, as has been said, that is discordant with the rectitude and understanding of the prophetic utterances occurs; for they invoke C the mercy and benevolence from above, through which the justice and truth of God shine all the more. Thus it is easy and not unfortunate to see how the ambiguous has been purified through the related sacred text, and how it has not adulterated the divine wisdom and virtue of the prophet, nor cast any doubt into the minds, nor anything alien to a purpose worthy of God.
Since the Davidic utterance finds its own proper completion and facility, but there are many other sacred words that admit of the same inquiry but are not solved by the same method, it is better to have recourse to a theory that works more universally—a divine and well-ordering theory—and from there, by the common discernment of all, to set forth as clearly as possible the consequence and the sense worthy of sacred things. There are, therefore, things that assume the same form of composition and require to be unfolded into that same natural and unfigured property of the expression, to propose a few out of many: “I will stretch out my hand to strike D you and your people, and you shall be destroyed from the earth,” which the Lord says to Pharaoh through Moses; and: “For this have you been preserved, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be declared in all the earth”; and again: “I hardened his heart and those of his servants, that the signs might come upon them, that
I might tell in the ears of your children.” Then: A “And Pharaoh will not listen to you, that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in their land.” For each of these, and whatever else is brought forward through similar expressions according to the etiological manner of rendering the phrase, is announced indeed by the idiom of our holy Scripture; but when received into the natural form of the discourse, it unfolds piety, and adapts the understanding to that which is akin to our theosophy. For it is confirmed by ancient custom that things which are entirely destined to happen, and which cannot be cut off due to the imperfection of the outcome, are often proclaimed in this form; since even those which have been allotted a phrase indicating causes, hold the order of those things which have a conceded substance.
B But the nature of such Scripture is indeed such as this: “Pharaoh was incredulous and hardened,” and the miraculous plagues and blows inflicted upon him followed his disobedience and hardness. These things resounded openly and were bruited about throughout the whole earth, proclaiming the power of God all around and preparing the strong hand of God to be an object of admiration and wonder. Therefore, the Scripture, fashioning into an etiological form this which was entirely destined to happen from his hardness, brought it forward, proclaiming by its mode the unchangeable firmness of the outcome; for things that are explained etiologically are altogether meant to be defined and interpreted by the unalterable nature of their progression. C Pharaoh is punished, therefore, not so that God might be glorified—even if the form of the voice and the composition takes on such an appearance—but because he disobeyed, and it was necessary for the penalties to be inflicted upon his disobedience. And although the penalties were not directed toward this end, so that he might become a slave to disobedience, yet because they followed immediately, punishing the impious man, and by these stupendous divine manifestations of blows and plagues, as has been said, the power and glory of God were simultaneously increased and flourished, it is not without reason that the form and appearance according to the etiological [method] is placed upon the narrative, with D the foreknowledge of the divine oracles testifying and announcing that which was entirely to happen even before it had come to pass.
In the same way, the Davidic words, which formerly received their own elucidation and arrangement, could be fitted to the same and similar perfection as those stated: David sinned, and with the greatest of sins, not so that God might be justified—for there is not, there is not the sin of anyone that drapes righteousness upon God—but because he sinned, yet did not increase the sin either by obduracy or by [presumptuous] foreknowledge, but rather fled to repentance and tears, hastening to wash himself clean of the sin. And God gives pardon in philanthropy, displaying His own justice, both bright to all and something to be stared at, greater than human understanding. Therefore, when David had said, “Against You only have I sinned, that You might be justified,” he added, “in Thy words,” repentance indeed taking up the iniquity, while philanthropy takes up the repentance beyond all speech, and in philanthropy [it takes up] the [sins] in the words…
emitting rays of justice and every compassion and goodness. And the words here might be understood as God’s condescending to human fragility and setting Himself into arguments and judgment. For He says: “Come, and let us reason together, says the Lord.” [Isa. I, 18.] But when an examination is made, in contrast, of the gifts and benefits David enjoyed and the illegitimate acts to which he slipped: from the tongue of a reed-pipe and the A art of playing the flute—which he fashioned for himself in ignorance—[he became] the tongue of the Spirit and an organ of wisdom and knowledge that is beyond reason; from a mocked stripling, the improvised leader of war and of the entire battle-line, who, alone and without missiles and arms and the rest of the preparation and experience of combat, brought back victory and broke the dominion of the enemies; from the misery that is under the open sky, the splendors and more splendid habitations of two-storied and three-storied houses, and a life flowing with shelter and delicacies; and, hailing from a village, the lord of many cities; instead of a pastoral pitcher and wallet, a scepter in his hand, and around his head the diadem of kingship; from a herd of cattle and a flute and the sound soothing their ears, a prophet pouring forth the charisms of works and prophecies that are beyond speech; from pastoral melodies and the care of animal flocks and a staff sustaining a body burdened with labor, a royal throne and purple and bodyguards and a crown; to speak in a word, from a layman, a prophet, and from a fugitive, a king who had obtained possession of B a victory over enemies without a battle.
Such then are the divine things concerning David, and many greater [things] are passed over. But as for my own infirmity and David’s: he was conquered by a woman, having taken love as an ally in war; adultery and homicide danced against the magnitude of the benefactions. The flesh treated the Spirit with insolence, and lawless concupiscence mocked the charisms of the gifts—and what were these? The prophet and king [became] a tavern-keeper, not mixing wine with water, but mixing and adulterating the gifts that are beyond speech with the passions and assaults of the flesh. In these and such words, God is judged and justified concerning David; for there is surely ground to say how much His justice surpassed, and [how it] displayed the excellence of His goodness, especially by not subjecting to vengeance him who repaid evil for such great goods. For thus the C ineffable mercy of God would have been cut short, and that which is radiant in it and has no speech to recount its magnitude; for by vengeance and chastisement, he who has been unjustly harmed dissolves the greater part of the debts. Therefore, the Davidic words of repentance and confession, and every like word of the sacred Oracles, while foretelling what is in every way to happen, declare it etiologically, and in shaping the form, it presents before the eyes the kinship of that which is to come about inevitably. Whoever, therefore, of the [sacred] Oracles...
and of the canon of the mind is guided, when he arrives at a discourse concerning some problem dressed in allegorical tropes, it is clear that he will endure no tumult, nor disturbance, nor any doubt that might lay hold upon his thoughts; but rather, by the discourse stripping away the conception of the figure, he will behold clearly what is to come to pass, for the sake of the manifestation of which the figurative mode is employed. A
QUESTION LVII.
Why, while the disciples of the Saviour were baptizing, did John still baptize?Because he maintained the same conviction, immutable until his slaughter, for the sake of which he was seen from the beginning to be a minister of baptism. For at that time indeed he was baptizing so that he might preach to the multitude of those approaching the common Saviour of the race; and afterwards [he did so] so that, by not slackening B his intensity, he might not be reproved for such God-loving testimony and holy-minded purpose. The disciples of the Saviour, therefore, were baptizing, preaching the Redeemer of the race; John also was baptizing, having become the primordial pattern of their sacred operation, joining himself to those who were laboring alongside, and being established as a co-worker in this saving and pre-purificatory action. For he cried out while baptizing, testifying to the divinity of Jesus before all. For this was what their heavenly Bridegroom C willed, and was eager to prepare—he who is by far greater than all, and sent by God, and speaking the words of God, and having received and possessing the Spirit not by measure of gift and participation in operation, as all the prophets, but by the righteousness of co-generation and the dignity of supersubstantial consubstantiality. However, the baptism of John and that of the disciples of the Saviour differed in no respect except for the variation of the persons. For each of them was preparing those baptized to become fit to receive the baptism to be D perfected through fire and Spirit; yet neither of them supplied the grace and efficacy of the Spirit, nor the total remission of sins. For such a gift, beyond speech, was bestowed upon those being baptized after the distribution of the tongues of fire and through them the presence of the Holy Spirit.
QUESTION LVIII.
For what reason does Moses, when recording the genealogies of the principalities of Esau according to Genesis, simply recount the naked names of the others, but upon coming to Ainan says: "This is he who found Iamin in the desert when he was feeding the beasts of burden of Seegon his father"? What, therefore, is it that he found? And why is it worthy of mention?The Syriac word Iamin, or, as some say, Elmein, means a fountain; and fountains and wells were a desirable commodity for those who were of Abraham; for since they were shepherds and obtained their entire livelihood from
the great number and prosperity of their sheep, they highly valued fountains and wells, as the feeding was not much less important than the water in fattening and improving the condition of their herds. Thus, certainly, Abraham appears to have received treatment from Abimelech, and not considering it foolish to rebuke him regarding the removal of the wells he had dug himself; nor did the other mock the rebuke, but he replied that he was ignorant of the act committed by his own servants, and Abraham hastened, through seven lambs, to confirm Abimelech's admission that the well was the work and labor of Abraham. And an oath and covenants followed, and the fountain took the name from the act, being called the Well of the Oath. But the Philistines also, at a later time, in the land where Isaac was staying, fleeing the famine in his own country, having meditated to drive him out through envy, stopped up the wells of his father, knowing that the shepherds could not live, deprived of the utility of the wells. And Moses, because he had repelled the shepherds who had started the unjust work and had provided the daughters of Jethro, more quickly than on other days, the opportunity to water their flocks, pleased the father, and the master of the house became a protector instead of a stranger. B There are countless other things one could take through which, for the descendants of Abraham, wells were considered a desirable and great possession; which Ainan or Onan—for he is named by either term—finding without labor, provided material for the history of Moses, the spectator of God, who wove the genealogy of the cosmogony and of the family of Esau.
QUESTION LIX [al. LVIII].
What is signified by that which is written in Deuteronomy: “If you build a new house and make a battlement for your roof, you shall not bring blood-guilt upon your house”? (Deut. xxii, 8).
It has indeed been said by those before us regarding this utterance that it stands in need of neither illustration nor correction. However, since it is pleasant to you to hear from us even those things which it is easy to learn from others, we ourselves also agreeing with them—and especially with those by whom something of the rest has been contemplated for the better—and making a consonant exposition, we say first that one must know that the conjunction, which is often redundant, as are many other of the words in the Mosaic ordinances, holds a place. Therefore the saying would be more correctly read if the conjunction at the beginning were removed; but the interpretation is divided into two meanings. D For the one passes over to the letter and is directed through sensible things, but the other wishes rather to be led upward toward theory. That former one, then, making for itself a preliminary path through which the word and sense more strongly prevail, thus perhaps unfolds what is signified: For you, he says, when you have set as your goal to build a house, and to trench, as is likely, and to lay the foundations, you ought not to leave the pits before you lead the work to its end, without the appropriate enclosure and security, in order that you may not, to one ignorant of your action, be the cause—
A of a death, when the one who has fallen into the pit, as he had no prior knowledge of the new construction, finds himself there, and you have initiated no care that such a thing might not come to pass. For it is not unlikely that many of the unreasoning animals might fall into the pit and perish; but even some men, whom the previous arrangement of the places, the custom of crossing them, and the short time since the innovation have caused to leave the newly-wrought things in shadow, and who, suspecting neither anything new nor any recent harm, have been led by these same things—which deceived them—to find destruction instead of the utility that was intended. For this reason, one must not omit any security in the things we do, by which we may keep those of the same race and kin impervious to all harm and damage. For it is illegitimate and cruel to allow those of the same race and tribe—from whom we ourselves gather benefits—to endure the uttermost of sufferings and pains. But when the due providence is applied, and from that point on no one of those passing by is cast into the pits, there will be no death in the newly-built house; and the enclosure and rim devised around the pit have rendered the house clean of homicide and clearly demonstrate to all the providence toward one’s neighbor, becoming a cause of many fine praises for the prudent author; and it stores up the enjoyment of such care and B the prescriptions for similar works for him who established them in the first place. And this, which is most pleasing to God, has established the legislation, being both powerful and salvific and venerable. This, then, is the way to take the meaning of the proposed discourse as regards the sensible realm.
Question 59
Those who raise their spirit more toward contemplation, this discourse would also wish to connect to their exhortation. Those who use a newer philosophy, one placed above the grasp of the multitude, and who concern themselves with a life free from vulgar conversation, ought not to set a new foundation, and then attempt to prepare a new house, and one that is in no way inclined toward the multitude, nor one that falls away from the traces of customary conversation; but, once they are in the very middle of their works, they must not slacken the tension of their struggles, and by the ease of similar labors make the work of excellent art—which was well begun—rotten and liable to collapse; and the house through which it was possible to hold off firmly the falling rains and the storms of temptations, and to quench the flaming ray of the passions, or to restrain their heat—C this house, having been begun so splendidly to be built, and advancing so sweetly to the point of admiration, should not, through a slackening of purpose, be later allowed to collapse into mockery, and its former good reputation be exchanged for hatred and contumely. But it is necessary that this house, having been newly begun to be built, should be maintained with success in similar efforts, and that one should place a crown around this pleasant and beautiful lodging—that is, to prepare the accuracy and care that leads to the crowns until the end; for D the crowns belong to those who struggle legitimately and until the end. "For no one," says the herald of the Church, "is crowned, unless he has struggled legitimately."* He knows, however, * II Tim. ii, 5.
A that the progress and perfection according to Christ is a "new creature," and he who has kept the new testament ever newer by the same new institutions B will always be preserved. "If anyone, therefore," he says, "is a new creature in time," C he must be renewed—that is, persevere in being renewed in the novelty which has been wisely and beyond words built in all things, bringing in nothing old or any disease of decay. For if crowns are not placed upon the house that is being renewed through virtues—that is, if we do not preserve until the end the youthful, new, and beautiful contests which procure for us those crowns—there will be a fall, and the worst of falls, in the decay of the building. For it drags down and undermines even him who from the beginning of the novelty of the building—would that he had not labored in vain—emulated better things. For so miserably to be cast down after so many labors and sweats, as if out of repentance to insult the things that preceded, and to become a slave of passions and a prey of the enemy, would be no worse than not having chosen the novelty of the way of life from the beginning, or after having chosen it, not to have carried it through to the end, but to have preferred detestable things to those that are to be emulated. And from such things, those who hate can be delighted with mockery and reproaches; about which the holy Cyril did not keep silent when he spoke of divine things.
QUESTION LX [al. LIX]
D Why did Christ touch the leper, notwithstanding the legal uncleanness, when he could have healed him with a word alone?First, it is proper to know this: that from the fact that the Savior at one time judged it right to keep the law, and at another time showed that the lesser things were inferior to those that are better and beyond man, it was not the case that, whenever he was deemed to be observing the law, he was observing it as one subject to the laws. Rather, in this he was fulfilling the dispensation, and showing that, just as he did not disdain to take up human nature, so too he does not disdain the things through which human affairs are ordered, but follows them whenever nothing else of the higher things draws him or shifts his providence toward itself. By this, he was at once stopping the blasphemous and unbridled mouths of the Jews, and turning back upon their own heads the impiety and lawlessness which their God-fighting madness did not shudder to cast, as if against the Master, against God and against the Law. Since even when his disciples were accused, because while walking on the Sabbath they plucked the ears of grain, and in their hunger made the spontaneous repast their medicine, he showed them, through sacred and other means, and by the citation of examples, that those who proposed Scripture with strength and dignity were not violating it, but were free from blame and untouched by all accusation. Nay, he clearly proclaimed that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, and not a slave to the observance of it. Therefore, when he was present, the privilege of the Sabbath was diminished, just as the freedom of a servant vanishes when the master stands by, but is governed by the Lord’s nod. For in those matters wherein the
divine power was working salvation, the laws that were educating men kept silent; for they understood that the work of salvation itself A was far better than their own pedagogy. In those instances where the observance of the laws did not supersede the performance of miracles, and did not disregard human salvation, then those laws themselves would recognize their own proper right; or rather, they always possessed their own preservation from those things which the Savior was performing.
For when the giving of the laws appeared to be flourishing most, the priests did not consider the cutting of wood, the kindling of a fire, or the dividing of flesh to be an injury or a destruction of the strength of those laws, but they even considered it a beauty and a title of honor to bear those secondary tasks; and they did not deem it a weakness of their own proper authority—nor did it seem to be a violation of the command—to unloose an ox or an ass from the manger, and to lead them away to partake of drink, so that they might temper their own [the animals'] infirmity. And what need is there to speak of a sheep drawn out of a pit, or an ox, or a son of man drawn out of the wells, and how many other such things? The laws of the Sabbath, reverencing their power, were rather aided and exalted by these; for, having been introduced from the beginning, they were defined by the inclusion of many other works and the exhibition of the actions B that were set apart within them.
The Savior, therefore, brought forth these and suchlike matters into the midst, in response to the foolish Jews who were denouncing the performance of miracles and the curing of incurable diseases as a transgression of the Sabbath, setting against the man-made actions those works which are above reason, and showing how great the difference is between the two. And it was not possible, even for the impudent Jews, to deny that the saving actions were of much greater value and more wondrous than the cutting of wood, the dividing of flesh, the pulling of a sheep or an ox out of a pit or well, and whatever is comparable to these, even if they would not desist from their impious and God-fighting frame of mind.
But observe yourself the incomprehensible wisdom and ineffable providence of God: how that which was destined to be completely dissolved in later times by the grace which causes it to fade—I speak of the law—was, by its power and decree, introduced and strengthened from the beginning, so that the complete dissolution which arrived might show that what was brought about was neither new nor paradoxical—when set against the partial [dissolution] with which the law progressed—but that it might both confound the Jews and stop their unbelief, and that [it might prove] the law was not maintained with unseasonable zeal, as if the law were only now tending toward dissolution, but that it had progressed from the beginning with a dissolution [already inherent], and stood together with dissolution, for it was never, from the very beginning, subject to an indissoluble state.
And the dissolution did not preserve the legislation only within the limits of the Sabbaths, but also in allocating the designated time for the completion of the Passover, and by gathering the universality of the action in that which is a superposition [added] by parts. Certainly, the one temple, set apart for sacrifices for the Jews dispersed everywhere on earth, gave notice in every way that the sacrifice, not being offered and [rendered] ungrateful, would be in the future; this indeed C (for the slave’s boldness is quiet, and is guided by the master’s nod. But yet, in those matters wherein He was deifying human salvation, the laws that were educating men kept silent; for they understood that the work of salvation itself was far better than their own pedagogy. In those instances where the observance of the laws was not setting itself above the miracle-working, nor disregarding the salvation of men, then those [laws] themselves would acknowledge their own proper right; or rather, it was something always preserved along with them, from the things which the Savior was performing. For the contribution of the laws, even when they appeared to be flourishing most, did not consider the cutting of wood, and the kindling of a fire, and the dividing of flesh by the priests to be an injury, nor a destruction of their own strength; but they even considered it a beauty and a title of honor to bear those secondary tasks; and they did not attribute it to a weakness of their own proper authority to unloose an ox and an ass from the manger, and to lead them away to partake of drink, nor was it considered a dissolution to them that these things should also serve the command. And what need is there to speak of a sheep being drawn up out of a pit, and an ox or son of man being drawn up out of the wells; and how many other such things? The laws of the Sabbath, reverencing the power of which, were rather satisfied and honored; for having been brought in from the beginning, they were separated by the inclusion of many other works and the arrangement of the actions within them.
These, therefore, and suchlike things—to the foolish Jews crying out about the transgression of the Sabbath [regarding] the miracles and the healing of incurable diseases—the Savior brought into the midst, setting against the man-made actions those works which are above reason, and showing how great is the difference between the two; and it was not possible for the shameless Jews not to agree that the saving actions were much more precious and more wondrous than the cutting of wood and dividing of flesh, and pulling a sheep and an ox out of a ditch and well, and whatever is comparable to these, although they did not desist from their impious and God-fighting frame of mind. But you, observe the incomprehensible wisdom and ineffable providence of God; how that which was destined to be completely dissolved in later times as it gave way to the power and decree of grace (I mean the law), was introduced and strengthened from the beginning, so that the complete dissolution which stood over it might show that what had occurred was nothing new nor paradoxical to the one being set forth—[a law] which progressed in part and with which the law went forth—but that it might both confound the Jews and silence their disobedience; and [that it might show that the law was] not a thing zealously held at an unseasonable time, as if the law were not now moving toward dissolution, but had proceeded from the beginning with a dissolution, and was established with a dissolution, yet was not, from the beginning, subjected to an indissoluble state. And it did not preserve the legislation [only] in the case of the Sabbaths, with the dissolution [occurring] within its own limits, but also by allocating the designated time for the custom of the Passover, and, in the superposition according to parts, by gathering the completeness of the action. Nay, truly, one temple being set apart for the sacrifices for the Jews dispersed everywhere on earth, gave notice in every way that the sacrifice, for the Jews scattered on earth, [was to be] D
discontinued—partly because they were unable to gather from everywhere to the same temple throughout the year, and partly because the temple was soon to be overturned by hostile hands. And it is possible to perceive in countless other things how the old legislation was, from every side, to be eventually relegated to antiquity, inasmuch as the symbols that constituted it were proclaiming and announcing this beforehand, not so much by words as by deeds and actions themselves. And indeed, this legislation had been a prologue and a preliminary exercise from the beginning for another polity, which was more sublime and divine, and which did not admit of dissolution—on account of which he also participated entirely in a temporal birth.
Our Savior, therefore, B heals the leper by touch both for these reasons and to show that He Himself was the Lord, as much of the introduction of the law as of its non-introduction; for just as He was able not to introduce it, so [could He] introduce it for others, yet not introduce it for Himself. For it is not fitting that the lawgiver should be subject to the observance of the law, the keeping of which is appropriate only for those for whom the laws are established. For just as a king, in establishing laws for a city and its polities, does not subject himself to those for whom he adapts and constitutes the regime, and proclaims that he has set a boundary of the decree for his subjects, and in their immediate vicinity, yet he himself sits high above the political order and service; while he maintains and preserves the government by his own precepts: so also the Creator of the world and King of all provided laws according to the times to those who are in the world, through which it was possible for their mind to be ordered and C regulated for the better, while He Himself was in no need of such providence, and is superior to those upon whom, in His kindness, He bestowed these as a benefit, so that they might receive the utility of them. For not like other lawgivers, who establish and enact laws while many others judge and concur with their opinion, did our Savior introduce the legislation; but as God and Lord of all, He Himself possessed the authority over the entire legislation. Therefore, it is necessary for the former to be subject to the things legislated, but reason excludes the latter, because He supereminently excels all the rest.
But come now, and consider this with me: the law terms him who touches a leper "unclean"—not someone whom it knew would cleanse the one held by the malady through the touch (for there were no hopes, as grace was not yet at hand, nor even its preludes, which would reveal a man performing divine works and stronger than the malady, D especially one who demonstrated manifest healing; but rather, one who brings nothing to the leper for cleansing, and whom it saw as becoming more a participant of the malady than freeing the sufferer from uncleanness). But Christ, our Savior, the physician of souls and bodies, cleanses the leper by touch immediately, and immediately puts the disease to flight more effectively than can be said. How then, is it not absurd to fear the touch as a cause of uncleanness, when one knows that through this touch He has demonstrated the one oppressed by leprosy to be cleansed? And how is it not inconsistent [to consider] the leper no longer a leper nor unclean
but cleansed and healthy through the Lord's touch, and to be so held and displayed to all, while yet believing that He who graciously and supernaturally bestowed this cleansing upon him shares in the uncleanness which He did not even permit to remain in another body? Therefore, the law did not forbid one who brushes away the affliction of the body through touch from touching [the leper] (for He would not have escaped the charge of misanthropy), but rather those who, in touching, remove nothing of the uncleanness, yet nevertheless touch those who are still held by the corruption and are more able to cause harm by their contagion than to gain healing through their hands. B And since the Son of Man was Lord, [He had the power] both to establish and not to establish the law (for the assumption of flesh did not remove the power of the divinity, but the assumed man made the power of the One who assumed him his own); and because He who is primarily and originally the lawgiver subjects those under His hand to the legislation, yet is not himself simultaneously subjected to nor moved around together with those who are subject to the law; and because the old law had its origin through a loosening, and promised security concurrent with that loosening—not that one destroyed the other, but that through both the legislation received its subsistence; and because the law does not forbid man from touching those who are cleansing him from uncleanness through touch, but [forbids] those who can in no way improve the condition of one afflicted by uncleanness; and because by the things which the Savior did, He honored the legislation all the more, proving it not to be contrary to divine signs, but rather demonstrating it to be taken up in concurrence [with them]. Therefore, for all these reasons, so far as I know, our Savior and God, healing the leper C and joining the touch with the word, indicated that he was cleansed beyond [the power of] human speech.
QUESTION LXI [al. LX]
Quid significat illud: « Est spes canem viventem meliorem esse leone mortuo »?According to the letter, the meaning is indeed plain; but it seems to tend toward nothing useful or necessary. For it is known to all that not only is a living dog better than a dead lion, but everything that possesses a vestige of life is judged to be of a much better order than that which has cast it off, even if it be a lion, and even if it had attained to an immense superiority of the nature and strength of lions, the living thing is considered worthier than the dead one. Therefore, it D is better to cross over from the letter to the spirit and to be carried upward to the contemplation of intellectual things. We have therefore learned from the sacred oracles that those called from the nations are dogs, while the royal and excellent people, whom the lion would represent, is the one named the Jewish people. The Ecclesiastes therefore says: « For indeed, the gift of wisdom was given by God to him for the present, and indeed for things past and for things to come, to be expanded and to be extended together. » He says, therefore, that the dog, that is, the man from the nations (for we are taught that he is called this through the Canaanite woman), if...
the life according to the virtues does not entirely abandon him, he would provide hopes that he will not fall from goodness, rather than he who is of the royal and proud race of the Jews, but lies dead in his accomplishments. For the former, partaking of the better life, extends hopes and will run toward the perfection of his accomplishments; but the latter, carrying in himself the dead energy of the virtues, and for this reason being numbered among the dead, vainly boasts of being a lion, bringing with him no trace of true life. B And indeed, even the man considered unclean, inasmuch as he is defiled by sins and deprived of the purity found through the virtues, if he washes away the mire of the passions with tears and repentance, is often found better than he who seems great and exalted in the virtues, haughty and royal in his thinking, having himself wiped away-the scars of sins by the continuity of his cure. But he who is painted as a lion by the color of the virtues, having often been puffed up by the inflation of his pride, has been shattered in his arrogance and become dead, with sin receiving him into its mortifying and lethal dwellings. If you wish, even he who has been regenerated through baptism into the life according to Christ, even if shamelessness previously disfigured him like a dog, and he was fashioned after some other characteristic of irrational creatures, still he offers hopes of being transformed toward goodness and of being called good; but he who has fallen from this regeneration and is deprived of the life that comes from it, even if he appears to be adorned with certain virtues and glories in the loftiness of his conduct, nonetheless remains dead, and far worse than him who had previously become a dog, but who had not lost the life-bearing grace. C
QUESTION LXII [al. LXI]
What is the meaning of what is said in Ecclesiastes: "Send your bread upon the face of the water, for in the multitude of days you will find it."
The virtue of almsgiving is accustomed to be set forth by Scripture in many ways, D but especially by the giving and sharing of bread; for indeed the need for this sustains human life most of all. Therefore, from the more vital part, the bread, it takes up the whole virtue of almsgiving. It is written, therefore: "Break your bread for the hungry," and now Solomon, by saying, "Send your bread upon the face of the water," has signified almsgiving, of which it is necessary to be a dispenser to those who are established in need, and to look only toward the benevolent hand where the hope of life is placed; and he says that it is fitting to bring this almsgiving from a disposition that is compassionate and arising through tears, yet not to seize upon the misfortune of one's neighbor as a pretext for display and boasting. For such a person has not sent his bread upon the face of the water, but has cast it, abused by arrogance and defiled by the craving for glory. For mercy through pride and self-love
A is poured forth more to the injury than to the refreshment of the needy. For a sensible man will judge it to be a debt—and a debt that cannot be avoided—not to despise a brother consumed by want and perishing in destitution, and he will hasten to fulfill it and will in no way delay; but to hunt for glory and to assume for oneself the title of benefactor through such an action would be the mark of the senseless, and of those who perform good in an evil way. Therefore, the former will find the bread of alms in the multitude of days, that is to say, in the world to come, receiving mercy in return; but the latter will not find it: for it has been consumed in advance by the hunting for glory and the commerce of ostentation.
But one could, through the aforesaid words, also pass to another meaning. What is this? To call the multitude of men, as Scripture is wont to do, "waters." "Deliver me," says the one who sings in the Spirit, B "from many waters, from the hand of strange children" (Ps. CXLIII, 7). Therefore, the teacher of sacred sciences, the bread which feeds the soul—which has been entrusted to him by God—is bound to distribute to the multitude of hearers without any delay or postponement, and never to deprive those who are in need of this provision. And what is the reward of this benevolent work? It is clearly that which is repaid in the multitude of days. But since water can signify different subjects of things, it would perhaps not be unreasonable for one who examines this discourse—which says that it is fitting to perform alms always—to pay attention to the perennial fountains of waters, and to transfer their active power to mercy by imitation, and not to pour out compassion at one time and withhold it at another, but to open up continuous and uninterrupted streams to those in need. For "the Lord is merciful and lends all the day long," if one listens to David singing; and if one who is merciful to the poor C lends to God, how could anyone who loves God and preserves the nobility of His image think it tolerable not to make God his debtor at all times, but to cut himself off and deprive himself of the contribution of such and so great a gain? It is manifest that such a one will find it always, but especially in the multitude of days, for the communication of bread has stored up a continuous retribution for him.
Indeed, the initiator of mysteries also sends the supersubstantial and mystical bread upon the face of the water of regeneration, providing it to those who are initiated into the mysteries and who are in need of heavenly and soul-strengthening food. For after the divine regeneration of water, the heavenly and life-giving bread is offered to those who have been reborn; and he who distributes this in wisdom and dispenses it according to dignity D has found the bread that truly came down from heaven and gives life to the world, for it always gives life to him and strengthens and nourishes him, but especially at the time of the retribution of those who have finished their lives. There are, however, some who think that such a meaning also underlies the saying; it is not right to be agitated by cares
or to weigh up the person being fed or receiving mercy. And it is clear from these A that "water" is taken to signify the system of mankind. It is not necessary, therefore, they say, to scrutinize the one in need of alms beforehand as to whether he is worthy of mercy and kindness or not, but rather, considering the one who is asking for philanthropy as worthy, to provide this without hesitant reasoning. For just as one who casts bread upon the waters casts it into uncertainty, and does not know where the current drags it, yet it is seen clearly by Him who has knowledge of all things and is contained by His almighty grasp; in the same way, he who provides mercy to those who seek it with an undiscerning and unhesitating mind, now indeed does not recognize who it is that has received it, but in the multitude of days, that is, in the age to come, he will recognize him. And finding that bread in the hand of the Master as He shows it and says, "I was hungry and you gave me to eat," B it is clear that he will be filled with every joy and exultation; not only having found the bread he sent upon the face of the waters, but having found it become much more precious and useful to him.
QUESTION LXIII
What is the meaning of: "He who digs a pit shall fall into it"?
Foveam here refers to a scheme against one's neighbor and deep destruction, according to what is written: "He has opened a pit and dug it, and he shall fall into the pit which he wrought," and "The sinner was snared in the works of his own hands." He, therefore, who digs such a pit and destruction for another falls into it himself first C; for in plotting these things before the injury to his neighbor, he destroys his own soul. For if he inflicts bodily harm upon his fellow man, he has often helped him rather than destroyed him, while he has thrust himself into the pit of spiritual ruin. But he who has plotted the destruction of his neighbor's soul, whether he has caught the one being harassed or not, has nonetheless destroyed his own soul first. For the incorruptible judgment, weighing the offense according to the intent and the mind, even if the one being plotted against often escapes the one set upon harming him, exacts the penalty anyway. D Ecclesiastes therefore encourages through these words that he who seeks to be inexperienced in harm and to keep himself from injury should refrain from all wickedness. And indeed, he who contrives evil against his neighbor shall not escape the punishment according to the law, but whether he has gouged out an eye, his own will be dug out; or if he has extracted a tooth, he will lose his own; and there is no injustice harming a neighbor that does not deliver the one acting unjustly to retribution; so that he who digs a pit for another, that is, seeking to destroy, will not escape falling into the pit of retribution which he, by digging a pit against his neighbor, has deepened for himself.
QUESTION LXIV [al. LXIII]
AHow are we to understand that which is written by Ecclesiastes: «He that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby if the iron shall have fallen off; and he himself has disturbed his countenance, and he will strengthen virtues; and the superabundance of the wise man is wisdom»?The present book of Ecclesiastes, just as the Song of Songs has as its primary scope the contemplation of intelligible things and those that are above sensation, and just as Proverbs is intended to regulate human morals, so too does this book set out to discuss natural things, setting before itself the propose of guiding the listeners toward an understanding of nature. Truly, no one of these three works is entirely alien to the philosophy of the others; but it is possible to find, even in moral matters, though to a lesser degree, a tradition of natural and divine contemplations. Likewise, also in the philosophy concerning divine things, it is possible to find the formation of morals interspersed, and indeed also an understanding of nature; but even where the intent is to contemplate the connection and harmony of nature, it is possible to perceive not a few things that direct the moral character through exhortation and anagogy.
Therefore, Ecclesiastes, discoursing now on natural things, introduces by way of example an exhortation through which one may progress through the present life free from harm and remain preserved in the right course, and he says: «He that cleaveth wood»—that is, he who makes an art of his life in these matters—«if the iron»—by which the wood is cleft—«shall have fallen off»—or if, not after the first act of splitting, it separates the wood further from one another and builds up its own outline—«is endangered thereby,» being deprived of the benefit that would come from it; «and he will disturb his countenance,» receiving a sad look instead of one that shines with cheerfulness; «and he will strengthen virtues»—that is, those things which were bewitching him, his own weakness and lack of resource, casting strength upon itself, nothing of what helps him in his manliness, but rather everything is dissolved into what is vain and useless on account of the iron having fallen off. C Just as, then, in the case of the one who cleaves wood, if the iron should fall off, such great calamities follow and overtake him who is able to live in self-sufficiency through the division and cultivation of the wood: so too, he who uses doctrinal discourse as if it were a certain iron and a divisive tool, through which he discloses the context and connection of the divine Scriptures—which are otherwise obscured—aptly and as the Spirit wills, and through grace subdivides them for the sake of an interpretation useful to souls, preserves for himself spiritual life, while leading and exhorting his listeners to this.
But if, neglecting the accuracy of the teaching and its sincerity and sharpness toward piety, he should bring forth an explanation of the writings, and not interpret the meaning according to orthodox theorems, but should allow the saving word to fall away toward some heresy and baseness of opinion, this man truly both confuses and disturbs the countenance which he had assumed from the beginning of orthodox teaching, and fills the souls of the listeners with harm instead of salvation; and he strengthens those virtues which were...
A looked upon with envy by those who were previously seeking to waylay him as he walked uprightly, and were striving to act against him; but he himself shows that he is weak and cast down, and he convicts his own wisdom, which was previously an object of admiration, as having been brought down to what is superfluous and vain. B Yet he who is manly in mind, and who seeks to besiege the puffed-up reasonings of the heretics regarding his own right belief, and, with the trenchant word of the Spirit, cutting away their oblique insinuations and the coils of their sophistry, while purging the true belief—which honors God and clings to virtue—from that which casts shadows upon it, and separating it if any spurious element is rubbed onto it from outside and by enemies, never shall the sword fall from him, not even secretly, nor will anyone convince him of losing it through betrayal; but he will preserve his countenance C unchangeable from the beginning and cleansed of all perturbation. And he will strengthen the natural powers within him with the addition of those which come from grace, showing in truth how much the wisdom of the man of heart surpasses the cowardice of the timid man and the great insensibility of him who is easily captured by easy works.
QUESTION LXV [al. LXIV]
To what end does that saying look: « Generation passeth, and generation cometh, but the earth standeth forever. » D Edita a Maio, l. c. p. 78–80. In Eccle. 1, 4.
When Solomon had spoken of the endeavors of men and the continuous labors which they expend for the enjoyment of life, saying that they fall into vanity, and that the person who acts and toils laboriously finds no greater gain than the one who does not look to any of these things in his concerns, but is similarly subject to bodily affections and likewise has a body disposed toward change and corruption, and is journeying toward the same end and passing away; when he had said these things and demonstrated them through the words: « What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? » (For indeed, the "what" here is taken to mean "nothing"; such as: no greater profit accrues to man in all his labor under the sun than if he were not worn out and strained toward any of these things; surely, he is not shown to be in any better disposition than the one who is delivered from such vanity;) he therefore introduces an exhortation to desist from the study of and vanity regarding these things. By "under the sun," he is accustomed to call whatever pertains more to the ministries of generation and corruption, inasmuch as it is ordered by the Word of the Creator to be involved in the corruption of that [the sun], ordaining summer and winter, and those things between them, spring and autumn. Since, therefore, the course of the sun contributes a great part to the generations of the seasons, and these [seasons] introduce many occasions for changes and shifts in bodily and human affairs for the worse or the better, he rightly names the study and care regarding such things "labor and toil under the sun," testifying that those who are studious of them are worn out in vain.
A Having thus premised these things concerning individual men, he now says that not only does each of them gain nothing from their continual distractions and labors—as they are things flowing through generation and corruption—by undertaking ceaseless study and care, but that one can see no less of the same empty zeal supervening upon an entire generation. For of generations, one sort holds fast to what is better, while another inclines toward what is base. The latter, toiling under the sun, finds a gloomy departure, full of misery, and in its coming, accomplishes nothing useful; on the contrary, the troubles and toils that oppress it, instead of providing any benefit, mock it for its vanity. B But the former, casting away with prudent judgment those things that are in generation and corruption—that is, those things under the sun—and setting no account upon them, except for such as the bond of nature inexorably required, but instead seeking out and philosophizing upon things above the sun—that is, whatever things are naturally better than those in generation and corruption—such as the purity of the soul, and a mercy that cheers a neighbor and softens the wounds caused by poverty (or, if it should go so far, even one that delivers him entirely from these wounds), and that which is the most blessed and godlike of all one's disposition, namely, that which expels intemperance through the love of prudence and dances in the chorus of the other virtues. C This generation, therefore, and the catalog of those who compose it, as having pursued none of the things that are under the sun, nor having been swept away and consumed along with those in generation and corruption, clearly looked much more toward that which is better, embracing a permanent and unerring way of life in place of one that is wandering and leaking away toward vanity. Traversing these things in an enigmatic and concise discourse, he adds:
"But the earth stands forever." D He calls "forever" the time in which the sun and the moon and the choir of the stars and the heavenly pole itself, in an opposing course, carry out their well-ordered and concordant movement in a circle for the distinction and renewal of days and nights and seasons. And taking up "the earth" again for the rebuke of the zeal of those who wear out their thoughts and lower their purpose toward vain things—when they ought instead to have willingly insisted upon saving things and labored for the gains of the soul—he says, as if to say: For what, O man, have you gained from such great importunity and study? Did not others, who sustained no such turmoil and were not tossed by such storms of waves, fare in the same way? Do you not, in the same manner as them, come as you come, and go as you go? Yet you miserably deprive yourself of the blessedness that they who seek and philosophize upon the things above the sun enjoy. And what is most miserable regarding the difference of your many labors and toils—alas, for the intolerable and inconsolable loss!—you found that you have drawn yourself and your affairs down to what is worse, and have raised them up to nothing of the better things. For look, see that not even toward this lifeless and immovable foundation of the earth, which is common to all, did you, through all your many
of that vain-glory, nor did you manage to extend yourself according to time, nor did you find any pretext having pondered much. For you indeed, laboring in vain and turning things upside down, pass by more quickly A and descend trembling and destitute of counsel toward things that one considers not even tolerable to hear; contributing nothing even for a brief moment to yourself, much less extending yourself along with the order of inanimate and immovable things. But the very ground that is trodden upon, being by nature senseless and immovable, stands and endures, not only changing few things, but being goaded to take up the order of an accuser against you, accusing your empty zeal and the vehemence of your lust through your perseverance and persistence over such a long time; and because it was seen to change nothing of those things which were granted to it by Providence: whereas you, honored with reason B because of your zeal and rivalry concerning vain things, have wrought all things contrary to the Creator’s care, and being carried with an unchecked impulse toward things which divine laws forbade, and which the bonds of nature let down from above disapproved, they bear an intolerable insult by your vain-glory and your headlong rush toward vanities; as if by these through such an accusation it is brought to the One who has created and provides for our affairs most wisely and kindly, and than whom there is neither anything kinder nor better, neither to be spoken in word nor to be fashioned in thoughts. But perhaps these things are sufficient for you. Indeed, it is possible to find some who understand "a generation going forth and being cast out" to be the race of the Jews, and "a generation coming and abiding" to be the children of grace, inasmuch as they have sprouted C from the divine seed and the agriculture according to Christ; and the "earth" standing forever to be the Old and New Scripture; and seeing that the fruitfulness of virtues is amassed in them, as is the firmness of laws and promises throughout the ages; of which the former were distributed to the righteous, while to the latter they hand over sinners and those who have committed transgressions without repentance.
QUESTION LXVI
What meaning is unfolded by the passage: "There is a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and there is an ungodly man remaining in his wickedness"?
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, and shall multiply like the cedar of Libanus D." Through each expression, the gain of righteousness and the blessedness and wealth of good things are declared, by the words "shall flourish," clearly, and "shall multiply." This righteous man, even if he is scourged, even if he is tortured, even if he suffers the most painful things, even if he is led to slaughter, even to death, even to the cross, nonetheless shall flourish like a palm tree and shall multiply like a cedar, finding a fruition far greater than his toils and sufferings, and rejoicing and abounding in ineffable good things. Who then is the righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and in what way does he perish? Clearly he is one who indeed takes and puts on the name and appearance of the righteous, but in his righteousness he
accomplishes his own ruin through craftiness and excessive curiosity. For he does not simply say he perishes in righteousness, or in justice, but in that righteousness of his own whereby he contrived to appear righteous, putting on A the face of a righteous man, not from the things he actually was, but from those he fashioned for himself. Such a man, then, is righteous, even if all praise him, even if all applaud the justice in him; in that very form and name of his righteousness he is carried down to the ultimate wickedness and perdition. For what greater theft is there than to steal the designation of the righteous while lying among the unjust? And what is more impudent than to be honored with the love of the finest of virtues, and that which permeates all of them and B performs a harmonious symphony, yet to which no one is disposed more inimically? Does such a man, then, not perish justly in his own righteousness? He seeks to display things he does not possess, and by the fiction that he loves those things he is scheming, he deceives others for whose sake he is reviled, and before all others, he deceives himself all the more wickedly and wretchedly. For indeed, by the fact that he feigns flight toward what is righteous, he himself, wittingly and unwillingly, confesses that he prefers the worse to the better; for he would not seek to put on a mask not his own, through which he might conceal his own nature. Then: «And the impious man remains in his wickedness.» C This is another line of reasoning, and another concept of Solomon’s, differing from the preceding ones. For there, he says that he who thinks himself righteous, when he is not, perishes through that very vain assumption and artifice; but here, as regards those things into which that fictitiously righteous man falls, he knows that the impious man is also held by these, yet he does not disprove his wickedness and godlessness from those things, but from his very perseverance and dwelling in impiety, on account of which he also brought forth the ultimate punishment and perdition. «For he who does not believe in the Son of God,» says the Subsistent Truth, «is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.» It is evident that disbelief in the Son also introduces disbelief in those of the same nature and essence, the Father and the Spirit; just as faith is accustomed to follow faith. The Savior therefore says that to one who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit—that is, against one of the supernatural and life-originating and consubstantial hypostases of the omnipotent and creative Godhead—to such a one, even if through the love of virtues he seems to be immune to passions, nevertheless the sin shall not be forgiven, neither in the present age, nor in that to come.
QUESTION LXVII
D How should that text be understood: «But if our iniquity establishes the righteousness of God»?Here, the word «establishes,» spoken by the divine Paul, is not used to mean that our iniquity is a sufficient cause, or indeed the cause at all, of God’s righteousness. For how could such a line of reasoning, without taking away free will, nor insulting that which is according to the image, be attributed to the divine Paul? But now, «establishes» stands in the place of «makes manifest,» is taken to mean «makes known to all.»
For B it does not mean the bringing of anything into existence; nor is the righteousness of God the fruit of our unrighteousness. Nor does it find an occasion to be put forward in the form of a difficulty, as it might seem to some; for it concludes in mockery and is thus framed and leads to nothingness. For indeed, the very form of difficulties is accustomed, through deeper investigation, to lay aside what stands in the way and to resolve what is clear; but whatever contains the manifest refutation of the absurd leads to an obvious and most evident condemnation; yet it is certain that this does not dare to be fashioned into the form of a difficulty, but is refuted as a labor of babbling and vain talkative pursuits. That «establishes» has been taken to mean «makes manifest» and to cause it to be known to all, the herald of truth himself stands as his own witness and provides us with the clearest teaching through his testimony. For writing to the Romans C he says: «I commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a servant of the Church which is in Cenchrea.» For it is clear that «I commend» is used in place of «I present»; I wish her to be known, I exhort you to acknowledge her. Why? «That you may receive her in the Lord as becomes saints.» Just as here «I commend» is not taken to mean «to bring into existence» nor «to lead to being,» but signifies «to be known,» «to be recognized,» and «to stand manifest to those in Rome» as the blessed Phebe, so it is in that passage. How then does your unrighteousness establish the righteousness of God? Just as darkness placed beside light makes it shine more to those who are looking at it; or as the bitter, creating a sweeter quality for the taste in the presence of what is sweet; or as the rough, in striking the touch, makes us more disposed to perceive the smoothness and uniformity of the level; or as the false, by its juxtaposition, reveals the truth to be more manifest, more desirable, and more D worthy of choice; or as each of those things which are set against one another with differences, being separated further from each other, the one refutes the vileness of the worse to a greater degree, while the other manifests the goodness of the judge. For those passing from one of the opposites to the other perceive from the worse the preeminence of the better, and from the better the vileness of what is opposite; as it is through the sense of objects of sense, so also it is with the all-wise Paul, even if it is in the form of a hypothetical difficulty: that our unrighteousness establishes the righteousness of God. Therefore, even when he conjoined it to the preceding words, «Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath?» he adds, «God forbid.» Why? Because, as we are not acting prudently and seeking to serve the Divinity, our unrighteousness, testifying and proclaiming His righteousness, has made it manifest, in the way it is said that goodness is made more manifest through wickedness. And the things that follow in the passage, being difficult to discern, will not perhaps lack a more proper solution, as divine providence looks upon us more kindly.
QUESTION LXVIII
A The passage: "If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, and the number of the days of his years be not filled with goodness, and he have no burial; I said better is the untimely birth than he, for he came in vanity and shall depart in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness; he hath not seen the sun nor known it, he hath rest above this one." What discretion and elucidation can this saying demonstrate?
Many children were sought after by those in the world as a truly great and ambitious good, and likewise a long life. For often, to those who keep the Lord’s ordinances, a long time of life is extended as a reward. If then, says Solomon, someone should even exceed other men in the multitude of children and possess a life extended for the longest time B, but for the rest he defiles his life with wicked deeds, neither filling his soul with the enjoyment of goodness nor ordering it aright, and for this reason perhaps is not even deemed worthy of burial, such a man would justly be reckoned much inferior to the untimely birth. For the untimely birth did not see the sun, nor had it the means to see the things that are, nor to choose the better of actions. But he who is honored with all these things, and has been gladdened by a great number of children and has enjoyed a long life, since he did not share in goodness, nor did he abstain from the pleasures of vileness, and burial followed these according to his merit; he will justly be reckoned to have a worse fate than that one. For this man, seeing the sun, walked in darkness, and though he could have left a brilliant name through noble C deeds, he cast it out into the darkness of sins, to be extinguished and buried together with vanity. And there is another difference between this man and the untimely birth, that punishments and castigations awaited him who had finished his life, whereas the latter is not brought to the experience of any of these. But if anyone, hearing Paul saying, "And last of all he appeared to me also, as to one untimely born," 1 Cor. xv, 8, should think of looking into that Solomonic saying—for indeed he did not see the Sun of righteousness rising upon the earth, nor was he at that time deemed worthy to be numbered among His disciples—many who have seen the Sun of righteousness still walked no less in darkness, blinking at the flashing rays of the divinity in Him, even if all the other things D of life were carried along for them with a favorable current, and as if they did not think it easy to pray [for more]. But their expansion and multitude of children was also great, and the addition of time drawing them to the paradox in their circumstances. If, therefore, anyone should transfer these Solomonic oracles, and demonstrate the "untimely birth" to be Paul, and the others to be the Jewish chief priests and priests and many others who were indeed brilliant in the felicity of life, but darkened in impiety and the vileness of their actions—and indeed he sets him above all these and demonstrates him to be in every way much better—he speaks indeed entirely truly; but, I think, he adds nothing great to him who encompassed the circuit of the earth with his preaching.
QUESTION LXVIII
A What is the meaning of: "Live in good and look upon the day of evil, look. And God has fashioned this, too, consistent with His discourse, so that man may find nothing after Him."You, he says, apply yourself to look to life for the sake of virtue, and regulate it for the enjoyment of the goods that come from above. And when you have thus prepared yourself and, with the mind having schooled the faculty of judgment through pious thoughts, have taken it up, you will be able to discern without difficulty even the evils that are considered to be in the day—that is, the human calamities and sorrows by which the day of human life, tossed and troubled, is afflicted, disturbing and afflicting those who traverse it. For we are accustomed to call such things evils, according to what is said: "Is there evil in the city which the Lord has not done?" But you will be able to discern that not even these happen to us out of harmony with the goodness and providence of God. For this He indicated by saying: "Look, and this, too, is consistent with this"—that is, that even the apparent temptations and afflictions of the body do not cast out divine care, nor are they contrary to His philanthropy toward us. For some things are brought about for B discipline and correction, while others are permitted; through both, His ineffable and wise economy, which deigns to judge such visible things, is seen. But God did not set these things that happen to men to be proclaimed to every tongue, nor for all to foresee what is to come. Why? So that man, having learned of them in advance and found them beforehand, might not become more negligent regarding virtue: partly because, thinking that many evils and grievous occurrences are about to overtake him from behind—for what account of virtue is there for me with so many and such great things expected?—despair is accustomed to drive the multitude to this; C and partly because, thinking that no great and momentous pain is about to occur, his fallacious judgment of what ought to be done knows how to undermine him from both sides, and because of this, he thinks there is no need for much watchfulness or care for virtues.
For this reason, therefore, God made the discourse about the future unknown to the multitude, so that man, not finding what grievous things are to overtake him in the times that lie behind him, might not, in the case of more difficult things, surrender himself to helplessness and despair and turn away from virtue; nor, in cases that are moderate, fall into the sickness of superciliousness, as if, expecting no obstacle to the enjoyment of desirable things and pleasures, he would postpone the zeal for noble deeds. Otherwise, too, he who possesses a faculty of judgment purified of passion sees that health and sickness are in harmony with regard to the harm and benefit of men; D and likewise also wealth and poverty, strength and infirmity of body, the glory that comes from men and dishonor, and things similar to these. For each thing from either side becomes an occasion of salvation to one who knows how to philosophize. But to him who gapes only at pleasant and flattering things, even pleasant things become pretexts for harm, and sad things flow down and are dragged toward the same evil, when he does not gratefully bear these things, for he who has need to be purified through such things falls rather into despair and indignation.
QUESTION LXX [al. LXIX].
AWhat are the "garments of skin" to be understood as, which Adam and Eve put on after the transgression?I know indeed that some declare the garments of skin which Adam and Eve put on after the transgression to be the body, from which the Maker from the beginning fashioned man as a rational animal and soul. But these men, in their eagerness to speak in accordance with the supposition that has taken possession of them, destroy the truth with illogical reasoning and knowledge. For while the paradise is described by them in word, in reality it is removed. But by raising up the plants of paradise and the foods and the production of Eve through the rib, and simply the whole creation and passing on of the things that exist, and the kind and wondrous quality of divine care for man, and the principles of birth according to succession, into a certain intellectual tabernacle, they have not been seen to respect even their own existence and hypostasis. From there, having divided the whole tragedy according to their own purpose and feigning it, and molding it into any forms and meanings they might wish, they destroy the coherence of things that truly happened and existed, and which are seen and recognized even until now, by disowning them, Cenchanting the ears of the multitude with seductive and enticing words. For most fictions, crafted at will and for the sake of pleasure, are accustomed to allure the ears of the listeners and prepare a diffusion of pleasure, but their architects are able to provide no profit either to themselves or to those who are persuaded by them. But let Origen and the Origenian chorus have these; but our own Gregory, whom the theological knowledge and the boldness regarding the Spirit given to him from God proclaimed as Theologian, this man calls them garments of skin, not those which the Origenian myth fabricated. But he, applying the greatest zeal to turn men against the Origenian opinion, and knowing how to wisely arrange his own words in judgment, strives to transfer them to a neighboring theory, sending forth a sharp and active melody against that laborious opinion, not calling the body garments of skin—far from it! For he was not seen uttering such a voice, but Dthe heaviness and mortality of the body, and the antitype and the contrary disposition to the earlier blessedness; for in truth, after the transgression, instead of the impassible and irresponsible and body-not-burdened and non-mortal body, but one constituted as more powerful by the movements and allurements of the flesh, Adam, after the transgression, put on such things—not, to be sure, a tunic stained and contaminated by the aforementioned passions—but that holy man, drawing and transferring them so sweetly and kindly from the things springing up from Origen to more pious meanings, says such are the garments of skin...
A nor did he suppose this without contradiction from those who think otherwise.
But what do you say? Perhaps you laugh at first, and then you are more annoyed to hear the truth stolen away by a myth; but I think you would not despise the economy and method of the theologian. He was not ignorant of the fig leaves by which those around Adam decently covered the disgrace of their nakedness; nor that the fig leaves, providing a refuge for shame, were preceded by the skin garments which later filled the need for that replacement; for indeed after the former covering and the fig leaves, God made for them the B garments of skin. Where, then, should one think that this most theological and most God-seeing teacher was ignorant of these things, rather than saying he was managing the economy and planning for the salvation of others through those things which the circumstances of that time allowed, with no heretical dissemination or crookedness following? For whether the fig leaves indicated that those around Adam were fearful of shame, or whether after this God made for them garments form skins, granting a comfort for their shame, it is none the less pious to say that after the transgression Adam put on a thicker flesh, mortal and dragged down by the weight C of the fall, and that this was the opposite and antitype of the former.
From where, then, will you perhaps be stuck in doubt, did the garments of skin come forth? But since, having heard, you will apply your mind and reflect that God indeed made garments of skin for those around Adam, I think you will immediately find both the doubt and its solution occurring to you. For He who so magnificently and luxuriously brought forth man from nothing, He also made garments of skin from nothing and prepared them for him as a covering with the greatest ease, and furthermore, He inserts an indubitable faith into one's thoughts. And if the thought moved Him to use the skins of certain animals—for these already existed to fill the need for a covering—God was wisely teaching them to rise up toward their own proper adornment D and salvation, and that is neither far from divine care, nor unworthy of His great goodness toward our race. But the summary discourse allows for these things. There are some, however, who, wishing and caring to look to none of these, have considered the epidermal layers of the bark of trees to be the garments of skin, as if they provided a lower or more ignoble use of covering than the skins from animals; although they are in fact in many respects much more easily handled, softer, and, to say the whole thing, more suitable than any bark.
QUAESTIO LXXI [al. LXX]
To what meaning does that passage send us: "Nonne, si recte obtuleris, recte vero non diviseris, peccasti? tace," and so forth?
In Gen. IV, 7. The present passage can be subjected to various interpretations; here, since the reading proposes variations...
it is natural for the statement to admit different A figures of speech. Furthermore, the saying, "To you is his turning," can be taken appropriately in reference to different matters. Now the variation in the reading divides the utterance into an interrogative and a declarative form; for example: "If you offer correctly, but do not divide correctly, is it not known and indubitable to you that you have sinned?" And observe the benign wisdom of God, who sets the one who has sinned as the judge of his own iniquity, so that when he finds that his own thoughts bring condemnation upon himself, he may hasten all the faster toward repentance and draw down forgiveness more quickly. And the response, immediately offered in subjection, B nonetheless fulfills through silence the will of the one who interrogated, and demonstrates that the one who sinned is confessing, in that he dares not even open his mouth or utter a voice, even if he were unwilling. For silence, in the case of questions to which confession and the subjection of the interrogated parties follow clearly and without hesitation, is accustomed to have no less force, but even more, than the voice that is speaking, for it signifies subjection. And if the interrogator indeed wishes for this, it makes the conviction more poignant and more powerful. Thus, the discourse, while assuming the form of a question, declares the intended meaning; but when it is formed into the declarative mode, it is not declared with one and the same character of voice, since it also wishes to be brought C forward through different modes of syntax by which words are joined to one another. For the one who makes the declaration declares it thus: if you have not made the offering correctly, but have not divided it correctly—as if to say that you have not offered correctly because you have not divided correctly; or, that because you did not divide correctly, even if you seemed to yourself to have offered correctly, you have sinned; for the sin of not dividing did not correct the righteousness of the offering. That word, therefore, "You have sinned," while the interrogation declares it according to the consequence and continuity of the preceding words, yet according to the declaration of what has been uttered, each phrase, following the division, adds "you have sinned" to what came before. For this reason, the one who did not divide correctly, even if he thought he was offering correctly, D has nonetheless sinned; for the good deed does not so much remove the sin that preceded it; but the error, passing over and seemingly attempting to escape from the sin, is dragged along into accountability. For often, when the good is placed before the evil, or the base before the better, the better does not so much communicate its own beauty to the worse, but is itself generally debased by the baseness of the worse. And that which is clean, touching that which is unclean, as far as he [is concerned] who has been instructed by God regarding the generation of the world, certainly communicates purity, [but as for the one] with whom the profane, when brought into contact with the holy, is dragged along into profanation rather than participating in the holiness of the holy—thus, then, might the passage be distinguished: "If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you sinned?" And the word, "Be silent," and indeed also the word, "To you is his turning, and you shall rule over him"—the former says, "Be satisfied with the sin that has preceded; do not add sin to sin, nor to evil the evil..."
B or prepare an incurable malady; but in the quiet and tranquility of judgment, examine what concerns yourself and understand the magnitude of your sin." For what is greater as a cause for despair than to neglect the Divine majesty for the sake of one's own pleasure? Be penitent, and by a sincere reverence for God and by prudence, expiate what has been neglected, raising yourself up from your fall. But concerning the words, "And you shall rule over him," according to another interpretation, it says that your gift, which was not accepted, is not passed on to another, nor does that which was not accepted bring you any harm, but it returns again to you. And you shall have his power and dominion as you had before, sustaining no loss from the offering, except for whatever the sin itself ravaged. But if one should wish to understand what the oracle means regarding the one who offered, "And you shall rule over him," a certain development such as this will be found. Should the speculation proceed according to another addition and in regard to Abel, who both divided and offered the gift rightly, and drew down acceptance from above, it would go thus: Nothing, he says, has been diminished for you—because the brother's sacrifice was preferred—in regard to the prerogatives of birth; nor has any judgment come upon you because of the base division, dragging down your former glory according to life. For neither was the removal of the firstborn prerogatives exacted from you in place of the transgression, nor were you condemned to be under the hand of your brother, but the rights from birth and the dignity of the honor of the firstborn remain to you. And the turning of your brother shall be toward you; that is, he shall place you as a refuge and helper against harm coming to him from elsewhere; and you shall have his leadership, at least as much as the firstborn is granted. Only remain silent regarding the things you have done wrong; do not be the first to introduce the tragedy of an unforgivable transgression into life; do not struggle to make the firstborn rights of birth the firstborn rights C of a very great and most destructive fall, so that you do not deprive yourself of all the things which nature has gifted with the philanthropy of the Creator, and which you ought to abound in as a penitent, and have the enjoyment of God's providence through a life of many varied blessings.
QUESTION LXXII [al. LXXI]
With Divine Paul saying: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression, she shall be saved through the bearing of children," etc., how is one to understand the words, "The woman shall be saved through the bearing of children"?Paul, who became all things to all men, admonishing that the woman ought to be subject to the man and to learn rather than to attempt to teach, shows from many other things that this exhortation is both just and useful; and now, because he says, "For man was formed first, not woman." Then also the major reason: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman," gaping at the bait and caught by the hook of deception, crossed over the wound and harm from herself to the man; for this reason it is improper for the woman to teach; for having been impelled to teach, she cast the leader of our race out of paradise. For this reason, then, it has been said that Adam was not deceived, D because not he, but Eve, was the first instrument after the serpent to introduce the deception through the negotiation of the enemy.
A Secondly, because he did not himself receive the deceptive and flattering words of the serpent, nor was he persuaded that the merciful Lord and Provider envied them their remaining happiness and deification; but Eve, having been snatched away by this illegitimate machination against the Creator, both in hearing and in mind, and having eaten from the forbidden tree, called her husband to the same table. And he, supposing that he was being exhorted by his wife—to whom, as was natural, it had been testified that the food excelled in sweetness and pleasure—toward what was advantageous and useful, became a participant in the plant and fell into transgression. Thus, it is not outside the bounds of probability to say that Adam was not deceived. For many indeed have different motives, even while they follow the same repulsive action, but they do not do so with the same or a similar intent. For one, through meditation, discernment, and the condemnation of the better, inclines toward the worse and chooses the base part, making his fault unpardonable. Another, however, having power in none of these, but merely sliding toward the association of the action, can from many quarters draw forth mercy and not be driven away from forgiveness. So it is, then, in this case, too. Eve, having whetted her reasonings with meditation and with calumny against the commandment, openly succumbed to what was said in opposition. B Adam, however, having done injury to no given law through these things beforehand, was drawn only by her transgression. But because of these things, it might be said that Adam was not deceived.
It might be said, nonetheless, also because he became a listener of a tongue that was kindred, accustomed, and in many things seen not to be deceitful; but she appeared as a slave to a strange voice, one not even accustomed to consist in conversation, and she became a prey to wickedness. Therefore, this addition also admits the cause for why it is said that Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, came to be in transgression; for both transgressed, but even there the woman’s transgression is prior. And indeed, she was seen to be guilty of a double transgression: her own, and that to which she compelled her husband. What, then, might someone say to me, as a patron of the female nature, regarding Eve’s deception and transgression, C since, when man and woman are of one and the same nature, we have been condemned to hold second place, and always to keep the order of those who learn, while we are entirely prohibited from teaching? To this, the consequent discourse, in rebuttal, would say that, just as when Adam was condemned to mortality, death passed through to all those from him, so also, not only was the woman deceived, but she also came to be in transgression. And, indeed, because she introduced a fault more grievous for each of them than the man did, the race that follows by succession is not entirely free from the charge, nor is it seen to be led to a better disposition by the change. D Therefore, the point that Adam was not deceived I believe has been distinguished through these arguments, and not without care. There are some, however, who pose a contradiction. They say that Adam was not deceived, not because he sinned less than the woman, but because he sinned more; for in this way, they say, the Apostle also used the expression. For these...
things having been enticed by flattering and pleasant words, she was led into the transgression; but he, rather by judgment and will, embraced it. It does not appear, therefore, that the woman, as she was seduced, so also seduced with words; she indeed arose even to contradict the serpent, and, troubled by the magnitude of the promise, she inclined toward deception. Regarding Adam, however, neither of these things happened; for he did not contradict the woman, nor did the magnitude of the promise carry him away; but he was nonetheless seen prepared to partake, just as she was to share of the food; wherefore it could rightly be understood that he fell into the transgression not by deception so much as by love for the food. But if this argument holds ground in other matters, let it hold; now, however, it has no entry. For the herald of the truth, putting forward and preferring Adam to the woman, and urging subjection to him—and for the reason that Adam was not deceived, as also through other arguments—thus showed that the exhortation has an impregnable power even for this reason. But here, I think, it has been well distinguished how Adam was not deceived. A
The saying, “She will be saved through childbearing,” means the nature of women; for the oracle transferred Eve to the woman for this reason. Some say that by “childbearing” the Apostle means the concern and diligence regarding children, through which they themselves, being strengthened by faith and love, will rightly perfect holiness and temperance; and that the mothers who instruct them toward virtues would evidently be both meditating upon and accomplishing these same things, through which they also dissolve the cause of the transgression. For the teacher of the world said this, saying, “But she will be saved through childbearing”; for indeed, the instruction and God-loving providence and care regarding children is by nature a great warrant B to recall Eve’s dangerous teaching toward Adam. “Did I teach the man dangerously? But I securely instruct and nourish the children.” Does that condemn? How would this not be, especially before a just and benevolent judge, a pardon and, by a right deed neighboring the fall, a discharge from the judgment? Therefore, the female nature, clinging to this childbearing and being diligent in it, dissolves and puts away the accusation and condemnation stemming from the deception. That the Apostle is accustomed to call the saving care regarding children both “childbearing” and “child-rearing” is clear from this: for when referring those widowed of their husbands into the order, honor, and providence of widows, he says, “Let a widow be enrolled not less than sixty years old,” C then also pouring out some price for such a selection, he says, “If she has reared children, if she has washed the feet of the saints, if she has supplied those in tribulation.” And see how he has joined and counted the diligence regarding children and instruction toward virtues along with the care for and hospitality to the saints and the bright good deed of almsgiving. But these people indeed interpret child-rearing and childbearing in this way. D
A It is perhaps not worse to think of the childbearing—in which piety, having grasped the right word concerning good deeds and virtuous triumphs, brings forth and multiplies, through pure and undefiled pangs, a truly most noble offspring, by which all the preceding loss is repaired—in this way. For in truth, those who resolve such pangs through birth have brought forth many sons and daughters; according to this adoptive position, the once-barren woman who bears seven is known, as is the one who has excelled the many in children. By transferring to themselves more fittingly and properly the saying, "Be fruitful and multiply," these women show the Lord’s blessing being fulfilled within them. Such childbearing does not restrict the dissolution of the deception only to women who procreate children through intercourse with a man, but it transfers the correction of error also to other women, and especially to virgins. For all those through whom the loss of the first parents was distributed are saved by such childbearing, washing away the shame and burden of the deception through shining acts of justice and multiplying the children of the Church by their own birth-giving. And being illuminated by faith and love and the sanctification that comes through chastity, they ensure that those who look upon them and gaze at the beauty of their deeds glorify their Father in heaven. But these people, I think, do not meanly drag the letter toward this contemplation.
B Others, however, define childbearing more holily and more fittingly toward God as the birth of our Savior from the Virgin; through which childbearing not only was the nature of women glorified and cleansed of the shame and condemnation from the deception—by pursuing faith, love, and the sanctification that is the fruit of chastity—but the whole race was also recalled from the fall by the own voluntary sufferings of the One who was born, and was deemed worthy of a lot and enjoyment much more divine than that which existed before the precipice. Do you wish to learn more specifically how the woman escaped the condemnation of the deception through the aforementioned childbearing, and received the gift of remission? It is by first—before being softened by the serpent’s hissing tongue—having advanced through this holy and truly new childbearing under the sun, and by opposing with their own tongues the tongues of tyrants who rhetorically teach impiety. C And not only by neither seeing nor experiencing, but even by speaking of punishments most horrible, they prevailed, and in many instances they were often not inferior to men in their struggles and contests. D And they were seen to be teachers of piety not only to women but also to men, and they endured bitter punishments, deaths, and slaughters for the sake of Christ with a noble, unshaken, and joyful mind.
QUESTION LXXIII [al. LXXII]
How are those words to be understood, "Whoever eats this bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and the rest.A being an intellectual nourishment for the soul and strengthening its powers, since it is offered to the living being that consists of soul and body, it provides, through the bodily substance, that spiritual grace and sanctification also. Whence, passing through the mouth into the mystical B chambers of human nature, it arranges the whole animal well and sanctifies it, but especially does it liberally provide the energy of grace and of sanctification to the soul and the mind themselves. Therefore, it behooves those who are about to partake of this holy and intellectual nourishment, not to be ignorant of what its power is, and what a benefit and gift is provided through it for all understanding—a thing which indeed can scarcely be comprehended by any mind: namely, that it is the eternal Word, who was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God. He, the creator of our nature, having borrowed flesh from the blood of a virgin—he who is rich in divinity—deigned to become man for our sake, and dwelt among us. And he who exists in the form of God took the form of a servant, preserving the boundaries of both natures in his one hypostasis, unconfused and inseparable. He emptied himself, therefore, for our sake without emptying, and having become like us in all things except sin, he did not only benefit and heal our infirmities, but even when insulted and treated with ingratitude, none the less did he not diminish C the abundance of his gifts surpassing reason; and bearing insults and mockery from those who were being benefited, he did not depart from his ineffable philanthropy, but even endured the cross and death, so that he might deliver those who insulted him from death and corruption, and might reshape and raise up our mortal and corruptible nature through his own resurrection.
2. And he established the partaking of his own body and blood as the pledge and foundation of all these good things; so that by coming into the participation of this, we might believe that we have within ourselves the preludes of the heavenly and immortal life. For even the substantial truth says: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life," since by the participation of his immaculate flesh we are made "fellow-bodies," and are deemed worthy of incorruption and immortality. He, therefore, who turns his thoughts to these things and is strengthened, and reflects upon the wealth of the benefits, when he is about to partake of this mystical and immaculate food, it is clear that he ought D to prepare himself to be pure and devoid of evil deeds; since he is about to receive the King of all and the Master through the presence of his body into the chambers of his soul, being mingled in an unspeakable word and through philanthropy beyond understanding, and being united to our body. But the man who has not first purified himself from the stains and passions—whatever they may be that damage and defile both the soul and the body—but approaches the mystical and immortalizing table with a defiled life and a defiled mind, such a one does not partake
A of grace; for a rotten vessel cannot contain ointment, nor is a pearl commended to the dung-heap. But, since he insults and dishonors the most excellent [gift], not only [by offering] insult but also [by lacking] honor, this person has rendered himself a partaker of inexorable judgment; for he has insulted the Lord’s body, to which the audacity of the Jews B offered insult long ago by hanging it upon the cross. Therefore, he who was in a sense burning and suffering for those who were lapsing in faith and laboring, while striving to demonstrate the magnitude of this sin, was not satisfied with saying once that such a man is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, but immediately testified again: “He who eats the loaf and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks judgment unto himself.”
3. And this is precisely what the spectator of the invisible and the orator and teacher of the ineffable himself stated—that whoever dares to eat and drink it unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For why, when it is possible to cleanse oneself and wipe away pollutions through repentance, and thus approach the most pure One—or rather, the One who pours forth cleansing beyond all conception—do I deign to give no thought to contemplating and pursuing such [a remedy] in my mind? C And so that I may seem pure to those who see me, and worthy of such grace and participation, do I insult my own salvation? And do I not fear to play before those whom the angels desire to gaze upon? Truly, those who obtain glory from one another neither seek the glory that is from God alone nor believe in the magnitude of the mystery. For our benevolent Creator deemed us, though we were unworthy, worthy of an ineffable benefit; but we, having been endowed with such a gift—namely, to be participants of His body (if, that is, we are willing, having received strength and grace, to ascend to such a height of dignity)—if we do not prepare ourselves with all diligence to be pure, do D we not show ourselves guilty of double condemnation? The first, because when it was within our power to gain such a superabundance of good things, we refused, and defrauded ourselves of such great benefit and salvation—for this very thing, even without other retribution, is the greatest condemnation, as the Lord also said: “He who does not believe in the Son has already been judged,” that is, he carries the sentence within himself. What is this? The very fact of not believing in Him. The second [condemnation] is that we have despised the gift, that we have insulted the grace, that we have set at naught our Benefactor; for we have abused the mystical food—which makes us participants of His immaculate body—as if it were a common table. Therefore, such men are no better off than the Jews who dared that horrendous and monstrous deed, hanging the life-giving body of Christ upon the wood and draining His blood with the spear. Wherefore, the teacher of the world aptly declared such men to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
QUESTION LXXIV
A When the Lord says to the Samaritan woman: "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews," and so forth, by what path of inquiry shall we grasp the power of these venerable words?B That Samaritan woman was putting forth her utmost effort to prefer and exalt the tenets of Samaritan belief above the traditions and dogmas of the Jews. Therefore, and also because of this: "Are you greater than our father Jacob?" she was objecting to our Savior when He promised living water. But the Savior, who knew how to manage everything wisely, understood well that the mind of the woman, occupied by contrary prejudice and imagining nothing higher than sensible things, would be profoundly struck if He were to exalt the affairs of the Jews and claim Himself to be greater. That matter, then, He leaves to be covered by silence—not to mention that it would have been more lowly and unworthy of the majesty of Jesus for a servant to be proclaimed greater than his master. For whatever difference exists in a comparison between a master and a servant, it is ordered such that the secondary parts befit the servant, while it adorns the master if he occupies the first rank. For this reason, the Lord leaves those things to silence, but by other words—ones which are no less suited to accomplishing the purpose, yet at the same time foreign to that lowly manner of speaking, and moreover more fitted to soothing the woman’s ears—He sets forth His own meaning. For He does not urge that comparison or the difference in dignity, but rather He leads the woman to be able to infer the preeminence of His prerogative from the things that were soon to be stated. "For anyone," He says, "who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst forever."
C See now the wisdom and efficacy of these words. For when He says that she will thirst again, that required no confirmation from elsewhere, since the woman herself willingly provided the witness. But when He adds that he will not thirst forever, by the magnitude of this promise He awakens her desire for the pledge, and on both counts leads her to suspect that something more divine lies beneath; as if He were saying: If you hold Jacob in high esteem and pursue him with admiration because he gave you water from which the one who drinks is again seized by the same thirst, [what kind of person] ought you to consider Him [to be], who is able to provide water...
A that does not merely soothe bodily thirst for a short time, but is able to manifest itself to the drinker as a fountain of living water, and to supply streams of salvation, which irrigate those who draw from it and provide eternal life? “For the water,” He says, “that I will give him, will become in him a fountain of water leaping up into eternal life.” Just as water treats thirst B and cleanses the filth of the body from without, so too do the intellectual and human streams of Jesus’ teaching, and a more divine understanding of Him, heal the thirst arising from unbelief—which otherwise consumes the vital and cohesive moisture of the intellectual faculty—and cleanses the soul from the pollutions with which the filth of sins and the dark reasoning of godless opinions have defiled it. But the Savior fashioned the answer to that question through which even Jacob was thought to possess a certain priority and preeminence in such a supernatural way.
And observe how immediately its power flashed forth. He instantly illuminated the mind of the woman, and drew her—even though it was paradoxical—to believe the promise and to receive the knowledge that the Lord is by far greater than her ancestors. C For having turned her mind away from the water of her father Jacob, and directing herself toward this water, she says: “Give me, Lord, this water.” And why do you disregard the ancestral water? Because, while it soothes thirst for a short time, it allows me to thirst again just as much, and it is the cause of toil for me. For, she says, “so that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw, but rather, enjoying your fountain, I shall no longer have need of the ancestral well.”
With her mind thus illuminated, and since the Lord had also spoken to her about the men with whom she had had furtive and more clandestine commerce, she immediately proclaims Him a prophet, D yet she seeks nothing at all that relates to natural life, nor anything that might nourish the body or pertains to the body; she strives to learn or obtain nothing of these things, but rather stirs up an old question, and is eager to grasp its solution by asking: “Our fathers,” she says, “worshiped on this mountain”—calling the fathers those around Abraham; for indeed, an ancient account testifies that Abraham offered his son on that mountain. Then: “And you say that in Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary to worship.” Two, she says, are the acts of worship; two are the places of worship; each has an altar and a precinct for the worship of God. Which, then, follows the better path? The Samaritan, or the Jew? But the most philanthropic Savior, even here, to the woman seeking a solution to a more trivial question
provides a much greater grace. And He teaches a more divine doctrine, leading [the mind] away from a curious sort of problem towards a philosophical and more sublime level of contemplation. For He says: "Believe Me, woman, that the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth." As if He were saying: You certainly ask whether the Judaic or the Samaritan opinion holds the more worthy place and should be judged more divine; but I open to you a mystery A that was until now hidden, that "the time is coming, and now is, when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem." Then the woman, having been led beyond the custom of women to philosophical meditation by the words of our Savior, no longer strove to show that her own beliefs were to be preferred to those of the Israelites, as at the beginning, but being guided and improved by the saving doctrine, she sought to learn what was better. And for this reason she says, "Our fathers worshipped on this mountain." For this was the very thing that B especially lifted up and heightened the Samaritan estimation of their affairs. For as if a prophet were present and one inspired by the Spirit, possessing the knowledge of things hidden from others, she sought to learn from Him the truer and more perfect opinion.
For this reason, also beginning the discussion, she said: "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet." But the lover of mankind, Jesus, first announces the end of both [forms of] worship, so that He might not grieve her by preferring the Judaic rite. For what would it matter if she were grieved at the C preference of a rite over her own, when in a little while it was destined to end in the same [result]? Afterward, He declares their difference: "For you," He says, "worship what you do not know; we worship what we know." But how did the Samaritans not know what they worshipped? Because, in the first place, not a few of the inhabitants had been called back from the Babylonian captivity, and having lived according to the customs there, they had corrupted the Israelitic worship of God. Moreover, the multitude of them—being of the lineage and religion of the Babylonians and Medes—had D resettled in Samaria, and they considered the God of the Jews, just as formerly their own ancestral gods, to be a local god and that He exercised supervision and lordship over that nation alone. On this account, while offering worship to Him, they did not even abstain from serving demons. But the Jewish nation, if not in its entirety, at least those who chose to remember the Mosaic laws rather than forget them, were completely free from this detestable opinion, and recognized the God who was worshipped as the Creator of all creation, and likewise as its overseer and provider. For this reason indeed He says: "We worship what we know; you worship what you do not know." "We worship," He says, counting Himself among the Jews; for not yet had the light...
of His own divinity spread its rays upon them. Therefore, He asked for water to drink, and endured the hardships of travel, and relieved the fatigue born of the journey on the ground, as if on a naturally formed throne. B Furthermore, He was speaking to a woman who had adopted a loftier opinion of Him, regarding Him as one of the prophets and as a Jew, and as one disposed to be more beloved of God and more holy than others. For this reason, then, the word "we worship" was spoken. Thus, the first difference was set forth, according to which the Jewish worship excelled that of the Samaritans. But what is the second? "Salvation," He says, "is from the Jews." But how is salvation from the Jews, unless it be because, while the race of mankind was everywhere subject to the profanity of idol worship, the knowledge of God shone forth from there to other men, and because the very act of the Samaritans worshipping God at all had its beginning from the Jews? Or rather, one may understand "salvation from the Jews" as the coming of Christ Himself, and the restoration of the human race from its original fall accomplished through Him, and its recovery so that it is no longer stolen and corrupted C by the snares and malice of enemies. And the expression, "The hour is coming, and now is," indicates that the matter itself is to happen entirely and indeed soon. The oracles of the prophets, He says, received their fulfillment some time after the event, but the word spoken concerning Me is already present, it is already here, offering testimony from the works themselves.
QUESTION LXXV [al. LXXIV].
How is it said that God is in everything, and how can the difficulties that are raised by some against this be dissolved?In many of the contemplations regarding God—not to mention all of them—not only those who have not been initiated into the mysteries of piety, even if they have excelled men of their own rank in keenness of mind and in the knowledge of corporeal things, and those who have been ignorant of our power of contemplation as being too weak for the intellect to grasp them, have proved through experience; but even those who, because of their zeal for piety and a pure life, have come to know deeper things—not even for these is the discovery of divine matters usually easy. And why do I say "discovery," since D not even the very investigation purely affects their minds? This question, however, as something altogether more recondite and one which surpasses the mind of the curious, demands zeal so that it may be understood. Therefore, one must not hear what will be said as if we have grasped the matter with absolute precision, and as if nothing more regarding it has been left to us to know, but one must hear it benevolently and embrace it insofar as we are able to attain, with human thoughts, those things which surpass human knowledge.
God is, therefore, in everything (which is what has been set before you in the question now), as nothing of those which are. For if He were one of those things which are, He who is
the Producer A and Maker of all would be reckoned as one of those things produced by Him. For this is what law-giving knows, or rather, the communion which is akin and orderly regarding the creative principle toward existing things, since one might force the unchangeable to have a relationship between things and the Creator toward creatures.
Therefore, as no one of the things that are is joined and descends to its own creatures, so the Divine, but by a peculiar disposition and distinct economy, adapts its relationship to things. And just as God is wise, and at the same time above the wise, God is both strong and above the strong, and above gods, and properly both substance and above substance, and itself per se good, and likewise above good, so He is also said to be in all, and B above all. For in the case of the ineffable, polyonymous, and supernatural nature alone, the affirmative form of names has an understanding which coincides with the forms of the negative or privative voices which signify the intent; wherefore, "to be in all" is not the setting aside of "above all," but rather a harmony and a confirmation. And yet, neither does "above all" anticipate a change more admirable than that theology which the mystery of the Divine teaches, according to which the theory of the Divine is handed down as being in all.
So that he who questions whether, if the Divine is in all, it is not above all, has escaped his own notice, as he is ignorant of the use of sacred words concerning the nature, and, regarding immaterial things, he imagines nothing higher or more divine than the custom of sensible C affairs. But then, how is it in all? It has been said that it is in no way as one of the things that are. But if it is necessary to say something still more theoretical toward this height, without shrinking, God is in all by act and by substance. And do not say to me, "How?" It has been said that it is in no way as one of the things that are. How then is it by substance? Just as one might conceive of it by act; for since other things are sometimes in potentiality and sometimes in act, the Divine, as the discerning mind might conceive, is always act. For it does not proceed from imperfect to perfect, D nor is "being per se good" any other thing than "being per se act"; it is clear that in those things in which He is by act, in those same things He is by substance; for He acts for the conservation and duration of things that are. He supports, moreover, and contains the nature of those things which were created by Him.
How then, if God is by substance in all, does not one consubstantiation and nature result from these? Because not even when you conceive of Him by act and say He is in all, not even thus will it be perfected and hold the account of a nature that is able to undergo solely the need of being wholly from the all and from the divine and superior, to come together with another toward one self-perfection of hypostasis. And how would "being by substance" exist for something? For this seems to be a reasonable thing to ask further: to conceive of one does not complete the hypostasis with that. But it is not difficult to resolve this, that "being by substance" is said in two ways of something; for one of the things signified in...
something declares it to be in it in such a way that it becomes a part of a composite, and completes the perfection according to the A hypostasis, just as the soul is in the body; the other signified meaning declares it to be in something in such a way that it is never made a part of a concretion or union, nor is it changed by properties, nor do the proper natures of each become common, nor is it perfected by the other of the concretions, but rather it is the meeting that establishes and preserves its joined and perfect hypostasis, just as the art of the pilot is in the ship; that we might use a very small image and likeness of the thing that is at hand. And these things indeed are not said dogmatically and immutably, B as we premised in the introduction, but rather they have been sketched out by way of conjecture and for the sake of exercise. Let these things stand therefore, until better things arise.
QUESTION LXXVI [al. LXXV]
What is the meaning of that which is said by the Lord to the disciples in the Gospel: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the others in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand"?
That saying, the meaning of which you have sought from me, is written down by all C four of the evangelists, but it was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Three of them, however, weave the saying together by way of paraphrase in their own words, but the divine Matthew introduces it by way of citation and as a testimony. For Isaiah, when he was deemed worthy to be a spectator of the glory of the Lord, and had seen his tongue purified by the coal from one of the seraphim, then he heard that divine voice commanding: "Go, and say to this people: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people D has been fattened, and they have heard heavily with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Such is the prophetic oracle, which the evangelists use; and it both reveals the wickedness of the Jews of that time, and yet no less foretells the stubbornness of those who would later come, who in imitating them would express the same thing, and would not admit the teaching of the Savior, who by wondrous works and by more divine words attempted to convince both their ears and their eyes. They, in truth, deliberately rendered their ears deaf, and their eyes blind through the gloom of unbelief, and would neither open their ears to words so salutary, nor their eyes to the divine light of miracles.
Therefore, the prophet, intending to testify that their deafness and blindness arose from nothing else than their own wickedness, says: "The heart of this people has been made fat." And because they made their heart fat, therefore they hear with difficulty with their ears, and blink with their eyes. A And wishing to show further that they would not wake up from this voluntary blindness, he adds: "Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them." They had therefore made their heart fat; for that reason they heard with difficulty, and closed their eyes. They closed their eyes, and made their ears heavy, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears. And they underwent this blindness of their own accord, in order that, not having turned, they might not obtain healing from such great maladies.
Thus, then, the prophet clearly fastens the cause of the blindness and deafness upon the intent and choice of the Jews, and he does not, by any means, introduce a divine decree that inflicts these things upon the Jews. And just as the prophet, B reproving the senseless Jews at that time, said that they were unwilling either to open their eyes or to offer their ears to receive the salutary and divine teaching for their salvation, and that, through the sins to which they were accustomed—and especially through pride and arrogance, and a greater zeal for errors than for piety—they were closing their eyes and restraining their hearing, making themselves blind and deaf; and, what is worse, being thus affected, they supposed themselves to be more clear-sighted than others, thinking well of themselves—wherefore they also seemed to themselves to be experts in the Law, and (that which increased their guilt) they carried the oracles of the prophets about on their lips, and by that very fact rendered their disease incurable.
Therefore, our Savior, after He had restored sight to the man born blind, while they, on the contrary, were using their tongues—hostile to God—not to render worship but to spew forth insults, said: "For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not may see, and they who see may become blind." And when the Pharisees interrupted, "Are we also blind?" He answered: C "If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say, We see: therefore your sin remaineth." For he who knows himself to be blind through ignorance understands his malady, and hastens more quickly to the physician, seeks the enjoyment of the light, and speeds toward it, and for this reason is deemed worthy of benevolent providence, being illuminated by its most brilliant rays and led to salutary meditation. But he who, through the hardness of his heart, remains in the darkness, and even thus deems himself to see, summons upon himself a double blindness, since D
he A neither sees, nor, while not seeing, does he seem to see more acutely than others. For self-conceit, being a deep darkness of the eye of the soul, further intensifies the disease of the previously existing darkening.
But if the prophetic words are thus considered and the venerable oracles are thus distinguished (even if some part of them is not included in the interpretation), I do not think they will any longer provide the hearers with either similar grounds for questioning or such great occasion for it. For it is manifest that it was given to the disciples to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, since they neither made their hearts gross, nor did they hear heavily, nor did they close their eyes; but to the rest, whom He also calls "those outside" (for they had cut themselves off from salvation), it was no longer given. For having built a wall between themselves and all salvation and benefit by the aforementioned vices, it was rightly not given to them, because they had not prepared themselves to be fit to receive it. B Therefore, it was more advisable to speak to them in parables than to present the mysteries of grace nakedly. For it is neither advantageous, nor does it befit a clear-sighted judge, to treat the worthy and the unworthy in the same way regarding doctrine and salvation, just as it is not right to cast pearls before swine or to offer holy things to dogs.
Furthermore, from what has been said, it is clear how those words are to be understood: "That seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." For the word *that* (ἵνα) is here akin to *because* (διότι), and the one is prone to be taken for the other. Likewise, the *not* (μὴ) in this place signifies not a prohibition, but a negation. That those expressions are to be taken in this way in this place does not rest on mere conjectures; rather, the sense of the prophetic words, from which the Lord’s utterance flowed, bears irrefutable witness, and also Saint Matthew, C in the same sentiment, uses the word *because* (ὅτι) instead of *that* (ἵνα), reciting the passage in a negative rather than a prohibitive sense. For he introduces the Lord saying: "Therefore I speak in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not understand." It is evident, therefore, that it has become clear that "that" is used by the other evangelists for "because," and that the prohibitory particle bears the force of a negative.
For the Jewish nation made the madness and wickedness of its forefathers so much its own, that it counted the voluntary loss of the saving doctrine of the Lord as a gain. Nor did they trace the origin D of their lineage to their ancestors more than to the hardness of their own hearts.
A Ancient Israel crossed the watery waves of the sea, and a pillar of fire and a cloud made their journey painless; the former, by igniting a torch in the night, simultaneously served as a guide to the ungrateful; the latter, by acting as a covering against the sun’s oppressive flame, as if it were the roof of a house, turned the day of their journey into a day of joy. To state it in a nutshell, although they enjoyed benefits surpassing all eloquence and were overwhelmed and fattened with all the good things of life, they kicked against them and, seized as if by some madness, were insolent towards the divine Power, exchanging the faith due to their Creator for the filth of idolatrous pollutions. B And their descendants, being no less similar in spirit than in birth, after they had witnessed similar divine miracles performed by our Savior when He was born—miracles by which now bodily diseases, otherwise incurable, were driven away by a word, now men were freed from the harms and snares of the devil, now the wounds of the soul were healed by salutary teaching, now the dead were numbered among the living, and now they were taught that the power of death had already been broken—while they were enriched by many other gifts and benefits, they were not disposed to perceive any of these things, nor to repay the Benefactor, but were sharpened only in a God-opposing tongue, and, snatching the praise belonging to those who were seeing and hearing, they attributed it to themselves. Nor were they willing to listen to the words of the Master, which called them to salvation more clearly than a trumpet and gathered many of the Gentiles to it, instilling the knowledge of the truth. C Neither did they wish to see the miracles being performed before their eyes, but they armed both their mind and their tongue only for blasphemies. For this reason, it is with good cause that the mysteries of the kingdom were not entrusted to them. Apart from other considerations, it was because it would have involved them in a greater judgment if they had been trusted with them. For the more one is deemed worthy of greater benefits, while preferring to turn toward the worse instead of the better, the more he is D liable to a double condemnation: both for his preceding wickedness and for a disposition that takes the benefit itself and makes it an occasion for an increase in depravity.
That it was not by some sort of fate that the ability to know the mysteries was given to the disciples and not to others, has already been demonstrated by us earlier. The Savior Himself also indicates no less, declaring the disciples blessed because they see, and hearing, they hear. For when someone is proclaimed blessed in the Holy Scriptures, and especially in the words of our Lord, this does not imply that the thing could not have happened otherwise, but that it was a voluntary choice of the better, as it is written: “Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the ungodly,” and,
“Blessed is the man who pities the life of his beast.” A When our Savior brings forth many blessings in a series, He does not assign any of them to those for whom a distribution might have been appropriate; rather, He gathers them all to those whose virtue is the fruit and standing crop of their own moral choice. Therefore, the mysteries of the kingdom of God were not given to the disciples by some fated lot, nor was the ignorance of those wicked Jews imposed upon them; rather, because they had of their own accord made themselves blind and deaf, the divine and infallible judgment declared them unworthy of these things. How then does the beloved of the disciples, that instrument of theology, say: B “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,” so that there is no need to seek understanding from what has already been said? If he had not summoned Isaiah as a witness of the Word, or had brought forward the same utterances for the sake of another proposition, an opportunity for doubt would have existed, and an inquiry would need to be resolved by some other reasoning than those mentioned. But since these things are brought forward through the prophetic words, the meaning of which is clear and contains no difficulty, and since the things that were in dispute have been distinguished by the other evangelists, it is evident that what was going to be questioned about these words has already been resolved; for it is equivalent. C He who first recorded the deeds of the Lord is able to instruct as to “He has blinded” and “He has hardened,” and that which says: “For this reason I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear.”
If, however, one would prefer to consider those words, “He has blinded” and “He has hardened,” not so much for the sins that preceded them, but as something that followed them like a merited reward, he too would not be missing the mark, nor would he be far from the truth. For since they had closed their eyes and blocked their ears of their own free will, the blindness and deafness as a just punishment followed the voluntary corruption of their minds, and this also meant that the mysteries of the kingdom were not granted to them to know. We may also hear Jesus speaking a little while before, as that same Son of Thunder writes: D “A little while longer the light is with you; walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you,” and, “He who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.” For the Savior of the world, coming as the true light, shone forth; but they did not wish to turn their eyes toward it, nor even in the light of His teachings...
A to walk. Therefore, the darkness overtook them B fittingly, as if demanding a penalty for the wickedness that had previously taken hold of them. And this could rightfully be called being blinded and hardened. Just as he who wishes to walk in the light also obtains the knowledge of where he is going, so to him who does not wish to walk in the light follows the consequence that he wanders, walking in darkness, and finishes the path miserably like the blind and hardened. It has been said before, C indeed, that the radiance of the Lord’s saving teaching branded the Jews as blind and hardened, and made the blemish and loss of sight that already existed in the eyes of their souls more manifest and obvious. For just as this visible and most beautiful sun, by sending forth the bright rays of its disc, reveals those who are sick in their eyes, so also the intelligible sun, that light which never sets or grows dim, Christ our God, when He stayed in the world and, by means of divine and beyond-reason miracles, shone forth the radiance of His divinity, made more visible the darkness and loss of sight that had previously taken hold of the eyes of the souls of the ignorant Jews. But just as the sun in the world is not the cause of blindness, though it exposes the loss of sight of those afflicted with the disease, so too the sun beyond the world and beyond the intellect—the unchanging and true radiance of the Father—in exposing the blindness that had previously taken hold of those afflicted by that malady, could not in any way be considered the cause of it, even if it might be said that He made them blind, because it brought into greater triumph the already darkened state of their reason, which was not unknown even before. For if such great brightness of divine light had not shone forth, so that the minds of the nations sitting in darkness and shadow might be enlightened and look up toward the knowledge of God, the blindness of the Jewish race would not have been shown to be so great. But the excess of that radiance proceeding through His works, the efficacy of the illuminating power, and the conversion of the nations became a clear proof D against those who did not run to the light of truth and were not illuminated in piety, showing that they had prepared this blindness for themselves by their own will, and had deprived themselves of the universal salvation intended for all men through a certain incredible madness.
QUESTION LXXVII
On genus and species, various difficulties, in which their solutions can be found. Nunc primum edita a D. Hergenrœther.1. We have often discussed the subject of genera and species, and the distinctions of the ancients,
A as it seemed proper to those discussing them at the time, and it has proceeded leaving no difficulty behind. For the Platonic ideas, indeed, have undergone a special examination, since they cannot even be predicated of individuals. I will not say now that to establish the forms and likenesses of things to be produced is, for an artisan, a matter of power—but [that it is for an artisan] who is unable to create what he wishes by a simple movement; nor will I mention likewise that to seek here the exemplars of existing things necessarily carries the process of created things into infinity. For the former is entirely unworthy of the true concept regarding God; and the latter, of itself, immediately destroys what had been fashioned in the mind. B Indeed, even if one were to concede that the forms of individual properties are the source from which items are fashioned—the particular and individual things—still, no fair reasoning permits these to be brought under the predication of those forms. For that which is sealed is not the seal, nor can that which receives the likeness by participation be the same as that from which that likeness is given; nor could things impressed in the divine mind—which have obtained an immovable and unshakable state, if such a thing exists at all—be in any way called predicates of things prone to perpetual flux and change. For there is a very great difference, and it appears from the very condition or connection C as to how they differ. For the relationship between cause and effect, especially when there is discussion of creative power and the exemplar, clearly demonstrates the diversity of existence in the connection of their condition. But if things that seem to connect the signified items by a similarity of names actually cause the greatest discrepancy to be acknowledged—as they offer neither the appearance of connection nor show any evidence of union—how could these be reduced to the same state when they are not, by nature, able to come together, nor is there any instance where the connection can preserve its own integrity without any adulteration? By such reasonings were the Platonic ideas discussed, with many older arguments also supporting our endeavor.
2. As for the genera and species beyond the Platonic ideas, even though they have had their origin from a different opinion and different intent, they still vary in their constitution; and those who philosophize with greater refinement have been ambitious to call some "above the many," and others "in the many;" yet, as far as the use of predication goes, they differ but little. It has sufficed, therefore, for the inquiry and adjudication of both to be conducted by the same arguments. And as regards D incorporeal substances—a subject about which there was no ancient contention—it was most easily admitted that the genera and species predicated of them participate in an incorporeal nature; but a great dispute arose concerning the three-dimensionally measurable substances, which are and are called bodies: whether, that is, it is fitting to call their genera and species bodies, or, inasmuch as they are superior to the senses, one should place them into the category of incorporeal things. However, at that time we discussed these matters with precision, and it did not seem to the listeners that a second debate was necessary. Since, however, your God-loving
holiness has desired and requested that a brief treatise be written concerning these same points, nothing prevents us from discussing them briefly.
3. The definitions of incorporeal things, in so far as they distinguish the underlying nature, are clearly themselves incorporeal; for the genera and species contained within them provide no difficulty or point for contemplation to anyone. But how could the definitions of corporeal things be corporeal, even if the promptness of the analogy suggests this? For definition and body deny any communion with one another. If, however, a definition is by nature different from a body, why would the genera and species that fulfill the definition not seek out the same difference? And how could an incorporeal thing be predicated of corporeal things? Is it the case that the genera and species of these things are not incorporeal, indeed, that they are not reduced to the bulk of bodies, nor do they possess as a substrate the matter in which the plenum of dimensions consists, but are said to be entirely corporeal and relative to body? For they explain and clarify the body as a subject: man, for example, is corporeal, because he designates Socrates or Plato—who is a body—and in explaining their substance, he distinguishes them by denomination from others of the same genus. But how, if man is not a body, and Socrates is a man, will it not be concluded that Socrates is not a body? B For this, if anything similar, seems to be the strongest of the points of difficulty. But it is not difficult to resolve. For in the first figure, if you pay close attention, the major premise is accepted as particular; for in this way, when developed, it does not depart from the truth. But if someone were to change it into a universal, he would at the same time render it false instead of true. For it is manifestly false to say: "No man is a body," since the proposition is true, "Man is a body," according to the things said previously. But if someone, abandoning the confusing knot of the argument, does not think it worth the trouble to investigate more curiously what seems to be concluded from it, but would say that it is absurd in itself either to say or to think that man is not a body, even setting aside that conclusion which seems to follow from it, namely that Socrates will not be a body—how can the division of substance into body and incorporeal, which first distinguishes the one from the other, be brought forward? This is to be considered later; but let the treatment not depart from the series and consequence of what has been said. For that to which we have referred is seen not only in the negative figure in predications of this kind, but also in the affirmative, whenever one wishes to bring forward a solid argument by which the question might be strengthened. For those saying: "Man or animal is corporeal," and then, "Socrates is an animal or a man," would we not be compelled to say that Socrates is also bodily? C For thus is it concluded, with the major premise remaining valid here as well; for the premise possesses its development in part. But if it should be led back to the universal type, it would immediately be caught
A in falsehood. For how could it be said: Every man or every animal is a body, if this proposition: No man and no animal is a body, is demonstrably true? Furthermore, how would those not be corporeal which indicate that their subject is a body? And how would they be removed from the title and constitution of body? For they are distant from an incorporeal nature and have withdrawn from corporeal properties; and into what class of things will they be reduced, if someone eliminates them even from bodies? But if one wishes to consider other ways here, he will not find it any less or harder to arrive at an easy solution to these difficulties. For Socrates is a man or animal per se, but man or animal is corporeal not per se; not by its principle, nor by nature, but as it is B declarative and signifying the corporeal subject, and explaining its relationship toward it. It is therefore not a valid argument that requires Socrates to be called corporeal. For it is woven together from propositions of a different kind and dissimilar, so that not even two parts can be called of the same argument; but perhaps one belongs to one thing, and the other to another, which likewise have nothing in common between them. Rightly, therefore, from such an alien combination and confusion, nothing can be concluded.
4. But consider with me this, which is still more subtle than the aforementioned. For if Socrates — because that which is proximately predicated and properly announces the subject — does not necessarily communicate what is his own to the thing signified, even when the major premise in this case, if one C should wish to compose a syllogism, can in some way proceed to the universal figure? For no one of sound mind would say that the thing which the word "Socrates" announces, is [itself] declarative or signifying the subject; but if so, how would not every reason much more forbid those things which follow from the intermediate predicates of Socrates from being drawn and attributed to Socrates per se?
5. And the division, which separates substance into body and incorporeal, will be apt for solving the question, if one should reply that that division looks to the extreme and last [aspects] of the subjects, and in this way performs the division and section. For although the division appears to proceed even from higher up, D yet through the curious investigation of lower things, reason, aided by the senses for judging and thereby freeing itself from every error regarding singulars, and thus ascending to more general contemplations, as if from a certain vantage point, perceives lower things more wisely and better, and brings forward a divisive method, one nevertheless more recent and posterior to that aforementioned, just as that which they wish to call analytic. But regarding this, one could also employ other arguments, since it is possible to see many people blinking at this higher and philosophical treatment of causes. For many things, which have profound reason, are not
A readily harmonized with the quick ears and shallow minds of men, as these are naturally accustomed to being occupied by methodical experience and calm judgment; and where this is absent, the rationale of demonstration seems weak to draw and win over the minds of the hearers.
6. But as for those who raise the doubt that, if one were to grant that the genera and species of bodies are themselves bodies, then it would follow for them to have triple dimensionality, and circumscription in place, and to be judged by the senses, and for body to pass through body, and whatever other such things those idle inquisitors have devised, I would not unreasonably wonder, since they seek such arguments and deem them relevant to their own study, how they did not say before all else: "But if the genera and species are bodies, then the particulars and individuals will certainly be so as well." For those who were not ashamed to elevate the properties B of individual bodies to their genera and species, how were they afraid to also reduce the singular and individual, namely Socrates or Plato, to these? For once they have inverted the order of predicates, and have deigned to predicate the properties of the ultimate subjects of the genera and species that are being predicated, they are bound to give an account of why they did not also attempt to predicate the very thing—the particular and individual—of the genera and species, and why they did not consider them worthy to be refuted through this absurdity, rather than through the claim that genera and species are bodies. For this is what all their ingenious argumentation is contrived to accomplish.
7. But let these things be left as the prancing of youthful agility, I think; for it is youthful to leap about and be eager to overthrow what is proposed, by which the object escapes their clutches and establishes the certainty of its existence even more firmly than before. For that which has not yet submitted to the testing of contradiction remains uncertain in its strength, as the proofs are not yet present; but when it has overcome the efforts of its adversaries to refute it, it has acquired much greater glory and a more open estimation of truth than it had before. C
8. To those who say that the species and genera of bodies, when taken in the mind, must be thought of and called incorporeal, but once they have been attached to the subjects, it is then appropriate to call them and consider them bodies, I would gladly ask whether they encountered them as incorporeal when they were thinking, or if they themselves bestowed this nature upon them in the very act of thinking. For if they encountered them as incorporeal and changed nothing by their thinking, the difficulty remains no less than before, indeed even more bold; but if they encountered them as bodies and changed them into the incorporeal, O for their D marvelous and rapid power of creation! For thoughts, insofar as they are thoughts, are entirely incorporeal; and who
from the things he conceives A will change bodies into the incorporeal? Do they adapt them to the subjects just as they have conceived them? And how is it that they do not predicate the incorporeal of bodies? But if, as they first received them, they again adapt them to the subjects, the mind has labored in vain, striving to change what cannot be changed, and fashioning for us forms of imagination. But even attributing them to the things themselves, as they say, and for this reason not depriving them of bodies, do they attribute these things having reflected on them, or do they sketch out this connection aimlessly and however it might occur to them? But both, I think, are fallacious; for the one destroys the opposite, by which it was asserted that bodies are changed into incorporeal substance through the thoughts of the mind, while the other is the talk of madmen and ridiculous.
9. What, then, is the account that escapes all these snares? It has perhaps been stated more forcefully and acutely before, but let it be said again more clearly now. The genera and species of bodies are corporeal, yet they are not bodies; they are indicative of the subjects, but are not themselves indicated; they explain their existence, but do not constitute it; they declare the substantiation of their parts, but do not supply it; and they signify the subsistences of the subjects by names corresponding to the concepts and proper objects, not supplying these things through themselves to the things that exist and are most sufficient for themselves and do not need them, just as goodness, wisdom, justice, humanity, and such predicaments, although some indicate the action or passion of the subject, others its existence and substantiation, or [its] passions and actions. For if any one of these predicates C were to add to the individuals that are the subjects of its predication—whether gathered from bodies or deduced from the property of qualities—a heap of its own, or heap together either the natures of bodies or, if you will, the accretions of the incorporeal, what, I ask, would such a sentiment differ from monstrous figments and ghosts? But if anyone, delighting in the word "body" and not departing from the corporeal concept, wishes to call "bodies" the genera and species which are said to be predicated of individual bodies, we will in no way oppose him; for "body," when spoken of in this way, fully and purely escapes all the aforementioned snares, and to heal the mind of one who wishes to philosophize through the concession of a word, I think, will never be judged absurd among those who are judges.
10. But this is the summary account, following your request, concerning the subaltern genera and species which are said to be predicated of individual bodies—a discussion which, I think, imparts a doctrine not less noble than that which he who was born in Stagira, and who captivated all of Greece in the sweet admiration of his wisdom, discoursed upon in a philosophical manner concerning these very things D.
A, having termed these things mere trifles of training and long-drawn exercise, and being moved to demand, as it were, a penalty for such labor spent upon them, and this, indeed, because he rejected such a great study, reducing it to nothingness. The near and immediate category of the ten genera, which fall under it (for it possesses, I think, something even deeper than the reputation and philosophy of the ancients), met with a different and more accurate scrutiny, while we still occupied ourselves with dialectical studies, at a time when our arguments, while in the throes of producing many offspring, brought to light a theory that had been extinguished for many years through the guile of lawless men; thence, therefore, and from that training, which had previously escaped the study of many, those who now philosophize from that holy lineage will be able to derive these things more easily. And may it be for those who come after us to speak of them—flourishing and adorned with righteous reason—far from arrogance, and indeed in a manner that is not blameworthy. B
QUESTION LXXVIII. Difficulties and solutions of the dogmatic and antirrhetic sacred inquiries from the second oration of Gregory the Theologian concerning the Son.
1. I myself did not think it fit to seek to have the mind of the Patristic words come to the point of learning, regarding that matter for which both time, and the diligence concerning logical methods, and the school of the sacred Scriptures, set others up as a teacher of many and noble lessons. But since you, just as children who love their fathers—even if they already perceive for themselves exactly what must be done—look to them nevertheless, wishing to be supported by paternal counsels, so also you, being sufficient in yourself to resolve the logical disputes that arise, have chosen to look to our judgment; and I decided not to insult an affection for a father, and I chose to indulge my own love for my children no less; therefore, neither the bitterness of the time nor the scarcity of scribes was able to deter me from complying with your requests. C
2. The meaning of the question proposed by you is clear and, I think, needs no interpretation; yet the structure of the discourse has in it something convoluted and needing careful examination for its resolution. For indeed both God and Father D can be spoken of in relation to the Word who became man, but Father, indeed, properly of the Word, and God, indeed, properly of the assumption; just as He is not called God properly of the Word, nor Father properly of the assumption; wherefore the terms "properly" and "not properly" are found to be brought forward in regard to the Father and in regard to God.
A Such then is the meaning, which, as you see, contains nothing obscure. But how shall the complex turn of the phrase be resolved, except by taking those words—that is, as "properly" is spoken of both, not separately, nor the term "God" or the term "Father" of some one of the subjects, nor of both; but by referring either of these to either of the subjects, rendering "Father" to the Word, and "God" to the assumption; and likewise as that word "not properly," not by taking some one of the predicates from some one of the subjects, nor from both, but both in relation to either of the subjects, B according to the logic of alternation, as it was said above in the case of "properly." For when God is found to be predicated of the Word, and Father of the assumption, the "not properly" meaning is subjoined. But it appears that these terms "properly" and "not properly" behave in a way contrary to how they are used in our affairs. For in the ineffable union of the Word and the flesh, while "Father" is predicated properly of the Word, "God" is not properly; whereas in our nature, conversely, "God" is affirmed properly, but "Father" not properly. And this is what you were asking about—the force/meaning of that term, which signifies neither a disjunction nor anything else of those things into which it is accustomed to be divided, but embraces a clarifying character C and fulfills the function of the term *par' ho* (contrary to which, or in contrast to which). The statement could be more clearly formed if one were to transpose the words and say: "Wherefore the term 'properly' is taken from one of the conjunctions, and the term 'not properly' from the other, contrary to how they behave among us." For both the term "properly" and the term "not properly" resulted from such a certain complex of predicates and subjects, and were understood directly from that. Taking both "properly" and "not properly" (for this theologian is a lover of brevity, if any other is), and directing the mind of the hearers to the conjunctions arising from them, he subjoined that expression: "contrary to which in us." For it is seen that the sense of those words, "contrary to which in us," embraces both complexities, which is formed out of the terms "properly" and "not properly." D This section of discourse wishes to teach that there is nothing to prevent both "properly" and "not properly" from being said of the Word, since both are observed in our own case, even if in a contrary sense. For there, "God" is not said properly, but "Father"; whereas here, it is not "Father" that is said properly, but "God."
3. On a diagram, what we have said might become clearer; by placing "Father" and "God" above, and placing "Word" under "Father" and "assumption" under "God," and by drawing lines across, which connect the Father to the Word and God to the assumption; nor
to the Word, and the Father and God to the assumption, and moreover by the drawing of other straight lines from each of the starting points of the parallels to the end of each, being joined together, and forming as it were a chiasm A with one another, while each diagonal 32 accepts a position in relation to the parallels. For it is evident from this, that according to the parallel position of the lines, both the Father is seen to be properly called the Father of the Word, and God the God of the assumption; but according to the conjunction of the chiasm, both God is not properly called the God of the Word, and the Father is not properly called the Father of the assumption.
If, however, you take one from the parallel and one according to the diagonal line, and this for each of the four conjugations, you will see through both that which is proper and that which is not proper arising at the same time; for the Father of the Word is proper, but God is not proper; and again, the Father of the assumption is not proper, but God is proper.
Since, therefore, four doubled B conjugations are considered—one of those from the parallel, another of those according to the chiasm, and two remaining, each of which is completed by one of the diagonals intertwined with one of the parallels—it is clear that the opposite of what is the case for us will be attributed to each of the latter; for in these cases, the Father being joined to the Word and to the assumption is adapted properly to the Word, but not properly to the assumption; and likewise also God is proclaimed to be God properly to the assumption, but not properly to the Word.
Thus, therefore, as we examine things, some of the conjugation will appear to be proper, and some not proper, and this not in a monolithic way, but in a relationship and conjunction that varies in a twofold manner C; and it is clear that in each of the conjugations, each of the proper and the not proper stands in the opposite way to what it does for us. And because the names were joined—I mean God and Father—through the appropriation of the word "properly," and yet they were joined no less also through the connection of "not properly"—or if you wish, because they are uttered concerning the same hypostasis, even if not in the same way—this has become an occasion for the heretics to strengthen their impiety by masking it, stealing away the "properly" and "not properly," and uttering these words stripped of their meaning, as they might wish the [names] Father and God to be applied to each of the natures D that are united according to hypostasis, for the establishment of their own blasphemy. But concerning these matters, so much does the discourse of philosophical reasoning set forth.
NOTE. (32) A chiasm is a figure exhibiting the shape of the letter Χ. In the Vatican codex, the schema designated by Photius is:
[Diagram: Pater (Father) \ / X / \ Deus (God) (These are connected such that:) Pater — (properly) — [line to] Word Pater — (not properly) — [line to] assumption Deus — (not properly) — [line to] Word Deus — (properly) — [line to] assumption]
Verily, these things are thus explained according to the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
A 4. As for the statement, "Now I am lying," and what follows, I think that you will not be slow to bring to mind the history of how this was discussed; for a long time ago, when I was developing the methods of topics for my hearers during our dialectical exercises—of whom you yourself were not the least, but rather one of the most prominent in debate—a full discourse on this question was compiled, which we then permitted those who wished to do so to transcribe. Whence it behooves you also, by finding and perusing it, to recall to memory if anything regarding the current dispute has escaped you. Yet, I do not believe it will be superfluous or incur the stigma of ostentation to speak a few words about the same matter now for your sake.
5. Gregory, who discoursed upon divine matters most sublimely, B when the Eunomians thought they could capture the comprehension of things incomprehensible as if it were some small trifle by means of logical discourse and, as they supposed, by that contradictory questioning, dared to rank the coeternal Word of the Father with things created afterwards—the divine Gregory, I say, conceding that that questioning had proceeded by contradiction (although the matter was not so, but both parts of the opposition were brought forward by way of affirmation, even if one of them bore a simple form and the other a form derived from transposition), yet neglecting this so as not to appear to be glorying in artifice and sophistry—which he granted no entry in the treatment of divine matters—he set up against their very citadel the strong rams of truth. C And rather than by the exception of objections, he cries out through the evidence of the things themselves that the refuge of your contradiction, O most wise men, does not at all demand that one of the propositions be admitted—which seemed to you an invincible argument against the truth; nor is the judgment of such reasoning most fair and upright. And when he had set this before his adversaries, he brings forward these examples: "Now I am lying," and, "You were present at your own birth," and others of this kind, showing that it is not at all necessary that one part of the contradiction be admitted; but it is possible, as in the examples brought forward, D sometimes to deny and reject both and to conceive of a third, in which truth is seen to shine forth. And indeed, it was within the power of the Theologian, while technically classifying, to distinguish which contradictions involve the discernment of truth and falsehood, and which do not; but since his purpose was to theologize, and not to display the ornament of art, and to refute the heretics, and not to refine those disciples for whom the dialectic art would seem foolish [to the] wise... [alt-version omitted]
and to show that the instrument of contradiction, so bruited about by them, does not always possess invincible strength regarding any random matters, much less exist as a criterion fit for judging of the supernatural essence and majesty that is above reason. A Many things could be uttered which preserve the form of contradiction, yet do not likewise provide the utility of discernment; for instance, if one were to inquire concerning a living man, whether he will rise from the dead, or will not rise; for neither of these can be admitted here by a person of sound mind. Even though the present construction of the argument seems to have something of greater weight for creating conviction, the negative particle is joined to the predicate term, but it has not moved to the subject. Such is also this: "Whether human feet still grow lion's claws, or do not grow them?" Or this: "He who is carried in a race already toward the end of the goal, did he place the beginning of the movement in the very act of being carried, or did he not begin at all?" For how can such a formation of arguments distinguish the true from the false? And this: "Fire moistening and cooling bodies, does it show this operation according to nature, or not according to nature?" This, obviously, just like what is proposed by the heretical mindset, has a corrupted configuration of the question. And this also: "A man who is carried aloft from the earth, does he cease from this upward movement, or does he not cease?" B It is indeed immune from the stated flaw of phrasing, yet nonetheless it transforms and perverts the figure of true contradiction. And in this case: "Time, flowing like the streams of waters, will it cease from such flow, or will it not cease?" The complex of the argument, clearly imitating the preceding one, sins with the same flaw, just as this proposition: "Whether the incorporeal nature, undergoing corporeal formation, had its composition from matter and form, or from neither of these?" For if from matter and form, how is it incorporeal? But if from neither of these, from whence did it undergo corporeal formation? Again, does motion occur in motion, or in non-motion? For if in motion, what is it and in what [does it occur], and what is the difference between them? And how does that one not, in turn, occur in motion, and thus the infinite be snuck in? But if not in motion, how will immobility contain the motion, and will C rest, coexisting with the movement, not be moved at the same time, or will the motion also cease along with the rest that is not moved along with it? And the whole of creation, being superior to [the act of] creation, was it produced by some operation, or is it known not to have been produced at all? For if it was not produced, how is it even said to exist as a creation? But if it was produced, how did it receive being superior to the creation? And who will be equal to counting such trifles and ruses of this sort, which can be fashioned about the form of contradiction? How great a purification do these require! D
A of what is lacking, the adding in of what is missing, the cutting away of what is redundant, not to mention more subtle distinction and gluing together! None of these things can touch that blessed and immaculate nature, not even close at hand, nor even from afar; indeed, it is far further removed than the creative nature is from the human creations it has fashioned. But if, in the case of material things, one cannot trust the form of contradiction to weigh in the balance the judgment of truth and falsehood, unless many other things are taken along with it as well—things that distinguish more accurately, support, and bring to perfection the power of such a criterion—how much less will that labored work of contradiction be able to possess the strength and dignity of a criterion in regard to the divine nature, which is ineffable and inscrutable to human minds, and which does not tolerate being subjected to the investigation of a criterion that is—if one even dares to apply it—a curiosity in terms of power and claim?
6. And observe, if you will, examples even closer at hand than those we have brought forward. Did God produce the ages as existing things or as non-existing? And do they subsist or do they not subsist? For if they are existing things, how is their production not in vain, and how is it not nonsense? But if they are not existing, where is that which is coextensive with the eternal? And if they do not subsist, how are the ages B at all among existing things, or from where do they come or will they come? But if they do indeed subsist, whence does the unlimited and the immense accrue to them? Do you wish to see the absurdity even more closely? Did the Father, being, become Father, or not being? For if he was being, then part of him was prior and part came afterwards, and how has that which is immutable been changed? But if he was not being, even then the account of change destroys the immutability no less, and fights more strongly against the eternity. But these things belong to those who are babbling, and they are all fruits of heretical and first-sown seed.
7. Be it so: but perhaps some other heretic will emerge more boldly, and, removing from himself the blame of the transposition by which that opposition was corrupted, will contrive to set up the interrogation in roughly this way: "Did the Father beget the Son as an existing being, or did He not beget him as an existing being?" And he will demand that one part of the opposition be granted to him. But in truth, even such an escape as this has been shown by the aforesaid examples D to have powers that are completely weak and cast down. However, nothing prevents us from refuting it now as well, directly and briefly. For it signifies either "He did not beget" simply, connecting none of the things that must be appended, or it brings along with it that which must be added—namely, "He did not beget him when he was already existing." Anyone who avoids all fallacy by connecting the discourse aptly will affirm that the begotten has existence simultaneously with his generation. This argument of the heretics, therefore, by terrifying simpler souls through the former interpretation, drives them to flight and does not allow their mind to turn toward the second meaning, which corresponds to reason. For if anyone were to apply their mind to that one, they would provide a most easy, as you see, and most pious response; for to affirm that He did not beget him as already existing, because the generation came to be simultaneously with the existence,
A what is labored, what is difficult about this? How is it agreeable to heresy, or rather, how is it not in conflict with it? What is lacking for piety? But if it should be necessary to descend to the humbler aspect of the Word, and from there to take a far more extended contemplation concerning the higher mystery, you may consider it in this way: For instance, did that which is born lay aside its eternity, or did it not lay it aside? For by answering simply "it laid it aside," a path is opened to the one wishing to cavil; for he, seizing upon that expression, will conclude: "Therefore it does not possess eternity in itself." But if anyone, adding what was missing, affirms: "It did not lay it aside, because it never possessed it" (for it is the property of those things to lay aside that which they had previously possessed), he has placed a strong bridle upon heretical garrulity. And from this you will, by applying the diligent labor of your mind, make countless examples sprout forth, by which the loquacity and audacity of the heretics may be repressed.
8. But let these things—said to you concerning the technique of contradiction and heretical chatter—be spoken in passing. A more finished doctrine and contemplation the book mentioned above, which has long been available in the dialectical schools, will be able to provide most sufficiently. As for the rest, farewell; and consider that I am delaying in complying with your requests because of a lack of scribes, rather than that I am neglecting your petitions.
QUESTION LXXIX
Cur angelorum mentionem non fecit Moses in creatione mundi? et quid sibi vult illud: « Hoc enim faciens, carbones ignis congeres super caput ejus? »
B Both of these questions, I believe, have found their resolution in other writings of ours (40); and I would not say that they are lacking in accuracy, nor are they inferior in their power. But since it is dear to you to have a peculiar contemplation and recollection concerning them—even though you are yourself full of grace, not only knowing such things but also providing for others to learn—we have not refused the request of your intelligence. Therefore we say: Insofar as the great multitude had not yet lost the memory and recollection of their various temptations and calamities, but still retained certain remains of them in their minds, Moses, for this and other reasons, when embarking upon a clear narrative of the creation of the world, C mentioned neither the essence nor the origin of the angels. For these things are far removed from the sensible creation. And for those from Israel, who were just then being led up toward a more divine contemplation—departing especially from the Egyptian superstition, in which, if they were not possessed by error for a long time, they had at least D passed their lives in those things which hold fast—neither the essence nor the origin of the angels was mentioned.
A For, among them, it was neither easy nor simple to raise their minds toward the understanding of incorporeal and godlike intelligences. Nevertheless, it is no less true, and perhaps even more so than what has already been said, that he was not about to give laws to angels, but to men, whose origin and progression from non-being into being had recently occurred.
The Creator of all things introduces necessary teachings and matters of utility—the origin of the heavens, the earth, and the rest—because He willed these things to exist before He fashioned man, and because man was to live his life within them, and because He was about to provide those to whom the laws were given with other necessary things for sensory life. For they had some notion and impression of God in their souls, however vague, even if not brought to precision; but of angels they had none at all. Where, indeed, even the sect of the Sadducees, many generations later, while professing the existence of God, thought it intolerable even to hear the names of angels and spirits.
That the account of incorporeal intelligences was omitted by the God-seer Moses at the beginning due to the weakness of those who were to hear it is manifest from the fact that, at the end of the rest of his history, and after many other matters had been recounted, he made mention of them B—though not even then mentioning their creation, but rather the rejoicing of the heavens and the adoration of the angels. “Rejoice, O heavens, with Him,” he says, “and let all the angels of God adore Him.” The God-father David, however, spoke of their essence as being of fire, and that there is a Creator who is also known as the Maker of the entire rest of creation. This, then, is what the occasion allowed us to say regarding the angels.
Regarding the statement, “For in doing this, you will heap coals of fire upon his head,” C this is the same as if you were to say: “You will gather coals that consume and devour his head.” For they would consume it the more quickly, unless you were to remove them from him in time and free him from the creeping and devouring affliction. And would you not, by acting in this way, appear as the best physician for your neighbor? For if your enemy is received by you at your table and in your company, how could it be that, if not for the sake of the pursuit of goodness and virtue, then at least for the sake of the luxuries he enjoys at your hands, he would not call back his soul from enmity, abstain from laying snares, and, having recovered the sobriety of his mind, turn the flames and the wrath which enmity had kindled into gentle and mild character? And thus, gradually, he is led to learn to love his benefactor, using the beneficial and friendly hand D to soften the bitterness born of hatred, and transforming the strife against his benefactor—which devours both his soul, his body, and his head—into shame.
A If, however, even after such a great benefaction, by which the beauty of goodness is depicted, one who is gripped by envy and hatred toward his neighbor neither becomes better nor wishes to look toward change and correction, such a person would be a wild beast rather than a man, and such evil is rare in human nature. But you, nevertheless, even after such great madness, but even more so by heaping coals—the fire [of which] consumes his head—with your own forethought, would be fulfilling the imitation of the Master with your benefactions; yet he, for his part, shows that his sin is more powerful than any such benefaction and the forgiveness liberally offered. If, however, someone wishes to understand those words, "You will heap coals of fire upon his head," according to the standard interpretation—and to encourage the many, so that they do not make enmity more grievous with enmity and retaliation—this too would not stray from the reasoning by which it is prepared. It even has B greater power to draw the many to grant consent, [the persuasion] which exhorts not to retaliate. He who has uselessly entered into enmity against you does not cease brandishing his weapons; it would be better, however, to reflect upon the common Creator, the hand that fashioned both, and the fact that the nature of both is the same, and to overcome the one who hates you with the goodness of your own mind, seeing that he is bringing forth the like-natured through enmity. If not, if you wish to retaliate against him and cause him pain, and yet not fail or err in these things, give him food, give him drink. How and why? In this way you prepare the common Master as your vindicator, and by those benefactions you rouse Him to retribution. You would sooner see the enemy being burned and consumed by His justice and judgment as if by fire, and perishing there, together with his enmity and his schemes. C D
STEWART'S NOTE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION
This short work by Photius, translated into Latin by Turrianus, is found among the Canisian papers. Turrianus has summarized its argument in these few words: "The will to eat, simply, was indeed in Christ, because this will is natural. But the will to eat something affected by this or that quality, such as sweet, or bitter, or much, or little, was not in Him, because such a will, which is called *gnomic*—that is, *of such-and-such quality*, or *of such-and-such manner*—belongs to the human person, not to the nature; yet Christ was not a human person, nor did He assume any [particular] individual man, but the nature of man, which is one (in species, that is). This kind of will is called not natural, but the human person's will. This is the scope of this treatise." This is what Turrianus says. The Greek inscription is: "On gnomic wills in Christ."
"Gnomic" is derived from *gnome*; this name, says Blessed Damascene (lib. III, *De fide orthodoxa*, cap. 14), "has a varied and manifold meaning. For sometimes it signifies an admonition, as when the Apostle says: 'Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my *gnome*.' Sometimes counsel, as when the Prophet says: 'They have devised a wicked *gnome* against thy people.' Also, whatever is decreed, as in these words of Daniel: 'From whom has this impudent *gnome* gone forth?' Finally, sometimes it is taken for faith, or opinion, or an affection of the mind; and, to be brief, the word is used with very many meanings." This is what Damascene says. This little book is found in Greek in various libraries, specifically in the Colbertine.
in the Cæsarian Viennese, and in the Ducal Bavarian of Munich. In Latin, so far as I know, it has never come into the hands of men. Therefore, it is not to be wondered at if this discussion has hitherto been scarcely known to the Latins. Farewell: and after reading the little work, read also the critical Dissertation appended below.
QUESTION LXXX.
A What gnomic wills ought to be spoken of in Christ, and what human will, hypostatic or other, ought to be spoken of in the same Christ?To discuss the wills in Christ that are called gnomic is a matter both difficult and easy. For since no one, so far as I know, among our esteemed and God-bearing Fathers has handed down anything of any weight, or elegantly and distinctly, concerning this matter, with the exception of the holy Maximus, B truly a champion of piety, for this reason the difficulty of speaking about it enters in. For it would not be a fearful or unassailable thing for those wishing to cavil to shake such a great dogma on the authority of one man. But because, on the other hand, many proofs flow out from the very chambers of piety and from calculations that agree with one another, guarding the correct opinion, for this reason it is most easy to speak, or rather, it is not beyond the reach of comprehension.
But you, dearest brother, if the offspring of my discourse should appear worthy of your request and your hope, cherish it as something common to you, who served as midwife, and to me, who gave birth; but if it is imperfect and maimed, compared with those things which have already been brought to maturity for you by the study C of contemplation (I would desire this, if I were held by the desire of winning, for it is much sweeter to win in a brother than in another; for we do not devise danger for a Carian, as the proverb has it, but we believe it to be the part of an intelligent and prudent man to seek true strength in related blood), yet, take the exposed offspring, and augment and perfect it with your own labors, and do not cease to be gladdened and to enjoy the common joy over it.
Since, therefore, the ancients distinguished two kinds of powers (for it is necessary to go back a little further), one kind being those which are concerned with cognition, which are called cognitive; and others which are the animal [powers]: for the matter with which we are to deal now, there is more need of the animal powers, that is, the appetitive ones. D There is therefore implanted in the soul an appetitive power for that which is according to nature, or convenient to nature, and for containing and preserving all things that are substantially present, which is called *thelesis*—that is, will; and thus they define the natural will as a natural appetite and a rational volition.
depending solely upon natural properties. Wherefore *thelesis*, that is, will, is the very animal and rational appetite of all the powers which constitute a nature, a simple potentiality. For the appetite of irrational beings, since it is not rational, is not called will. It has therefore been stated what *thelesis* is, that is, will.
B *Boulesis* (volition), however, is a certain natural *thelesis*, that is to say, a natural and rational appetite for some thing. For the power to appetize rationally is inherent in the human soul; but when this rational appetite is moved naturally toward some thing, it is called *boulesis*; for *boulesis* is a rational appetite and desire for some thing. *Boulesis* is spoken of both regarding things that are in our power and regarding impossible things. For we have the volition not to die; but *boulesis* is essentially* of the end, not of things directed toward the end. For the end is that which is intended, as for example, to be healthy; the things directed toward the end are the way by which we ought to become healthy.
After *boulesis*, there is inquiry and deliberation, concerning which is *boule* (counsel). For *boule* is an appetitive inquiry, occurring regarding things within our power; for one deliberates whether one ought to pursue the thing or not. Then one judges, and this is called judgment (*krisis*). Regarding those things which one is disposed toward and loves, it is called *gnome* (opinion); for if one judges, but is not disposed toward what is judged—that is, if one does not love it—it is not called *gnome*. Indeed, upon *gnome* follows *proairesis* (choice), which is as it were the election. After *proairesis*, the impulse toward action follows; then the use, after which the process of appetite ceases. C In the case of irrational beings, therefore, immediately after the appetite, the impulse follows, but in the case of rational beings, not always. For the irrational are led by natural appetite, wherefore the appetite of the irrational is not called *thelesis*, nor *boulesis*. But in the case of humans, the natural appetite is moved rather than it moves; for [man] acts with free will and with reason, since the cognitive and vital powers are conjoined in man; he appetizes, therefore, with free will, and he is impelled with free will, and he does other things with free will.
In the case of the divine and blessed and supernatural nature, we speak of *boulesis* (volition), but we do not properly speak of *proairesis* (choice), just as we do not speak of deliberation, nor of counsel, nor, indeed, in the soul of the Lord, do we speak of *boule* or *proairesis*. For He had no ignorance, even if He was said to be of a nature that is ignorant of future things D (52): for having been united to the Word of God according to hypostasis, all...
A knowledge was His, not by grace, but by nature, because He was the same God and man. Wherefore He had no gnomic will (that is, an affected will or an affection of the will toward something); for He certainly had the natural will, that simple one which is observed alike in all human nature; but His holy soul did not have a gnomic will contrary to His divine will, nor did He will anything other than the divine will. For the gnome (disposition/will) is divided along with the persons, except in the case of the holy and simple and uncompounded and indivisible Godhead alone; for there, since the hypostases are not divided or separated at all, neither is what is willed divided, but it is as if united with the natural, and divided by the law of its own circumscription. And there, because there is one nature, there is also one natural will; and because the hypostases are inseparable, the "what is willed" is also one, and the movement of the three hypostases is one, since the immaculate B and supernatural union does not permit itself to be insulted by the division of any material fancy.
In men, indeed, because there is one nature, there is also one natural will, but the persons are divided among themselves, and are distinct by time, and place, and disposition toward things, and in many other ways; therefore, different wills are discerned, and different gnomai (that is, wills with affection and love). But in our Lord Jesus, because there are diverse natures, there are also diverse wills, namely those of His divinity and of His humanity, that is, the volitional powers. But since, on the other hand, the hypostasis is one, and He who wills is one, what is willed is also one, that is, the gnomic will (54), that is, the will with affection; for His human will follows His divine will, and wills the same things that His divine will willed to will. Wherefore gnomic, hypostatic, personal, and elective wills signify the same underlying thing.
It is necessary to know, so that a greater and fuller explanation of terms may be made, that "will" sometimes signifies the power to will, and is called natural will; but sometimes it signifies C that which we will, and is called gnomic will. And according to the holy Maximus, gnomic will differs from natural will D in that the former both is and is called hypostatic and personal, while the latter is not, nor is it called hypostatic. And it further differs in that the latter is simply and as it happens...
A that which is conducive to nature—that is, those things which pertain to the constitution of nature, and without which nature does not consist—and a longing, which is the natural will. But the qualitative and varied movement and appetite for things conducive to pleasure is the gnomic will, which is also discerned in the tension between the good and that which is not of such a kind; and the former signification is not at all alien to the second, but they have a communion in the property of quantity and quality, just as the thing signified by the name of nature in man is accepted.
For the signification of the name of nature is twofold here: the one simply and universally signifies each of the individuals that fall under "man," and the other signifies not this B simply, nor the whole of the innate power that strengthens us for actions—signified by which we say that these men are by nature more apt for the study of geometry, others for the study of music, or others are known as workers of mildness, and others of temperance.
The free will (proairesis) differs, therefore, from the natural will by way of noble thoughts, insofar as it is an appetitive faculty deliberating about things within our power, and further, insofar as the natural will depends only upon natural things, whereas the free will depends only upon things within our power. But to think or say that the will of Christ is natural or elective, no one C of the holy Fathers has dared, knowing truly that free will belongs to those who are moved in both directions—that is, I mean, toward both good things and evil things—which is, in the case of Christ, to conceive and speak of Him as falling short of correct judgment.
Furthermore, if there is a hypostatic will in Christ, it will certainly differ from the gnomic wills observed in each man; and it will likewise differ from the will contemplated in the Father and the Spirit. What, then, is this will, which is neither human gnomic will, nor entirely a divine will? For no one will say it is some compound thing, because it is not possible to even conceive of a composition of will, just as we can understand a compound hypostasis.
Nor may anyone say that, according to this argument, no other human being D has a gnomic will. For every gnomic will is that of some specific person, and it is not identical to any of the gnomic wills contemplated in the individuals, but is entirely different. Wherefore it will not be "human," because it does not befit any individual of human nature as "man"—for if the gnomic will were strictly "human" to any one of the individuals, it would certainly be human. But it is no longer [simply] human, because neither Socrates, nor Peter, nor anyone else, insofar as he is man...
A possesses a gnomical will, or [is it that] the sophistical argument is what distinguishes the individual of the same nature from other individuals? And because we confess that the one presented is not the same as any of the other individuals in hypostasis or in other properties, for this reason we must remove him from the common nature and not call his gnomical will human. For by many arguments this fallacious reasoning will separate and tear away the common nature from the individuals that subsist and are contained under it by this designation. Wherefore this argument does not hold in the same way as [the argument of] him who does not admit a gnomical will in Christ. For in the case of men, having taken one [individual] who is acknowledged to have a gnomical will because of his difference from the rest of the individuals of the same species, one prescinds [from considering] the common nature—which is a piece of sophistry and a fallacious syllogism. But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we ask first of all whether it is entirely necessary to say that a gnomical will exists in Him, and [we note that] it is not possible to take [any] hypostases contained under the name of Christ B.
Furthermore, in the case of men, it is indeed legitimate to say that the gnomical will which is in them, insofar as it is distinguished and separated by the persons, is not the same one as another, yet insofar as it is included in one nature, nothing prevents us from saying that it is both human and the same. But in Christ, no one can speak in the same way; for we cannot understand one single thing in Christ, since it is two natures that together constitute His hypostasis, and not one. Nor can we say of it: "the gnomical will insofar as it is this, is not the same; but insofar as it is this, it is the same," since Christ is one, and His person is one, and His hypostasis is one, and Christ does not have hypostases of the same order, and of the same name and definition, C that is, coordinated; nor is there anything common that can be said of Him which could also be adapted to other hypostases. Wherefore the difficulty remains unsolved, by which it was asked what the gnomical will might be, since in Christ it is neither human, nor divine, nor can it even be named as such.
The second type of answer, therefore, is what we have said, that one must not say that a gnomical, that is, a human hypostatic will, exists in Christ. D
Third, if an human will is said to be in Christ...
A one must consider that the hypostatic will depends on the natural will. For the gnomical will is a certain quality of the natural will. Therefore, the gnomical will in Christ would be dependent on [His] natural will, and indeed not upon a simple natural will, but a composite and commixed one. For if one were to suppose that a gnomical will exists at all in a composite hypostasis, it would have to be a gnomical will proceeding from a composite natural will. Consequently, there would be a composite nature in Christ, a position that has been condemned by the universal vote of those who have confirmed and established with unassailable firmness the [doctrine of the] two natures.
B Furthermore, if the gnomical will involves prior deliberation, and the affection and assent regarding things to be judged, and if in these there is a transition from ignorance to knowledge, and a change or alteration of disposition—for the disposition is turned toward affection from a state of non-affection—and if none of these things can be conceived as existing in Christ, then it is intolerable to say that a human gnomical will exists in Him.
Besides what has been said, if those who use the human gnomical will are accustomed to struggle against God, how is it at all possible to conceive of a gnomical will in Christ? To put it more generally, if the gnomical will inclines equally to either of our actions, I mean the base and the better, how is it not an audacious act to introduce a gnomical will into Christ, and to C imagine that He has an equal inclination toward base and honest things, when He is otherwise uniformly the author of good things and, strictly speaking, the fountain of all good?
But so much, for now, for the assertion that the human gnomical will cannot purely be applied to Christ.
It must be inquired, however, whether one ought not to speak of a divine gnomical will in Christ either, just as one does not speak of a human gnomical will; or if the latter is not allowed, while the former is not forbidden. For how is it not forbidden? Because the arguments that have been brought against a gnomical will in Christ—principally the third and the fourth—have the same force in the same way against a divine gnomical will. For by the same path, the D reason of truth distinguishes and reconciles both the divine and the human gnomical will. And, apart from what has been said, if anyone were to suppose that a divine gnomical will is spoken of in Christ, let him say whether he considers this to be the same as the divine natural will, or different. For if he considers it the same, what is the point of the name? Is it a fantasy of concepts meant to...
introduce an unwarranted difference where none exists? But if it is different, how could it not be a will other than the one observed in the Father and the Holy Spirit? This is another absurdity: for the natural will in God, since it is common and inseparable to the three divine persons, is fitting A to them equally and without any variation 62. For that which we cannot conceive in the nature of men, we are permitted to understand in the substance that is above divine and above substance through the intelligence of the mind: for its natural and supra-divine will is marked by the unity of the same *gnome*—that is, resolve—and of consensus, and by the invariable nod 63. How, then, could a will that is common to the nature and invariable be contracted and concluded into a hypostatic *gnomic* will?
Truly, a *gnomic* divine will would not be spoken of in Christ, because no one, speaking properly, would dare to attribute it even to the Holy Spirit. For if that which is common is one, how could it be hypostatic? Nor should anyone misuse the term by taking it via metaphorical translation from human persons; if someone does this without in any way corrupting the understanding that befits God, he will perhaps not be denied forgiveness in his words, provided he applies corrections to his language and does not rather introduce alien dogmas 64. B It will not be irrelevant, then, to set out those things upon which some rely, thinking they can confirm a will contrary to the holy words 65, and to subject them to distinction and correct understanding, so that we may demonstrate that this excuse of theirs has been taken away.
Therefore, they say that it was said: "I came not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me," and that it is manifest that a *gnomic* will is signified here. It is easy to meet this objection: for if when He said "the will of the Father," He did not declare it to be *gnomic*—since it is not pious to affirm a *gnomic* will in the three God-ruling persons—it is clear that when He said "my will," He did not declare it to be *gnomic*, C but natural. Wherefore, what is said here in Scripture not only does not prove a *gnomic* will, but rather overturns and removes this opinion.
A For the natural is of the same order and reciprocal with the natural, just as the *gnomic* is of the same rank and co-disposed with the *gnomic*.
But in another and perhaps more appropriate sense, they might say that the power of the words should be taken negatively; for example: "I have not come to do my own will," for there is absolutely no other will of mine apart from that which is perceived in the Father and the Spirit. But if one should think that the utterance is not negative but comparative—which is precisely what the phrasing more immediately suggests—it might reasonably be understood as: "I have not come to perform the natural will of human nature, but the divine will," which is also not *gnomic*, but unique and perceived without change in the three God-authoring Persons, even if in human nature and all other things created by creative wisdom it would not be perceived at all, nor would it even draw near to the divine and super-divine property.
B If anyone, however, is attached to the expression of a "gnomic will" and wishes to look to no other of the solutions we have put forward, let him find solace in the present explanation: for the *gnomic* will of Christ now declared by the Lord’s own voice could be understood not as pertaining to the human alone, but as viewed according to Christ, which, as it is wholly of the divinity, refers its own circumscription to the divine infinity; nor, in turn, will two *gnomic* wills arise for us, because to say "one thing and another" introduces a duality into the subject; whereas to say the same thing "in one way and in another" introduces a change and variation of relations, but in no way a division and separation of that which is from eternity. C And this, indeed, is obvious even to those who are of the common sort, and easy to investigate. But the other is not known without study, diligence, and practice in dialectics, without which one cannot even correctly discern the tracks of the truth one is hunting.
The following also pertains to the same line of thought: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Matt. xxvi, 39). For it was of the human nature to fear death; but it was of the divine nature not only not to be disturbed when death was present, but even to be its author, out of a desire for salvation. D
A Moreover, the saying, “I will, be thou clean,” is not an indication of a gnomic will, but a manifestation of the divine, natural, and indivisible will, which is harmoniously shared by the supersubstantial and consubstantial Trinity. For just as their omnipotent divinity, authority, and providence are common, so too is the will for our salvation—that of the body, I say, and that of the soul—common, possessing no division, nor separated by any difference. B For this reason, “I will, be thou clean” is the will of the supernatural divinity; for its providence, which binds men to itself, dispenses the care of bodies and souls and is known to regulate them for their benefit.
Nor does the phrase, “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?” imply a gnomic will; rather, it is intended to dispel the ignorance of the apostles by means of this questioning, when the Lord was providing for what they should do regarding the things pertaining to the Passover, in a way that would not be unpleasing to the Master—as if they were saying: “Where is it pleasing to thee to eat the Passover? What house seems suitable for preparing the supper?” C Furthermore, this very utterance is a sign of the ignorance and suspicion of the disciples, not a judgment of the Savior, nor an exposition of any dogma; just as the words, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” For this voice belongs to the one who was in need of healing, not to the one who provided it; and nothing prevents us from saying that here, too, the will of the supernatural divinity is introduced.
But the phrase, “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” and “If thou wilt be perfect,” clearly does not concern the hypostasis of our Savior Jesus Christ, nor does it refer to him, but to the person who was being exhorted and who desired to be healed; the gnomic will is signified in both of these cases. And in other places, D wherever there might be a discussion of the will, and if the term “natural” or “gnomic” is not applied, it is easily
that is not ordered according to the letter of either the natural or the gnomical, it will A easily be able to make the distinction, if it is referred to some one of the contemplations mentioned before.
Other things might be added to what has been said, through which the argument that establishes and manages a gnomical will in Christ is seen to be no less effective. For if the hypostatic Word of God became man for our sake, and as man he possessed a natural human will, and as God a natural and divine will, then the contentious argument says that he also possessed a gnomical—that is, a hypostatic—will. The opponent will necessarily say, even against his will, that as he possessed his gnomical and hypostatic human will insofar as he functioned as a human hypostasis, so he possessed a divine gnomical will insofar as he is a divine hypostasis; for with the fiction and delineation of a gnomical will, the personal character of the related contemplation is simultaneously introduced by the interconnection and viewed by a kindred consideration. Just as when there is no person, there is no gnomical will, which is of the same order, to be granted as subsisting, so when a gnomical will exists, the person cannot be separated, B or fail to be present there. But the former is of the madness of Nestorius—to dogmatize and imagine a human hypostasis in Christ; the latter is of the Arian madness, which distinguished and separated the three arch-divine hypostases from one another by other substantial differences and likewise by gnomical wills. But the mind of the Church, just as it casts out as impious those who say there is a human hypostasis in Christ bereft of divinity, so it brings the charge of atheism—that is, the denying of God—against those who partition the common will of the triadic divinity.
But, they say, Adam fell from the commandment by a gnomical volition. And he endured the affliction. This, they say, is the medicine and the cure that the best of physicians brought. If this is true, then it is necessary that our Savior and physician of our souls also assumed the gnomical will of man along with the human flesh.
But it must be said to them: if the sinning of the gnomical volition and the falling away from the commandment was the reason C for the assumption of a gnomical will, then those who did not assume it—that is, [the remainder of the text is missing from the page].
rational soul in man. For if it was assumed because it sinned, it would not have been the case that it had not sinned at all, because it would not even have been assumed.
Furthermore, if the natural will pertains most of all to the constitution of the substance of man and is characterized by it, and through the natural will the perfection in man is also seen, then the Word—as it is [(80)]—does not endure a gnomical will that has sinned, inasmuch as it did sin, and not rather the natural one, which is common to all men and introduces the perfection of nature.
Deinde, if the B gnomical will is innate with birth itself, infants and children, when they are still attached to the nipples and recognize therefrom the milk they suck that they may be nourished, ought to set forth their own nature by means of a gnomical will as if at a table, and to thoroughly reject the choice of those things about which they are in doubt, since they are not yet able to understand [(81)].
To this, if Christ was an infant and was made man and was assimilated to us in all things, sin excepted, while to infants a gnomical will is not innate, therefore neither was it to Christ the Lord. If, however, He assumed it later, let them say whence they learned of a double assumption of will [(82)], and consequently a double assumption of humanity, especially since Adam, when he transgressed the commandment, did not serve the natural, but the gnomical will.
But yet the snares and captious arguments of those who contradict creep on, C even if they often do not render accounts without fault [(83)], and they say: If in all things which consist by nature, nature altogether contains the individuals
A of the same species, in Christ, however, we speak of a natural human will; surely the gnomic and hypostatic will will be said to belong to this natural will quite consistently.
Furthermore, if the gnomic will is nothing other than a natural quality, and Christ, possessing the natural will, did not merely act simply, but as doing this particular thing: it must therefore be understood that there is in Him a gnomic will.
But both of the points mentioned depend upon a sophistical tangle. The first B is because the descent was made from natural things to hypostatic ones, dividing nature into individuals; but the doctrine of piety regarding Christ does not make a division and descent from some one nature to particulars; for here there is not some one nature divided, but rather there occurs an explanation of the hypostasis or person into two natures; for there, the natural will have hypostatic qualities where many hypostases have existed under that nature; but in the mystery concerning us, since only one appeared under the sun, and there is one and an indivisible hypostasis of Christ, nature can neither contain hypostatic [qualities] at all, nor can it be thought of as one at all.
The second C sophism of the heretics fabricates this mischief based on the consequent. For a gnomic will is always hypostatic and a quality. But a quality is not always hypostatic. For even common natural wills differ by natural quality from those of a different kind. But being qualified does not mean they are gnomic wills. But truly, even if the paralogism is dragged along by the consequent, nevertheless the falsehood was not shaped by this. For it is possible to say that, even if "qualified" is viewed as twofold—the one in the natural will, the other in the hypostatic—nothing prevents one from saying, or rather it will even guide [us], as the "qualified" happens to be twofold, since it is not natural—for that is common—it would be a hypostatic and gnomic will. So that it would have ended up in the same thing, even if the construction of the D heresy's stratagem did not proceed according to the consequent or the structure of the argument. What then must one say? That Christ, even if He were one hypostasis, does not appear as having used a hypostatic will, being affected by a quality. But as fulfilling a natural will, He willed to partake of food. But that it should be sweet, or tart, or otherwise pleasant...
or stimulating A to the appetite, He had no will to excite or urge Him. Rather, simply, as has been said, the one Christ, our God, in His one hypostasis, partook of food and drink according to the principle of human nature. But He by no means brought to His will any property of food or drink that might appeal to or flatter the senses beyond what is necessary. Wherefore, in confirming the truth of human nature after the resurrection—and [demonstrating] that He had not discarded it—He did not seek this or that specific food, but simply said: "Have you anything here to eat?" B Perhaps this discourse offers us another consideration, teaching us, no less if not more, that while Christ is one, an indivisible and inseparable hypostasis, He had and maintained a human natural will; but it is demonstrated that He never accepted a gnomic will, and no sensible or prudent person will have any doubt in this matter. For many holy men, distinguished in ascetic struggles—that is, in harsh bodily exercises—do not refuse to overcome the natural drain on the body by means of food that is simply suitable to nature, according to nature. Yet they have little regard for seasoned foods, for delicacies that soothe the throat, or for other such refinements C that spring and grow from the gnomic will; though they do not entirely despise D them, and they oppose them against the difficulty of appetite.
Indeed, some desire to live their lives without fault, and use food without fault; others do both things viciously and wrongly. You have an example of the former in Isaac, when he desired the venison and obtained it, and partook of it most piously and temperately; from which food, once eaten, there followed a blessing that increased the human race almost infinitely, and [filled] a great part of the world.
A His son, Esau, taken and conquered by desire, did not will rightly, nor did he desire as he ought. For a brief pleasure, he sold the great glory and honor confirmed by the law, choosing instead of the Law the gluttony of his actions as his judge, from which he involved those who are swayed by that vice in seditions and infinite evils.
The opponent however persists impudently, and says that this very thing—to will to be studious of virtue, and to follow a more excellent way of life than many others, and not to be overcome by the vice of the belly or gluttony—is a gnomical will. B For if it were natural, all would have to do this. But if, my friend, the gnomical will is to afflict oneself with labors and miseries, and to be of the number of those who are in distress rather than in happy and comfortable circumstances, first of all, he who argues that there is no gnomical will will be able to bring forward no particular instance (just as the argument that proves that the will does not exist) as an example to lead to agreement. But, by taking refuge in a common and negative term, and by circumscribing only the specific and hypostatic will, he will seek to strengthen his own quibbling.
Secondly, locusts and wild honey are not a product of the gnomical will, for "from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." C John’s food, therefore, was violent, and not only outside of the gnomical will, but not a willed thing at all.
If anyone, still contentious, were to say that this very violence belongs to the gnomical will, many absurdities will follow; but what is ready to hand is that this person unknowingly introduces a new kind of will, yet not a gnomical one. For such a will would be a violent will that is un-violent, and to will something which one does not will; and when that person, who defends the gnomical will, has invented this, he does not wish to realize what he is saying. The same must be said also of other things, whatever cannot be comprehended by the gnomical will. D If, however, the gnomical and hypostatic will does not find a place in Christ according to his humanity, how much less could this be imagined in the divine nature of the Word, especially since not even in the Father, nor in the all-holy Spirit, and for that reason not even in the
Son and Word, could any pious reasoning dare to attribute a gnomical will, A distinguished by quality and separated by property.
Perhaps, however, it might come into someone’s mind to say that it is not impossible to speak of something as violent without violence, or that one wills what one does not will; but such a person must be one who is ignorant of what is impossible. For if something is violent in one respect and not violent in another, and similarly if in one respect one wills this and in another does not will it, how could such a thing be absurd? For—to omit other matters—when the choir of the martyrs was suffering the most bitter tortures, insofar as they were in pain and were enduring that intolerable violence, they were being oppressed by the violent; B yet insofar as they were able to avoid the tortures by turning toward the error of idolatry, but did not submit, this was an act done without violence, even though it brought upon them such great violence. From this same image, a will that is not willed is also clarified.
This explanation and resolution of conflicting terms is an unfolding and clarification of words, but it is not strong enough to overturn the proof which establishes that there is no human gnomical will in Christ, nor does it achieve the C opposite of that; for as to the fact that something is in one respect violent and in another not violent, and in one respect willed and in another not willed, no one has hitherto monstrously attributed this to the gnomical will. But he who understands how to philosophize purely and impartially ought not to consider whether something has never been said, but rather whether that which is by nature is neglected as if it were not. At the same time, failing to see the nature that we contemplate by reason, D and to struggle against the term as if something existed, is not a statement; rather, he who investigates the essence lies when he denies it.
Therefore one must say why something is, and not why something is silenced by the many and its essence defrauded; for many things, before a more accurate [inquiry...]
are simply stated, and the name offered is manifest to all. But when they are unfolded and examined in detail, they present a certain complexity, and demand a designation appropriate to the concept. At once, the natural human and confessed will, when strictly investigated, would be seen as subordinate to difference. Even if they establish otherness, they do not divide the common species into other communities; for example, one desires to eat and drink; but the one has such a desire more, and the other less, throughout life. And the "more" and the "less" does not divide the natural will, nor condense it into a more specific will. For neither is the "more" and "less" naturally capable of producing an innate change of some species or community.
Someone, therefore, being interrupted by a correct judgment, will say that this natural will, B in that it passes equally to all men, is not divided into lower species; but in that it admits the variations from "more" and "less," it preserves a certain proportion to the things divided, and does not admit of division into the projection of a species. Nothing, therefore, prevented us from confessing simply the natural will of man, and even this, when strictly examined and distinguished as it were by differences, from subjecting it to a varied concept and more varied names; the same thing, moreover, one will find to be observed in countless other problems.
But why do I speak of things far off, when we have at hand that by which we may confirm our argument? Paul is shorn C and purified, and he circumcises Timothy. Was he wishing purely and unmixedly, and not at all burdened by those things occurring alongside that were contrary to his will? And how does he consider it a loss, and refuse as filth, the things of the law, and that to be circumcised is to make void the preaching of Christ? No argument, therefore, would gainsay that these were involuntary and unwilled things; and the mode of economy was supported by and intertwined with a will that was most unbecoming and contrary to the will. Will someone, therefore, begrudge us these names, D seeing that things involving complexities require appropriate and suitable terms? And what is absurd, or rather, how is it not necessary to name it, since it is seen to exist even as an unwilled will, and the voluntary is taken up by force? And to those
A terms? It was necessary, therefore, to consider not whether the names were not ready to hand for you, but whether the nature of the things requires them to be signified by appropriate and suitable words.
But someone may again say these things in the opposite direction, to overturn the argument which claims that he who defends the opposite side should not say that there is a gnomic will in Christ. But truth objects: no one has demanded that the nature of the proposed matter be investigated, nor that, having been found, it should be done away with and hidden by silence; nor that the substance of the things should slip away on account of a rare use of names. No one, therefore, either proposed or accused any of these things, but rather that since the gnomic will was B set forth for inquiry purely and without any alien implication, he [the opponent], as if it had not been spoken at all nor understood, passed over and overlooked this fact; but, shuffling together the voluntary with the involuntary, and the violent with the non-violent, and imposing the notion of a simple thing by means of this manifold speech, he who makes a life out of contradiction thinks that he escapes the notice of his hearers.
Moreover, we do not at all take away the gnomic will from the holy men, heaven forbid. For being men, and not yet having laid down the burden C of the flesh, they often used human gnomic wills. But we say this: if in them, often still bound to flesh and blood, the gnomic will was contracted into narrow straits, who would not shrink from feeling or saying that a gnomic will existed in Christ? But the continuous refutation of the argument and reasoning by which the correct opinion is confirmed does not only not render the argument of the conclusion regarding the truth weaker, but on the contrary, rather demonstrates it to be unassailable. For to devise all the D handles against it, and all...
the boldness of one ready to dare all things, even if he brings shame upon himself through everything, does not even lead him to attempt to look against it. For those to whom the arguments brought forward have yielded the lesser [result], declare the victory to be invincible; and those who have been stupefied by the very engaging of them, have testified that the power of these preeminent feats is not even ambiguous. B
Moreover, if that is an excellent discourse, whose ray of truth flashes to such an extent that even strife cannot look against it, nor can it initially attack or overshadow its brightness; and if that is again a most powerful discourse which, having escaped all the handles of the adversaries which were devised against it, and having wreathed itself with victory in every contest, finally casts down its antagonists; and if a discourse which has grasped both within itself—the invincible power of the former, and in the latter the inalienable merit and the exceptional and incomparable virtue of each—is the only one to shine out; how would this discourse, such as the present one, not demonstrate that the power of truth is most complete and insurmountable? But for this very reason, the investigation of the subject has brought forward both these things and the arguments to the contrary, in order that you may clearly recognize that, even if briefly, it has nonetheless not brought them forward aside from the purpose, but by bringing the nature of things into the light. C
The present discourse, therefore, aiming not much less at exercise than at the knowledge of the nature of things, has discussed these matters thus concisely. If, however, anyone, having learned from the sacred Logia, or from our God-bearing Fathers, a theory more profound and more elevated toward the truth, should disclose it, he would quickly see us taking the rank of students, instead of being thought to seek to be teachers. D
STEWART’S DISSERTATION ON PHOTIUS
Concerning the Photian writing and the weight of the arguments which he brings forward for the establishment of his opinion.
Some Greeks distinguish the will into two distinct acts: the natural or essential will, and the gnomic will—a classification that is, in my opinion, unusual and unheard of among the Latins. They call "natural" that which belongs to man precisely by reason of specific nature, and which is the same in all men, just as the human species itself is the same when precisely viewed and abstracted from all individuating conditions. "The natural will of man," says Anastasius Sinaita, citing the holy Fathers Basil and Cyril against the Severians, "is to love life and those things that necessarily pertain to life. For every man, by the very fact that he is such, loves life naturally." The gnomic A will is called hypostatic, personal, and elective. "Our nature," says the same Anastasius in the cited place, "has various gnomic wills. For one man desires to be private, another to build, another to practice agriculture, another to do something else, according as there are various, peculiar, and as it were individual gnomina—that is, opinions or decrees."
Saint Maximus in his definitions defines it thus: "The gnomic will is the voluntary impulse of reason, and a motion of reason toward either side." By this definition, he describes the nature of its act, which is called choice, or rather that which, on the part of reason, precedes the choice itself in the discussion and examination of things. Yet the same author, in his letter to Marinus, denies that the *gnome*, or opinion, is the choice itself, but says that choice is rather the effect of the *gnome* or opinion. And this agrees most especially with what is handed down in [Thomas Aquinas], I-II, q. 13, art. 1, where it is taught that we choose when, having observed various means, we conclude by the judgment of reason that one is to be embraced over others, and thus we embrace it with the will. B It is asked, however, which act is more formally the choice? Is it the former act of reason, which Saint Maximus in his letter to Marinus seems to call the *gnome*, or the latter act of the will, by which we embrace one means over others? And it is commonly answered that the choice consists formally and essentially in this latter act, although it also presupposes and connotes that other act of reason. Photius also interprets the *gnome* in much the same way, as we have seen.
Concerning this same gnomic will, Saint Damascene says in *De fide orthodoxa*, ch. 14: "One must know that to will and [the Greek phrase *πῶς θέλειν*], that is, to will with a mode or modally, are not the same thing. For the will is of nature, just as seeing is. It exists in all men. But to will in this or that mode is not of nature, but of our *gnome*, or opinion: just as, also, to see in this or that mode, for instance well or badly. For all men do not will in the same mode. Nor do they see in the same mode, which is also apparent in actions. For to will, see, or act in this or that mode is an affection and modification of the actual use of willing, seeing, and acting, existing only in the one who is using it, and separating him from others. To will something simply, therefore—that is, abstracting from every mode—is the will or power of willing, which is nothing other than rational appetite and the natural will. But to will in this or that mode is the gnomic will; and the object of this will is the gnomic volitum." And so that the matter may be declared by an example: C The will to eat, simply, is the natural will existing in individuals by a special reason. But the will to eat something affected by this or that quality, such as sweet, bitter, much, or little, is called the gnomic will, or [the Greek *ποιόν* or *πῶς*], that is, a will affected by some quality or condition; and it is not of nature, as the Greeks say, but of the person. And because persons are various, therefore this will is also various.
The gnomic will having been explained in this way, the question arises: Was there a gnomic will in Christ? And Photius indeed expressly denies it above. Damascene and Maximus, mentioned above, also seem to deny it. Photius brings forward many arguments, as we have seen. I will repeat here only the principal ones, and set them forth more clearly.
First. The gnomic will is the will of a human and created person. There was no human and created person in Christ; therefore. The major is clear: because to will this or that, sweet or bitter, cannot be of nature, because that is the same in all and consequently wills the same things. Therefore, the gnomic will belongs to the person: which, since it is multiplied, it is not to be wondered at that the act of willing is also multiplied, so that one wills this, another that.
Second argument. There is no choice in Christ, therefore no gnomic will either. The antecedent is clear: because choice concerns those things that move toward either side, that is, toward good and toward evil, D as Photius says, following Saint Maximus. The consequence is proven because the gnomic and elective will is one and the same.
Third argument. If there were a gnomic will in Christ, then it would differ from the gnomic wills that are observed in each individual man. It would also differ from the will of the Holy Spirit and the Father. But what is this will, which is neither human gnomic, nor called a will at all? Nor can it be said that this gnomic will in Christ is composed partly of the divine and partly of the human will: because, as Photius says, one cannot even conceive of a composition of the will, as we are able to understand a hypostasis composed of human and divine nature.
Fourth argument. If a gnomic will is granted in Christ, it will make a composition with the natural will of Christ. This cannot be said: because if the will of Christ were composite, its nature would also be composite. But this cannot be said. For the human nature in Christ is one and simple: and between the human nature of Christ and the divine nature, no composition is given in nature.
Fifth argument. If the gnomic will arises from counsel and judgment, or from a determination
of reason toward one thing, or the choosing of more means from others, it follows that it has no place in Christ; but it is born therefrom: Therefore. The consequence is proven: because ignorance has no place in Christ, nor doubt. It would have, however, if there were in Him a gnomic will, in which, through counsel and the determination of reason, there is a transition from ignorance to knowledge, and from the uncertain to the certain, and a change from non-loving to love. Sixth argument. Men using a gnomic will are opposed to God: therefore it is not in Christ. Seventh argument. The gnomic will is inclined toward either action, honest namely, or base; therefore.
TO AMPHILOCHIUS QUESTION LXXX.
A For these arguments, Photius and others do not establish even a divine gnomic will in Christ. For, if such exists in Christ, it is either identical with the divine natural will, or it is different. If identical, we have therefore the intended point, namely that there is no other divine will besides that natural one, which is common to the three persons. But if the divine gnomic will in Christ is other than the natural divine will; then it will be different from that which is in the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this is absurd, because the will of all the divine persons is the same. The gnomic will, however, is not the same, but diverse in different hypostases. Wherefore these authors do not posit a gnomic will even in the Trinity, especially because of arguments 5, 6, and 7. For in the Trinity, although there are three persons, there is nevertheless simply one and the same willing and nilling. B Observations of Stewart. These and other things, however, which Photius argues, do not seem to conclude. That his arguments may be solved, it must be confessed that there was not in Christ a will, or act of the will, which was the act or power of a created person. For it is clear that there was no created person in Christ. Meanwhile, however, it cannot be denied that there was in Christ a will individually distinct from the individual will of any other man, abstracting from hypostatic personality. Just as also, abstracting from the same, there is in Christ an individual human nature, distinct from every other and comprised under that in common, as a certain individual of it: whose individual nature it is to produce individual and singular actions, both of intellect and of will, which are distinguished in the individual from the actions of other individual natures. Although C an individual nature does produce these actions in other men, as individual natures subsist in a created personality. In Christ, however, his human nature subsists in the divine suppositum; which suppositum, however, does not of itself influence that action of the individual will: although the suppositum does not hold itself toward that action of the individual will merely by accident and concomitantly, but is a prerequisite condition for acting on the part of the agent: insofar as no natural agent can act, naturally speaking, unless it exists in a suppositum. Concerning which, more broadly, Suarez, disp. 30 in Metaph. sect. 7. D Now truly, just as Peter, for the sake of example, through his own individual will existing in a created suppositum, can tend toward the sweet as toward the bitter, toward the great as toward the small, and move toward other objects affected by certain conditions; so also Paul, etc., can desire the sweet and the bitter, etc., through his own individual will. If therefore any singular man, insofar as he has a singular nature, can do this, abstracting from personality as from a principle influencing that action of the will; although not abstracting from personality, as it is a condition naturally required for acting: it seems absurd to say that Christ could not do this, and that as often as He willed or desired anything, He only willed that by the common reason of good, and tended toward an object having stripped away all qualities and particular conditions. A But if anyone considers the opinion of the Greeks more accurately, they clearly seem to have distinguished this gnomic will really from that power which they themselves call natural, and which arises from the specific nature itself. They seem also to have thought that this gnomic will and its acts are effectively from the person itself. But if this were so, then it would be clear that a created gnomic will cannot be posited in Christ, since there was no created person in Him from which such a human gnomic will could flow. But these foundations are false. Because every act of the will, of whatever kind it may be, is effectively from that power of willing which flows from the intrinsic principles of human nature. And the suppositum here does nothing other than exist as a condition, without which, naturally speaking, the will could not elicit any act, just as it cannot naturally exist outside a suppositum. If, however, it were outside by divine power, it could also operate outside, nor would it require this condition of the suppositum, as teaches also Suarez in the cited place. B To the first argument of Photius, the major premise is denied. Because the gnomic will is of the nature, not of the person, except insofar as the person is a condition, without which the will would not naturally elicit an act. To the proof I say: Although there is the same will according to its species in individual men, it is nevertheless multiplied individually in individuals. And, although the will in common abstracts from this much or that much, etc., and from other particular conditions of objects; it is not repugnant to it, however, to will this much or that much, etc.; indeed, this is natural to it, by the very fact that all these things are contained within the latitude of its object, which is the good: just as also the power of understanding cannot only tend toward the true in common, but also toward this or that particular truth, affected in this or that way of truth. Wherefore it also pertains to the human will, as it is a will, that it can will the good, and all differences of the good: likewise, that it can flee the evil, and all differences of evil. For that whichafterward actually is moving this or that one, concerning the appetite for this or that in particular, with such and such a mode, is by accident: he could, if he willed, insofar as it is precisely from the will itself, which is so prepared that man can through it tend toward any particular good, under any mode, which may be within the breadth of the object of the will in common.
From which it appears also in Christ that this will can be posited, not only in act, as if in the first, but also in the second. For it does not include any imperfection to will so much or so much, the sweet or the bitter, etc. And since this gnomic will is not from the person, as from a principle of emanation or efficient cause, it matters not whether it exists in a human and created hypostasis, as happens in other men, or indeed in an uncreated and divine hypostasis, as occurs in Christ; since the hypostasis is for the will only a condition without which it does not act.
To the second argument of Photius, the antecedent is denied. For that there is election in Christ is clear from that saying of Isaiah (VII, 15): *Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.* Nor is it part of the definition of election that one must also be able to choose evil. It is enough that it have indifference with respect to goods. And in Christ there is free choice, as we shall see later: therefore also election.
To the third argument, it is answered that the human gnomic will of Christ differs individually from the gnomic wills of individual men, and differs also really from the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit, whether it be viewed as it is a power or as it is an act.
The fourth argument is of no value. For the gnomic will is an act, not a power. And if it is a power, it is the same power according to entity as the natural and specific will; and thus there is no composition of wills, but there are only diverse reasons founded in the same entity of the will. And consequently, there will not be a composition of natures either. And if the argument were valid, it would also prove that in individual men there is a composed will, and consequently a nature composed of two perfect and integral natures: for that a nature is composed from imperfect natures is nothing absurd.
To the fifth, it is denied that ignorance or doubt is of the nature of counsel. For although in us it may happen to be so, because we do not have knowledge of all things, as Christ had; yet counsel of itself does not include ignorance and doubt. Which is certain, if counsel is taken for the judgment itself, or the opinion by which it is concluded through reason what is to be done. In which manner counsel can also be posited in God. But if counsel is taken for an inquiry into that which is to be done: thus indeed in us counsel proceeds from ignorance and doubt; in Christ, however, it only connoted a progression from one thing to another, without ignorance or doubt. Nor is this more absurd than that Christ, by discoursing through the intellect, proceeded from known premises to a known conclusion; even though discourse is said to be from known to unknown: but this is by accident, as is evident also in a learned man when he makes syllogisms about a conclusion not unknown to him. Therefore, just as Christ was discursive without doubt, so he was also consultative without ignorance, etc. Unless one, according to the opinion that denies Christ had acquired knowledge from the first instant of the incarnation, might wish to say that, by reason of acquired practical knowledge, he had counsel taken in the second sense regarding what he did not know—not simply, but through acquired knowledge. Although doubt ought to be removed here as well. For neither was there in Christ any intellectual act that was dubitative.
Moreover, that there is counsel in Christ seems also to be made clear from the fact that he is called by Isaiah (IX, 6) the *Angel of great counsel*. Where the name of counsel can be taken not only improperly for *gnome*, or opinion, but also for the very inquiry into things to be done.
To the sixth argument of Photius, it is answered that nothing else is proved than that the gnomic will was not in Christ with peccability: which is not a perfection, but an imperfection.
To the seventh, it is answered in the same way. For it is not of the nature of the gnomic will that it must be able to tend to good and to evil; just as it is not of the nature of free will, as is evident in God, etc.
To that which Photius adds about the divine gnomic will, it is answered: the divine gnomic will of Christ is one and the same in entity with the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as it is also one and the same as regards the act. For if the gnomic will of men is not distinguished from the natural will according to entity, much less will it be distinguished in the divine. And although in men, as regards the act, the gnomic will differs, not only insofar as the individual act of one is not the individual act of another: but also insofar as one wills, another does not will, or insofar as this one wills the sweet and another the bitter, and thus they are mutually repugnant to one another on account of various opinions: yet in the divine this does not occur; but the act of the will of one person is simply also the act of the other according to entity. Nor does one person will this and another that, on account of the communication of one and the same nature and consequently the same will: but this numerical distinction of acts, and repugnance concerning objects, is not strictly of the nature of the gnomic will, to the nature of which it pertains only that it be of some individual, and proceed from a *gnome*, or from an opinion and decree of reason concerning the doable, and that it be concerned about an object of the will affected by some condition or quality, as it is so much or so much, sweet or bitter. And that in the divine there is no repugnance of will, neither as to the act nor as to the formal or material object of the will, this comes about because of the identity of the same nature. And if in human affairs, for example, three persons were to communicate and subsist in the same nature, there would not be any diversity in will; and yet we could very well posit there a gnomic will, in the way in which that will has been explained thus far.
QUESTION LXXXI
A What is that text in Luke: "And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and they were confounded," etc.?
B WHETHER those who mocked the apostles speaking in tongues understood them or not? For if they did not understand, how did the apostles speak in all these tongues? But if they did understand, how did they dare to accuse them of drunkenness, when they held before their eyes the refutation, [being aware of] the perception of the very ones who were hearing and understanding? One might thus state your difficulty, utilizing it in a more incisive manner. But I, for my part, would say the contrary: namely, that if they did not understand, they would not even have been mocking the miracle as drunkenness. For why would someone take pains to mock that which could not even be a source of annoyance to him? B But they did understand, yet they were displeased; for those men were declaring the mighty works of God. At this, the malicious, being stung, attempted to turn the miracle into mockery. Hence, the blessed Luke says, "Mocking they said," that is, disparaging and slandering, contriving to cast a shadow over the wonder-working. How then, understanding, did they refer the things said to drunkenness? From great folly, from excessive madness; for it is the custom with such people, when what is being said is not to their liking—even if in other respects the matter is full of salvation and benefit—to attribute the discourse either to drunkenness or to a demon, and [to claim] that neither the one who is speaking understands what he is saying, nor the listener, even though the speaker is speaking infallibly, and the one mocking and blaming is, as far as hearing and understanding goes, in a sound state. C And those men were all the more daring to allege drunkenness because, hearing in their own tongues—and thinking that others, because of the foreign language, did not understand—they assumed they would not easily be found out in their calumny. They themselves understood, but they supposed that the others who were present, for whose sake they had attributed the event to drunkenness, were far removed from understanding. And it is no wonder. For just as when the Lord's power was casting out demons, they understood and saw the paradoxes, and though they ought to have praised and worshipped, they were led off into blasphemies; and seeing all diseases and all sufferings being driven away, they turned the greatness of the miracles and the generosity of the benefit into matter for envy, calumny, and slaughter: D so too now, not being able to deny the supernatural and miraculous nature of the tongues, and being similarly provoked by envy, they were not ashamed to cast drunkenness upon the miracle. And observe the extremity of their wickedness, having an equal measure of madness. For since it was unlikely, especially at the third hour, to attribute drunkenness to the apostles—men who were heralds of virtue, and who were caught in the midst of fears and dangers, with regard to the consumption of drink...
(even though the grapes were not yet in season, but were currently rubbing off their earthy moisture into blossoms) they take refuge, and entangle the insult with its quality, saying they are full of "must." For where the impetuousness of the mind is unrestrained, the only goal set before it is, not how to say something appropriate and not ridiculous, but to use whatever means may happen to fill the soul with madness and absurdity, and to soothe the helplessness felt at what is seen. Therefore, even what they thought to say with profound insight ends in much folly and insanity on their part. A
QUESTION LXXXII
How is it not contrary to take the name of the Lord God in vain?
They take the name of the Lord their God in vain: those of the Old Covenant, by attributing and attaching it to idols, and those who insult it with a false oath, and indeed those who drag it along with witticisms or some other idle talk. (For each of these uses the name of God in vain.) And those of the New Covenant: whenever, contrary to the law that has been established, they subject it to an oath. For those who live under grace ought to possess something more perfect than those before it. Furthermore, those who alienate the Son from the paternal substance and place Him among created things. Then again, as if in repentance, they adorn Him with the title of deity; for those who thus apply the name of God to created things, prodigiously take it "in vain." And indeed, those who, through controversies and debates, tossing it this way and that as if it were some random thing—as if they were dice-playing—and tossing it about with noise; this they perform strenuously, those who vanish into heretical schools. Furthermore, they also take the name of the Lord our God "in vain" even now, who dare to say that it is a matter of indifference to make an image of Christ, or of the Antichrist—that is, the idols of the Hellenic cults. For all such people, so far as their audacity allows, render the name and appellation of the Lord vain and useless. For it is altogether right to consider the name of God to be venerable and adorable, and not to take pleasure in oaths, nor to profane (the name of God) with perjuries, nor to adapt it to idols: not, as Arius raved, to deify a creature to the opprobrium of the Creator, nor to think it a matter of indifference to apply this name to the One who deserves it and to the one who has received the opposite; not to play with heretical logomachies as if with dice; not to mix or compose it with any superfluous vain-talkings: but only to use the salutary and adorable name for common utility, in our sacred prayers, mysteries, and appropriate doctrines. If you guard against these things, and at the same time are observant, you will be correctly ordaining
that divine legislation which says, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." A
QUESTION LXXXIII
What is the spirit of Python?That wicked spirit—worthy indeed to inhabit a sewer—which dwells in human bellies, those who practice piety have very aptly named "engastrimyth" [belly-speaker]. Among the Greeks, the majority call it "enteromantis," while others call it "engastrimantis." But Sophocles and Plato, being ashamed of this demon’s dwelling in the belly, acted differently: the former (being a poet, and possessing great freedom of language and independence) assigned it the breast instead of the belly, and renamed it "sternomantis"; the latter, wishing perhaps to avoid manifest falsehood while attempting another path to avoid the indecency, calls the belly-dweller "Eurycles." B By this name, they say, a certain man was once called who had been celebrated for this affliction, and from whom they gave the title to those who followed. For this species of demon is accustomed to delight in dwelling in the filth not only of women, but also of men, and for this reason it enters the belly. It is a spirit that deceives the people and brings extreme ruin to those who are persuaded to give it credence. Many of the Greeks also call it "Python": this, I suppose, is what was dwelling in the slave girl at Philippi, gathering for her masters the gain from her deception, as they were also masters of the demon through her. That spirit, with evil intent, was praising the divine Paul and attempting to enter him under the guise of praise, but earned as the reward for its flattery its own banishment, removed from its unjust and cherished dwelling. C
QUESTION LXXXIV
You desire to be taught the meaning of that statement of Paul: "In which all have sinned," which the divine Paul said. Some explain the meaning of this passage by referring "in which" to Adam; others, to death. To me, neither seems correct. For there is no need to supply anything, since the construction of the phrase is complete in itself. For "in which all have sinned" here does not denote any person, nor does it represent something as a person, but rather indicates a cause, as if it said, "In which all have sinned," that is, "inasmuch as all have sinned." D And truly there are countless examples of such phrasing among the pagan writers; but the divine Paul himself will suffice to interpret his own words for us. For he says elsewhere: "For we who are in this tabernacle groan, being burdened," and then, "in which we do not desire to be unclothed, but clothed upon." For it is manifest from this that the "in which" was taken by him to signify a cause; that is, "Because of this we groan."being burdened in the3 tabernacle; so that we may not be unclothed, but clothed upon." For to speak more broadly, the sense of the passage is this: We groan, being in the tabernacle, because we are burdened. What then? Do you wish to put off the body which the hands of God fashioned, and to which He fitted the soul as a divine breath breathed into it? By no means, he says; God forbid. For I do not groan because I am not put off, but because I am not clothed upon, to be clothed with blessings, and to be invested with immortality according to it, even as it was originally fashioned. Wherefore he immediately adds: "That mortality might be swallowed up by life." Therefore I do not groan because I do not cast off the body, but because I do not clothe it with immortality and eternal life. From this it is clear not only that the "in which" denotes a cause to him, but also from the very meaning of the passage itself. For he says B that when Adam had sinned, and was subsequently condemned to death, the race descended from him was also brought under death. But he does not say this simply, nor with an indiscriminate word, but "In whom all have sinned," that is, "Because all, like him who begat them, have sinned." For this rendered them participants in the punishment as well. For indeed the participation in the act drove them into the participation of his condemnation.
QUESTION LXXXV
What does it mean, "not to be yoked with unbelievers"? (Edited by Montagu, Ep. 155, to John the Patriarch, pp. 209, 210. In II Cor. vi, 14.)Regarding what you ask, what "Be not yoked with unbelievers" means, I think it admits of a dual sense. Either that you ought not to lean towards unbelievers, so that you attend to their fables rather than to the teaching of the faithful; or that you ought not, as if with friends and companions, to join yourselves to unbelievers and plow the same furrow. This even the ancient law commands. "You shall not cause your cattle to breed with animals of another kind," or, "You shall not bring C your cattle to one of a different race." It commands in these that cattle should not be harnessed to animals of a different kind, neither for generation nor for any other work: for the one is useless, and the other is to overturn the laws of nature. But rather, through the legislation concerning irrational creatures, it insinuates that those gifted with reason ought in every way to avoid communion with those who are of a different kind—those who are "alien and alien-born" to the faith—and not to contract marriage with them, much less to take them as coworkers in spiritual tasks. For such a custom will rather corrupt your labors than increase them; and why is it necessary that you should mix the nobility of your piety with bastard generations? But even when the sense of this saying, as we were saying, is double, they both produce the same fruit of utility. D Moreover, the diversity of the opinions also demands from the scripture...
a difference; for the former possesses a short syllable after the initial one, but the second produces a long one in sound. And you, farewell in the Lord.
QUESTION LXXXVI
[Coisl. CCLII, Taur. CCXLII]. Edita a Montacutio, ep. 156, ad Georgium Nic., p. 210, 211. De voce ἐγκομβώσασθαι I Petri v, 5.I marvel greatly, since you are a grammarian and occupy yourself with the studies of poets, that the term *egkombōsasthai* (clothe yourselves with humility) appeared to you as a barbarian word, and not Greek. For the blessed and chief of the apostles, Peter, having no concern for the election of Greek terms, has taken this into his own epistle. He felt no concern for any echo or artifice of rhetoric, nor the sound or vanity of little words, by which some tickle the ears of young men and raise up applause for themselves from that source, but rather for instilling the salvation of souls in his hearers B. But you, especially as you remember your Epicharmus and Apollodorus of Carystus, should have embraced, rather than been offended by, the word. For the former, by shaping the word into various inflections in many places, used it. For he says *egekombōtai*, and in the infinitive, *egkombōsasthai*. And the Carystian, in *Apolipusa* (let it be said for your favor, even the usage of the reading), says, "Having folded the *epōmis* doubly, I bound it on (enekom-bōsamin) from above." Those whom you should have taken up, you should not have accused the herald of truth of barbarism; but rather you should have marveled that, although the apostle scorned such puerile study by treating it as mere play, yet somehow, according to the critics of Greek locutions, he wrote his Epistles. From this, however, he let it be understood that if the sound and pleasure of a word were pleasing, he himself could easily have acquired admiration even in these things; and if he had seen that the salvation of some souls resulted from such study, you would have seen his discourses, by an inherent beauty in which they even now participate, to have transcended the incantations of Plato, the refinement of Demosthenes, and the grandiloquence of Thucydides, as much as they surpass those Asiatic orators. For it will not be permissible, for your sake, to call them affected. But what I affirm is evident; for he who undertook far greater and more sublime things for the procurement of the salvation of men, since a benefit would have accrued therefrom, would certainly not have refused to possess something of this puerile ambition; indeed, he would have appeared to have surpassed all others in that manner as well, and that without a struggle C.
QUESTION LXXXVII
[Coisl. CCLIII. Taur. CCXLIV]. Edita a Montacutio, ep. 157, ad Euschem., p. 211-12. In Ezechielis cap. 1, 10.To what end, you ask, were the faces of the Cherubim revealed to the divine prophets in the forms of oxen, lions, eagles, and men? The reasons handed down by the ancients are by no means D
unknown to me, I think, nor do I overlook those who said that the curators of those accounts, whose A inspectors were being arranged, were being hinted at through those figures: for they entrust to them—I know not why—the care and inspection of oxen, men, eagles, and lions, introducing ideas in a more Platonic manner, by other words, rather than responding to the posed question with the zeal of piety. I, however, would say that it is not that they are the curators of those creatures, that these things are revealed through the figures; far from it, for there is one Creator and Inspector of all. But they show that thing clearly in the emblems: that He who established the earth, the air, the heaven, and the things in them (for in these places the life, sustenance, and generation of the living creatures shown are found) is the same One who also gave substance to the supercelestial powers and brought them into existence. Furthermore, through these signs the Word teaches that, just as man, ox, lion, eagle, and the rest of the creatures were produced simply and by a word alone; likewise, so too were those blessed B creatures brought into generation from non-being by the Word of the Creator. For to wish to represent certain figures and shapes of this kind in that incorporeal and unfigured nature is nothing else than to declare that there is one and the same Creator of all things; and that it was no more laborious for Him to create incorporeal and intellectual natures than any other creatures whatsoever, since the divine will of infinite power works in all things equally and with the same authority. If you wish, there is a third thing also that the likenesses in the Cherubim hint at: namely, that just as man, eagle, ox, and absolutely any creature at all obeys the Lord's precepts, and reveres His command with fear: so too does the whole ultramundane and ultracelestial substance submit to His nods, and readily hastens to serve in whatever it is ordered to carry out. Perhaps, moreover, other reasons will occur to you while you silently meditate upon what I have already said, which I would gladly C encounter.
QUESTION LXXXVIII
You ask: how is it that we can say "God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit," and yet not be forced by necessity to confess three Gods instead of one? I will answer you clearly and briefly. Indeed, many and various examples have been abundantly provided by our divine Fathers—by the Truth itself, for which they labored—to resolve this question, and these were applied by them as was fitting; should anyone wish to recount them, he would have to write a book, not a letter. And to do that seems to me superfluous; for what D
is ready to hand is known to the older reader. But you (for I have nothing graver to say) are in need of new writers to replace those who wrote so well long ago, those who appropriate to themselves the works of others and those of earlier times. A Yet, apart from those, listen briefly and clearly, and with the attention needed to be convinced; it is as follows: You call the Father God; do you do so by dividing His hypostasis and alienating Him from the common Deity that resides in Him, or would you not dare to say that? For in this way, to honor and name the Father as God would exceed the gravity of the most extreme insult; for you would be imagining a certain abstraction and excrescence of the total and supersubstantial Deity, from which all divine union, conjunction, and cohesion B belong even to those whose essence consists in division and flux. You see how you might rightly conceive and declare the Father to be God. Therefore, neither in naming the Son God, will you separate Him from the same Deity, unless you imagine that the Son is to be spoken of in one mode of understanding, and the Father in another; nor, clearly, in the case of the Holy Spirit; for the same impious understanding would follow. If, therefore, each of the three, being apprehended by the mind separately and in itself, is called God, and God, and God, it is in no way whatsoever severed from the contemplated and single Deity; C consequently, even when apprehended together, they will be glorified not as three Gods, but as one God in the three. For if one were to say "God" with each considered by itself as being brought to a private and alien Deity, then reasonably they would be named as three Gods. But if, because they are brought to the same and equal-in-honor Deity, each of the three is called God, who is it that constrains one to call them three Gods—they who are in no way whatsoever divided from the Deity that is contemplated in them and is complementary? Or rather, is it not an absolute necessity to say that the three are one God, since D nowhere is any one of the three divided from the unified and indivisible and inseparable Deity?
QUESTION LXXXIX
How many significations of the word "God" can be found in the Scriptures?1. The significations of the name of God are, as far as I can recollect according to the sense of Scripture: one, that which is properly and primarily the Being who has all things in His hand, and who is master of all: "For all things are Thy servants."
2. In the second order, and by participation in the first cause, that man might also be called god who, as far as is possible for created nature, fashions himself by the exercise of virtues to the imitation of God. For just as the divine and creative nature is primarily good, so too, by participation, [it is said of] those men who, by the purification of their life, have been enlightened by the radiance of that nature...
that God is not only the nature which lords over and dominates all things, but one may also see men deemed worthy of this appellation. The first to attain this title A is Enos, the son of Seth, who, because of his piety and the goodness of his conduct, was honored by the men of that time with this divine title; from whom also the entire race were called gods and sons of God, just as someplace it says: "And the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives from all whom they chose." He surely calls those born from Enos "sons of God," who, by associating with the descendants of Cain, corrupted their own race and mingled with them in impiety and wickedness. For to affirm that angels, being of an incorporeal nature, fell into love for women, is to stray into certain mythical notions, B and such as are not at all removed from impiety. Therefore, those descended from the race of Enos, and any others who, through the diligence of their character, applied themselves to draw closer to God—and indeed, even those who attained the rank of just judges and the dignity of rulers—all these have obtained the divine title; for He says, "The God of gods has spoken," and, "I said, you are gods, and all sons of the Most High," and, "God stood in the congregation of gods," and, "In the midst, he will judge the gods," and, "You shall not revile the gods, nor speak evilly of the ruler of your people." It is clear from what has been said that divine Scripture calls those who love virtue and are ministers of justice "gods."
3. There is also a third meaning, besides these, that in one way is connected to C the second, but in another way is more widely distinguished; according to which Moses is said to be "God to Pharaoh." This mode of the appellation is derived by analogy. For just as God commanded Moses, "Cast down the rod, for the confirmation of the things commanded," so Moses commanded Aaron to cast down the rod, for the fulfillment of the things threatened. And Moses indeed obeyed the commands of God; but Aaron fulfilled Moses' orders against Pharaoh, namely by scourging Egypt, and becoming a prophet D of his brother, in the same manner as he [Moses] became to God. Wherefore Moses is not called "God" absolutely, but "God to Pharaoh." For he did everything toward him as if Aaron were ministering from absolute power. But this mode of appellation is a participant in that which came before; both in that it is applied to a human, and in that it [is applied to one] who possesses virtue; yet it differs in many other respects: namely, that this one, being appropriated to Moses, becomes his own; it is not, like that other, common; and that in the former case, he who assumed the title is called "God" absolutely, and not "God of someone," whereas here, on the contrary, he is named "God of Pharaoh."
A That Moses is called God of Pharaoh not in that sense, but in the one we have stated, is known from what has been said. Yet it may also be conjectured that Aaron, being a man who practiced virtue and perhaps performed miracles, is nowhere called God of Pharaoh.
4. Since these three distinct subjects are found for the divine designation—one being used properly, and two homonymously—another meaning of the term can be found, not formed by opinion, but held only by the usage of the divine Scriptures. For the divine Scriptures often call the deities worshipped by the pagans "gods," sometimes B by way of irony, for the conviction of those who worshipped them: "Go," he says, "and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen for yourselves, and let them save you;" and often, just to indicate whom he designates, he is accustomed to call them so: "There shall not be," he says, "to you other gods besides me." And: "Have you not made for yourselves gods of silver and gold?" But this usage is manifold.
5. Since the subjects have been distinguished for the fourfold use of the word "God," one must know, so that we may explain the question proposed by you, that regarding the saying, "A man who curses God shall bear the sin," C etc., some hear "God" here as the truly and properly existing God; others understand it as those who are falsely called by that name. But they assume for themselves different starting points, and they determine the following points in different ways. For those who suppose that "God" is mentioned here as the object of worship that each of the ungodly leads, explicate the meaning thus: "It is not fitting," he says, "even for one addicted to pagan religion to heap insults upon what he worships. For although that object might be worthy of receiving any insult and ought to be considered and named an abomination by those who are pious; nevertheless, he who considers it to be God, and then blasphemes it, is liable to the sin. For by his own mind and judgment, such a person is caught blaspheming God and makes himself liable for impiety. For why, when one could either not worship or not blaspheme, do you mix things that are incompatible, D and condemn that which you worship by blaspheming it; depart from it. But if you still approach it as a God, why do you not shudder to blaspheme and submit to curses that which you still worship? Therefore, 'A man, a man who curses his God, for this reason shall bear his sin,' not because he cursed God, but because he let loose a blasphemous tongue against that which he worships as his own God. Then: 'And he who names the name of the Lord, let him be put to death.' If anyone dares to bring the true God, and Master of all, under a curse and blasphemy, death is the penalty for him. For he is trapped by a twofold absurdity. For he has blasphemed his own object of worship, and heaped insults upon God, who is the Savior of all and
A is above all praise and glory. For he is guilty of sin, that is, he owes the penalty for insolence and abusive language. And he who curses his own religion—even if he might lay claim to the title of divinity falsely—is liable to a twofold and even manifold punishment, washing the Creator of everything and God in insults and daring to subject Him to curses. Wherefore that blasphemous head is worthy to be deprived of life by stones, paying the penalty for its wanton tongue.
6. And so the ancients interpret the passage. But those who came after them explain the meaning in this way: "A man who curses his god will incur sin"; this, they say, is a clear statement in itself. For he who truly curses God, or otherwise behaves insolently toward Him, is guilty of sin, which ends B in inescapable punishment. As for the statement: "Naming the name of the Lord God," among the Jews, such a name of God was forbidden either to be uttered by the lips, or to be kept unspoken and not spoken to anyone at all, except to the priests alone, for the worship and reverence of the Divine. Wherefore it was not written even in the letters used among them, but they depicted the letters with strange and exotic characters, as if with certain mystical symbols; there were four letters, whence the "tetragrammaton" is used among them. Thus, they say, among the Jews, it was equivalent to curse God and to name Him; that is, to transmit His ineffable name through the lips to profane ears: wherefore death was the punishment for both.
7. But so much for them. Now this name, C engraved on a gold plate and fastened with ties to the pontifical headband, used to adorn and guard the forehead of the high priest; for it appeared to those who beheld it as something terrible and venerable: at the same time it intimated that the high priest must be perpetually united in mind to God, and never, separated from that blessed connection, be carried off to earthly and fleeting things. And so God Himself teaches what this name intends. For when Moses asked: "What is your name?" He replied: "I am who I am." Then, as if to assert that this which He had uttered was indeed His name, He said: "I, the Lord, appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," and then: "And my name I did not reveal to them," 10 so that you may say that I have treated you with greater honor than your D ancestors, the patriarchs; for my name, which I did not show to them, not even to Jacob, though he urged me, this I have made known to you, declaring: "I am who I am." And this name in Hebrew is called Aia, and among the Samaritans it is written Iabe. Furthermore, the letters by which it is indicated, being without line and without
end, signify the beginningless and endless nature of God. For this is also represented by the A *o on* (he who is). For this voice indicates that there exists, properly speaking, nothing before Him nor after Him, and it signifies the existence that ever is and eternally subsists. If you accommodate yourself to either of these expositions, I do not believe you will seek another, since there is no obscurity present, and each one presents the stated meaning readily at hand. Farewell.
QUESTION XC
How learned is your question! For thus you write: if the name of God is ineffable and exceeds thought, why were those who pronounced it punished with death? For if it could not be pronounced—even if one greatly desired it—because it was ineffable or inexplicable, if it could be uttered by the lips, how could it be ineffable or inexplicable? But you already have, if I am not mistaken, a clear solution prescribed for you. For when He who is God, being suprasubstantial, said "I am who I am," we must also say that this is His name, because Moses received this voice by hearing; but he did not hear it alone, but announced it also to the high priests; and he did not only announce it, but also delivered it to be written on a golden plate; and thus He insinuates that God can be understood and named; and certainly that it was not unknown to B no one, and that it was not completely unspeakable among them, is made clear enough by many things. But that to most people it did not reach either their ears or their understanding, and that even for those to whom it was known, a guard was placed upon them so that they might not divulge it to outsiders, is evident from the fact that He wished it to be called unnameable and unspeakable. Therefore, the divine name is ineffable and unspeakable; not because God is endowed with a nature that cannot be spoken by words and tongue—for it is clear that even now whoever wishes can utter it—but because it could not be understood or spoken by everyone everywhere, nor was it permitted, even to those to whom His knowledge was entrusted, to relate it to others under penalty of death, or to make it known in any other way. You have, therefore, O good man, how the name of God among the Jews was unknown and ineffable, and how it was possible for some of them who wished, both to speak it themselves and to know it, and to teach others to speak it similarly to them, C if the fear of impending punishment had not been greater than the desire of those who wished to be initiated into such mysteries. And nothing, as you see, is perceived as either difficult or forcing one into some inextricable doubt.
QUESTION XCI
What does that mean: "Often I have proposed to come to you"? "I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that I have often..."
proposed to come to you, and have been hindered A until now, etc." This passage, the sentiment and meaning of which you seek to understand, we can explain by hyperbaton, so that the sequence is as follows: "I do not want you to be ignorant that I have often proposed to come to you, so that I might gather some fruit also among you, but until this day I have been hindered." The syntax of this statement is complete, clear, and explains the meaning of the period. However, someone might say: If their faith was being announced in the whole world (for this testimony had been given to them B a little before), what fruit could he himself, if he were present, wish to provide? We affirm that it is manifold. For even if they believed, and because of the greatness of the city the fame of their faith had spread to all, nevertheless they still had need of many things. This is evident from what he said a little before: "That you might be established." For to whom does being established pertain, if not to those who are shaken? Furthermore, he admonishes them in the preceding verses not to judge one another, but to avoid dissensions and C scandals. One may see many things of this kind scattered throughout the entire epistle, from which their imperfection and recent establishment are shown. Thus it is not unsuitable that, although their faith is preached, they still have need of much assistance from Paul—in his own words, of "being irrigated," so that they may "bear fruit." You see, however, how he says, "That I might gather some fruit also among you." It is fitting that their fruit was reckoned as Paul's own fruit, and that he rejoiced no less at the good deeds of his neighbors than at his own. He considers the fruit D which they bore to be his own peculiar fruit; and he wishes, therefore, that he might "gather fruit." By saying this, he also implies that he had postponed his journey to them so that he might attend to their needs. Otherwise, if one considers it accurately, the fruit of those people is truly the fruit of Paul. For his task, his zeal, and his husbandry was the salvation of men, and to make them fruit-bearing in piety and virtues. Well then, he says, "That I might gather some fruit." Briefly, he both expresses it perfectly and creates a natural color: namely, that they might rightly bear fruit through their own deeds, and that he might hold them as fruit; for in the fact that they were fruitful, Paul's cultivation was shown to be illustrious. But if anyone thinks the passage should be understood by hyperbaton, this is the simple sense it carries: since the great Paul makes much use of this figure, just as he does of ellipsis, circumlocution, A *apo koinou*, and indeed almost all other figures. Yet it is possible, for one who does not take it via hyperbaton but preserves the order in which the words are disposed, to hunt for the following meaning in it: "I have often proposed to come to you." But why did you not come? "I have been hindered," he replies, "until now." But for what cause? "That I might gather some fruit among you."
A That is, I have been hindered for this reason, that I might not come too quickly and find you still without fruit. For if I had found you immature, I would have blamed myself for premature haste, and you for the lack of growth in those matters where it ought not to have been. Therefore, I deferred my visit, hoping for that husbandry which, as it did not yet look toward germination, but was—even regarding the flowers—still backward, it would have been a wearisome thing for one who desired to enjoy it to be present. But when, after the germination and the flowers, it should appear being brought to maturity, then the course of one filled with it is one of joy and gladness. He knows not how to calculate labors, nor to divide his zeal toward other things. What then if they are even now bearing fruit? What is the need of Paul’s arrival? There is, indeed, great need. For he did not look to wait for all the fruit, but for some part. "For that I might have some fruit," he says, "also among you."
Just as it is superflous and vain to exhort one who is already bearing fruit fully to bear fruit, so too it is laborious and burdensome to urge toward perfection one where there is not even a good hope of receiving it. But if there was some fruit, and this was even perfect in them, not even so did that winged and sublimely-soaring man B simply cut off his visit. For he both acknowledges and calls himself a "debtor," not only of Greeks and barbarians, but also of the wise and the foolish; and by the eagerness that was in him, he did not stand still, not seeking more than what existed, so that even if they were flourishing in their works, he himself would not have ceased doing his own part, but would have pressed on, seeking an increase of greater things. But thus far, such is the clarification of the saying.
It is possible to apprehend the meaning in another way, perhaps admitting of a simpler explanation, yet one which I think is more appropriate both to Paul’s intention and to the text itself. "Often," he says, "I proposed to come to you, but I have been hindered until now." For what reason? "That I might have some fruit," meaning, "that I might say, that some fruit was lacking to me which it was necessary to gather first, and then to arrive among you." What then was that fruit, and among whom was it being gathered? C He himself will teach this; for at the end of the Epistle, as if summarizing that which he had prefaced, he says: "Wherefore I was also hindered from coming to you," which comes to the same thing as "I have been hindered until now." Then, "But now, no longer having a place in these regions," —but having clearly fulfilled the work— "I shall come to you." Do you see that the fruit being gathered in those regions was what kept him from coming until now? For it was not of Paul’s soul and zeal to leave the labor in those places unfinished. And observe how such an unfolding of the passage neither required the figure of hyperbaton, nor had any conflicting arguments, but is more fitted than the others both to the words and to the goal of the divine Paul. And the phrase, "among you," is in no way contrary; for it is the beginning of what follows, D that hindrance in you; for it is the beginning...
it is an impediment in you; for the beginning [of the argument] does not connect with the phrase, "That I might have some fruit," A such as, "I am a debtor both to you, as also to the rest of the nations, to the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise." For lest they should say, "Why then did you labor with such eagerness to gather fruit in other regions, and of us you made no account?" "Yes," he says, "and in you I am a debtor, just as in the rest of the nations." This is what I strive for, this is what I seek, I am a debtor to all; and there is no one for whom I am not held by great anxiety. But let these things suffice for the moment. For the mode of interpretation is different from the form the Epistle requires. Therefore it is permitted to neither [method] clearly, and as the laws of the art demand, to behave like one interpreting by an Epistle. But if the occasion should grant the freedom to interpret clearly, perhaps, God willing, it might be my grace to speak it more perfectly, and yours to hear it.
QUESTION XCII
You marvel that the Epistles of Paul are articulated with such ideas. And do not be angry with me for the sake of the truth, because you have not yet penetrated to the depth of the wisdom that is in the man. But if a more laborious study regarding his words were to seize you—with the influence from above clearly looking toward your goodwill—you would marvel much more at how such a grace of wisdom escaped you, and [how] a lover of beautiful, innate discourse did not find it. And I do not yet speak of the wisdom in dogmas and faith; for you B yourself did not appear to us to doubt this, but of the admiration he provides with the power and vigor of his discourse. How then is he an "idiot" (unlearned) in speech? Just as he is "the first of sinners"; as he is "the lowest of the apostles, a miscarriage of them all"; as he is "the offscouring of the world"; as he is "not worthy to be called an apostle"; as he is "the spectacle of all"; as he is "a theater to angels and men." Who? He who is able to be burdensome as an apostle of Christ; he who labored more abundantly than all; he who, even before he was released from his mother’s birth pangs, was set apart for God; the spectator of invisible things, and the hearer of ineffable things; the fragrance of Christ to God; he who carries about in his body the mortification, but also the life, of Jesus. Just as, therefore, he was a miscarriage, and an offscouring, and a theater, and a refuse, such and so great a man, so also was he an "idiot" in speech. For of these things, some were in the assumption of those who did not understand the depth of his proclamation, and some he even gave of himself, carrying [them] with the moderation and gentleness of his character. What then? Is our faith in the wisdom of men? God forbid; but in the power of God, by which even the unlearned are made wise. Is, then, the wisdom of God [the same as] the wisdom of this age and of its rulers? And who would say this? C For such wisdom D is rather nullified by the foolishness of the cross. The terror of impious dogmas, the plausibility of discourse which is the handmaid of error, the artificial entanglement of evil—
A sophistries—that the soul is mortal, that it is partitioned and suffers with the body; that the world has no Creator; that water is not carried upward like fire, but [it is so]; that marriage should be common, for that reason [they say] citizens love one another more; that the living [come] from the dead; for indeed we exist because we were once sitting; that there must also be many gods, because there are many things to be looked after, and one ought to fear that if one [god] busies himself with the common care, he might tire; or that such a ruler is compelled by necessity, not being sufficient alone, to bring in another [ruler], lest he be deprived of his sovereignty, and that the secondary one likewise failing, [brings in] another, and so on to infinity: such things are foolish and exceed all stupidity, befitting an animal that is truly mortal and deserving of hemlock.
This wisdom of the world, Paul, who was truly wise in things divine and human, banished from the inhabited world through the wisdom of God in a mystery, and preserved the minds of the faithful inaccessible to it. Such wisdom is foolishness with God; B the reflections of those wise in this way are vain, and being caught by their own craftiness, they are gripped by the simple word of truth. This, as in days of old, so now too, every pious mind spits upon: those long ravings, those psychic chasms, those snares of the Evil One, that great workshop of perdition.
But what harm does the correctness of words and their composition bring to piety? What damage does it inflict upon those who use them? Toward what small or great error does it trip them up? If the Creator of nature is Himself also the artificer of languages, how is it not consistent that those who are excellent disciples of the discourse should use appropriate speech? Thus, that Christ did not take on uneducated disciples—and I would say, if you wish, even more mute than the fish they were catching—but that as He took them on as uneducated, so He took them as publicans and fishermen—they did not cease C being publicans and fishermen, which was miraculous and worthy of the power of Christ. How could anyone escape conviction from their works?
In this way, He did not leave them as the uneducated men whom He had taken from that state; but instead of fishermen of fish, He accomplished fishermen of men. For He says, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men"; and instead of publicans, He made them saviors of souls tossed by storms; and instead of uneducated men, teachers of the inhabited world, having filled them with divine and heavenly wisdom, and having shown them to be in no way lacking in human [wisdom] either, wherever need calls. For how, otherwise, could they have engaged in argument against the Stoics, and the Epicureans, and myriad other errors that had left behind a great name for their learning? How could the flow of the discourse, and the fluency of the words—combined with the miracle—have caused Paul to be considered Hermes by his listeners? And if he had not anticipated them by tearing his garments, D and...
A if the sacrifices of the gods had not been publicly offered to him.
I pass over for now the other spontaneous power of the word, that which is in the churches, in public assemblies, in the courtroom, in the synagogues of the Jews, in the marketplace; that of one teaching, refuting, exhorting, defending himself, testifying, as much to each individual as to the multitude, as much to judges as to informers. How, by speaking, he won over the King of the Jews, and this man was very nearly converted to the Christians, had not the inflation of power and the royal purple—which had many times over brought a lethal wound to many—stood in his way as an impediment to the execution and operation of the Word. How, by speaking, he calmed the clamorous and those stirred up against him who thirsted for his blood, whom he induced to undertake his protection. How he went up to the Areopagus, where he moved among those who were provoked against him by his very words; the Areopagus, indeed, where, as is solemnly narrated in the myths of the Greeks, both gods and men were brought forth as defendants and actors: B and set there, he was most eloquent not just against one person, but against everyone at once; if indeed the Athenians, and among the Athenians the Areopagites, surpassed all other men in speaking, he so shook their souls and transformed them by his speaking, that many of them, hanging upon his tongue and his words, cast aside all things, changed their lives entirely toward piety, and appeared as imitators of him who had inscribed into the depths of their souls the dogmas of virtue and of true worship. Were these things and such as these accomplished without fitting speech? And who would have paid attention to him if his mind had been barbaric, and he did not even bear himself correctly in his very utterances? How, then, could that which he did not even know how to speak find consent in others, let alone have others agreeing with him? But grace from above was working, grace, I say, and not artifice. For that which consists of art is human and base; that which is of grace is heavenly and apostolic. Grace worked; but it works first of all that its ministers speak nothing unbecoming of it. For it is not a small thing C to lead those who are in opposition into a sense of that irresistible power which operates in them. For somewhere the Scripture says: "The Jews seeing the boldness of Peter and John." What boldness? Indeed, that in speaking, through which they refuted the impudent question. What then? "And knowing that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they wondered." We see fishermen as rhetoricians, and those who had no knowledge of letters bringing forth wisdom from their lips. What is this? From where did that which exceeded human condition come to them? We know one thing: "That they had been with Jesus." Do you see how, into wonder—no less than the miracles performed in preparation—the power and faculty of their speech excited their enemies; D and if they had wished to apply their consent, it would have brought them to the knowledge of the truth. But you may also perceive from another source how much they feared their faculty of speaking, in that it was forbidden them to preach at all. What will you say here? Whether if an unlearned man moves his lips, glory immediately falls to you, and the dogma ceases?
And a people nourished in Mosaic institutions, who gloried in living and dying according to their ancient ways, shifts to a new tongue? A Absolutely! For the unlearned man does not speak unlearnedly; rather, he speaks words of wisdom. He does not speak barbarously, like an illiterate person, but as one who has mastered every art, with a graceful and easy intelligence. Upon their lips sits a certain innate persuasion, by which even nations of rhetoricians and crowds of the unlearned, bound as if by indissoluble chains, are drawn to what is proclaimed to them. For this reason I forbid them to speak, because I see that with a very few words, after abandoning their ancestral customs, many have gone over to them; because with one discourse, they who were sometimes stationed against us and were our most hostile enemies, now fill the ranks of our subjects and our well-disposed disciples. This necessity compels me to command them to be silent; for this reason I do not even permit them to open their mouths, because of the freedom in their speech, its power, and its innate persuasiveness. B Behold how the teaching word of the apostles made the Jews tremble and be struck with awe! Yet such grace shone yet more abundantly upon Paul. Do you wish that we call upon the leader as a witness of the wisdom that was in the man? “As,” he says, “our brother Paul also wrote according to the wisdom given to him,” recognizing Paul's wisdom as a divine gift and bearing witness to it. Then, as though canonizing him and extolling the depth and density of his writings with every proclamation, he continues: C “In which are some things hard to understand.” As if to say: it requires a swift inclination toward the divine, intelligent disciples, and stable prudence, if one wishes to examine what Paul wrote. Wherefore, the unlearned and unstable, since they seek nothing of the sort, deceive themselves and perish through ruin. If you ask about the knowledge of languages, Paul was endowed with that grace even in those to which he was not accustomed, and which he had not received by hearing: “I thank my God,” he says, “that I speak with tongues more than you all.” If, therefore, he had an invincible power even in foreign tongues, through the insight of the Spirit that made him wise, how could one reasonably imagine that he corrupted the vernacular language, which was Greek: D that where he could scarcely lead many to piety, he held the primacy; but where he was meant to convert almost all men, he provided a cause for laughter and mockery? And indeed, he was not thought so easily mastered in speech, even by his enemies; and as for these testimonies, which the enemies themselves see as worthy of praise, there is no reason for anyone to decline them, even if one assumes great airs for himself and wishes to be contentious in all things. And here, see my testimony: the nation of the Jews thirsted for the blood of Paul; he, with light from heaven—
A—having been flashed upon, fully turned to the One whom he had been persecuting. B But they thirsted even more at that time, and were set aflame for murder, when Paul’s preaching left their synagogues empty of them; and indeed every art of calumny was stirred up by them, every machine set in motion. It was not merely silver spears, as the saying goes, but also those of falsehood, and deceit, and wrath, and boldness, that they employed to arm their fellow countrymen for the slaughter of the man; and they already had their hands dripping, in their expectations, with the fresh stain of that defilement. Yet when their expectations abandoned them as they leaped and rejoiced in vain (for the athlete was established as superior to all their machinations through his apologies), finally, being at a loss regarding his power in speech and his invulnerability, they hired a certain orator, an advocate for those who had brought the charges, believing that the accused could no longer escape the arts and the complexity of his arguments, even if he were a thousand times innocent, and in no way did they hold it in doubt. But that truly wise Paul, being skilled in both divine and human matters, and against one who was so prepared by art and by fee, manifestly through the wisdom and grace provided to him from above, so stood and contended in speech as to repulse him and overwhelm him with shame—he who, having accepted a price for his art, was persecuting him—and to render the chief priests, the priests, and the others who had conspired in his slaughter, astonished and ensnared, C so that not only did they repent of this undertaking of theirs, but they also imposed upon themselves, even though they were enraged with anger, a silence of two years as if it were a certain penalty (19). You see how the power of the words of this athlete compelled even his most hostile enemies, against their will, to bear witness, so that the wisdom of Paul is proclaimed in fact and word among his greatest foes: whence he is most justly honored by those initiated into the religion without any contradiction. Do not, however, think that by wisdom of speech and power of language I mean that vain, curious, and pompous capability—with its raised eyebrows, curling irons, makeup, and flowery ornaments—which adulterates the innate beauty of speech and, with certain superimposed pigments, draws puerile and feeble things to itself. Nor, on the contrary, do I mean that which, with a wrinkled brow and never a smile, admits nothing of utility, but settles in the deep darkness of obscurity, and terrifies the unlearned and the common crowd—those wrapped in its gloom—confounding and astonishing its blind lovers while adorning itself with greater pretension; nor that which is unbridled and stiff-necked, which runs riot into license, playing and mocking with certain novel enticements of the poets. But I mean that which modestly insinuates itself, publicly instructs, leads as a master, persuades by itself alone, D and clearly explains the nature of things through concepts kindred to the mind, wherever it has need of emphasis,
in a manner that is deeply mystical and efficacious, revealing the truth of things hidden. For these belong to the wisdom of the Word, which is innate, becoming, and useful for life; but those other things belong to that which delights the irrational sense, which is itself rather affected by aversions and novelties, while having no regard for what is beneficial, but dissolves into applause, flattery, and much nonsense. It was not, therefore, fitting for the great mind of Paul to be imitated, or even approached, by such things—he whom you, carrying on your own head the power of his speech [(19)], almost worship. B "He said," "I said." As somewhere one of his own followers aggrandized him—and I, for my part, might add, and quite reasonably—so too, "I have suffered," and "I knew," and "I have heard," and that one I do not know how anyone would not fall into deep disgust as he recounts his words; he who, in his innovations of language, was so effeminate and broken down that he did not even wish to leave any expression of countenance in them, but strove to force the character of these words into a crude and formless shape. I pass over now the man who has experienced the smearing of his eyes, more in his soul than in his speech; and those who have hoped for the C faithful things of the flesh, and who have embraced, more miserably or more harshly, stable foundations; and who are wantonly occupied with many such idle chatterings and evil harms—of whom I would not even call a disciple, not counting the wonderful Paul, nor even any other such person, as a follower in speech, much less a participant in his deeds, just as I would not revere him in actions or worship. Nor, indeed, is the playful oratory of Gorgias, which is almost to be equated with the stage, due to the leapings and twistings of the dancers in the chorus, worthy to be compared with the gravity and stride of Paul's thoughts. But he had his tongue as a rule for those words which were able to express the mind for such great matters according to their worth, neither corrupting D them nor treating them with despite. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. XI, 33). And, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" And, "Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?" "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Galat. III, 13). Because of this wisdom of his, I admire the teacher of the world, and I would pray that it might not be considered bold to admire him worthily, through whom he spoke such things, representing the thought in a plain and steady manner of speech, and proposing the benefit as common to all. What, then, could you say, having looked into the purity of his words, not only to the extent that it aims at the correctness of voice and the symmetry of periods harmoniously contracted, but also if it is directed toward the exposition of things, dragging in nothing necessary from the outside, as far as you [can see] the turning of his words, and as far as...
that which is clear, as if by another, or rather as if by no one else, is tempered through-and-through. And I do not yet say this because it is diversified by the deliberative and legislative [styles]; nor that the discourse concerns divine objects, and those most honored among men; but not even that it has no equal in being illustrious and speaking with brightness. A “I have fought the good fight; I have finished the course; I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness. Thus I run, not as uncertainly. Thus I fight, not as beating the air.” And, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant; wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” And, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like B unto his glorious body.” Truly these things are to be admired (for how could they not be?), both for other reasons and on account of the clarity and purity that unite in them to the highest degree. But what he was like in his sententiae, he appears to be in passing judgment, in convincing, in reproving when it is necessary, and as it is necessary, through a non-fluctuating declaration and testimony. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” And, “This I say, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” And, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked.” And, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” And, “I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” And, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” C Certainly it is the same thing both to collect all his greatness into one and to read through his compositions from beginning to end; to such a degree does dignity and majesty permeate his individual expressions everywhere. And what are his manners like? “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” And, “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle.” And, “Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice.” And, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” And, “Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, and six hundred such like. Is he, therefore, in any way inferior to those who... D
have spent their entire life in such pursuits, one who, I think, did not even endure the trouble of names, but had a tongue ready for speech? But perhaps his ethos and clarity are so distinguished by being blended with grandeur, that he lacks speed. And yet, who is by nature so fitted to use a concentrated quickness? A "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again." (Rom. viii, 33, 34) — "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (I Cor. x, 22, 23) — "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." (Rom. iii, 1-3) And, "What advantage then have we? in no wise:" and again, "Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: being defamed, we intreat." (I Cor. iv, 12, 13)
What if one should attempt to measure the expanses of the sea with drops? For it is the same thing, both to propose to calculate those with drops B and to attempt to describe Paul's wisdom in speech; for he did not even abandon the ornamental—although he neglected it entirely to the end, yet having stripped it of the deceit in which someone might even take pride, and having invested it with the natural quality, which one might hardly hope to reach—he brought it to such a level of admiration that, to those who observe it, it serves as a canon and archetype of true beauty, far removed from sophistry and studied floridity. But there is nothing like hearing him: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. x, 14, 15) Again: [c] "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy." (Philipp. ii, 1, 2) Then, "Tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed." (Rom. v, 3-5)
Thus, the character of the Epistles of the great Paul, fashioned with every excellence of discourse and adorned with appropriate and fitting figures, holds the status of an archetype and model; it is worthy to be emulated, but to those who are wise, writing it for the sake of imitation by others is not right. For it is not even easy to find anyone whom he might represent; since the words of Paul are not the fruit of study, but of inspiration, and D the riches of wisdom and the clear and radiant fountain of truth, gushing forth with saving pleasure; this is a brief flash of lightning from the fearsome heights above, bursting forth from apostolic lips; this is a moderate outflow of that divine power made perfect in weakness, by which the whole world is irrigated. This is the grace working in earthen vessels, [to be] venerated—
A a testament to mysteries fearful and paradoxical, an indelible one. Wisdom distilling from an unlearned tongue; from an unpracticed mouth, a rule of eloquence; from uninstructed lips, the art of rhetoric. What say you to these things? Does a doubting ratiocination and an ambiguous opinion still trouble you concerning the wisdom of Paul? Rather, it will be imputed to you as a failing if you condense his epistles into mere figures, or you will accuse yourself most of all, because until now the gifts of such great graces have eluded you. What, moreover, would you say if you were to descend more deeply into the other side of his faculty of discourse? How he is perceived in the most part in arranging his main chapters, regarding order and prudence; while he introduces and disposes [matters] through hypopheras and anthypopheras; how fertile he is in finding syllogisms; how copious in producing [them]; how prompt to persuade, how frequent in parables and similitudes; how great in his enthymemes, and in those other virtues akin to these which you might studiously embrace—even if you have no wish to apply yourself to practicing any others—in order to win a truly swift love and a delightful enjoyment. Add to these the dissertation of this man concerning food offered to idols, and where he acts to depress the pride and inflation of those who had conceived great spirits because of the speaking of tongues; and how the law was a debtor which ought to yield and give place to grace. But enough has been said about these things, and all the more so because they are insinuated through the commerce of letters. If at some time we meet—and we shall meet, the Lord suggesting it to me—then I shall discourse with you more diffusely than at present regarding these matters. B
QUESTION XCIII
Diverse questions from the Apostle resolved through twenty-seven chapters.
Since you acknowledge that you are not only happily defeated, but furthermore count it among the joys of a feast to be so defeated, why is it that you still desire further examples of the Scriptures, of the figures brought forward in my previous letters? It is a desire of yours that you wish to have satisfied quickly; which I feel to be just, for it smacks of malice not to render truth to one who is defeated by the truth, and who seeks what is true. Therefore, I append some examples of those four modes, so that those which remain may be distinguished and discerned from these without difficulty, and also so that I may not seem to offer an insult to your prudence, nor write an entire book for you in place of a letter. For just as it is foolish to pursue everything trivial, and that which is wrapped in obscurity almost clings to it, so too that which is placed in the open, if it is not presented with brevity, tends toward the disgrace C of either the teacher or the learner. D
QUESTION XCIII
A 1. Instantly, therefore, the phrase: "What then shall we say, that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" is clearly shaped by means of hyperbaton; for "according to the flesh," which ought to have been placed before "our father," has overstepped its proper place and is joined after "has found."
2. Such also is this: "Behold Israel according to the flesh"; for it is said instead of "Behold the Israel according to the flesh."
3. And this: "But you servants, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh," instead of "to your masters according to the flesh."
4. There is also added to these the following: "By which you are able, when you read, to understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." It is varied in construction; for the simple meaning is: "By which you are able, when you read, to understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ," or if you prefer: "By which you are able to understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." For this, as well as some of the aforementioned phrases, can be brought back through either method to the correct and accustomed style of speech. I mean either through the hyperbaton, or through the elliptical form which shares the preceding meaning with what follows—just as here, the singular article expressed in the accusative, taken in common, rendered the whole sentence complete. B
5. Such also is: "For which cause I ask that you may not faint in my tribulations for you"; for "that for you" ought to have been spoken before, through which the common connection becomes known, or "in my tribulations for you," which indicates the hyperbaton; for whichever of these two ways the passage is understood, it admits of a complete interpretation.
6. Again: "For this reason, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus that is among you, I do not cease giving thanks." This also is similar to what has been said; for we find that those who read it as "the faith in the Lord Jesus that is among you" or "your faith that is in the Lord Jesus," find it to be commonly shared and having nothing distorted in the phrasing. C
7. Similar is this: "And if any man does not obey our word by the epistle, note that man." For the complete sense is: "And if any man does not obey our word by the epistle, note that man"; or also in this way: "And if any man does not obey our word through the epistle, note that man." It is clear that the former is reduced by hyperbaton, while the latter, mentioned afterward, is completed by means of the ellipsis that joins the aforementioned words to those that follow.
8. And: "Charge the rich in the present world not to be high-minded," instead of "the rich in the present world," or "the rich who are in the present world." And: "Now I rejoice in the sufferings for you," instead of "in the sufferings for you," or "in the sufferings which are for you." D
9. And furthermore: "Making my prayer, concerning the communion..."
A of yours in the Gospel. Or even thus: "concerning the communion of yours in the Gospel." For each of the things mentioned recovers its return to what is common by either mode; but it is woven together clearly by hyperbaton, which is called hyperthesis.
10. That: "I salute you, I, Tertius, who wrote the epistle in the Lord." For the "in the Lord," being connected to the "I salute you," is now rendered according to the consequential usage of the discourse at the end. And the "That He might deliver us from the present evil age," had a similar arrangement; for the word "evil," which ought to occupy the space following "present," B filled up the last.
11. Again: "For this cause, I the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles." As if he were to say: "For this cause, I the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles." For many of the martyrs have indeed become prisoners of Christ Jesus, but not for the Gentiles. For it was not because they were bringing the Gentiles to Christ that they were bound and slaughtered, but because they themselves would not deny the faith in Christ. Nor was Paul merely a prisoner of Christ Jesus, but also for the Gentiles. For it was because he was preaching Christ to them, and because he was setting over to Christ not just this one or that one, but entire nations—for this reason he was detained the more. But of the interior meaning of the passage and the explanation of the words, I shall speak in other places C.
12. To this same mode of tropology pertains also that: "They that have faithful masters, let them not despise them, D because they are brethren, but rather let them serve them, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." For it is manifest that "partakers of the benefit" has been transposed; but it will fill its proper place if it be arranged thus: "But rather let those who are partakers of the benefit serve them, because they are faithful and beloved"—manifestly, the masters.
13. In the same way is to be referred also that: "But you have not so learned Christ; if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off the old man according to your former conversation." For if we had not transposed it, we would have said: "To put off the old man according to your former conversation"—or, if you wish, "To put off the old man according to the former conversation"—one would be carried into an unintelligible sense.
14. And so, even in that: "That He may grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power by His Spirit into the inward man, that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts, in love..."
A B C D You are rooted and grounded, that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height. In this passage, therefore, if anyone does not subject the phrase "rooted and grounded in love" to the word placed above it, so as to turn the connection into that which nature demands, he will attribute a barbarous sense to the divine Paul. The properly and articulately stated sentiment, however, is this: "That being rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to comprehend," and so forth. And see how, on the one hand, to those who do not foresee the inverted and skillful ordering of the words, the statement seems barbarous; but when the transposition is made manifest, the method also becomes manifest.
15. The same form is observed also where he says, "To those who by perseverance in good work seek glory and honor and incorruption, He will render eternal life." B Mark, moreover, how it is a repetition along with a hyperbaton: for "will render," posited at the end, is assumed here also. And see for me again how the handling of the "common" word has appeared along with the hyperbaton; for "will render," having been spoken afterward, is also drawn into this place.
16. The words, however, that follow in the passage before us also have a "common" word; but they have it also in what is called a *zeugma* (yoking), which is both divided and specific. For the statement, "But upon those who are persuaded by injustice, there shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek," would not be a complete sentence unless the word "remit" (or "render") were attracted again, fashioned into the form "it shall be rendered." C This is something that must also be understood in the case of, "But glory and honor and peace to everyone who worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
17. Indeed, it is also formed by the turn of the "common" word, and likewise in: "Whether we are afflicted, it is for your consolation." D For the word "we are afflicted" must again be understood.
18. As also in the place where it says, "Whether we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation," the word "we are comforted" must be appended.
19. And the statement, "For whether we were beside ourselves, unto God; or whether we are of sound mind, it is for you," is fashioned in the same pattern. For the complete sense is, "For whether we were beside ourselves, we were beside ourselves unto God; or whether we are of sound mind, we are of sound mind for you."
20. Most of all, however, the matters mentioned in this passage abound with this: "Give glory to God upon the subjection of your confession unto the Gospel of Christ, and for the simplicity of the fellowship unto them and unto all, and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the surpassing grace of God upon you." If anyone, without attributing these things to the passage, were to straighten the discourse into sequential delivery, the explanation of what is set before us would fall into complete unintelligibility. And the cause of this is not to be attributed to the Scripture, but to those who are ignorant of the figures which the writer employs.
A The saints glorify God for the obedience of your confession, which is directed toward the Gospel of Christ, and for the simplicity of the fellowship that exists toward them and toward all. Again, they glorify God and for their prayer on your behalf, longing for you because of the grace of God that superabounds in you. See how this passage is compressed and elliptical, and, if you please, veiled. It lacked little from without, but by a few words—through ellipsis, through things taken in common, and through hyperbaton—the discourse, shaped according to the common and most clear understanding of the interpretation, returns to its proper sequence.
21. Also, the phrase "Whether having come and seen you, or being absent, I might hear" is expressed by way of ellipsis. For the word "I shall rejoice," or something similar, is clearly missing.
B 22. Nor, moreover, is the statement, "Just as the Church is subject to Christ, so are wives to their own husbands in everything," uttered without a figure. But something is lacking here, which is supplied by common joining to what is already said; and it could be expressed, without any figurative artifice, in this way: "Just as the Church is subject to the Lord, so let wives be subject to their own husbands in every matter, or as they ought to be subject."
23. Nor is this next phrase alien to the things already said: "Brothers, I do not consider myself to have attained it, but, forgetting the things behind and reaching out to the things before, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward calling."
C For what sense would the "but" convey if the phrase "I consider myself to have attained it" were not taken in common, or if the completion [of the sentence] were not understood some other way? But when these are taken together according to the laws of figurative technique, the sense and the sequence of the construction would be such: "Brothers, I do not consider myself to have attained it; but I consider that I have obtained it [in this way], that, forgetting the things behind and reaching out to the things before, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward calling"—as if he were saying: "This is what I consider to have attained it: not that I have already attained anything, but that I must seek always to attain, and not grow slack in regard to what has been achieved; for he who has attained this, he is truly the one pressing toward the goal for the prize of the upward calling." But the presentation of these ideas, although related, still requires a distinct treatment; for now, it has been stated only to demonstrate the figurative expansion.
D 24. Most clearly, he would reveal the ellipsis (which seemed better to me) by first stating it independently, and then presenting the figurative version: for example, "Whether one must speak on behalf of Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker toward you; or on behalf of the other two sent with him, they are our brothers, apostles of the churches, the glory of Christ." This has been brought back from figurative speech to the natural, while the figurative is clearly seen to be written thus: "Whether for Titus, my partner and fellow worker toward you, or brothers of ours, apostles of the churches, the glory of Christ." And I know that it would not seem strange to you that there is such a type of ellipsis; for there are many such things in Homer, Antimachus, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato, and Demosthenes, and nearly all other poets and prose writers. If some, among whom is Callimachus the Libyan, while falling short of many in other respects, have not only caused satiety but have also forced this type of ellipsis into an extremely out-of-the-way, strange, and strained usage—they have not undeservedly fallen under the censure of those who have the knowledge to judge such things (for these are the critics). But enough of these matters.
25. However, regarding the phrase: "Having, then, gifts differing according to the grace given to you, whether prophecy according to..."
A the analogy of the faith, or ministry, [let us use it] in the ministry; or he that teacheth, in teaching; or he that exhorteth, in exhortation; he that giveth, in simplicity; he that ruleth, in diligence; he that showeth mercy, in cheerfulness"—this, indeed, this passage would be a brilliant example of a "clothed" style. For it immediately conveys the particular after the general: first, prophecy and ministry under "gift"; then again, the more specific parts under "ministry," such as teaching, exhortation, and if you will, under exhortation, the giving, the ruling, and the mercy. For the one who gives, the one who rules, and the one who shows mercy, are constituted for a certain refreshment and encouragement; and to those who are benefited by them it is, moreover, clothed in another way; for it is the cause to which he attaches these gifted actions. It is not only clothed, but also varied by the manner of "common usage," and indeed it also puts forward what is specifically called an ellipsis. For the word "having" is used in common B against "whether prophecy or ministry," but it is divided into what is called a *zeugma* in the case of "whether he that teacheth, or he that exhorteth," and in the subsequent parts of the discourse. For indeed, at the beginning, the word "having" is expressed in the plural, [yet] we understand it in the singular for "he that teacheth" and "he that exhorteth," and the others. Again, the whole same passage hangs in suspense, without any rest, unless some verb be mentally added. For if we do not conceive of the word "let it remain," both in ministry and teaching and exhortation—and before these, in "whether prophecy according to the analogy of the faith," with the addition of "in prophecy"—and if we do not connect it again with "let him give," "let him rule," and "let him show mercy" in the subsequent parts, we would have made the passage whole but imperfect and marked by error. But this C passage was fashioned in three ways at once.
26. Next, the elliptical [mode] appears again. For in the passage "Let love be without hypocrisy," the word "let it be" is missing, and the rest follows.
27. Another period receives a beginning, [namely]: "Abhorring that which is evil"—which, making its apodosis at a great distance, is directed toward the Spirit; yet it is not exempt from being "clothed." For "abhorring that which is evil" receives its completion in "Bless them that persecute you, bless and curse not." For the end and, as it were, the recapitulation of all other virtues is to extend [one's reach] as far as enemies and those who have hated goodness and love. For according to this practice, D the Savior and true Word made those who are on earth worthy to be conformed to the Father who is in heaven. For there is a great multitude of such examples in the writings of the divine Paul; from which I have set forth a few, for which I said at the beginning that I assigned reasons, and because I did not go through the rest [of the types] he used, nor at all about the mode of their generation and difference of quantity and usage; whence the trope sprang, and for what reason the Greek language made this its own; for I would not even deem it worthy, since neither do you need instruction at all in such matters, being as you are, nor should we be ambitious in our teaching regarding them.
Question 94
For some things are indeed elementary and appropriate for beginners; others, through the examples we mentioned, have gained a clear and easy understanding. The character of the apostolic writings, then, is thus naturally formed both by the aforementioned and by many other figures; but I would, with pleasure, say that he did not write these through art and study, as I have often denied. I do not so belittle that heavenly man, who as one house or one city went about the whole inhabited world by his preaching; but through an innate power of intellect and through an activity in all things, or rather through grace from above; or [it is that this grace] never failed to supply him through all things with the wealth of innate knowledge and of intelligence and prudence surpassing human capacity, through which he had the use and handling of things which others scarcely achieve through labors and studies, [without any trouble]. But may you, clearly illuminated by the rays of truth coming from thence, be as one whose theoretical [faculty] is enlightened, so also be regulated in your practical [faculty] by the precepts coming from Him through the course of your life.
QUESTION XCIV
A What is the meaning of: "Let your light shine before men," etc.? (Edited in Montague, ep. 167, to Paul of Laodicea, p. 212. Do Matthew v and Matthew vi 2-4 contradict one another?)I offer a simple and brief solution to your rather lengthy and deliberate inquiry. First, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven," is an exhortation to the most perfect virtue. But "Do not do your alms before men," is used to remove the ambition for glory, which is a wickedness. How then could the destruction of wickedness be in conflict with the exhortation to virtue? Far from it; rather, the aversion of one thing strengthens the existence of the other. For he who rejects human vainglory for the sake of divine laws, being a good man, is inflamed with the love of virtue; he has God as his herald and public announcer of his works, like a light. But he who is eager to perform acts of mercy for the sake of the fame and opinion of men, is the one who, in order to display his vanity, seeks out a pretext and occasion. Therefore, just as God’s support surpasses human industry, by that much does the man who does the will of God and embraces virtue differ from him who only takes care to hunt after human praises. The Savior’s precept forbids B us from imitating the latter, [and instructs us] to be among those who are zealous to have God as their witness and herald of their works, and not to set their own devices before the testimony from above.
QUESTION XCV
What is the meaning of the saying: "My Father is greater than I"? (Edited in Montague, ep. 176, to St. Sabas, p. 262-264. — Investigation regarding the meaning of Christ's words. John xiv, 28.)That evangelical saying, "My Father is greater than I," is interpreted in varied ways by our Fathers, without any interpretation weakening the truth. Some explain it as "greater" by way of causality, which denotes not an alteration of substance but rather identity and connaturality. For every father, since he precedes the son by way of causality, by that very fact binds [the son] and unites him into one [with himself], however much the hypostases may be distinct; for that dispersion which arises therefrom—which, flowing and multiplying in created things from myriad circumstances, is forced into distinctness—does not apply here. Therefore, that the Father is "greater" than the Son by C way of causality concerns the parity of substance and subsistence, but in no way a diversity of substance. Others, however, have referred "greater than I" to the human nature. For they say that just as "going to the Father," and "speaking no longer many things with the disciples," and "the Prince of this world is coming," who, as he searches, finds nothing at all—
A just so is that word, "The Father is greater than I." For this is between those statements, and has been spoken in a way similar to them. Some, indeed, have yielded the term "greater" regarding the Word; but not simply and according to substance; rather, if the becoming-man was an extreme emptying and humiliation, according to which the Word emptied himself and humbled himself, "taking the form of a servant" [Philipp. II, 7], it is clear that for the one who had in no way undergone emptying and humiliation, it may consistently be said that he possesses the lesser; for in greater excellences, by this very fact, the one who is not emptied is greater than the one who is emptied; and he who remits nothing of his own sublimity is greater than he who descends even to the point of suffering despicable things—I mean the cross and death, which human nature underwent.
One might not unsuitably also accept that the word was spoken with regard to the mind of the disciples; for since they were still disposed imperfectly concerning God and the Teacher, and considered the Father to be greater by far—this, both from the Mosaic laws, which reveal the Father more clearly to them than the Son, and from the Savior himself, who keeps turning the Father before them up and down. Since, therefore, such an opinion was established in them (for it was precisely because of this that they said, "Show us the Father, and it suffices for us" [Joan. XIV, 8]), he stands, B reaching toward their supposition, and says something of this sort: that they are acting inconsistently with their own confessions, causing themselves grief, "because I said, I am going to the Father." If you loved me, and it seems to you that the Father is also greater, you ought to rejoice because I am going to the One who is greater; for this Person, if I were to show him to you, you maintained would suffice for you instead of everything.
But indeed, even according to this understanding, if anyone should accept that the Father has been called greater by the Son, he would not be led away from what is proper. And perhaps nothing prevents one from regarding this statement as one of condescension, fashioned toward the more humble [expression] on account of the weakness of the hearers; for there is much economy in such words for the benefit and salvation of those not yet able to bear more perfect things; just as also the saying, "I will ask the Father, and he will send another Paraclete" [Joan. XIV, 16], and "I thank you, Father, that you always hear me" [Joan. XI, 42], and ten thousand other things. From where, then, is it clear that these things have been fashioned for the sake of the ailing hearing? The Savior himself, the fountain of wisdom and the abyss of understanding C, explaining himself, taught by saying: "But I knew that you always hear me, but on account of the crowd standing around I said it, that they may believe that you sent me." And thus, via the letter, you have, I think, sufficient instruction on the question posed by you.
607 PHOTII PATRIARCHÆ CP. 608
QUESTION XCVI
How is there no conflict in the statement: “In my Father's house there are many mansions,” and what follows: “If I go, I will prepare a place for you”?As to the meaning, there is no conflict between the statement: A “In my Father’s house there are many and manifold mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you,” and what is said immediately after: “If I go, I will prepare a place for you.” For by providence and foreknowledge, or—if you prefer—by instantiation and existence, the places were prepared by God for all, without exception, who lived their lives in a manner worthy of heavenly glory. But in dedicating them, and truly showing them to be "mansions"—if indeed those in which the dwellers truly reside can be called mansions—He [Christ] is the one who, until the saving passion, the descent into Hades, and the ascent of the Lord into the heavens, had revealed them to no one anywhere. But when He Himself ascended into the heavens in accordance with the assumption of our nature, and—according to the blessed Paul—inaugurated a “new and living way” for us, He made those mansions truly more prepared, and, one might almost say, visible to those who are worthy. Therefore, the mansions existed with the Father, and the Son, by going there, prepared them as perfect.
QUESTION XCVII
Why did the prince of the apostles fall into denial?You are able to hear, as far as the discipline of the epistolary form allows, what you wished to learn by inquiring. Since Peter was about to be entrusted with the care of the whole world, he was permitted to be swept away by a fall, so that, instructed by his own example, he might show himself humane and lenient toward those who repent of their sins. For if, having obtained such great pardon in so grave a fall, he had nonetheless mowed down the life of Ananias with such inexorable and precipitate judgment—who could have contained his zeal, had he preserved his love and affection for the Lord D completely unblemished and uninterrupted throughout his life? Therefore, the common Savior and God of all permits that one man to fall, so that by him, springing forth the fountains of compassion and mercy, He might show that the abyss of His philanthropy is inexhaustible; and further, that the disciple, while performing works surpassing human power, might look to the grace from above, rather than attributing the cause of his achievements to his own blameless life. For the performance of miracles leads all too quickly to swelling and pride if the humility of one’s conscience does not pull it back toward moderation. For this reason, the Savior also says: “Do not rejoice that the demons are subject to you, but rather that your names [are]
A written in heaven.” And many will say to me in that day, “Did we not perform many mighty works in your name?” And I will say to them, “I do not know you.” For this reason, Paul also is permitted to wrestle with certain temptations, “in order that,” as he himself says, “he might not be puffed up” by the excess of revelations, the passion bringing along [a sense of] tutelage and curbing and cutting off the boastings by which human nature is carried away toward self-conceit. B If you wish, [it was also] so that afterward, when the leader of the apostles bore those terrible threats, the bitter persecutions, and the thousand deaths with an unshaken and immovable mind, he might call those who were punishing him to wonder at the Lord’s alliance; watching him who had fallen at the voice of a servant-girl become so immovable against so many pressures; and through this, he might draw the Jewish lowliness toward the great mystery of piety.
And a fourth [point], which seems to me a bright and great example for consolation. What is more splendid for the leader of the apostles among succeeding generations, when someone is laboring under infirmity and wishes to return to perfect health? For if that prince of the disciples, after so many virtues—which he partly saw and partly performed—after such training, and after such great and manifold experience of the Master, having denied [Him] three times, nonetheless through repentance and warm tears not only cleansed his sin but was raised again to the same pinnacle of the apostolate: surely it does not befit me, who have slipped from infirmity, to be slothful and dejected, but rather to rise again more quickly toward repentance, and, C considering the wealth of the Master’s goodness, to entrust my whole self with contrition of heart to Him who “bore our sicknesses and our infirmities.”
For these reasons, therefore, I suppose, Peter was permitted to be entangled in sin; not that the Master, having foretold the denial, impelled [him] to an involuntary act by the necessity of foreknowledge. For in that way, by anticipating [the act], you would refer the cause of all evils to God, the fountain of all good things! For He foretold also the betrayal of Judas and the bloodthirsty minds of the Jews; but even if He had not foretold them, He nevertheless foresaw that the first man would choose self-exaltation instead of keeping the command given by God; and the fratricide of Cain; the hardness of heart of Pharaoh; and the lawlessness of Saul. D And why should I speak of each one? Not only that, but even regarding whole cities and entire nations, their actions are contained in His foreknowledge. The unspeakable crimes of the Sodomites and Gomorrah; the idolatries of the Greeks, the Egyptians, and of almost all the barbarian nations over many ages. But whence did these originate? If not…
from that sower of evils and architect: B from those powers that fell from the celestial seats. Was the wisdom that is the producer of good deeds ignorant of that destructive insolence and the supreme malice of men? If that wisdom was ignorant of nothing of the sort, shall we therefore, by removing the culpability from men who sin by their own spontaneous motion and who choose evil over good, cast the whole blame upon Him who foreknew these things, simply because He foreknew them? But where is there room for such an opinion? For if I should behold someone clearly cast down into a precipice, and then observe his death; or if I should see another raging with a sword drawn against his neighbor, I shall see the slain man, but I shall not suffer punishment as the perpetrator. But if this is ridiculous and full of madness, how is it not considered an audacious fury, when those who have committed the act ought to be blamed, to drag the cause of any evil toward the divine prescience? But if prescience is free from blame, can a prediction be held liable for the guilt? Something does not happen for the reason that it is foreknown and foreseen, but because men were going to do, by their own spontaneous motion, the things they ought not to have done; these things can in no way be hidden from the eye of God, which permeates and reveals all things. Therefore, even the blessed Peter did not deny the Lord because the Lord predicted it, but because he was about to deviate through the denial, his Master therefore foreknew and openly predicted it. C
QUESTION XCVIII
[Coisl. CCLXI. Taur. CCLII.]I shall give you a prompt solution to your question. “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true”: read this as a question; by this, the Savior refutes and undermines the suspicion of the Jews. But it is: “Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.” Consider that the Lord in this place is setting forth and pronouncing His own sentiment: and this pretext admits no access for doubt: or if you prefer (for the ability to solve all doubts is difficult to come by), our Lord Jesus Christ was constituted in a twofold manner, namely, from Deity and humanity. That saying: “If I bear witness of myself,” etc., is to be understood according to the laws of human nature, just as we shall accept many other things besides. For no man is a witness worthy of belief when bearing witness of himself: but [the saying] “If I bear witness of myself,” etc., is according to the dignity and power of the Deity. For the supreme Nature of all and the Lord is in need of no witness or confirmation from elsewhere; in that it provides for the faith to be applied to Itself from within and from Its own house; but further, it is as a fountain of faith’s existing and subsisting, and as an origin for all other things to which faith is applied. And I would believe that these things suffice as summarized above. There are, moreover, not a few other solutions to the aforementioned, which are more widely extended… D
than those you might easily encounter, having become accustomed to the reading of the Fathers, nor do I perceive any necessity why I should establish convenience for myself from the discoveries of others; I will therefore gladly omit them. It must be known, however, that that saying, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing” (John VIII, 54), must either be read as an interrogation, or understood according to the laws that are congruent with human nature. And thus, there will be no reason why we should be led astray by any questions.
QUESTION XCIX
. [Coisl. CCLXII. Taur. CCLIII.] A Edited by Montagu, ep. 181 to Eulamp., pp. 269-270. Do the words of the disciple in John XIV, 5 conflict with the preceding words of the Master?In that Lordly pronouncement, “Where I am going you know, and the way you know,” (John XIV, 4) there is found no inconsequence or contrariety in the interrogation of the disciple: “Lord, we do not know where you are going, and how can we know the way?” For this is not stated simply, nor indefinitely, nor without a certain preceding argument; for it has something preceding to which it is subjoined, namely that: “I will come again and will receive you to myself.” (John XIV, 3) B When He had said this, He adds, as if it were the reason for the reception, distributed in three ways: first, that the disciples may abide where the Master is; that they may know where He is going; and that they may know the way. For He says: “I will come again and will receive you to myself.” Why? “That where I am, you may be also; and where I go you know, and the way you know,” (John XIV, 4) the “that” being communicated to those three causes, as is often His custom. Therefore, to know the way and where He is going, He says, was not yet known to them; just as neither was the fact that they would be with Him in the heavens; C but these things were set aside as rewards for them at the time of His return. There are, therefore, three things which He promises His disciples upon His return. Thomas, admiring the magnitude and excellence of the promises, inasmuch as he was not yet able to grasp even the smallest things, reasonably doubts how they will enjoy the greater ones. For it is altogether less to simply know where something is than to hold to the way leading to it; and this is even less than to rest in the sought-after place. Consequently, the disciple doubts, and the voice of the inquirer does not stand against the opposite. For He does not affirm that they either then hold to the way, or know where He is going, or their conversation with Him in the heavens; D but that these things will be noted to them in the future, when He Himself will return and their reception will be confirmed. And that return of the Priest is the appearance perfected among the disciples after the cross and the resurrection, when, recognizing Him most plainly as God, they learned both the way and whither He goes; and that they would remain with Him in the enjoyment of ineffable goods; nor were they suffering any distraction here, but were gladdened by hope, not otherwise than if they were already dwelling there with Him. By this is certainly meant either that: “I come again,” or He understands the return in His second and formidable advent, when both that blessed place and the way and the delight
they shall eternally possess through such experience.
Question C
A *Why did the angel not come to Joseph before he fell into doubt concerning the Virgin?*When Joseph was being distracted by inextricable thoughts, the angel was present to settle their discord. For as he doubted concerning the birth and labored entirely in uncertainty, it is sufficiently evident from his thoughts what he was about to do: “He thought,” it is said, “to put her away privily.” Nor would he have thought to put her away, either secretly or at all, had he been persuaded that that swelling of the womb had been procured by adultery. For since he was a foremost lover of justice, he would have quickly handed her over to the law and punishment for such a flagrant crime. B Indeed, he had in no way persuaded himself of this, since the virtue of his betrothed was incredible; and the fitting guardianship of the suitor excluded every wicked suspicion, yet he could not understand that the conception was by divine operation; for that action surpassed all human thought. He fluctuated, therefore, lost in thought as to what he ought to do, from which he might please God. When he was turning over such troubled thoughts, God sent the angel to the matter at hand—he who had miraculously caused that swelling in the virginal womb—so that he might stabilize Joseph in those things in which he ought to have remained completely firm and steady. C He says, therefore: “Fear not to take,” and so forth. Thou, he says, hast secretly determined in thy mind to put away the virgin, fearing to keep her, who is impregnated by an unknown; but I command thee to take her and keep her with thyself: “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;” and not only does he declare the pregnant one guiltless, and fill her with glory and dignity beyond human nature, but he is born as Savior and redeemer to the whole world. D Opportunely, therefore, the angel did not appear to Joseph earlier, but when ambiguous thoughts were disturbing him; for when the waves are lifted up most vehemently, then is the calm most longed for. In that which he says, “thy wife,” he intends to signify her who is addicted to no one, and who has bestowed neither sight nor thought upon another, but teaches that she has kept the state of a wife whole and inviolate, so that she has not even in spirit violated the laws of betrothal. Moreover, it is from ancient usage to call those "wives" whom only the bond of betrothal has connected, even if the law of intercourse is not observed for them.
Question CI
*What does it mean: “Sell that ye have, and give alms,” A etc.?*I know the doubt proposed by you formerly, both more bitterly and...
more virulently proposed and devised by Julian the Apostate. What I once said to him on this matter, and what my memory has preserved, I have written down for you now, and I believe it will provide a sufficient solution.
He used to say, as if celebrating a festival in his insults against the Truth: “Hearken to an excellent counsel, yet one joined with political prudence: ‘Sell that ye have, and give to the poor. Make yourselves bags which wax not old.’ Who could give a precept more in accordance with political order? For if all were to obey you, who would be the buyer? Who would praise this doctrine? If it were to prevail, neither city, nor nation, nor a single house would stand. For how could a house be bought with a price, if all things were sold and partitioned?” By such reasonings, the Apostate, pouring ridicule upon the divine command, believes himself to have acted cleverly and nobly.
But the word of Truth, as if delivering a stinging blow, thus rejects and hisses at his childish and rotten reasoning. First, it asserts that it is no wonder if, through the same command from which any modest and prudent person would derive benefit, that most wicked renegade has set himself to vomit forth blasphemies instead of salvation, harm instead of benefit, and insults instead of gratitude. For it is possible to see that every good thing, according to the different disposition of men toward it, is bounded by these two things: namely, choice and aversion. The former leads those who choose it toward a better order, making them even more spectators of beauty and genuine lovers, increasing that love by the addition of theoretical apprehension. The latter [aversion], however, driving its own kindred and intimates as far away as possible, dragging them through precipices, crags, and infinite errors—once it has been separated from the inclination toward the good and has induced a profound oblivion of the beauty seen—accustoms them to delight only in the darkness of evil, and renders them blind and no less enemies of their own salvation.
Thus Julian, having his whole soul befouled and shrouded in the darkness of apostasy, and having been deprived of the eyes through which one might behold that which truly exists, declares himself an enemy and opponent of those commands which reform us toward all that is best. Nor does he cease to bark at the exhortation, however much it is applied, and he seeks to mock that which is truly deemed worthy of praise and admiration. For that utterance: “Sell what you have, and give alms,” what does it lack of compassion, or of genuine love of man for man? But as for self-control and temperance, what master in philosophy teaches these more clearly than this command? Does it not grant freedom from all those passions which avarice knows how to beget? For where is there theft, where is there robbery, where is there plunder, once avarice has been abolished
when the distribution of one's own property is seen to be a matter of earnest concern? Disputes, B fights, and contentions do not disappear immediately upon the unsparing use of wealth. But how could a licentious and prodigal life find an entry, if almsgiving prevails and consumes all that is superfluous for the needs of the indigent, allowing no man to run riot in the surfeit of luxury or any other pleasure, from which the more shameless passions of the flesh are wont to sprout? How, then, could humanity and community—a disposition ready for the mercy of the destitute—overturn cities, nations, houses, and families? How could the removal of rapine, robbery, or of any injustice and tyranny whatsoever, be the subversion of human society? For one who has not spared his own possessions for the sake of the common benefit, who yields his own profit to his neighbors, and who carries himself far above any attachment to material things, how could he be led captive by any of the aforementioned passions? Rather, how could he not be pure from all these, procuring for himself the things that are truly good, and for his fellow citizens—not only through the aid which he provides to those in need, but also through his own personal way of life—affording a great benefit and setting forth an example of a philosophic and noble life? C And as for a city inhabited by such men, who hold their goods in common, who stretch out their hands full of mercy, who banish all force and violence, who honor justice, and, to speak concisely, who treat their neighbors on equal terms with themselves—is such a city destined for destruction by its neighbors? Nay, it will surely possess both a stability and a glory better and more lasting than those cities which, in the longest of times, have possessed a happiness measured out by and joined with a long duration.
But the wise Julian, as it seems, does not desire this; rather, he wishes his citizens to exert a heavy hand, to acquire wealth for themselves from the labor of others, and to spare neither the audacity of robbery, nor of secret, D nor of open, conspiracy. And if it should be necessary to insult others through tyranny, if one must act with more ferocity and cruelty than Phalaris, if one must surpass all those who have been heralded for every kind of wickedness, he wants them to omit and avoid nothing at all, so that they may make their own affairs larger, and prepare and store up an even more abundant harvest of pleasure and material for desire of every kind; so that they may afterwards indulge in license more securely, living for their bellies and their private parts, and restricting the life joined with honor and ambition, which ought to endure over a very long span, to nothing other than that which these men now live. For that counsel is by no means good which, while building up cities through anxious care, and while by its deep and great providence holds nations together and strengthens houses, in what it has chosen to profess, instead of friends...
it substitutes lovers of money; for mutual love, snares; for compassion, lack of mercy; and, to express it briefly, instead of being best in all respects, it acts to introduce the worst state of affairs in all things. For it is clear that just as one who shrinks from avarice draws all virtues along with him, so the disease of avarice drags along with it every kindred wickedness. But therefore, as I was saying, A this fine counselor—this scoffer at the Master’s commandment—is one who, instead of the best things, suggests that men should choose the worst, and maintains that, without this, they could not live happily, nor could a city, nor a nation, nor even a house be sustained. And he does not even stop at the greatest point, but suggests that if men do not choose to be the most worthless of all, they cannot be good in any respect. To such an end does his counsel and policy lead—an end of audacity against the divine command, of a scoffing tongue, and of clever arguments for subversion. Yet, if nothing else, you ought to have remembered the dogs you admire, and to have felt shame before Diogenes, Antisthenes, Crates, and the rest of your wonderful choir of dogs. Even if they did adulterate the character of true poverty with a spirit of exhibitionism, yet they appeared to hate the love of wealth; they desired to seem to embrace a simple life and made much of a life free from avarice. In their company, whom you adore, you could have blurted out that famous apophthegm of yours: "If everyone wished to obey you, no nation, city, or house would still exist." This is that very question of yours, to be spewed out as bile against the commandment—that question so bright in your own eyes: "How could a house or dwelling be sustained?" But you, who should have posed these things to your dogs, admire them, yet hold those divine oracles up to ridicule, which introduce a far better way of living, one that shrinks from wickedness. What is this? Why do you aim the conclusions of your venom only at this teaching, and why do you violently sharpen the darts launched by your wicked disposition, when you could, if you wished, babble just as much against other things as against these? "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." B But if everyone shines, who will be the ones to see, and to glorify God for the things they see? "Give, and it will be given to you"; if everyone chooses to give, who is there to receive? "Forgive, and you will be forgiven"; if everyone forgives, who are those to whom they will forgive? "Love your enemies"; if everyone loves, where will those who are enemies at heart appear? If everyone, when struck on the right cheek, ought to turn the other for equal insult, where will those be who deliver the blow? There are infinite things of this kind; and, to express everything in one word, there will be no divine exhortation, no C command, regarding the action of one toward another.
A For as for the commandment that exists in the union of persons, he who divides these from their mutual connection and relation, and then deems it fit to force everyone into one or the other side of the division—that is, from which the action is proposed—he will surely, with ease, take the remainder for the destruction of the commandment, by the false and absurd position fabricated by him, having the conclusion [he seeks] as a result. And he will inquire most pompously, with irony and empty arrogance: "If all perform this, who are they upon whom the action is performed?" Thus, since it is easy to make an assault against almost the entire teaching of the Spirit, by this high and active sally of yours, how is it that, if not on all, at least on most [commandments], you have not applied such a searching of yours, but have confined it to one single commandment, which was your piety and devotion? For thus we would have wondered even more at the facility and depth of your arguments. B But this was a device of malice rather than of folly. For he knew, he well knew, that by hurling the same refutation against all the Lord's commandments, his trickery would be easily detected, seeing that even an ordinary person can perceive that not all the saving commands would provide the same occasion for subversion by their own nature; but he hoped rather to escape noticed by limiting his calumny to one, and thus to find a greater opportunity for his own malice to be brought to bear against the blameless. So that even by those things through which he studied to remain hidden, he triumphed over the malice and rottenness of the arguments he himself produced. C But he ought, having indulged in such babble and idle sophistries, not to have stopped at the insult against one of the categories of persons; but, with equal celerity of mind and a versatile spirit, he should have inquired and said: "If all, instead of selling, should choose to buy, who would there be to sell?" For what is the difference between casting everyone into the category of sellers and seeking buyers, or conversely, referring [them] to those who bid, and then searching out and scrutinizing those who wish to sell? But let this be passed over. What then? Do you wish for all men to become good and virtuous, and superior to faults? Or does this displease you? But if all are good and virtuous, where is the need for laws? Where is the labor, the zeal, and the providence of the lawgivers? And yet, the laws were ordained providing for this very thing, that men might become good and virtuous; will justice not then pass into tragelaphs and scindapsuses? D For where is justice, if there is no injustice? And where is judgment, if no one is doing injustice? And who, then, is doing injustice, when all have been transferred to the better sort? And will not gentleness also depart along with it? For to whom would one be gentle, if there is no one present to provoke? Where is the one who provokes, and against whom? And what is the cause? For a good man, as a good man, has no one against whom, even if he wished, he could be provoked; and it is manifest that he would not wish...
D to do so, because in this, your utterly wicked insinuation, you are guilty of a great and grievous charge against one who desires men to be good and noble. For if this teaching should prevail, all the most excellent of virtuous deeds will vanish. The laws themselves will become an empty name, and will be considered a superfluous tumult. And I do not yet even mention that, through this, the removal of the good is accomplished, nor that the choice of the best is shown to be the introduction of the worse. For your enthymemes—those in which you urge political matters upon us and say, "Can anyone name a command more political than this?"—are not full of wisdom and political theory. Yet, for one who all but worships the republics of Plato—republics that are full of ten thousand acts of licentiousness, full of ten thousand conflicts against themselves, most hostile to every human polity, and which, throughout all time, were non-existent and unsubstantial—for one who keeps those in his memory and prides himself upon them, should he not have been thoroughly ashamed even to let the mere name of "republic" pass his lips? And yet you have been so bold as to even mock us with this! And such is your effectiveness that, while you are eager to censure things, you praise them unawares; and as for those things you strive to bring praise to, you do not perceive that you are censuring them. But I leave this, then, for the moment.
You have thought, by your great wisdom, that the Savior had as his primary purpose the handing down of a political art. How, then, do you not bring accusations (though you are most prone to find fault, and breathing with hubris) that He prescribed nothing regarding generals, or military camps, or soldiers; nor how one must go out against enemies in battle, nor when to make treaties; nay, not even at how much grain or other things should be sold? And are you not vexed that He did not introduce any guidance regarding market-officials, judges, and legislators, what sort of men they shall be, and how many? O blind and foolish one, have you lain buried in such a deep sleep (and this, too, while spending your nights sleepless in your vain labor against the divine oracles) that you have not even received the perception of this: that our God and Savior had no primary intention of establishing political forms and their order? For He knew, He knew that people are sufficiently instructed by experience to obtain preparation for these things: for need and necessity provided them with the learning daily, and the mistakes committed by predecessors provided sufficient correction for those who were to act in similar situations. And if any error was admitted therein, it would be easily reduced to a pre-eminent state. The primary purpose for the Savior was the salvation of souls, the philosophical institution of a more sublime life. For by this was taught rest D from the passions, conversion to the supreme good, and communion and union with Him, not the care of some civil way of life or bodily happiness. Indeed, this admonition of our Savior is, to those who love the flesh and the body—as it is for you—not pleasing, but seems intolerable. If, therefore, there was any reason, even if it were entirely teeming with falsehoods, you ought to have observed the consequences, nor
that the Lord’s commandment is broken by ironical speech, but that it is neither philosophical nor the foundation of a philosophical life. But you, while accusing that of which it accepts no blame—even though in this you have been caught speaking foolishly—nevertheless, regarding those points by which such a commandment might be censured, you have not dared even to mention them, and you have exposed the contentious, malicious, and rotten nature of your own opinion with an irrefutable argument. And you have even involuntarily borne witness that the commandment is above all blame and calumny. Observe then, further, how, by postulating the impossible for yourself, you seem to deduce the consequent absurdity against another. For by saying, “If all were to sell, who would be the buyer?” you draw in an absurdity by means of an impossible proposition; yet you imagine that the crime is not of the same stupidity, but that the commandment being slandered provides the cause of the guilt. For it is not possible—even if Christ were to advise this many times, even if He were to bind it with myriads of threats, even if He were to join lightnings, thunderbolts, and chasms in the earth to His words—it is not possible for all to choose to sell at the same moment, so that no one avaricious and greedy for wealth is left behind. For such people exist always and everywhere. Virtue is not easily accessible to all; it is sufficient if many strive for it individually. Nor indeed is that a difficulty, nor to be observed in any virtue; for fewer love virtue than vice. Nevertheless, one who takes up the care of the human race ought not to omit giving counsel or cease from instruction because not all obey. But because, starting from this, many flee what is evil and choose what is better, for this reason all must be encouraged to pursue virtue. And it is also permitted to observe C how this clever man, swift in his speculation, while noticing nothing, uttered that saying: “For how would all sell? Are all rich, and is there no poor man? Is there no one who even lives in mere sufficiency?” And yet we see the majority of men examined in such states.
Divites multo pauciores sunt: ubi ergo omnes locupletes invenies, unde tibi tam obsequentes, ut res suas vendant? Sed videris ista e Platonis Republica collegisse, nempe nullibi inveniendos, nusquam exsistente tali republica. Si quis egregium tuum hoc et curiosum examen, et exquisitam ignorantiæ legem in ipsa sancita velit remittere, et admirabilia doctorum et majorum apophthegmata, risus et ludibrii argumentum abunde suppeditaretur: examen illud tuum in nos collatum, nihil præter hostilem calumniam, ambitionem gloriosuli, nihil sani suggeret: quod si in auctores regeratur, lex erit amantis viri, judicium inimicitiis vacuum, redargutio vera, nec injuria. Tua scita igitur, per tua scita evertuntur, et diffunduntur irrisa; cum D Πλούσιοι δὲ παρὰ πολὺ τῶν ἄλλων ἐλάττους. Πόθεν οὖν πάντας ἀνθρώπους πλουσίους εὗρες, καὶ πωλεῖν αὐτοὺς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα πειθηνίους ἔσχες; 'Αλλ', ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐκ τῆς Πλάτωνος τούτους συνελέξω πολιτείας, ἐκ τῆς μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς ὑφεστώσης, τοὺς οὐδαμοῦ εὑρισκομένους. Εἰ δέ τις τὴν καλήν σου ταύτην καὶ περίεργον βάσανον καὶ τὸν ἀκριβῆ τῆς ἀνοίας νόμον, ἐπὶ τὰς σὰς ἐπαφήσει νομοθεσίας, καὶ τὰ θαυμαζόμενά σοι τῶν διδασκάλων καὶ πατέρων ἀποφθέγματα, ἆρ᾽ ἔστιν ὃ μὴ γέλωτος καὶ χλεύης ὑπόθεσις εὑρεθείη; καίτοι καθ᾿ ἡμῶν προβαλλομένη σου ἡ βάσανος, ἐχθροῦ διαβολὴν καὶ φιλαιτίου δόξαν ἀνδρὸς, καὶ ἕτερον ὑγιὲς οὐδὲν μηνύει· κατὰ δὲ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπαφιεμένη, φιλοῦντος νόμος, καὶ κρίσις ἔχθρας κεχωρισμένη, καὶ ἀληθὴς ἔλεγχος, καὶ μάλα δικαίως ἂν
ἂν A be thought. Thus, indeed, your own arguments are overturned and mocked by your very self; but as for ours, they not only are not attacked by any [argument], but they also hold proof of the folly and audacity by which you hasten to slander. But if everyone were to sell everything, what house could be held in honor? O dialectical precision and cleverness! Ho! your rhetorical persuasion, and [your] acrimony! He who sees much, and from afar, the consequence! He who is heavy with his own words, and irresistible in refutations! He who reproaches us with things from the three-way crossroads! Why, would not a crone at the crossroads, having heard of your gods after all-night vigils, and soaked in wine, speak more aptly and elegantly than these [arguments] of yours? What house can be held in honor? And tell me, what is more honorable for those who have received an equal nature than equality? And what is better for the choice of those for whom it has come to pass to inhabit the same city, for the sake of enjoying a common and equal civil state? But for you, greed and tyranny are the honorable things, or B deceits, and the traps and artifices of petty swindlers and traffickers against their neighbors; for every wealth almost always has these as its sources of production, those by which the apostate thought to make honorable that which is honorable. But he is totally ignorant, as of all things, of what is truly honorable before God, and what is not so. For man, even those who are not from the herd—for those who have not kept the pure love of philosophy, but have gaped only after wealth, and the luxury and glory from it—even if the possessor of it flows with ten thousand evils, they count him honorable and blessed. But God honors the pious, and bestows glory upon those who love virtue, even if the swelling of wealth does not inflate them, nor does the pride and luxury springing from it make them conspicuous. Nay, rather, [He honors] those in whom, through these things, there is neither the desire for virtue nor the zeal for piety. C It was necessary, therefore, it was necessary that the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, who for the salvation of our race emptied Himself and in like manner became a partaker of our flesh and blood, should not look to what is sweet and acceptable to those who mind earthly things, nor consider the roots of those things which sprout evil, and sow as seed those things that produce such fruit; but that He should establish those laws and precepts through which passions are rooted out, and the perfection of every virtue and pure contemplation is accomplished: our present admonition is not lacking in these, but rather contains them in many ways. But perhaps the command escapes all absurdity and stands higher than a mere handle for words; but it did not receive an equally facile nature to go into practice; yet there is a lack of the sequence of steps, the existence in deeds, and someone might suggest the [way] to provide the most manifest substance through those very deeds, and to show the coherence in words to be in agreement with practical existence. For since this saving admonition has come forth through the Master's and immaculate lips, from that time until now there is no time to be found in which D this is not to be seen in the souls of men; being rooted and growing deep, and increasing in breadth and length, it has perfected other virtues; three thousand, five thousand formerly, and afterward an innumerable multitude of men, meeting in common...
and departing from their own possessions, set forth for common use the things they had, and there was no one poor among them (O wonderful equality, not to be hoped for unless it were practiced!), nor yet any who were rich. "For as many as were possessors," says Scripture, "of lands or houses, selling them, brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them at the feet of the apostles, and distribution A was made to each according as anyone had need." Do you hear, Julian, "as many as were possessors," these were they who sold. Were not all? But then, from that very beginning, the commandment was thus brought to fulfillment in the multitude, and it increased brilliantly and stood fast, flourishing in its operations. From that time until this very day, we see not only that the flower of its prime, which is utterly unfading, has been preserved—by which, adorning human souls, it draws them away from the most foul odor exhaling from the putrefaction of the passions, toward the saving and life-giving fragrance of the virtues—but also that its deeds have spread through all the ends of the earth, not only man by man, but people by people; and it has encompassed an infinitely vast multitude of the monastic life—that is, those who embrace the heavenly life upon earth—who have extended their works, and [have followed] the prescription of the commandment with the highest praise and commendation of all. Thus the words of our Lord are greatly efficacious and active; and for this B very reason, converting to itself the souls of men who are meritorious, and sowing the seed of the Word quite deeply, they make it so that the tree is known by its fruits, and through the fruit and the tree, the power and wisdom of the Gardener are praised—of which praise they have suggested a sufficiently abundant harvest. And yet, not even through these many and such great encomiums is its natural magnificence sufficiently manifested; for it sustains and embraces the subsistence of many other virtues as well. And surely, unless someone, struck with divine blindness by a judgment equal to Julian's, should err in the clearest light, would he not greatly admire its natural, sublime, and saving power? Those who represent the heavenly conversation by their life on earth can easily be discerned, being founded primarily upon this basis: "Sell what you possess, and give alms." Upon this, once cast, they build the other virtues, so that without this, those others would seem unable to subsist purely. Therefore, when you have first sold what you possess and distributed it to those in need, this counsel of Christ, as a work of God and as full of humanity, shall be celebrated. In this manner, C finally, men stripped bare—empty of earthly riches and passions—compose themselves for athletic contests, intent in mind upon that alone, and having their goal fixed upon that which is said by Paul: "I desire to depart, and to be with Christ." From this comes the vision of the Father, in the Holy Spirit (a completely happy vision), perfect and revealed without a mirror, and revealing the first of goods, and the desired
A end to those who behold it. Thus, truly thus, this saving and Masterly commandment not only rescued what is reasonable and consistent with great power, putting to flight and defeating every opposing force that had arisen to wage war, and putting it to shame; but it also demonstrated the sequence of the words and the blamelessness of the judgment, through the clarity B of its operations and its existence, more perfectly and wonderfully than anything under the sun; and, acting with power and nature superior to logic, it caused the shameful flush of embarrassment to settle upon those who had dared to insult it. But so much for what has been said against Julian the Apostate, who was acting wickedly and behaving insolently against our piety, before forgetfulness could overtake it. But to you, who are eager to learn and who celebrate the Divine in a manner worthy of God, I believe that even a few of the things said will suffice for the resolution of the question.
QUESTION CII. What does "ephod" mean?
C In the course of reading, we have observed that the ephod, about which you inquire, signifies three things. First, it signifies the sacred and holy robe, which it was not permitted for anyone to use except the priests. By this, it was indicated what was to be done in those matters where human judgment was too weak to see what was advantageous, for example, whether to establish a truce with enemies, or whether it was necessary to struggle in battle, and other such things. And this is the principal signification of the ephod. A second D signifies something similar in shape to the aforementioned, yet common and not priestly; it is apparent that David was clothed in this. For it says regarding David, "an ephod alone," which some called a "byssine" robe—for it was made of byssus (and byssus is a plant)—naming it from the material. But those who attribute the origin of the name to the manner of use and its form call it an "epomis" and an "ependyma." Beyond these, there is yet a third signification to be observed. For the worshippers of idols, in imitation of the priests of God, set apart robes for their own priests in the form of the ephod, patterning the fabric [E] and drawing the name from that source, calling it also an "ephod." The demons themselves made use of this imitation, bringing nothing new to the understanding of the matter; for just as the name "God" signifies the one who truly is, yet was also applied to the false, so-called gods, so too is the "ephod" divided into various significations. Nor is the name "God" the only one divided toward opposites, but also "the One who is" and "the Holy One"—for each of these signifies Him who is truly one and truly holy—yet they have been transferred also to the worshippers of demons, for the honor of their own objects of reverence, in the same way as the ephod. But you, farewell in body and soul.
QUESTION CII
A How is that which is said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," not contrary to this saying: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (20)."That law which commands, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not oppose, as some ignorant people think, that which says, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other," and whatever is of that kind. For the former rightly regulates the judge, and as a law enacted, it intends that he should be impartial towards those in litigation, and that satisfaction should be made to the one who has suffered the injury, requiring that the punishment be inflicted upon the one who did the injury. The latter, however, is not directed at the judge, nor is it a law—far from it; for in that case it would be contrary. Rather, it counsels the one who has been wronged, encouraging him toward kindness and compassion, and philosophically and most beneficially introducing advice that makes him superior to wrath and anger. For what is lost can either not be recovered, or if it is recovered, one possesses nothing more than what one had at the beginning. But the one who, through tolerance, B kindness, and compassion, overcomes an enemy, after the victory builds for himself an immortal monument of his virtue, and renders the universal Judge propitious and placated toward himself, preparing himself as worthy to suffer those things which he intended for his neighbor.
QUESTION CIII
Regarding Abel the just, who departed this life before the sinner Adam (21).The more secret and profound reason for the cause let us leave to God; but in so far as He has allowed it to be comprehended by human understanding, I shall bring it forth: that for this reason He allowed Abel, being a just man—even though he was prior to Adam, who had sinned and had received the sentence of death—to be delivered to death, so that the one who was under guilt might, through his own innocent son, conceive greater sadness in his soul and show greater repentance, so that with as little debt of transgression as possible, he might pass from here. Then, also, so that he might render that deep pit of death C rotten and empty, through the entry into it of a just man who had been affected by injury. For if he had received the one who was guilty of sin as the prince, he would have placed a firm foundation under him; but by snatching up the just man there, he unknowingly rendered completely rotten and easily destructible the foundation that he had set. But you, moreover, call to mind by thinking, whether or not the status and reason of the resurrection is not set forth long beforehand and pre-signified through this mystery? For if God is good and just, or rather the fountain and origin of both, He would not have allowed the just man Abel to depart from here unrewarded, not even for the space of a single hour. And why do I say unrewarded? But He would not have unjustly—and all the more since he was seen to be beloved of God—ignored him being destroyed; unless there is some other state and another life from thence. [The remainder of this page consists of VARIE LECTIONES and NOTAE.]
A For what do I say is unrewarded? Certainly He would not have suffered anyone to be unjustly taken away, much less a man who loved Him, if another state of life, another condition, had not been set aside for him, where He had arranged for the retribution and reward of the works done by him through the inexplicable riches of divine providence. Wherefore there is no reason for you still to doubt how it came about that Abel, the cultivator of justice and the first of all men, should have been served by death. But if you look to Enoch, who was also most just, more will be suggested to you B as to why you should not doubt how it came about that death exerted dominion over the just before the guilty; for the superior man is just by virtue of his excellence and his surpassing love of God, and (lest the doubts proposed by you be difficult to explain) he is said to have been taken by the snares of death and to have experienced its tyranny.
QUESTION CV.
BOn Circumcision.
Circumcision appears to me to represent three things: first, that it should separate the offspring of Abraham as if by a certain sign and seal, and distinguish them from the remaining nations; second, that it prefigured and foretold in itself the grace and power of the divine baptism. For just as he who was formerly circumcised was reckoned among the people of God by the seal, so he who is baptized, having the seal of Christ impressed upon himself, is inscribed in the register of the adopted children of God. And third, it was a symbol of the faithful living in grace, who cut off and mortify the tumultuous insurrections of carnal pleasures and passions C by the cutting word of faith and by ascetic labors: not cutting the body, but the heart; and being circumcised not according to the letter, but according to the spirit. Concerning these, the divine Paul, the mystagogue of such things, loudly testifies that their praise does not require human proclamation, but depends upon the judgment of God. But if it should perhaps please someone to think that Abraham originated from the Chaldean race—where by an impious custom they used to mingle carnally with their mothers, daughters, and sisters—then, in order that neither he himself nor the race from him should be defiled by ancestral customs, he was, so they say, circumcised, his foreskin being removed for the abolition of such unspeakable conduct. And for him, the circumcision of his own flesh became a division D and an aversion from his near kin, at least as far as marital coupling was concerned. For no one of the blood of Abraham, after the circumcision, could secretly or unashamedly—as the lasciviousness of the Chaldeans used to do for many ages thereafter—engage in such unspeakable practices. But let everyone enjoy his own judgment on this; certainly it was necessary that the race of Abraham should be separated: first, so that, by not mingling with other nations and being gradually drawn away into their ways, it might not suffer a perversion of its own piety and serve their abominations; second, so that the end and perfection of the divine promise might be made apparent and intelligible to everyone, as the seed of Abraham in an unnumbered...
multitude. For the truth of the promise would not have been recognized, nor would the wonder of such a multitude have been so admired, had they become mingled with other nations in the same way, rather than living separately and maintaining their own private commonwealth.
Third, a reason which is considered paramount over all others, since it was promised to the God-beloved Abraham that "in his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed." This promise could not have proceeded from any other than the Creator himself, and through his ineffable providence, which is diffused everywhere, scattered abroad, and embraces all things; for the common Creator alone had the power to bestow such a common blessing. Indeed, since this same Provider was ordaining that very one—the greatest of all, the incarnation—(which was ordained from all eternity by a divine and hidden decree), for this reason the race of Abraham was separated and removed from the commixture of other nations, so that the Creator and Lord might assume our nature from that stock, and, becoming partaker of flesh and blood in a manner similar to our own, the truth of the covenant and promise might be fulfilled in every particular and among all men: namely, in Christ our God, in whom all nations become partakers of the blessing by grace, as he descended from his loins through the principles of human generation.
And these things suffice so far, according to the sense of piety. Moreover, I think it is also clear to you that for the divine man Abraham, circumcision was in no way the cause of his faith, nor should it be judged as belonging to the order of faith; for he had believed previously, and once that earlier faith had settled within him, he received this as a seal impressed upon it. Therefore, I know that pagans and Jews babble and affirm that the foreskin was cut off for this reason, so that, being stripped of his natural ornaments, he might wash away the filth of the genitals. But although I have many things to say against them that would abundantly refute this absurd opinion, I shall set forth only this one thing, which I would gladly hear from those who babble thus: if they had seen a sword or a knife applied against the very source of the seminal flow, or against the belly, which they themselves fill with much filth and things even more abominable, and which they render a sewer. C
QUESTION CVI [Coisl. and Taur. CXXVIII].
What signifies the redundancy of the verb "am" (sum)? Edited by Montagu, ep. 208, to Leo the philosopher, pp. 305-306. Grammatical question.The redundancy of the word "am" (sum), in compound speech when the pronoun "I" (ego) precedes it, is frequent in the Divine Scriptures, yet it does not incur the charge of a solecism. If you have any doubt about this, reflect upon what is redundant in the books of the Greeks, and thus cease to doubt; for it is evident that when "some" (tines) is used with "a few" (enioi), or "themselves" (sphas autous), they signify nothing other than what the first words signify.
A multitude of words it was described. It is clear that this is a single species of *parolcia*, or redundancy. It is a figure of speech, not a grammatical ignorance; and often, when the underlying word in a construction is found among your sophists to mean nothing else but, for example, "you went off," or "you are walking," or "you are hastening," and so forth, in the form, of course, of *parolcia*. But if you wish for me to silence you with closer examples, I shall not omit this. By recalling to memory the infinitive of the verb "to be" with a participle (although there are few among the Atticists who do not use it as an ornament of speech), I know that you will blame yourself, because, having been versed in their writings where you most often detect it redundantly—most manifestly signifying nothing at all—how did you dare to impute a solecism to them, or even allow such a suspicion to enter your mind? Why, therefore, did you not fear—if it were a sin in the Greek language—to accuse the holy and divine Scripture for the redundancy of that word, which fits both cases, as if it spoke barbarously? But since I understand your judgment to be incorrupt, I have good hope that you will not accuse such a locution henceforth; but if there are any who might dare to do so, you will easily lead them, once instructed, back to the right path, as their ignorance (for ignorance is the mother of audacity) has incited them to delinquencies of this kind, and as it were, equipped them with wings.
QUESTION CVII
Curiously, why do the poets place the horn of Amalthea in the hands of the laborious Hercules?B Know that the poets place the horn of Amalthea not only in the hands of the laborious Hercules, but also in those of the learned Mercury. Do not, therefore, by giving yourself entirely over to military service and bodily toils, depart from noble studies, thinking that happiness of life will spring up for you from thence alone; rather, allow our noble Muses, which differ as much from those Hellenic ones as the natures of free men do from servile habits, and truth from adulation, to sing to you, at least in part, their honest and sweet canticles. C For the poetical race readily attributes the horn of Amalthea even to the river Achelous, because, by flowing around the subject land, it renders it fertile. Nor is it considered of great moment for a man to attain those things which even inanimate objects possess by nature. But the true and divine happiness, which is becoming to a man, and compared to which the horn of Amalthea is found to be mere sickness and poverty, one may reap solely from the divine Oracles and the cultivation derived from them.
QUESTION CVIII
What is "for the woman to have authority over her head"?That "for the woman to have authority over her head"
A does not, as the words might seem to imply at first glance, bear the meaning that the divine Paul uses here. For when we hear "to have power," some perhaps understand it as "domination" and "ruling"; but he here uses "to have power" to mean "being ordered under authority" and "submitting." And so that what is said may be clearer, and the solutions to other questions that arise alongside this same passage may be resolved for you, it must be stated from this point on: The teacher of the inhabited world commands that men keep their heads uncovered during prayer and prophecy, but that women keep theirs covered. B And he provides two reasons why he commands this: "A man," he says, "cuts his hair or even shaves it," but it is not permitted for a woman to do either of these things. Thus, even if a man keeps his head uncovered, a woman may by no means dare to do so. For the man, so as not to dishonor it, keeps it uncovered. For there is no reason to remove the hair which nature gives, and then to contrive an external covering; but for a woman, the veil is a duty. For she dishonors her head—just as much by being shaved or shorn—as she does by not being covered. For even if nature provides the one, and wise modesty the other, both are nevertheless coverings for the head; and just as she who is shorn has set aside her natural covering, so too does the one who is uncovered remove the veil of modest shame, and becomes in this respect identical to the one who is shorn. C This, then, is one reason why the one must be covered and the other must not. Or rather, one who examines it more precisely will say that these are not even a rendering of causes, but a refutation and negation of those who attempt to find fault with the legislation and, because of the community of nature, demand that women do the same things as men. But whether it is a cause or a refutation of its objectors, such would be the thought. He sets forth a second cause, as follows: "The woman," he says, "is by nature meant to be under the authority of the man; for from him she primarily derived the physical principles of her genesis. And the man holds power over many other things, but the woman is the most glorious and precious thing of his power and authority." This is what he says: "The woman is the glory of the man." Since, therefore, the woman is the more glorious and distinguished part of the man's authority, she is obligated to do whatever honors the man as a principal. D And she fulfills this by having his power upon her head, and demonstrating her subjection by covering her own head while regarding him as her head, and referring and dedicating her whole self to him as to a head. For it is shameless and ungrateful not to acknowledge him as the principle and cause of her existence, and not to render the original honor. For if she would not consider anything else—though there are many things—nor respect any humans as her source and refuse to be subject; yet, he says, she should at least be ashamed and intimidated before the angels, who are the witnesses and observers of her genesis and progression from the man, and for this reason, it would be just for her to be subject to the man and to wear the veil upon her head as a symbol of her subjection. For this he declared
by saying, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The man, however, is no longer subject to the same law of subjection; wherefore he has no need to cover his head. But, one might say, “If the man has Christ as his head, and as the most glorious of his authority (for he is the image and glory of God, he says, just as the woman is also declared to be), why does he himself not cover his head?” To which it may be said that for this very reason he ought rather not to cover it, so that he may also be shown A in ruling and exercising power, and not appearing to be under others, representing the common Master, of which carrying the head uncovered is a sign. For that God rules and is Lord, having appeared as the head of the man, not of him only, but also of all things, no word of doubt exists. Wherefore there is no need for signs to this end, demonstrating subjection; for His power over all things and His lordly authority are acknowledged by all. But that it is necessary for the woman to be set under the authority of man is not equally evident to all, and it behooves her especially to know this and to demonstrate it by symbols. For many, even while carrying these symbols, rise up against many, and changing their own order, have filled not only private houses but even cities with noise and confusion. And if this were not so, and they were not ordered to preserve [the symbol of] subjection, what would not happen? Wherefore, reasonably and for the benefit of life, the blessed Paul both ordained the other things and supported them with arguments both wise and natural, but B also political, by which the man is commanded to have his head uncovered, but the woman is not permitted to [be] uncovered.
QUESTION CIX
Quid sibi vult illud: “Non si recte obtuleris,” etc.?To those who are desirous of learning I am (how shall I say it without envy?) gracious. You will find the solution to the questions proposed by you, both easy and concise. Therefore, that which was said to the author of fratricide, “If you had offered correctly, but had not divided correctly, you have sinned; be silent,” [you should] know that it is capable of receiving various interpretations. For one who supposes it to have been said assertively will bring out such a hidden meaning as this: “You cannot by any means offer correctly, because you did not divide correctly.” That is: “Because you did not divide correctly, neither did you offer correctly; for a correct offering depends upon a correct distribution; wherefore you have sinned, and [so] be quiet.” But if one wishes that it be understood not as said assertively, but C brought forth in the form of a question (for this also seems likely), then the sense will be this: “Is it not the case that even if you have offered correctly, yet if you have not divided correctly, you have sinned?” As if to say: “Do you then think that because you have offered correctly, although you did not divide correctly, you appear not to have sinned?” For nothing forbids someone being said to offer correctly who offers a sacrifice to God alone, who is over all, and to no other; but yet, not immediately to divide correctly, when he does not offer [the remainder]
A in dividing the law congruent to it. Whoever wishes to serve God without reproach, must, before all else, divide correctly, and in like manner offer correctly. And if the passage should be understood as a single period, it will be subject to such speculation as this. But if one should understand the form of the utterance not as simple and single, but, as it were, contracted from two shorter ones, and thus preserving the period—so that one part of it is stated elliptically, and the other fully—the force of the truth is not thereby violated, thus: "Even if you have offered correctly, you have sinned if you have not also divided correctly." For just as to offer correctly is pious, so to not divide correctly is liable to the charge of impiety. And this is the account of the syntax of the phrase, and the meaning that emerges from it.
But indeed, the part "to offer correctly" is obvious of itself; but "not to divide correctly" perhaps requires further explanation. Therefore, he divides correctly who does not dedicate just any gifts to God, but who, with right judgment, discerns and divides them, and thus offers what are by far the best. For it is impossible that the most excellent and precious of all things should not be offered and consecrated to God, the producer, giver, and cause of all good things. Abel is shown to have been such a one, loving God with a pure and sincere mind. It is related of him that he brought as an oblation from the firstborn and B the fatlings; that is to say: those which, in the first production, were superior to the rest in being firstborn and in being fat and fatted. For from the omentous, well-fed, and fattened ones, and those that had been tended with much diligence, he gave the more choice and the best. Both brothers had the same zeal in offering; but in dividing and choosing the best, they were not the same. But Abel, just as he had offered correctly, so also had he divided correctly; whereas Cain either did not even offer correctly, because he did not divide [properly], or, if it be granted that he offered correctly, he nevertheless fell far short in the selection and separation; for he did not offer the most excellent, but imperfect things. This appears in that "God did not look upon his sacrifices," nor, as He did with Abel's, did He consume them with divine fire—for C some have so handed down the event—and from that he was convicted of the incorrectly performed division.
And thus it stands: "If you have offered correctly, have you not also divided correctly, have you sinned?" What follows: "Quiesce" (Rest), as if He were saying to the sinner, "Be quiet within yourself, and diligently consider the absurdity of your deed, and by repentance acquire forgiveness for your sin. Through quiet and a settled mind, that which was overlooked is more easily discerned and judged." But perhaps He also wished to restrain the impetus by which he was being miserably carried away: "You have sinned," He says, "rest; do not add another [sin] to your wrongdoing; restrain your madness within me; keep both your hands and your mind free from fraternal blood."
But that passage: "Unto you shall be his turning, and you shall rule over him," is said either concerning the offered gift, D as if He wished to say, "The thing is unworthy that I should accept it, therefore it is turned back to you, and you shall still be its master, as you were before it was offered," or, not concerning what was offered, but concerning that in which
the sin was committed, the Word indicates—that is to say: "You, and no other, have become the cause of the sin; therefore its turning back, and its reference will come back to you, and you shall rule over it," having appeared as the leader of that neglect regarding the divine, from which the rest of the sins also proceed.
If, however, someone should say that this was stated for the sake of consolation (for Cain was grieved, if not because he had sinned, but because he had fared worse in the sacrifices than his brother), this does not wander far from the infinite and inscrutable philanthropy of God; as if a loving father would say to a child who had sinned: "Do not collapse, nor be swallowed by grief because your brother has surpassed you with his gifts; for even if he has been preferred because of the things he did right and lawfully, nevertheless he will turn back to you and will be under you, and by the prerogative of the firstborn you will again hold the seniority, if by repentance you correct yourself from the sin; for the authority over him that you have received, in that you were the first to loosen the maternal birth pangs, shall be inalienable for you." B And these things, I think, are sufficient for an epistle.
I know that there were once some of the most ancient of the Jews who committed to memory—who seemed to be endowed with knowledge before others—who for this reason think that it is said that Cain did not divide correctly, because he gave gifts received from inanimate things, and not from animate things, as Abel did (for inanimate things lag behind and are inferior to those that are animate in many ways); and for this reason God, the God of all, was pleased with the gifts as being animate, but despised the sacrifice of the other because it was brought in from inanimate things. But if it were thus, C it would not be the division, but the sacrifice itself that would be accused, because he did not offer animals instead of fruits. But this is nowhere seen to have been blamed by the divine voice; indeed, it did not blame the gifts at all, but rather brought the rebuke upon the division.
But considering that if the one had set for himself the life of tilling the ground as his first fruits, and the other that of shepherding, how is it not irrational to assume that Cain was at fault, because he did not offer from others' property, but from his own? And one might add this, that it was not in the offering of the sacrifice so much, but in the choice of their way of life that one should have been disparaged for choosing to till the earth, and the other accepted for shepherding. For the difference in their occupations has been established as the origin and cause for the one, as they supposed, having sinned by sacrificing fruits, and the other having been found acceptable by making animals his gifts. How then, in the later laws, were fine flour and ears of corn and loaves of showbread counted as an offering to God? And if the "very good" D was said—not of some of the creatures, but of all—by the creative Word, and they have been made, what logic is there in the Creator being passed over, with the fruits of the earth, which are even more food for man, being held in dishonor and as an abomination? Therefore, one should prefer the aforementioned interpretation to such an idea. For this, even to those by whom the rationale of our pure and bloodless sacrifice is unknown, seems in some way to sing in harmony; from which also Julian the apostate, writing against religion, while putting forth foolish and ridiculous things, nevertheless seemed not ineptly or absurdly to rebuke the Christians because they did not honor the Divinity with slaughtered animals.
QUESTION CX
Edited by Montague, ep. 213, to Euschemon, pp. 313, 314. Concerning the apparition of Christ in Jerusalem, which preceded the apparition promised in Galilee.
The Savior anticipates A His promise on account of the faint-heartedness of the disciples; and before the arrival in Galilee, He manifests Himself in Jerusalem. And this is by no means a violation of His promise, nor does it fall short; rather, it is a swift fulfillment flowing from His great loving-kindness. If someone, being wayward, should force themselves to twist the truth into a lie, saying that He is not truthful, because He promised to provide the vision in Galilee but bestowed it in Jerusalem, let such a one rather understand this: if the Savior, having said that He would provide the disciples the enjoyment of that blessed vision in Galilee, had then not provided it at all, or if He further added that they would by no means see Him in Jerusalem—and then He appeared—would one not be excessively foolish to jump to the suspicion of a lie? But since He promised the apparition in Galilee, and fulfilled that, and bestowed the one in Jerusalem as well, where is there any opening for a lie, even if it were left in some mere fantasy? Nay rather, is this not, as one might say, a twofold fulfillment of the truth: both of what He promised, and of what He bestowed without having promised it?
Consider also this: if He had simply promised that He would be seen by the disciples in Galilee, and He was seen elsewhere beforehand, it would be acknowledged that He did not lie. But if He said they would see Him when they went there, and they did not yet go—for the miracle of the resurrection was not yet firmly rooted in them, so that they, leaving Jerusalem, would expect to see in Galilee Him who had risen—how is the notion of a lie B and of calumny not utterly senseless? Apart from what has been said, one must especially observe that, even if the Savior stood among and was seen by the disciples in Jerusalem, yet they did not fundamentally behold Him. For how could they, who thought they were seeing a spirit? And even if they believed afterwards, this was not something great; for what was it, save that "A spirit has not flesh and bones," and that He who had died had risen? Wherefore also, rebuking them, He said: "Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts ascend in your hearts?" This was not the behavior of those who were confirmed in their souls, who held to the truth with immovable reasoning. But in Galilee they truly beheld and saw; for there it was made clear to them, being revealed, that He who they were looking at with their eyes was none other than He who had despoiled the power of death; he who "had received all power and dominion in heaven and on earth," when they received the great and lofty dignity of the apostolate over the entire inhabited world. Therefore, in Galilee C they truly saw their teacher, the Lord, and Him...
as Lord and master of all, and as the bestower of the grace of the all-holy Spirit, and as the treasurer of other goods, more clearly than they had known before. Therefore, truly and in a manner becoming to God, Christ spoke—even though He had already shown Himself in Jerusalem—that when they arrived in Galilee, they would see Him there. A
QUESTION CXI
(In Psalm cxxxv: 15 and Psalm cxv: 4, according to the Septuagint)"The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men's hands." What, then, of the libation vessels of the Christian religion, and the B chalices, and the censers, and the forms of the cross, and ten thousand other things? For I omit the symbols of the Mosaic sacrifice. Are they not silver, and gold, and wood, and colors, and the work of men's hands? God forbid! For they are not silver, but of silver; they are not gold, but made of gold; they are not wood or colors, but they possess that matter. Yet there is something else that results from these, a marvelous work; for they are not the work of human hands sporting with matter, without any divine operation, constructing what has happened to enter their thoughts. For this reason, those former things are nothing else but the matter itself, treated with contempt, and the labor of human hands without any reason or consideration; but these latter things are fashioned in matter, and have hands that minister to them, but hands moved from above. For they serve the inspirations from above, and the prudent reason, and things that promote the judgment of piety. C Pay attention, Iconoclast, and do not be ashamed to learn the things through which you will be delivered from a terrible shame, and from which you will discover how to avoid an inevitable judgment: just as our libation vessels, chalices, and censers, the figure of the cross, and similar things are not gold, nor silver, nor the matter of wood or colors, nor the works of human hands; so too, our sacred representations of images are not gold, silver, bronze, colors, nor (God forbid!) the works of human hands. For the divine and unchangeable proclamation of the ancient apostolic and patristic tradition, as a living wisdom, taking hold of the matter and working according to its own D and sacred laws, and skillfully treating it, brings into it the form and figure of the image, permitting nothing whatever of material disorder or human curiosity to exist there freely; but, displaying its own work entirely and completely, it exhibits pure and unmixed representations of the prototypes, as befits a sacred matter and sacred fame, in a manner becoming to the sacred and in accordance with sacred typology.
You have, therefore, as I think, a brief account through which you will both demonstrate that you are bearing the fruit of the piety of your forefathers, and you will stop the mouths of the heretics. For as regards the account of the matter and the underlying subject, just as the table of God and the table of demons, the divine sacrifice and the diabolical sacrifice...
and the A mysteries of the Gentiles and those of the Christians, and many other things which are at the furthest extreme of opposition, have but little that is different between them; yet in usage and invocation, in consecration and in sacramental operation, and in a myriad of other ways, they possess an ineffable distinction.
In this same way, then, the idols of the Gentiles and the images of the Christians, the temple of God and the altar of idols, and indeed the liturgical vessels of the Greek sacrifice and the vessels of our own pure and unbloody sacrifice—these two, which are thus separated into opposite ranks, sometimes have the same matter, in no way differing; yet according to their forms, and the things that induce their species, and their capacity for producing diversity, an infinite and scarcely expressible incompatibility is seen in them. Wherefore, the matter [of the idols], being in no way changed to a better state, but rather partaking abundantly of the worse, is not unjustly called wood, stones, gold, silver, or works of men’s hands; they are profane, manifesty unclean, and impure, partly because of the matter, partly because of the craftsman, and partly because of those to whom they are impiously and atheistically dedicated. For this reason, though they have a mouth, they are reproached for their speechlessness; though they have feet and hands, they are reproached for their immobility; B though they have ears, noses, and whatever else [a body might have], they are called void and empty of sense, action, and purpose. For if their archetypes are naught, or wretched, or sacrilegious, their craftsman is among the most wretched of the impious, and the worship offered to them is most hateful to God; from whence could any grace, glory, operation, or more honorable title be acquired for them?
But the holy and venerable sacramental vessels of the Christians, and the temples, and the icons, and the other symbols of our divine religion, although they may have the same matter subject to them, yet are they transformed into something far better; for they are perfected by usage, invocation, and mystagogy, and by the divinity of the archetypes whose characters they are fashioned to represent, and by a myriad of other sanctifications. For this reason they are no longer to be considered or named merely wood, or stone, or silver, or gold—no, nor even colors void of the power and grace that sits upon them and specifies them; rather, they are called holy, honorable, glorious, and venerable. C For since they partake of the heavenly operation, and communicate it to those for whom they are dedicated, and bear the name and represent the form [of the archetypes], and since they carry our mind across and transport it to those archetypes, and procure for us the divine favor, and attract good things, they are not named after their matter, nor after any other unsuitable property belonging to that matter which could also apply to its opposites, but from those things in which they participate, to which they are brought, and which they serve and to which they are dedicated; from those things, they are known and named by the pious with the utmost degree of truth and justice. D
QUESTION CXII [Coisl. and Taur. CXXXIV]
Published by Montacute, ep. 216, to George of Nicomedia, pp. 318-323. Explanation on Rom. VIII, [38-39] sqq. "Whom nothing can separate from the love of God, not"A death with which he is threatened; not the promise of life; not the things from thence; not the things here; how does he himself willingly separate, and that for the sake of his kinsmen according to the flesh?” And not only does he endure the separation, but he even desires it and prays to be separated from Christ: “For I myself prayed to be anathema from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” In this way, someone expanding upon your difficulty might say: “What then? How can things that are incompatible stand together?” In the first place, it must be said that these things do not conflict with one another; for the indivisible longing for Christ is not contrary to loving one’s neighbor so much that one does not consider the salvation of others to be of less importance than one’s own benefit. Nay, these things are in harmony with each other; for he who loves his brother, and in doing so fulfills the Master’s command, preserves pure and whole his affection toward the Master. “By this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you love one another,” and again, “On these two commandments hang the whole law and the prophets.” For it is the head, the bond, and the root of all other good deeds, both the love of God and the love of one's neighbor. “Yes,” B he says, “but here he prefers his kinsmen, and prays to be separated from God so that he might win them, whereas Christ said, ‘He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’” But how is this loving them more than Christ? If indeed they were loved by Paul for some other reason, the argument would hold weight; but if it was so that they might become Christ’s, I fail to see how his kinsmen were preferred before the Creator. For what else was the loving of them than to subject them and to win them over to the common Master? How then is it possible to love them more than Christ, when he was in fact drawing them to the obedience and love of Him? Rather, if one examines this with an impartial judgment, one will plainly discern from this the torch of divine love that was always burning in Paul. For he was not content with only bringing himself, but he strove to bring others as well—not only by tongue and miracle-working hand, but by his whole life, C character, and every method—to work together toward this end. He rightly says this, provided he did not separate himself from Christ. For one cannot blame the desire to bring others, but one cannot help but censure the separating of oneself from the One to whom he was bringing the others. What then do we say? Or is it that he did not actually separate himself? For he did not say, “I pray to be separated,” but “I would have prayed,” that is, “If it were possible, if it could happen that a divine desire were overcome by a divine desire, if a God-befitting love were to outmatch a divine love, I would have struggled to undergo this.” For everything Paul did was so that he might win everyone to Christ, especially the Jews. For they were his kinsmen, guided by the Law, and those to whom the promises from above D and from the fathers belonged; yet they more than others resisted the preaching, which is why the struggle over them was all the greater; especially so that the Law might not seem to be something foreign to the common grace.
and that the souls instructed by it might not be rendered in any way less fit, so that the promises made to the forefathers might not be deemed false, and in vain; so that Christ might not be blasphemed by those by whom He ought rather to be worshipped; and so that those who were nearest in kinship A to the common Lord might not, by a portion of the immediate blood, and that a most significant one, appear to insult Him as well. For such was the soul of Paul; through everything, he desired that complete glory and worship be rendered to God through himself, through those of his own race, through the Gentiles. He could not bear to present his apostolic ministry as deficient in any portion, yet it was the unbelief of his kinsmen that especially spurred him on and scorched him. Indicating this, he said, "I could wish that I myself were anathema." In this way, he says, the burning point of longing drove me; thus the flame of affection, consuming my inmost parts, compels me to cry out; thus the love for Christ and the hastening to consecrate all to Him persuades me in my thinking. I would have wished, if it were possible, if it were allowed, if there were some saving apostasy that would grant a union with God—if there were some separation that would bind more tightly, if there were some alienation that would unite more perfectly—for the glory of Christ and the salvation of my fellow countrymen, I would not even have passed this over. For since he had shown in every way the love he bore toward Christ, having even said B in explicit words, "I am persuaded"—for so he confirms faith through works—"that neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," since he had thus traversed and distributed all existing things collectively into parts, and yet had not ended the course of his longing, finally, from things that do not even exist but are merely brought in as an argument, like a certain insatiable lover, he considers that he has offered too little to Christ, and strives to supply that deficiency, adding, as it were, verbatim: "I would willingly lay down hope itself, the very course itself, salvation itself, if more glory might thereby accrue to Christ, and if the Jewish people might be converted and saved." To think and say these things is not a separation from God—for how could it be?—but rather a kind of wonderful and supernatural union, and a most novel bond, and a most manifest demonstration of that incomparable love toward God and toward men, and, in truth, the singular C and heavenly hallmark of that blessed soul of Paul. And so let this be the first solution to the doubt, not straying, as I judge, far from the sense and sentiment of the Apostle. But since the planting of Paul is not of one kind, but not rarely puts forth with many and diverse small branches, as if from a single field of the letter, the mature fruits of new meanings, come, let us institute with prayer an assembly of the fruits, and whatever else may arise there worthy of cultivation. We see Paul not saying simply that he wishes to be separated for his fellow tribesmen after he had believed—for that would be more terrible—but he does not say "I wish" {Optarem} to be made anathema here, but "I could have wished" {Optassem}
} A that is to say, "I would have considered it more preferable, for the sake of those who had run toward the preaching of Christ, for me to have loitered a little longer at the thresholds of the legal letter and to have sat beneath its shadow, than—by having anticipated you and hastened forward—to see you running the race of faith in such a hostile manner and turning away from grace." For if he had delayed in that way, he would not have lacked anything of great importance; since when many had anticipated him, he was gripped by such fear lest he be surpassed by anyone—as he speaks with truth and freedom—that he has left everyone behind him in his course and stadium. Thus, that delay brought him no harm; he was struck by a powerful fear for those who were thus disposed toward the faith, lest by remaining hardened throughout their life, they might procure eternal destruction for themselves: he therefore preferred their salvation to his own haste, so that they might be saved.
B Consider, however, that Divine Scripture uses the word "anathema" for a misdeed or a bodily punishment; from which one should also consider that with this word Paul desired to endure the punishments of the wicked for the salvation of his fellow tribesmen; and not simply so, but as if inflicted by Christ the Judge. For this is what "from Christ" can signify, namely [Christ] pronouncing the punitive sentence. This is indeed something great and marvelous—for how could it not be?—but it introduces no separation from the desire for or the union with Christ, nor does it admit any of the previously mentioned doubts. For indeed, for anyone to wish to suffer the most extreme things in his own body for the salvation of others does not produce any diminution of the divine affection, even if it is inflicted from heaven, but rather increases it. Therefore, the divine Paul gave himself over, and wished to endure heavy and insufferable punishments, if only he might see his fellow tribesmen put aside their envy and hostile spirit against Christ, and shake off the heavy and ancient burden of the law, and become subject to the good and light yoke of grace.
It remains to see that if any man, thinking nothing alien to the writings but interpreting them by themselves, without any circumlocution, and with a sincere judgment—or according to that same divine Paul, with a spiritual one—should pass judgment upon them, not even then will he encounter anything unavoidable. For, to leave aside the marvelous wife of the patriarch, Rebecca, drawing upon herself a fearful curse so that she might lead her son by a certain art to the lot of his paternal blessing, Moses, who saw God, spoke the same things for the Jews in almost the same words, and thus abundantly dissolved all the doubts cast against the words of the Apostle. For what does he say? "If you forgive them, forgive; but if not, blot me out." But from where? Indeed, the soul of Moses was of the same kin as that of Paul, from the book of life. What is this other than: "If you will neither grant pardon to my fellow tribesmen nor unite them to yourself, then separate me from you"? With such a sincere affection was he carried toward those joined by blood. He who is blotted out from the book remains under judgment.
A And what is this, if not to say: "Unless you are reconciled to those of my own race, and unite them to yourself, O you who are intoxicated with a providence for those of the same blood that knows no moderation, separate me also from you"? For it is clear that he who is blotted out from there is condemned to separation from God; nor is there any difference in saying, "Blot me out from the book of the living, and separate me from you." O what boldness, which gained not only what is blameless, but also what is approved, not by divine favor alone, but also by one’s own labors! For the voice [of Moses] rescued the tribal people from just wrath, and did not blot out him who spoke it from the register of the ever-living. As therefore Moses, in saying and doing these things, is wonderful, so also is Paul, being seen to be more vehement in similar circumstances, even more wonderful for such things. Or does it not seem to you that he in a way made himself anathema for the salvation of his kinsmen, and in a manner tore himself from grace, when he circumcised Timothy? When he himself, while gloriously preaching the Gospel, simulated Jewish vows, shaving the hair of his head and offering the prescribed sacrifices, and not for himself only, but also for others whose companion he was, providing for them the expenses for the sacrifices? For what purpose? For this indeed, that he might win all for Christ; that he might bring in many; that he might by all means save some; B and therefore he becomes a Jew to the Jews, to those without the law as without the law, and with the weak he becomes weak. None of these things—far be it!—were in his mind and judgment, neither being under judgment nor becoming so; but he "becomes all things to all men, that he might by all means save some." For he was a skillful imitator—to sum it up—of our common Savior and Lord; for He, having suffered all things for us out of an ineffable wealth of philanthropy and emptying, did not refuse even to be called and reckoned as sin and a curse for our sake, even though He was the fountain of all blessing and the destruction of sin. Having set Him as a model for himself throughout the whole course of his life, his genuine disciple never ceased daily to transcribe and form within his own soul that admirable and desirable representation of His way of life. But regarding the question you raised, I do not know if what was needed is less than this, but certainly, beyond the bounds of a letter, you have these things in place of a solution. Farewell.
QUESTION CXIII [Coisl. and Taur. CXXXV]. On the tabernacle of testimony.
C Why, you ask, does the legislator, calling a garment woven of various colors "adulterine" and forbidding those who were formed by his pedagogy to wear it, command that the tabernacle of testimony be covered with such coverings, in which God was seen to be present and the Holy of Holies was kept? Hear, then, the reason consistent for this question and similar ones: when the divine Moses commanded such things, he meant precisely to signify that one should not D serve the holy things with a bare adherence to the letter.
A For to those who contend with the letter, the sense of what is commanded would never be attainable. For example, consider the command not to do any work at all on the Sabbath, yet priests are permitted during sacrifices both to chop wood and to slaughter; those who ought, more than others, to be models and, as it were, the archetype for the multitude, [so that they] might keep the legislation uncorrupted. And furthermore, there is the command not to construct altars from hewn stones because they are polluted; and yet, the cause of the pollution is attributed to the chisel—because it is applied to them [the stones] while they are being hewn. And by this same chisel, that which is most precious and greatest among the Hebrews, namely circumcision, is performed; indeed, all sacred rites are completed and perfected by chisels. B And again, take the case where one who touches a dead body is unclean, and then must be purified by the priest; the priest is unable to purify him except through sacrifices, which he himself first renders "dead," and handles, and sprinkles the one who comes to be purified either with the blood of the dead or with ashes, because he touched a dead body. This is entirely an enigma if one remains fixed to the letter. Similar also is that command, that in all ways Israel must strictly make a likeness, yet He who gives such laws commands the ark itself to be made according to the type and imitation of those things shown to him on the mount; and then to sculpture and carve the images and likenesses of the Cherubim, and to weave them into the veils, and to embroider, and to imprint likenesses of pomegranates on the sacred vessels, and countless other things. C But who would not marvel, if he has only lingered at the vestibule of this wonder, and does not have a mind focused on the things hidden within, at the fact that one who is pricked by leprosy in the flesh, but whose entire surface is not yet corrupted by the disease, is declared unclean and polluted and to be shunned; while him whose whole body is covered by the evil, and [who has] become loathsome—and if he was seen yesterday, and approached near, and the natural bonds were loosening—yet this man is nevertheless adjudged clean and worthy of the synagogue? D If you wish to look at another matter regarding those living under the Law: it was not permitted for anyone to sacrifice anywhere other than at the tabernacle; for the penalty of blood awaited the transgressor. Nor, indeed, was it permitted to perform sacrifices outside the temple after it was built; yet the wonderful Samuel, while the tabernacle was still standing, erected an altar elsewhere, and leaving that one behind, offered sacrifices there. And not only he, but also the holy Elijah, while the temple in Jerusalem stood in splendor, erected altars on Mount Carmel and offered sacrifices. And concerning none of these was [any one of them] rebuked; rather, before God, who spoke through Moses, none of these things were dared—
they were accepted, and since the offerings were consumed by heavenly fire, they were much more illustrious and glorious than the sacrifices of those who followed the prescriptions of the Law. Furthermore, Samuel, who was raised up by the sublime title of the high priesthood and of prophecy, slew Agag with sacred hands; and before him, Phinehas, through the double slaughter of a native and a foreigner, received the priesthood as an eternal gift. But moreover, even before that, those who had filled their hands with the blood of their kin were held worthy of splendid blessing and greater honor, since the cause was common to those who suffered and those who inflicted vengeance; these were honored with such rewards for the blood they had shed. King David, however, was compelled by necessity to pursue his enemies in war; for this reason, although he vehemently desired to construct the Jerusalem temple, he was forbidden. Saul and Ahab, because they looked with merciful eyes upon their captive enemies, were punished by the loss of their kingdom and were doomed to perish by the sword; yet David, who by a just judgment had slain those who were similarly delinquent, was deemed unworthy to build the temple. But if you wish, you can see on the contrary that he was judged worthy to erect an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, where he offered a glorious sacrifice, with fire from heaven consuming it, so that he might extinguish the irresistible wrath, kindled by the just fury of God, which was consuming all Israel; yet he, the very same man, because he had been implacable in the shedding of the blood of his enemies, was forbidden to build the temple to God. B How, then, can one defend such things and those similar to them, where letter is read against letter, from every contradiction, and demonstrate the order which is observed in them to be harmonious, rather than filling everything with tumult and suspension of mind? Furthermore, what reason can be given why God should permit marriage and deem it worthy of His blessing, and yet declare as unclean, according to the divine laws, him who has been joined in matrimonial union, exclude him from participation in the mysteries, and ordain that he not approach the sacred things unless he has first been purified? And again, why should an earthen vessel, when it has touched something unclean, be shattered, as if it were impossible for the object defiled to be purified otherwise; but if the vessel were of bronze or wood, it could be easily cleansed by means of water? The bones of Elisha were subject to the common law concerning dead bodies and imparted pollution; nevertheless, those who approached them—dead as they were—received from them the pure rays of life, and were brought back to the light of life from the dark gates of death. Will you say, then, that those, having become defiled C by approaching the bones of a dead man, were cleansed of the uncleanness of death, or will you instead offer on their behalf not a sacrifice of thanksgiving for their raising, but a purification for the...?
appearance of a thing clearly contrary to plain Scripture, thus introducing ignorance and lack of skill? How could the jawbone of an ass, teeming with a threefold uncleanness, provide springs of purified and potable water to the thirsty Nazarene, a miracle made illustrious by equal miracles of uncleanness? For it was an ass's bone, and indeed the bone of a dead ass, and thirdly, an instrument of slaughter. It was not the case that water-distillations from the nearby ground were subtly moistening that bone; rather, it was used as a weapon in the hand of a warrior against the assaults of enemies. Yet it sent forth such a spring of waters that he who, after such toil and labor, and in such a pressing time, was thirsty, was irrigated with an abundant, varied, and more than necessary supply of waters. And indeed the bone of an unclean and dead animal served for such a miracle; for they give the name of fountain to the jawbone of an ass, and from thence they bring the stream to him who is thirsty, although they do not in any way injure the word before us. For it is clear that even those who say this are tracing things far from the letter; so long as the belief in such paradoxical works prevails, I would not gladly agree with them. And why should one enumerate such things? For almost throughout the entire legal scripture, a storm of such enigmatic theories is poured out. But, as I said at the beginning, through these and all such things, the wise legislator clearly shows that the declaration according to the letter and the ready-to-hand meaning of the writing is one thing, spread out like a veil over hidden contemplations; and another is the theosophy of the Spirit hidden in the depths, from which the multitude of Jews and Judaizing heretics, falling away, does not cease to wander in a long and difficult error. B
QUESTION CXIV [Coisl. et Taur. CXXXVI]
Published by Montague, ep. 228, to Arsaber, pp. 335-344. On the ignorance of the day and hour of judgment. Mark xiii, 32; Matthew xxiv, 36.It does not seem to me to have the difficulty which, as you write, causes you much perplexity. For first, the Son, who exists in the form of God and the Father, having appeared in human nature and form, conversed as a man for the most part with his disciples, showing that he had taken on our nature. And what is there difficult in the fact that he who toils, and sweats, and finds rest in sleep, and by eating and drinking supports the nature of the body—to say it all—the fluxile nature, that he indeed would also accept the ignorance of the coming day, and would not endure to parade the measure of his human knowledge as if it were of the other things? For as Creator of all and God, he knew all things with the Father; but as man, he did not reject even the ignorance befitting men. For he who deemed it worthy to take on the whole, how would he have refused to take one of the things pertaining to it, or [how could it be thought that he] did not believe that he had received it? C
A Secondly, if even for delay someone might say that the sense of the things mentioned is being pushed away, and—as a pretext for those who do not wish the right things—that he did not wish to tell the disciples what was not yet beneficial for them to learn, this neither does the method of philanthropic providence reject. For it might proceed by a plan, assuming the guise of ignorance—or even more, appearing not to know—so as not to grieve the disciples who were seeking to learn what was known, but were not being taught. For how could it otherwise make sense: to know things before the hour, and to teach with much accuracy, yet not to know the hour itself which was attached to them and was the briefest part of them? And how could any of the things that exist escape the unerring and divine Mind? Or what reason could there be that, while he has the cause and knowledge of the things brought into being, and of their production and their cohesion, the time alone remains beyond his grasping—and that, while the power of judgment depends upon him ("For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son"), the discernment and judgment of the hour escapes his wisdom and lordship?
Why do I say these things? Is it that he who knows the Father, just as the Father knows the Son, would be ignorant of the day and the hour—mere small and easily circumscribed intervals? It is evident, rather, that he is not [ignorant], he who knew all things before they came into being, the hypostatic Wisdom of the Father, who possesses all things that are the Father’s, except for the unbegottenness; he certainly did not have ignorance of such things. B But, deferring the knowledge because it was not beneficial for the disciples, he made [a pretense of] ignorance, in common with the Father, which was an act of mercy, and he fashioned an apology to them to avoid causing them grief. C Thirdly, one might also observe this: that the Son attributes to the Father, as the Cause, the prerogatives. For it is becoming for a Son who loves his Father—being himself the Creator and Lawgiver of all nature and order—to honor the Father with the privileges of the Cause, and to attribute to him the knowledge of that day and hour, just as he indeed attributes many other things to him: not by depriving himself of this (far from it!), because he does not deprive himself of any other of the things that are honored and good, but by preferring him even in this. And surely no one would make the good disposition of the Son a subject for ingratitude. D Then, having imputed ignorance to him and fleeing to the syllables of the text, will he be acquitted of blasphemy? For neither will the precision of the expression, as I shall teach later, furnish any occasion for thinking incorrectly. For even if it is allowed now that the words indicate that the Son is ignorant, we have nonetheless shown that nothing absurd or contrary to piety follows if one considers the meaning rightly. But, then, not even the words will grant favor to those who, for the sake of diminishing the glory of the Only-Begotten, cling to that ignorance. For I know, having once conversed on divine matters long ago with a wise elder, who, although he had much contempt for external disciplines, nonetheless [held] such a position regarding the matter at hand...
A He described a theory of knowledge. He said that knowing is twofold: one kind is by scientific understanding, the other by experience. According to scientific understanding, then, the Son knows that day and that hour just as the Father does; but not according to experience. For the Father entered into experience and took on such knowledge when He had given all judgment to the Son; for the Father had then decided to entrust all judgment to the Son, and in so far as it concerned His own decrees to carry out and conclude His own judgment. But as for the Son, it is clear that He has not yet judged, nor has He brought into effect the action for which the Father proclaimed Him Lord. Therefore, the Father knows the hour by experience, too; but the Son, though He knows it by scientific understanding just as the Father does, does not yet know it by experience—but He shall know it, clearly, when He pronounces judgment, as the knowledge which is had by scientific understanding will have progressed into knowledge by experience.
B Now, I have set this explanation before you, not that I embrace it as the truth in all respects, but to show how the simplicity of that man was concerned to devise such a varied and manifold thought. Moreover, that this very phrasing offers no place of refuge to those who blaspheme out of ignorance, can easily be learned from these facts. For the holy Matthew, when recording the Lord's utterance, says: “No one knows the hour, nor the day, nor the angels, except my Father alone. C” Consider, then, first of all, how, after having said “nor the angels,” he no longer adds, “nor the Son.” For thus, the phrasing might perhaps be a retreat for the impiety, if he had added the Son to the angels and then brought in, “except my Father alone.” But as it is, he does not speak in this way. Why? Because after having extended the ignorance as far as the angels, he does not lead the Son into it any further, D so that there might be no room for them to introduce the distinction by which the Father is set over against the Son. But rather, coming up from below, starting from men and reaching as far as the angels, he proceeds no further. By confining the ignorance there, he removes and sets the supersubstantial and creative Substance far from it. For the question of the disciples was human, the answer to which was, “No one knows”—that is, of men, clearly; then, “nor the angels”—this rank 360 is second (for after the human comes the nature of the incorporeal beings). What, then, of the Son? If He is, as indeed the law of sons dictates, the heir of the Father’s glory and nature, you are gaping for the ignorance in vain. But if He is not, let Him fill the third rank of creatures—and how could the Word, surpassing Him, pass over to the Father? For it had been fitting for Him, if not the Father’s rank, but a third rank held the Son, to mention Him before the Father; thus, if it were “nor the Son,” the knowledge would be attributed to the Father. But as it stands, having passed through the ranks of men and immaterial minds, he does not transfer the ignorance to the Son; but immediately, since the Son is the genuine heir of the paternal nature, he testifies regarding Him that knowledge...
A is His. Whence, then, do you derive the ignorance and construct your insults against the Son? Unless, perhaps, the Only-Begotten and Lord is to be ranked by you among the angels and servants—a blasphemy which, up to now, has never been seen to be conceived. But if you do not dare this, you separate the Son from the angelic substance; yet even so, you do not possess Him as equal to the Father; nor will you, surely, be able to attribute this ignorance to Him so clearly from the words, which speak of the ignorance of the angels, however many times you violently attempt B to transfer it to an order different from His Father’s. And even if, fleeing this, you allow that the Only-Begotten is joined to the Father according to a knowledge—transcendent and supreme even for you, as it is also paternal—your strange and third-rate arrangement will be mocked. Where, then, does it appear here, in wording or in meaning, that the madness of the heretics leaps onto the Son with ignorance? "Yes," they say, "but he added: 'Except the Father alone.'" Most rightly and wisely, indeed! It is so that you do not think that, having passed beyond the incorporeal intelligences, C He took a position and proceeded even as far as the first nature itself. For from that—from that alone, the Creator and Ruler of all, just as all other things in which the creation is recognized are distant, so too is the ignorance dispersed as far away as possible. But if the word "alone" still causes confusion, let it be understood rather that, having mentioned the ignorance of those from whom He distinguished the Father, He also applied the word "alone" against them. For what reason would there be at all in imputing ignorance D to the angels, yet, having passed over them, to say nothing of the Son to make a distinction, regarding the phrase "Except my Father alone," if one were not to consider it spoken [for that purpose]? Furthermore, if the word "alone" causes trouble, let the trouble be dispelled by the [phrase] "my Father." For it is clear that He did not proclaim his natural relationship [to the Father] by saying "my Father" with reference to Himself, but with reference to those whose ignorance He was condemning, at which point he also added "alone." How could He be thought, in saying "Except my Father alone," to be distinguishing Himself [from the Father]—He who testifies in both words and deeds alike, shouting: "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30), and, "All things that the Father has are mine" (John xvi, 15)? It is clear that knowledge is one [part], and that the least of the things which the Begetter has, along with ten thousand other things. But apart from these statements, if the Only-Begotten Himself were the one assigning ignorance to *them* and knowledge to the Father, what kind of superfluous wisdom would this be, to deem Himself worthy of the greater things—those that befit God alone and are eternal—while declaring Himself unworthy of the knowledge of a matter that would later be revealed to all alike, both good and bad?
It is therefore completely evident that in no way does ignorance befit Him, just as the heretics wish. For the common teacher and Savior of our race, instructing the disciples whom He had chosen to recognize their own measures and to refrain from questions which...
A produce no improvement, but only pride and empty swelling, arranges for them to grasp what is useful to them without sorrow, and this by persuasion rather than by violence. He brings forward the angels to them as an example, so that those who possess no knowledge of the things which the incorporeal substances above us do not know, might not themselves be grieved nor have any charge against the Teacher, should He not wish to teach what even the incorporeal and superior nature did not know. What then? Was this not sufficient for the disciples, to dispose them to accept the failure of their request without sorrow, and to settle their minds so as not to investigate things above them—unless, as it seems, the Son Himself, who is the substantial Wisdom, must also be dragged into that ignorance of theirs? And what comfort, or what consolation, will the ignorance of God be to those who worship God, who are in need of the providence and wisdom from above? Rather, how is it not a depth of despair, and in other respects an impiety, a thick darkness, the utmost despondency, and an error not worthy of even the slightest pity, to have a God who is subject to ignorance, and who is confessedly in need of the instruction and guidance of another in order to understand the things which He has not yet understood, no more than the rest of creation? B If, indeed, one acknowledges the ignorance according to a human manner, it has been said before that there is nothing difficult in the Fountain of Wisdom, who knows and possesses all that the Father possesses, undergoing ignorance just as He undergoes other human things. But if the insult of ignorance is brought against His divine and immaculate nature, it is a supreme impiety, exceeding all indulgence. But consider with me also this point: The Savior said somewhere, "No one knows the Father, except the Son." What then? Are you to exclude the Father from His own knowledge because of the "No one knows," and the "Except the Son"? How is this not manifest insanity? But these things are said by way of contrast to those things which exist after the first nature, and not at all against the Father; for He is rather conceived together and brought to mind along with the memory of the Son. And when you hear, "No one knows the hour, except the Father," do you not act by the same rule, and upon the mention of the Father do you not understand the Son? You apply that "No one knows" to the rational creature, where He has enumerated the nature of creatures according to species, concerning which it is more appropriate that "No one knows" should be understood. In that statement, "No one knows the Father," He uses the expression indefinitely, without anything from the preceding context to which it might be referred. If, therefore, C in the case of "No one knows the Father, except the Son," you avoid blaspheming the Begetter, then in the case of "No one knows the hour, except the Father," you should not be carried away into an insult against the Offspring. If you dare the second, you have dared the first much more; for it is more foolish to be ignorant of oneself than of another. Why is the former not much more horrible and insulting than the latter? And if the latter exceeds all madness and impiety, what is to be said of the former? Again He says, "No one knows the Son, D
unless the Father: and no one will charge the Son with ignorance of Himself, unless, along with that other absurdity, he also considers the knowledge concerning the Father to be less; provided that while this is grasped by the Son, He has not yet reached His own. If, therefore, in the phrase, "No one knows the Son except the Father," they in no way exclude the Son from the knowledge pertaining to Him; then neither will they exclude the Son from that knowledge of that particular time B in the phrase, "No one knows the hour, except the Father." And if they expel Him from this, they have already expelled Him from the former, even if they have not yet had the boldness to allow their lips to serve their impious reasonings; for the figure of speech, from which they first involved themselves in error and seized the hope of blaspheming, is most similar; and they will not deny—unless they wish to rave even more—the knowledge of the Son, extending beyond the cognition of that hour to other more divine and sublime things.
The Interpretation of St. Mark
And this, indeed, was the thought of Matthew, considered in such a theory. But the blessed Mark, inspired by the same Spirit, abounding in the same grace, and possessing the same word of preaching entrusted to him, has spoken nothing at all contradictory—a fact that is clear even without a precise inspection of the text—to his fellow-priest and fellow-mystagogue, nor to the truth which they handed down and which has been manifested in many ways even now. But if we undertake to expound his words, we shall understand even more his agreement and conspiracy with the truth: note for me, therefore, that this divine man, not wishing to leave even a pretext to the heretics, but shaking the foundations of all their machinations, did not even include in his writing the word "alone," which, however vainly, they used as a refuge for their impiety. By cutting off the word, and at once removing the occasion for impiety, he also ascends from below, just like his fellow-priest, reaching up to the angels, and circumscribes C the ignorance with which he finishes the period of his speech; but then, starting from another principle, he not only ascribes no ignorance to the Only-Begotten, but on the contrary clearly professes that He possesses the Father's knowledge; and he declares not only that knowledge, but its mode and measure, teaching theologically that the Father is the source for the Son of this, as well as of the divine and natural dignities. What, then, does he say? "Nor would the Son know, unless the Father revealed it?" This means: from that source the knowledge flows to the Son, from whence also the cause of His generation proceeds. For the Son is not without beginning and without cause, as the Father is, but is referred to a beginning and a connatural cause, namely, the Father. "Nor would the Son know, unless the Father had first revealed it": what is more illustrious or valid than this testimony? The Father knows, and the Son knows; if anything is hidden from the Son, it is from the Father that He receives it: but nothing escapes the Father's knowledge: wherefore, neither the Son's common nature, the Divinity D
nor the essence of these things is anything other than common. And the communion of these, and the other God-befitting attributes, is rendered common and indivisible. "Whom the Father wills, He makes alive, and the Son likewise makes alive whom He wills." No one comes to the Father except through the Son; and no one comes to the Son except through the Father. The Father knows the Son; but even as He knows Him, so too does the Son know the Father. Everything that the Father has, save for being unbegotten, the Son has; and everything that the Son has, save for being begotten, the Father has. "For all My things," He says, "are Thine, and Thine are Mine." B Being initiated into this, and initiating us likewise into this theology, the blessed Mark defines the teaching accurately and concisely, as he cries out clearly, "Neither does the Son know, save the Father." For he has brought forward what was conjoined, and he has not omitted the taking up of the discourse, inasmuch as it is clear to all and positioned beyond doubt. For neither is he, nor will he ever be, the fabricator of impiety, nor will he utter with his lips such a thing, he who does not attribute to the Father the knowledge of that day and hour; for if this were conceded, even if with difficulty and against his will, one would yet concede that knowledge to the Son. For, "Neither the Son, save the Father," when the Father knows in an uncircumscribed manner, adds the Son to the same measure of knowledge. Thus, one must not say that he touches upon a more accurate and diviner way, but rather that he proclaims the knowledge in the Father as common with the Son. But do you, for your part, furthermore consider the wise and manifold dispensation of the all-holy and divine Spirit, C just how, working in each of the evangelists, through this or that phrasing of the discourse, He gathers them into the same concept of piety. For the holy Matthew, appending "alone" to his words, by no means inserts "Neither the Son," so that he might not seem to those who hold heretical views to be separating the Son from the paternal glory and driving Him into the company of the angels. But the divine Mark, having added "Neither the Son," and having made this the beginning of a second period, removes "alone," lest it, being added again in this place, become a pretext for the impious; and lest "Neither the Son" be thought not the beginning of another period, but rather the empty end and conclusion of the preceding one. For there, the paternal knowledge is communicated to the Son completely, whereas through wickedness, ignorance is received, and the rank of angels and servants—which is the ambition of those who war against God—is assigned to the Lord and Creator. D Cutting off this wickedness, the evangelist cuts away and removes the pretext of "alone" used by them. And thus, through both of these divine and sacred writers, when you see the mouths of the heretics stopped, and when you possess in great abundance the solutions to the doubts you proposed, you will more steadfastly avoid the communion of impiety, and you will prove yourself a more fervent lover and defender of piety.
A
QUESTION CXV. On the Wisdom of Solomon.
Man of God, what have you suffered, what has crossed your mind, that after such a long time, after such profound oblivion of us, after a horrendous amnesty—not easily to be spoken of—that originated long ago from those who were once my friends, and after so many evils endured, you have thought it proper to propose to me—I will not say at the cost of equal condemnation from me—things that are wont to be inquired into more curiously by those who spend this life pleasantly and philosophize with greater accuracy? As for ourselves, whose life long ago withered away under evils, and who are for the most part dead—who now, like some obscure and scarcely recognizable phantom of that old training and love of learning, are carried about in this wretched flesh (how much longer will you be held by the desire for life!)—there is only one thing for us to philosophize about: death. And we are indignant that it lingers, and that it does not take us more quickly away from these miseries, which oppress us daily; for those who pursue us never let up. But if you desire (and why, I ask, do you desire it, you who enjoy the highest felicity and for whose tongues crowds of rhetoricians gladly slave?) to hear a voice from the tomb, my phantom shall speak; for so it is more fitting for my present circumstances. Perhaps the writing lies in wait B for my silence and seeks an opportunity for another tragedy. If conversations are carried on through ambushes, it is long since we have had experience of such besiegers. Therefore, it shall speak rather than remain silent; but it shall speak briefly and humbly, as it is right for one in my condition to respond to these inquiries.
One of the doubts is this: "Solomon was wiser than all men, even than Ethan the Israelite," and so forth. I answer first that I have not found "Israelite" written anywhere, as you yourselves have posited—unless the tribulations have shaken my memory—but instead of Israelite, I read Zaraiter. For Israelites were the entire Jewish race, and the nation was commonly called by that name; but to designate any one individual by a common mark, to which the whole race refers, is justly censured. Therefore, for "Israelites," it should certainly be written "Zaraites." Ethan, in some copies, is called C Gethan, perhaps expressing the same person with a name of two forms. What follows hereafter in that passage is divided into a double field and is varied by a twofold consideration. For if it presents Ainan, Chalcad, and Cardala, it signifies the ancient prophets of the Egyptians, long celebrated for their wisdom before the birth of Moses; they were descendants of Zara, who was the son of Thamar and Judah, and they were, besides their gift of prophecy and other wisdom, endowed with the knowledge of composing odes, D
so that some of the psalms attribute their inscription to their names. The divine Scripture thus says that Solomon excelled not only other men, but even them in wisdom. If it should be said that Solomon surpassed all in wisdom according to either form of reason, having also gone beyond Ethan and Heman, it must be known that Ethan and Heman are not recorded as having left behind as famous an opinion of themselves as the Chaldean, but in that same age in which Solomon surpassed all with his marvelous wisdom, they too were seen to be lifted above all their peers, partly by the gift of nature and partly by the riches of wisdom. And in what other matter, if not this, that being established as glorious by the king, they were considered second to him and were proclaimed as being on all sides peerless: they were skilled in singing psalms, for which reason they were an object of admiration to all, as they themselves sang the wondrous works of God with lyres, nablions, and cymbals. B Now, I believe that Merari was the progenitor of Ethan, who was reckoned in the third order of the sons of Levi; Heman was the son of Joel, grandson of the prophet Samuel, whom the sacred oracles assign to the root of Core, from which Heman descended through his carnal lineage. So much for your first question.
We know that David was anointed once, and a second time proclaimed king; anointed, indeed, by the prophet Samuel; but proclaimed, first by the vote of the tribe of Judah in Hebron, and seven years later, by the remaining tribes who confirmed his prior election with their unanimous votes. In a more general sense, the oracles call both the first and the second proclamation an anointing. David appears to have placed the royal crown upon himself, as far as my memory suggests to me, when Joab was waging war against the Ammonites and the royal city of Rabbath was being captured; but before Joab could take it, the king by his own arrival put an end to the siege, for then, having taken as spoil the crown of Melchol (for he himself also reigned over the captives), and in order to show that he had obtained a splendid and indubitable victory, he placed it around his own head, studded with a precious stone, and weighing a talent of gold. D Regarding the "shank" (kōlea), the version of Aquila writes "shin" (knēmē). It would be more accurate to say "leg," which is indicated by two other names. I mean specifically the *metamēron* (thigh-part) and the *akrokōleon* (the part after the thigh); for the name of the "shin" is applied to various things. For they are accustomed to call the "shin" both that which is in front and raised to a muscle of the leg, just as that which is behind they call the "antiknēmion" (the part opposite the shin); and this very thing is composed of the *proknēmion* (the front of the shin) and the...
flesh that covers them, along with the skin, which the ancient Greek language A calls the *knēmē* (the leg). Samuel therefore set the "shoulder" before Saul, offering him honor before others, which honor he consecrated as a badge of the kingdom, as if it were fitting for him to undergo all labors and face dangers on behalf of the people. Therefore he added, "Eat, because it is set before you as a testimony." As for what follows, in some ancient books we read "from the people," while in others we read "before others." If we read "from the people," it means "I have brought it before the people as a testimony for you." But if we read "before others," it signifies "I have bestowed this honor upon you as something exceptional, in a preferred portion before others." These members of the body might also bear an image of the kingdom. B For just as these parts in the body of an animal are shorter than many of the members, yet they lie beneath and support the bulk of the entire structure; so also the royal stability, although it is compressed and contracted into one individual, and although it might waver, yet it holds together and supports the body of the entire commonwealth, neither allowing it to fall into itself nor to be shattered. But perhaps these things are explained much too curiously for the mere term. You, however, be stout in soul and body, and no longer propose such things to those who are in the underworld; but rather explain them to those whose course of life is pleasing, whose mind, speech, and hands have not failed. C
QUESTION CXVI. On the Fatherland of Paul.
Paul, that divine apostle, who by his inflamed desire and love for Christ and by the insuperable course of his preaching made the Jerusalem above his own captured homeland, had Gischala (which is currently a small village in Judea, but was formerly considered a town) as a homeland from his ancestors according to the propagation of the body. But in the Roman war, D when his parents were carried away into captivity with many others of the nation, they migrated to Tarsus, where he is said to have been born into the light and ascribed to that homeland: "For I," he says, "am a Jewish man, born in Tarsus of Cilicia." By the benignity of the Romans, which competed with their victory and extended even to aliens, the power was granted to participate in their nobility, both of the republic and of the name, partly for free and partly for a price of transcription. Hence it happened that the parents of Paul, and he himself, by a few syllables and according to human laws, obtained Rome as their homeland and the Roman citizenship. This is what that divine man hinted at, saying to the chiliarch who was boasting of his Roman citizenship obtained for a price, "But I was born free," that is, that Roman kinship came to me by paternal lot, nor did I emerge into the light born of common parents from the maternal womb, but I am one who, by the benefit
of A blood that already honors them with Roman documents. So it is that there are B not just two homelands, as you yourself dispute, which the orator of truth discovers; but indeed, in addition to these, there is also a third: of which one, Gischala, is referred to the portion and right of the tribe of Benjamin; the Tarsi, however, were a gift of captivity. And the act of registration among the Romans makes him a Roman, as does the paternal dignity passing to him through the lot.
QUESTION CXVII. [Coisl. CXXXIX.] (21) The same dubitation and solution.
Just as the illustrious Barnabas, a vessel truly of gentleness and compassion, was a Jew by the blood of his ancestors, but drew his origin from the country of Cyprus; and the eloquent Apollos, who reached Ephesus by his preaching and crossed over to Achaia, while belonging to the Jewish tribe as far as the nature of those who begat him is concerned, was recorded as belonging to Alexandria because of his sojourn there; so also the holy Paul, C born of Jews and traced to the tribe of Benjamin, acquired Tarsus as a homeland, because his parents dwelt in the Greek city. And just as the chiliarch, on the one hand, through his parents and birth, was as far as possible from the Roman race, but through money, as he himself confessed, was adopted into their nobility; and just as the city of Philippi, being a metropolis of the province of Macedonia, and having no rightful claim to an alliance with the Romans, was nevertheless able to be distinguished by that name—for the masters of the handmaiden from whom the Pythonic spirit was cast out, indignant against the heralds of truth, and dragging to the magistrates those who had delivered the creature of God from the demon, because the healing also cut off their own profit, said: «These men, being Jews, trouble our city, and proclaim customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or to observe, being Romans» (Acts xvi, 20)—you see D how the Philippians pride themselves on the title of Romans. And just as later, after these, Josephus, having sprung from a genuine Hebrew lineage and having Jerusalem itself as his allotted homeland, and being himself a priest from a priestly line, yet in the Roman manner was called Flavius—a title of honor the name of Vespasian gave him, shared with those who were exalted by kinship with the Romans—yet no one brought an indictment of foreignness against Josephus, who claimed the Roman and Flavian title, although many were attacking him out of envy, nor was he even brought to the tribunal of judgment. Indeed, even the city of Jerusalem itself, in a following century, was distinguished by the title of Aelia from the name of Hadrian, and this race was, by this contract, commonly called Roman. Just as, therefore, all these men, though they were foreign-born by nation and homeland, had been admitted into the Roman state;
A, so too the parents of the blessed Paul, not living in the shadows of the Jewish polity, but possessing also something more than the many, were judged worthy of being enrolled as members of the Roman tribe; whence the wise Paul was not unaware that the nobility of the Romans, which had come down to him from his ancestors, held by right of succession. For the future, let it be your concern not only to propose doubts, but also to accept the specific solution for them, and to be content with that. For if anyone were to attempt to solve dialectical questions from matters that are not immediate, primary, and essential, he would be held in derision, and would not escape the charge of falsehood; and if anyone in rhetoric were to demand elementary rules as necessary, or in mathematics were to bring forward political theorems and superficial persuasions B—not to say anything more unseemly—he would arrive at something similar; and those who have the hope of arriving at the truth of historical questions not by historical means, but from some other source, will likewise fail.
QUESTION CXVIII. Why was Christ circumcised?
The deeper aspect of the Providence C through which Jesus Christ our God was circumcised in his flesh is submerged into an abyss of judgments that is unsearchable and surpasses human understanding: this is something received from the doctrine of our blessed Fathers; and when we ourselves turn our thoughts to learn these things, we find that it is not entirely insoluble. First, he is circumcised in the flesh for the refutation of those who blaspheme the Old Testament and attack its Lawgiver with insults. For since he, who was good and who was God, underwent the circumcision instituted there—which they cannot deny—it is openly manifest that the One who gave the law regarding circumcision was also good, and a giver of good things, and a sharer of the same nature. For if the Source of goodness had been of an opposing nature, he would not have displayed the drops of the law D from that source trickling through his flesh. In order, therefore, to muzzle the impudent mouths that spoke blasphemy against the Father, or even against the Son himself ("For all things that are the Father’s are the Son’s; and what the Father does, the Son does"), he is circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin; and by this, he at the same time removed the occasions and handles for many impious heresies. Second, consider this with me: that impious heresiarch Apollinarius once dared to fabricate certain prodigies, claiming that the flesh assumed by the Godhead possessed the consubstantiality of the Godhead; he fashioned the flesh as he wished, not as human nature recognizes its own, but as the imagination of distracted minds created it; therefore, the circumcision of the flesh, and the [relationship] to...
our own flesh, clearly proclaims another nature, distinct from the Deity, which it proves to be consubstantial with the nature of our flesh. Thirdly, there approach the followers of Mani, who taught that Christ took on flesh only in appearance: a notion which is excised by circumcision as blasphemous; for mere appearance does not admit of cutting, suffering, or the shedding of visible blood, nor can the works of truth stand together with falsehood. Again, Valentinus foolishly babbles that the flesh united to the Word was not solidified from the most pure blood of the Virgin, but that he, falling away from piety, calls down to himself a body from heaven; but circumcision clearly cuts away this boldness as well. B Furthermore, he is circumcised so that he might show that the command given regarding circumcision ought to remain valid, fixed, and firm, and not to be violated until his own coming—to which it served, and so that it might not meanwhile be subject to calumnies. For if he who had no need of circumcision nonetheless underwent it, then he who, while existing under the Law, transgressed it, was deserving of merited punishment. C Thirdly, since the Jewish people were most prone to fault-finding and skilled at weaving calumnies, and were expert artisans in devising false pretexts, had he announced salvation to them while uncircumcised, they would have seized upon an easy cause to reject the doctrine brought to them, contending that he had first violated the Law. Therefore, that he might amputate their defection from the truth, and not give them an opportunity to shift their own sin onto the Innocent One, he is circumcised in the foreskin, and at the same time he amputates all the plausible argumentation of the ungrateful. Consider further: if he had not been circumcised, yet brought the practice to an end, perhaps D the Lord might have incurred the suspicion among some that, to exempt himself from blame and to advance his own design, he had devised a method through his disciples to utterly abolish circumcision; but by being circumcised himself, he caused this suspicion to cease in no other way, and removed it from those who would accuse him. But do not pass over this either: circumcision was a symbol and figure of baptism; it was fitting that the type should by no means retain its force once the truth was manifested, but give place to it. Therefore, the flesh in the hidden part of the body is circumcised while the circumcision by grace had not yet been revealed; but when that had illuminated all things through the Lord’s baptism and had rendered the truth illustrious, those things which were in shadow and enigma no longer found a place to assert themselves freely. Beyond the things mentioned, one must call to mind that "all nations are to be blessed" in the seed of Abraham; for God swore by himself to that just man, and he makes his lineage the gatherer of all nations, and as if sealing it through the patriarch by circumcision, he marks out the faith of the patriarch,
A and at the same time preserves the race in separation. The oath, therefore, would have provided a cause for transgression if all nations were to be baptized only through the common Savior, Christ, without Him bearing the mark of the Abrahamic seed, which was circumcision. In order, therefore, that the promised end bestowed B upon Abraham might also be obtained, and that God, who is the truth, might dissipate any suspicion of false swearing against the truth ("For I am," He says, "the truth and the life"), He has the flesh of the foreskin cut in the first entrance and the first fruits of grace. This is the calling, the blessing, and the adoption of the nations, circumscribing and fulfilling the legal polity. One might, at leisure, contemplate many other such things—things which both the law of the epistle and your own understanding (for what is there in the things said from which one could not also track down the things passed over in silence?) might examine; but since it does not seem pleasant, it was judged superfluous to set them forth.
QUESTION CXIX.
"No man hath seen God at any time."
B Your excellent industry and care, directed toward the chapters of wisdom and divine doctrine, not only excites me to the same study, but also, I think, commends it to every person whose soul, being not alien to the love of noble things, does not persuade him to value things unworthy of love and to turn away from things worthy of praise. And this is all the more so because you, while occupied with such great cares, relax nothing of this study, although you watch over each of those cares with diligence, and look neither to leisure nor to the relaxation of the soul, but rather urge those things which pertain to the active life and the advantages of the fatherland even more than you do your meditations. Nor, indeed, do you desist from the profound investigation of those noble and philosophical meditations of yours until you have arrived, as far as it is possible, at the summit of truth. C Therefore, I proclaim blessed those who are permitted to see these things in you and to hear them from you. But then I also perceive how grievously my enemies have treated me, and of what a beautiful and pleasant spectacle envy has deprived me, since I cannot see philosophy leading a chorus in the midst of the republic—and indeed our own republic, and such a one whose fruit bestows heavenly things. We, indeed, after the example of the Aigieis, hold neither the third nor the fourth place. D For so are our affairs arranged. I do not know the tribe, I do not know the shard; I do not know if the pebble placed by wax into the urn, I do not know if anything else. For the Pythian oracle...
just as I bid it be valid in other respects, so it pertains nothing to me, save that something similar to what was said—which you yourself would easily admit—has happened to my present condition of life. For when your letter reached me, a burdensome illness was scourging me, scarcely allowing me, let me say, to offer even a word in response to your request, due to the pains that were pressing upon me. But yet, as one oppressed by sickness, I would say this: that the Divine, in its *superessential and incomprehensible essence*, escapes not only human sight and mind, but even those highest and nearest powers A which exceed nature by a great measure; and this not only for the present time, in which we are bound to this body, subject to various infirmities, but also in the coming ages, when, having laid aside the riddles and mirrors, and having put on the incorruptible instead of the corruptible, we shall perceive the truth more purely and more perfectly. For what need is there to mention that neither Moses, who ascended to such a height of virtue that he was capable of other miracles, and who could cultivate the heavens with his tongue as if it were a field, and provide food therefrom spontaneously and suddenly to many myriads; B nor Elias, to whom the nature of fire, taking the place of horses and chariot, provided the path of ascent into heaven; nor the choir of the divine and blessed prophets has been able, by understanding, to attain to what and how the supernatural and unblemished nature of the Godhead is. But that it is, and that it subsists, He has granted us to know, even if He illuminates His grace upon some more lavishly, and upon others more sparingly, according to the measure accommodated to each in his accomplishment.
But what that nature is, or what it is like, He has willed to be revealed to no one at all; which was not granted even to Moses himself, who, before those holy men whom we have mentioned, desired to see the Invisible. Yet, as a consolation for that desire, which was directed in vain toward the sight of the Incarnation, that mystery was revealed even then through symbols and types. C In these types and adumbrations, the Supreme Divine willed its own glory to shine forth, insofar as it is permitted for humans to perceive it. That no human has seen God, nor shall ever be able to see Him—of this, both the ancient and holy Scriptures are full of testimonies, and Grace is full. And a whole book could be made of the collection of the oracles witnessing to this knowledge. Furthermore, he who was a mystic and disciple of the divine Paul, a rhetorician in words, but a philosopher in thoughts—or rather, one who distills grace from above in mind and tongue, and unfolds for us the abyss of divine wisdom—this great Dionysius, D clearly and sharply pursues the point that the Divine, whatever it is, can never be subjected to human comprehension.
AD AMPHILOCHIUM QUAESTION CXIX
A Furthermore, from the great athlete of piety who endured so many struggles in his life—I mean the marvelous Athanasius—it is possible to gather many sayings which proclaim to the human race that the Divine, considered in its essence and nature, is entirely incomprehensible, lacking any veil, or problem, or likeness. And who is ignorant of the marvelous and great Basil, that royal stole of the Church, the finest and most loving physician of souls, who, while preparing medicine against the madness of Eunomius, among other Paeonian remedies, provided above all this, that that divine and ineffable nature can neither be understood nor comprehended?
B Moreover, concerning the one who, more by the divinity of his words than by his title, has been allotted to be characterized as "the Theologian" (I know you are thinking of Gregory), and who set out to assert this truth with copious and sharp arguments, a treatise on this same subject has been written. Finally, that orator of the Church—or rather, he who instructed the whole world with his sermons, filled with the proclamation of the Gospel and other doctrines; he, I say, whom his own discourses caused to be commonly called "Golden-mouthed"—with a singular oration that sways one no less to truth than to reverence, which is inscribed *On the Incomprehensible*, urges and demonstrates nothing more diligently than this very argument. Beyond these, you might find during your leisure countless other divine Fathers of ours who approve this same opinion with their own suffrage, whom I could show to have proposed it in the same words, were it not that a piercing illness afflicts me with most intense pains. In the meantime, for you yourself, as you call to mind what I have said and what else there is, it will be easy to collect those testimonies and perceive the wonderful consensus of all.
For me, it is sufficient at present to set down that voice which the incorporeal angels famously proclaimed at the time when the whole chorus of the apostles, seeing the Lord and our God with that which he had assumed from us being taken up into heaven, was filled with wonder and amazement, saying to them: "Why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." D He was departing, of course, in order that he, together with what he had assumed, might be received into the bosom of the Father, just as he was seen before on this earth, appearing externally fortified with our flesh and clothed in human form. And so that divine
oraculum confirms that our common Lord will be visible once more in the same appearance and form, manifest to our eyes and our recognition. See, however, to whom this will happen. Not indeed to just anyone, nor even to those who, in a small measure, surpass other men in regard to divine inspiration and height of contemplation, not to speak of other virtues; but to those very ones who, from the beginning, were deemed worthy by the Creator himself to be eyewitnesses of the Word, and interpreters and ministers to the whole human race. And so, may you fare well in other respects, and keeping soul and body pure for God, and using favorable winds, may you overcome the currents of this present life and cross this salt sea.
QUESTION CXX.
[Coisl. CXLII. Taur. CXLI.]What does the saying of the Apostle mean: "Always and now also Christ will be magnified in my body," etc. A The voice of the herald of truth, which says: "Always and now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death," flows from a certain religious and sacred longing, but at the same time it yearns for a hope that is ignorant of mortal nature. It suggests this meaning: that Christ was always magnified in the body of Paul, both when He allowed him to be afflicted B by chains and lashes and to be cast before the gates of death, and when He rescued and snatched him from the midst of hardships. For, as for those struggles in which he was permitted to engage—and he was drawn into conflicts leading even to death—the preaching of piety was confirmed and strengthened by such trials. For those who observed C Paul's chains and afflictions, and who were astonished at the patience proven in them, were stirred by this very admiration to conversion, thinking that, had there not been something divine and most true in his preaching, he would not have yielded himself to countless and unbearable evils, when it was in his power to cease, to be delivered from painful things, and not to challenge death to a contest. Christ was therefore reasonably magnified through these things, D as the preaching reached many for their confirmation and expanded in the hearts of men. Again, when He rescued him and snatched him from deadly dangers, He was magnified thereby. For it was not of human counsel or power that this combatant should often be released unscathed from the midst of bloodthirsty hands and of wicked men thirsting for blood, but it was a benefit of a divine and more-than-human grace, which indeed delivered that servant from all evils, beyond expectation, and dissolved the painful things. How were the bonds loosed? How did the chains fall off? Who kindled the light in the chamber? How did it shine all around, filling it with radiance, with no material thing providing the
fuel for the flames? A Whence was the prison shaken at that moment alone? How were the doors opened? And how did those myriad and paradoxical things come about, if the power of Him who holds all things was not made manifest by His hand? Both things, therefore, served to magnify Christ within the body of Paul: the herald remained steadfast through bitter and death-dealing tortures, and through the ways in which his adversaries sought to kill him, Christ in a transcendent fashion showed the contestant to be invincible and untouched by their murderous intent. Thus, then, through life—that is, through the things that quickened and preserved him—and through the wounds and tortures that were the cause of death, Christ our God, the source of wisdom and power, was magnified in the body of Paul.
Nothing prevents us from setting out the master’s words and his prophecy. For since he stood before Nero’s tribunal for a second time, having been acquitted after his first defense, and since, on that second occasion, when the cruelty of Nero was being carried away by an unchecked impulse toward the most terrible things, he departed this life by the sword, he could then indeed say: "Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life," as he was now snatching me from the hand of a murderer and one who threatened death, "or by death," as will happen hereafter, when the judge of the contest does not desert me in the supreme struggle. For it seemed fitting that this athlete should not collapse beforehand, nor should his course, which was superior to human strength, be interrupted by a death that nature makes common to all; rather, it was right that his very death, and his departure for the longed-for prize, should surpass the limits of earthly nature. B Therefore, this man, who lived not for himself but for Christ, and who became and was all things to all people, forewarns and instructs his disciples in advance, so that later on (for the life of Paul was truly a great gift, and next to God the primary salvation, to those upon whom a wealth of evils had been inflicted) a certain disturbance and agony might not throw their souls into despair—by stripping away all hope, plunging them into the depths of sadness, destroying every expectation, and rendering them sluggish in the pursuit of piety.
But we may discover another object for these words, one which, to pass over others, lay right before our eyes. What is this, then? He says that just as Christ was always magnified in the body of Paul throughout his whole life, as he bravely endured all things and loved a life more excellent than the present one—while at the same time being freed and perceiving something more arrogant and greater than mortal belief—so too now, even at the very end of his struggles, He will be magnified in him. And He will be magnified both by his not suffering, and by his suffering, in the same way. C For this noble man, having approached that very final stage of the contests, is indeed spared the first things of death and slaughter, having resolved the causes by the logic of truth and a godly mind; yet, because the hand of the Almighty was pleased to glorify him there, it is clear that Christ was being magnified in the body of Paul. But again, a second point: for he ought...
A that the miracle regarding Paul should appear only as a manifestation of the Master's glory; it was necessary, rather, that his own [glory] should shine forth more brightly. Consequently, he presses toward everything for the sake of the proclamation, disregarding even the sword and the slaughter itself, and pursuing only one goal, proving everything else secondary to the truth, and longing to depart to Him who is being proclaimed, by Whose means, clearly, Christ was again being magnified.
QUESTION CXXI
What were the things lacking in Christ, which Paul filled up?The proposed passage of the apostolic B words admits of a twofold interpretation. Some, taking the word *hysterema* (lack/lacking) in the simplest and most obvious sense, suggest that the divine Paul said that he was, in turn, filling up in his own body the remains of the sufferings of Christ, and intended to signify: "If anything was left over of what Christ was to suffer, I am filling it up in my body." And supporting this interpretation, they say: "Just as power was given to the apostles to perform miracles greater than those of Christ; and again, C just as Paul himself is seen doing something more elevated than the Master’s commands—for although he was permitted to be supported by the Gospel, he did not take support—and other such things, so also did he fill up in his own body the things lacking in the Master." Now, some have viewed it in this way. But others, considering it grave to say that Christ was deprived of anything in His suffering—for what did He lack, and what did He not endure, being reviled, mocked, bearing plots, ambushes, insults, reproaches, from home and from abroad, and finally, the cross and the death of criminals? D He who suffered these things, even though it was easy for him to escape them, and [who did] everything freely and gratuitously for our sake, how could he be said to lack anything, or to have left out anything at all that needed to be suffered? And as for receiving the power to perform greater miracles, if Christ Himself were not the provider of that power, it would foster not only the aforementioned interpretation, but would also stir up a far more absurd blasphemy, the growth of which (for it is fair to trace both back to the same root) should be ascribed not to those who receive the miracle, but rather to the grace of the provider, which has the excellence of being admired.
Moreover, that Paul did not provide food for himself from the Gospel, although he might have done so, was indeed worthy of praise, and salutary for him. Lest he should give an opportunity of accusing him to those who were anxiously seeking one, he abstained from this liberty, fortified even here by the precept of his Lord, who by the very deed admonished us that, although by law and nature it may be permitted for us to do many things, we should, upon reflection of the scandal that might be cast upon a neighbor, abstain from that liberty. "For lest we offend them," He says, "go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the fish that comes up first, and opening its mouth, you will find a stater. Taking that, give it to them for me and for you." A In the meantime, this action of Paul merits praise. For why should it not? Yet it provides no argument that anything was lacking to Christ. Therefore, because of the aforementioned reasons, some, rejecting this notion of the saying and the word, bring forward another, and contend that the following meaning is signified. There are three kinds of actions that were performed: some of them are greater, others are middle, and others hold the final place. When, therefore, the divine Paul says: "I fill up the things that are lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh," they say he signifies that the last of the afflictions of Christ, and those occupying the final place, these I fill up in my body: B that is to say, "My sufferings are so far from being able to be compared with those of Christ, that I do not dare even to compare them with the greater ones, nor even to rank them with the middle ones, but I count it desirable to be reckoned only with the last and the lowest." For whatever human nature may do or suffer for Christ, it is nothing worthy of comparison, nor even near to what He Himself suffered for us; nor does anything come near to those things which He Himself endured for us.
There are many things, they say, which confirm this thought. "For I am," says the Apostle, "the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle"; C also, "I press on, that I may lay hold"; and also, "Always carrying about the death of Jesus in my body, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in my body." How, therefore, can Paul ever be said to have filled up the remnants of Him who did and endured all things gratuitously and for our sake? I pass over other similar things. Now, this latter exposition of the matter would indeed have been very consistent with the thing itself, if the word ὕστερημα (lack) did not frequently occur in the Old and New Code (Scripture). "Did you lack anything?" it says; D and, "There is no lack to those who fear Him"; and, "I think that I have lacked nothing." And, "Lack...
A in the sense of a deficiency of the thing under discussion is the meaning that more commonly takes in the usage of Scripture. "But brothers supplied the lack," he says; and, "My lack my brothers have supplied." And in many other places where the word is found, it is not easy to grasp such a meaning—that which has just now been brought forward—but rather that which was previously proposed; thus we see B the usage of Scripture provides the "lack" as the requirement of the meaning. Since, therefore, both of the stated interpretations are in doubt, a third one, which shines forth from both and provides a way to avoid the difficulties of each, might be brought forward for this view. One must use the holy Scripture according to custom regarding the "lack," and innovate nothing concerning the word. But how Paul C shall "complete in turn" his lack of the afflictions of Christ in his own body, consider this with me henceforth. It is not that Christ did not undergo all that He was obliged to suffer—far from it! For He did not lack anything at all, but rather His grace superabounded towards us. What lacks, then, does he "complete in turn"? Those which, if the Savior had still been dwelling in human D life during the time when Paul was preaching, He would have suffered while teaching, and while still caring for His creation through His presence—these things, which Paul now suffering, "completes in turn" as the lacks of the afflictions of Christ. For this is more proximate and more in harmony with the emphasis of the word. For he does not simply say, "I complete," but "I complete *in turn* [ἀνταναπληρῶ]," that is, "In place of the Master and Teacher, I, the servant and disciple, having undertaken His ministry, complete in turn the lacks of His afflictions." For whatever He would have undergone, had He not committed the ministry to me, since I have received this, I rightly complete in turn the lacks of His afflictions in my body. That the disciples were appointed as successors of the Master's ministry can be seen without difficulty from elsewhere, but here Paul himself will suffice. "For all things," he says, "are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ and gave to us the ministry A of reconciliation." And, "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf: be reconciled to God." Just as, therefore, the disciples were entrusted with the word of reconciliation, and they act as ambassadors for Christ, so also, whatever He was about to suffer, since he himself is fulfilling the ministry, they in their turn rightly complete these things in their own body. And B among these, most especially Paul, who, being confident in his works, says, "I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." And observe how the setting of this theory proposed nothing elegant. For the "lack" is not forced, but...
is explained according to the customary usage of Scripture. Paul himself supplies those things—not that which was simply left undone or that the Savior lacked anything, which would be absurd to say—but rather those things which, if He had not committed this ministry to Paul and His other disciples, He would have had to suffer and endure, just as He endured while He was performing the proclamation and preaching the kingdom of heaven Himself before them. But let these things be said, for the sake of offering honor to your noble diligence. If anyone among those who come after us should perceive something better, those things shall also be pleasing to me. B
QUESTION CXXII
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."He calls the aerial and evil spirits "principalities and powers," not as though they hold any authority over us by their own right or from above, but because we have surrendered ourselves to sins, of which the demons are the sowers and heralds, and they have been granted their principality and power through those things by which we perform their will. For the same holy man says: "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." When, therefore, we are overcome by their incitements and counsels, and we fall into committing the sins that they desire, it cannot be otherwise than that we establish these same beings as lords and tyrants over the passions that are stirred up in us from that source. For having been deprived in this way of the liberty of the most Holy Spirit, and despoiled of the right of self-determination which we previously enjoyed, we inscribe ourselves into the order of slaves and those liable to sin. For this reason, he does not call these spirits of wickedness simply "principalities and powers," but "rulers of the world," and indeed of "this world." By "world" here, C he does not mean, as is customary in Scripture, the structure consisting of heaven, earth, and the things that exist between them—God forbid that we should assert such a thing—but he calls "world" those men who pursue worldly and carnal desires and who perish for the sake of those things that flatter the senses and make the mind effeminate. In this sense the Savior said of His disciples, "that they are not of the world." For it is evident that they also belonged to the world as the handiwork of God, just as the whole human race; but "they were not of the world," He says, that is, they were not of those who are captivated by the fleeting and empty allurements of worldly vanity and deceit. Furthermore, regarding those words, "in high places," some, preferring the simpler interpretation of the philanthropy of God, and transforming the beginning of the expression, not...
A "in heavenly places," but "in lower places" [sub-heavenly], misinterpret it, and say that demons are called "lower-celestial," that is to say, the spiritual forces of wickedness. For even if their dwelling is around the air or around the earth, they would none the less be called "lower-celestial." But, although the thought of these people may not be impious, the alteration [of the text] is nevertheless not pious; for it is not permitted at all, not even by a single letter, to corrupt the sacred words, especially since, even with the uncorrupted expression, the meaning of the passage—as I said—proceeds without hindrance. Moreover, things that are within the heaven are also commonly called "heavenly," such as the air; and there is nothing to prevent those who dwell in it—that is, the spiritual forces of wickedness, the demons—from being called so because of their dwelling in it. B They are called "spiritual" because they possess neither flesh nor blood, but from the beginning obtained an essence devoid of matter and flesh. One might more logically say, regarding the present subject, that here "heavenly places" denotes piety and the virtues. For it is by means of these that we inherit the kingdom of heaven, and our struggle "against the spiritual forces of wickedness" is in the sphere of the virtues and of piety, we being eager to perform these, and they, in whatever way they can, setting themselves against us and undertaking war from every side. Therefore, the teacher of the world wisely and aptly said: "Our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the spiritual forces of wickedness," C that is, against the demons, who are joined neither to flesh nor to blood. And then, in what things and concerning what things is the war? "In the heavenly places," he says, that is, in those things which are the proxies for the heavenly tabernacle, which is, as has been said, piety and the chorus of the virtues. But if someone wished to take "in the heavenly places" more readily as the heavenly dwelling itself, in this way too the mind of piety is well-directed. For the struggle against them is indeed this: we contending to attain the heavenly inheritance, and they attempting to deprive us also of that from which they themselves have fallen.
QUESTION CXXIII
Why is the book inscribed "Acts of the Apostles," even though it does not contain the acts of the twelve, but at the beginning D indeed contains signs and the few teachings of the apostles, and afterwards the entire narrative shifts to Paul?"It is inscribed," he says, "as the Acts of the Apostles, although it does not complete the acts of the twelve..."
Yet for this reason it is inscribed as the Acts of the Apostles, because, according to Paul, "When one member is glorified, all the members are glorified together" (I Cor. XII, 26). Thus, the writer also, by making the acts of Peter and Paul common, inscribed this book as the Acts of the Apostles. And if the whole body is included under the head, it is reasonable that they should have called the acts of the leading men the Acts of the Apostles, especially since the common teaching of the apostles is contained therein, and even if its narrative is extended only briefly, it nevertheless provides a reasonable occasion for this inscription.
Some call the writer of the Acts Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others Luke the Evangelist. Luke himself, however, decides the matter, first of all by what he says in the prologue, that another composition of his, containing the deeds of the Lord, has been set down. B Secondly, he distinguishes himself from the other evangelists in that no one of them carries his narrative up to the ascension of Christ, but he alone both accurately explained that ascension and again made its beginning the start of the Acts. For Matthew’s Gospel ends in such a way that the eleven disciples are said to have gone forth; its end is: "Unto the consummation of the world. Amen" (Matth. XXVIII, 20). And he adds nothing concerning the ascension. Mark, even if he does mention it, does so only in passing, saying: "The Lord, therefore, after He had spoken to them, was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God" (Marc. XVI, 19). He does not pursue the manner, nor the place, nor other things associated with this action. Finally, the Gospel of John did not deliver a history of the ascension at the end; he hinted, however, that Jesus did many other things, of which, if they were written down one by one, I do not believe the world itself could contain the books that would be written (Joan. XXI, 25). Luke alone, as I have said, both pursues the ascension more broadly at the end of the Gospel, and takes the beginning of the Acts from it.
QUESTION CXXIV [Coisl. CXLVI, Taur. CXLV]
Quoties Christus apostolis post resurrectionem suam apparuit, et ubi, et quando?Intra quadraginta dies Salvator a discipulis conspectus est, undecies vero tantum se illis conspiciendum præbuit; nec sine ratione. Cum enim undecim essent discipuli, undecies quoque iisdem apparuit. Unde vero probari potest undecies tantum eum ab illis ita conspectum fuisse? D Scilicet primum apparuit Mariæ juxta sepulcrum, nec minus feminis aliis (Joan. XX, 14). Id quod et Isaias prænuntiavit, mulieres appellans, et dicens: "Mulieres a visione..."
returning, come, announce to us." A Afterwards he appeared to Peter, then to Cleopas and his companions, when they were traveling to Emmaus, not yet having been taught the event itself, and when he manifested himself to them in the breaking of bread. Furthermore, to the ten disciples, when Thomas was not present, and indeed in the evening of the very day of the resurrection. Then to the eleven disciples, with Thomas also present and counted among them. Afterwards to the five hundred brethren and more at once, most of whom Paul testifies are still alive. Furthermore, to James; which the same Paul teaches, not indeed only among those twelve. For he had said before: "He appeared to Cephas: then to the twelve;" and thus he added him to the apostles. Then to those seven, gathered at the Sea of Tiberias, that is, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, John, and two other of his disciples. Furthermore, to all the apostles, that is, the seventy disciples. Then on the mountain of Galilee, where Jesus had ordered them to meet, and on the Mount of Olives, from where the Ascension also took place.
QUESTION CXXV
Why did Christ command the apostles not to depart from Jerusalem, and when did they hear the promise of the Father? B
He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which they had heard from him. That the Savior said this is certainly manifest. For he had said: "I ascend to my Father, and I will pray to him, and he will send you the Paraclete." But where did the Father promise that? For this promise of the Father is not evident from the Gospel. Does it not follow, therefore, that it is found in the prophets? For Paul also testifies to this, saying: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son." When, therefore, he promised the Gospel beforehand, he also promised that he would give the Holy Spirit. But God also says through the prophet: "In the last days, says God Almighty, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." C Behold the promise! And it was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit sat upon each of the disciples in the form of tongues, and they themselves were explaining the great works of God. That the Father, not the Son, speaks these things appears from what follows: "For I will give," he says, "signs in heaven above, and on the earth below." For the blood, which has the character of a miraculous sign, is that which flowed from the Lord's side after his death; but the fire is that which, as has been said, was distributed to the apostles. But also the sun, he says, into darkness D
A "But," he says, "also the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and illustrious day of the Lord comes," that is, the Son. That these things are spoken by the Father, and not by the prophet, the beginning of the oracle testifies. For it has: "In the last days, says the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," and so on. Now it is clear that the Lord is intended, not the prophet—who is our fellow servant—but God and the Father who sent him.
QUESTION CXXVI
When were the apostles baptized, and by whom?We see that the apostles received the baptism of John before the passion of Christ. For the Savior did not bestow another baptism before the passion, lest he should render void the proclamation of John, or provide an occasion for the gainsaying Jews to assert that, in contumely of the Baptist, he had introduced a baptism of his own. But he supplied what was wanting, not by baptizing with water, but with the Spirit. For so he himself says: "But you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now," B namely, ten. Ten days are set apart for this work, that the faith of the apostles might be tested. For while grace was resting, and none of the promised things was appearing, their faith was being exercised, and hope was finding opportunity to produce undoubted faith. To be baptized with the Holy Spirit is, therefore, the same as to receive the Holy Spirit. The apostles, then, had been baptized with Spirit and water before the passion of Christ, and that washing served for the remission of sins for them, but not for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. That John did baptize the apostles, our Lord teaches, saying to Peter, who was shrinking back when he was about to be washed: "He who is bathed has no need to wash, except for his feet." For by this utterance He showed that not only Peter, but also the others, whose feet He was likewise washing, had been washed C by the baptism of John. Therefore, the Savior did not abolish the baptism of repentance, which was administered by John for the remission of sins, but rather perfected it by adding the gift of the Holy Spirit.
QUESTION CXXVII
How do those who are baptized into Christ put on Christ?If the Spirit is not God, if He is not the source of divine grace, how do those who have put on Christ, the divine garment, put on that common garment of the Holy Spirit? For if, as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,
λέγει δὲ ὁ Σωτὴρ, « Μείνατε ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐφ' ὑμᾶς, » πῶς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ ἐνδύματος δουλικὸν ἐνδυόμεθα; ᾿Αλλὰ δῆλον ἄρα ἑκάτερον ἔνδυμα ὁμότιμον, καὶ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς εὐεργεσίας καὶ χάριτος παρίστησιν αὐθεντείαν. A Ενδυμα δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον λέγεται τῶν πιστῶν, οὐχ ὡς ἱμάτιον, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐνδύεται σίδηρος τὸ πῦρ· οὐκ ἔξωθεν περιβαλλόμενος, ἀλλ' ὅλος δι' ὅλου. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τὸ πανάγιον Πνεῦμα οὐχ ὡς ἱμάτιον, ἔξωθεν περικείμενον, περιβαλλόμεθα, ἀλλ' ὡς τὴν καρδίαν καὶ τοὺς λογισμοὺς πληρούμενοί τε φωτὸς καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον χάριτος. Διὸ καὶ ἀτενίζοντες εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Στεφάνου οἱ ἐπανιστάμενοι εἶδον τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου.
ΕΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ ΡΚΗ΄.
B Τί καλοῦσιν οἱ ἄγγελοι Γαλιλαίους τοὺς ἀποστόλους; « Καὶ ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν πορευομένου αὐτοῦ. » Οὐκ ἔτι, φησὶν, ἀναλαμβανομένου, λέγει, ἀλλὰ πορευομένου. Καὶ γὰρ τῇ σαρκὶ μὲν ἀνελήφθη, τῇ αὐθεντείᾳ δὲ ἐπορεύετο. Γαλιλαίους δὲ καλοῦσι τοὺς μαθητὰς οἱ ἄγγελοι σεμνύνοντες αὐτούς· Γαλιλαῖοι γὰρ οἱ ἀποκεκαλυμμένοι σημαίνει. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐποίησεν ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐφανέρωσε καὶ ἀπεκάλυψε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. C Ἔνθεν καὶ ὁ προφήτης Ἠσαΐας προανακράζει· « Ἐπένθησεν ἡ γῆ, ᾐσχύνθη ὁ Λίβανος· ἕλη ἐγένετο ὁ ᾿Ασσαρών. Φανερὰ ἔσται ἡ Γαλιλαία καὶ ὁ Κάρμηλος. » Ἐνταῦθα δεῖ ὑποταγῆναι, « Τί ἑστήκατε ἐμβλέποντες; » Καὶ ὁ μὲν Ἠλίας ὡς δοῦλος εἰς ὕψος ἀέριον ἀνελήφθη, οὐκ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν· ὁ δὲ Δεσπότης ὡς Κύριος πάντων, οὐχ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν [ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀληθῶς]. Καὶ τρίτον δὲ ἐπισημαίνεται τὸ πορεύεσθαι, ἢ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι τὸν Δεσπότην εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν τῇ τριπλῇ τοῦ ῥήματος ἐπιφορᾷ τὸ βεβαιόν τε καὶ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀφαντασίαστον παριστῶν. Ἰδίωμα γὰρ καὶ βεβαιώσεώς τε καὶ ἀσφαλείας τὸ τοιοῦτον σχῆμα τοῦ λόγου ἡ ἱερὰ ἡμῶν οἶδεν Γραφή.ΕΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ ΡΚΘ΄.
D Τίνος ἡ φωνὴ, « Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης; » Ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ θεασαμένη τὸν Κύριον καὶ Σωτῆρα δύναμιν ἔχοντα θεϊκὴν καὶ ἐπιτάσσοντα τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ, ξενιζομένη ἔλεγε· « Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος, ὅτι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ; » οὕτω καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐν σαρκὶσαρκὶ A βλέπων τὴν θεότητα, ξενιζόμενος λέγει· « Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης; »
QUESTION CXXX
Quare jejunii tempus diebus quadraginta constet.
B Ζητοῦσί τινες· Τί δήποτε ὁ τῆς νηστείας χρόνος ἐν ἡμέραις ἡμῖν μ' περιγράφεται καὶ οὔτε εἰς τὴν πεντηκοστὸν ἢ ἑξηκοστὸν παρατείνεται, οὐδὲ ἐντὸς πάλιν τῶν μ' περικλείεται; καὶ οὐχ ἡμῖν μόνον οὕτω παραδέδοται, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κοινὸς Δεσπότης καὶ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, ὁ νομοθέτης τῶν ἐν τῇ χάριτι, μ' ἡμέρας φαίνεται νηστεύσας, ὁπότε αὐτῷ προσβαλεῖν ὁ πειράζων, πρὸς ἀγῶνα ἀπεδύετο· καὶ πρό γε τοῦ Δεσπότου ὁ προφήτης Ἠλίας, τοσαύτας ἡμέρας διανῦσαι ἐν νηστείαις ἀναγέγραπται· καὶ ἔτι πρὸ τούτου Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ Σιναίῳ ὄρει ἡνίκα τὰς πλάκας θεόθεν λαβεῖν παρεσκευάζετο· ἡ μὲν οὖν ζήτησις αὕτη. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὴν μὲν βαθυτέραν καὶ ἀποῤῥητοτέραν αἰτίαν ἴσως ἄν τις ἄλλος κατὰ τοὺς προειρημένους ἄνδρας ἀνηγμένος τε καὶ μετάρσιος τὴν θεωρίαν, ὑψηλοτέραν τε καὶ θειοτέραν ἀποδώσειεν· ἃ δὲ εἰς ἡμετέραν ἦχε μάθησιν, ἐροῦμεν. Ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις ὁ Θεὸς τὸν παρόντα καὶ ὁρώμενον τοῦτον κόσμον ἐδημιούργησε, τῇ δὲ ἑβδόμῃ κατέπαυσε μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων καὶ πέρας ἔθηκε τῷ φιλοτεχνήματι· συναριθμεῖται δὲ καὶ αὕτη ταῖς πρὸ αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ καὶ πᾶσα ἀρχὴ χρόνου τινὸς καὶ πέρας ἐν τῇ συναριθμήσει τῶν μεταξὺ συμπεριλαμβάνεται· καὶ ὁ παρὼν αἰὼν τῆς ἑβδομάδος συνεχῶς ἀνακυκλούμενος ἀπαρτίζεται· ἡ δὲ ὀγδοὰς τὸν μέλλοντα αἰῶνα δηλοῖ, καὶ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ἄλλην τινὰ θειοτέραν λήξιν καὶ κατάστασιν, ἥτις καὶ ὀγδοὰς καλεῖται καὶ πρώτη καὶ μία· ὀγδοὰς μὲν ὡς ἄλλο τι διάστημα παρὰ τὸν συμπληρούμενον χρόνον πρὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ὑπάρχουσα· πρώτη δὲ ὡς ἀρχὴ οὖσα λήξεως ἑτέρας καὶ πολιτείας θειοτέρας καὶ ἀμείνονος· μία δὲ ὡς οὐκ ἔχουσα μετ' αὐτὴν ἑτέραν χρονικὴν περίοδον, ἀλλ' αὐτὴ ἀτελευτήτως ὑπάρχουσα καὶ διαμένουσα. C Τούτων οὕτω προτεθεωρημένων ἡμῖν, ὅσοι μὲν ἑβδόμην κατὰ τὴν ἑβδομάδα βούλοιντο τὸν ῥευστὸν τοῦτον χρόνον καὶ ἐπίκηρον καὶ τοῖς ῥευστοῖς καὶ φθαρτοῖς συμπαραμετρούμενόν τε καὶ συμπαραῤῥέοντα, οὗτοι ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις καὶ τῶν παθῶν τῇ ἀχλύϊ τὰς αἰσθήσεις πάσας κατεκηλίδωσαν· καὶ ἀκοὴν μὲν ἔπλησαν ᾀσμάτων πορνικῶν καὶ τῶν ὅσα τούτοις συνέπεται· καὶ ὄψις μὲν αὐτοῖς τὰ ψυχοφθόρα θεάματα· ἀφὴ δὲ καὶ γεῦσις, καὶ ὀσφρησις, ἵνα μὴ καθέκαστον αἰσθητήριον λέγων εἰς μῆκος ἀποτείνω τὸν λόγον, οἷς οὐ θέμις ἐνδιατρίβουσιν· ἐξ ὧν αὐτοῖς ἀκατακρίτως ὅ τε ἡ φύσις παρέσχετο καὶ ἃ μὴ θεῖος νόμος ἐκώλυσε, περὶ ταῦτα ἀναστρέφεσθαι. Τῶν οὖν ἐν ἡμῖν αἰσθήσεων οὕτως ἐῤῥυπωμένων τε καὶ λελυμασμένων ὑπὸ τῶν παθῶν τε καὶ τῆς ῥοῆς, ὁ ἐν τῷ ῥέοντι προσλαμβάνομεν χρόνῳ, τούτων ἡ κάθαρσις καὶ ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἀποκατάστασις οὐκ ἂν
ἂν γένοιτο κατὰ τὸν τύπον καὶ τὴν μίμησιν τοῦ ῥευστοῦ καὶ φιλαμαρτήμονος χρόνου· κατὰ τὴν τάξιν δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ παιδαγωγίαν καὶ ἐκμίμησιν τοῦ ἀπαθοῦς τε καὶ ἀῤῥεύστου καὶ ἀτελευτήτου χρόνου, ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μικρὸν ἄνωθεν ὀγδόην τε καὶ πρώτην καὶ μίαν ἐδίδαξεν ὀνομάζεσθαι. Ἐπεὶ οὖν αἱ A ε' αἰσθήσεις ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ὀγδοάδα πολλαπλασιαζόμεναι τὸν μ' ἀποτελοῦσιν ἀριθμόν, διὰ δὲ τῶν ε' αἰσθήσεων ζῶμέν τε καὶ τὰς πράξεις ἐπιτελοῦμεν, ὅσαι τε φαῦλοι καὶ ὅσαι εἰς ἀρετῶν ἀναφέρονται λόγον, εἰκότως διὰ μ' ἡμερῶν ταύτας καθαίρομεν, καὶ πᾶσαν αὐταῖς ἰατρείαν προσάγειν παρελάβομεν, οὕτω κατὰ ταύτας πολιτεύεσθαι ὡς ἂν ἡ ὀγδοάς, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ ῥευστὸν τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἐπιτάττῃ τε καὶ διακελεύηται· ταύτῃ δὲ ἡμῶν τῇ θεωρίᾳ τίνι τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων, ὃς ἐπιγέγραπται «Περὶ νηστείας», συνάδων τε καὶ προμαρτυρούμενος ἐπιδείκνυται;
Ἐρώτησις ΡΛΑ. Τί λέγεται μαγνῆτις.
B 1. Μαγνῆτις, ὅπερ ἐρώτησας, καλεῖται ἡ τὸν σίδηρον ἕλκουσα λίθος· ὅτι Μάγνητας ἄνδρας λιθοφόρους ἀρχηγοὺς εὑρέσεως αὐτῆς γενέσθαι, καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλθεῖν. Λιθοφόροις γάρ, ὡς ἔοικε, κρηπῖσιν ὑποδεδεμένοι οὗτοι, ἐπεὶ κατὰ γῆς σιδηρίτιδος ἠρέμα βαδίζοντες γένοιντο, βάρους τινὸς καὶ δυσκινησίαν προσεχομένων τῶν ψήφων τοῖς σιδηρίοις ἀντελαμβάνοντο· θαῦμα δὲ προσπίπτον αὐτοῖς, καὶ πρὸς ζήτησιν τῆς αἰτίας ἀνακινοῦν, τὴν εὕρεσιν παρασχεῖν τῆς ἐν τῇ λίθῳ δυνάμεως. Οὐ μόνον δὲ μαγνῆτις αὕτη καλεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ Λυδία, καὶ Ἡράκλεια, καὶ σιδηρῖτις· δεῖ γάρ σοι, σπουδαιολογουμένῳ περὶ ταῦτα, καὶ ἡμᾶς προσφιλοτιμήσασθαι. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ σιδηρῖτις μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας, ἧς περὶ τὰ σιδήρια ἐνδείκνυται· εἰ βούλει δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως. Ἔχει γάρ τι ἐμφερὲς C κατὰ τὴν χρόαν ἀργῷ καὶ οὔπω διακαθαρθέντι σιδήρῳ· ἀλλὰ καὶ διότι ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὑρῆσθαί φασιν αὐτὴν τοῖς τοῦ σιδήρου μετάλλοις ἀναμεμιγμένην. Ἡράκλεια δὲ ὡς μέν τισιν ἔδοξε, διὰ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν τῆς ὁλκῆς καὶ κρατερόν· μᾶλλον δ' ἂν ῥηθείη τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἕλκειν, διότι περὶ Ἡράκλειαν τὸ πρῶτον, ὥς φασιν, ἐφάνη. Ἡράκλειαν δὲ οἱ μὲν τὴν ἐν Πόντῳ ἱστορήκασι, τοῖς δὲ ἡ ἐν Σαμοθρᾴκῃ ἔδοξεν. Εἰσὶ δὲ οἷς ἑτέρα τῆς μαγνήτιδος ἡ σιδηρῖτις νομίζεται, ἣν καὶ λαμπρὰν ὅλως καὶ διαυγή φασιν εἶναι, καὶ μαρμαρυγαῖς ἀργυριζούσαις χαρασσομένην δι' ὅλου τοῦ σώματος. D Εἴη δὲ καὶ Λυδία τὴν κλήσιν, ἴσως ἀπὸ τῆς πόῤῥω πατρίδος τῶν ἐφευρηκότων αὐτῆς τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τις ἀπὸ τοῦ πελάγους τῆς ἀρχαϊκῆς ἱστορίας καιρὸν λάβοι ἀναλέξασθαι.
ἀναλέξασθαι. A Moreover, it befits us, while considering the power of this stone and the sympathy and, so to speak, love which nature has implanted in it toward iron, to transfer our admiration to God, the supreme architect of creation; but we should be ashamed of the connection and bond of inanimate things, since we, who glory in being endowed with reason, do not preserve with equal care the bond of benevolence and love. And this, although we are clearly taught that even if we had embraced every form of virtue, without mutual charity and this spiritual love and bond, everything would slip away from us and perish.
But if there is said to be another stone which has a nature contrary to the aforementioned one, a stone which I have not yet experienced (for they say the iron is repelled by it and driven away), this too is adapted to our use. For we who, by the bond of spiritual charity, ought to be joined and united with those of our own kind, must also, at times, avert ourselves from them and repel them; namely, when they become as scandal and offenses, and stand in our way on the path of piety, or endeavor to trip up and distort the steps of our virtues. B For this also the Lord’s teaching commands: that if someone, even if he be a most intimate friend or joined by the greatest necessity, and useful to us in civil studies and affairs, no less than a right eye or a right hand, he must nonetheless be avoided with all effort.
QUESTION CXXXII
Who ought to be called children, and who are they, and who are sons? And, what does Peter mean by: "We have the more sure prophetic word"?There are three things by which men are made perfect: C the cleansing of sins, a pious and indubitable faith, which is changed by nothing vain or recently introduced, and finally, struggle and victory against sins and the devil. The cleansing from sins is a certain spiritual generation, or rather a regeneration, which renews the old man. To this effect, Paul also says: "My little children, of whom I am again in labor, until Christ be formed in you." By this regeneration, indeed, we are also adopted as sons, having been made servants of the Lord Christ. Wherefore, those who have been made participants in this grace are rightly called both little children and boys. D Those, however, who follow the piety preached from the beginning, having already grown old in their thinking—admitting nothing vain, nothing recent, nothing which reflects the juvenile boastfulness of the human mind into their thoughts—these also rightly show themselves, in the judgment of those who are wise, to be worthy of this spiritual denomination. Concerning...
these, acting A bravely and manfully against the passions and the enemy, and truly performing the works of soldiers and athletes, is it not the case that they too, having displayed in these very works a youthful and flourishing vigor and desire, shall participate in the name itself? I think, then, you clearly have the question resolved for you by what has been said: “I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the Wicked One. I wrote to you, children, because you have known the Father. I wrote to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I wrote to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the Wicked One.” For regeneration, bestowing the remission of sins and the dignity of adoption, makes B little children and boys, through which, as we have received the strength to know the Father who adopts us in the works themselves, so also we have entered into the obligation. The gray hair and the established knowledge of the piety handed down from the beginning makes them fathers; but the power against the Wicked One and the passions makes them young men. And this indeed is the meaning of the apostolic sayings; the insistence on the words, however, might have the role, the one of narrative, the other of reminder, which is accustomed to make hearers more attentive and to engrave the meaning of what has been said more deeply into the memory of their souls.
What, however, has been said by the chief of the apostles, Peter, if you examine it rightly, you will not find to be a source of doubt either. For he, C having said, “And this voice we heard borne from heaven,” then adding, “And we have the prophetic word more sure,” does not say that it is more sure to himself—far from it—especially since he has said before: “Having become eye-witnesses of the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have made known to you his power and coming.” For what could be more sure than sight itself, and than opening one’s own ears to take in the voice from above and to be illuminated by the Father’s testimony? But he says it is more "sure" with respect to those to whom he was writing, as if to say: If anyone has a mind that doubts these things to which we testify, let him look to the prophetic word, which is, in any case, surer than the doubt which many entertain against us. For certainly that [the prophecy] did not proceed D from human opinion, as some might more easily suspect regarding others. That he did not mean it was more sure to himself, he teaches more clearly by continuing. For he adds: “You do well to pay attention” (meaning you, not I), “as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”
QUESTION CXXXIII
*What does the Apostle mean by “peripsema”?*The word *peripsema* can indeed signify simply that which is held in contempt and, as it were, cast underfoot. But you would express the meaning more accurately by “redemption” or “piacular victim for others.” For the ancients were accustomed to call it *peripsema* quite frequently, and they provided the following reason for that name: In ancient times, whenever people fell into the indignation of the Divine Power and sensed that the penalties for their misdeeds were being demanded of them, they would gather in a crowd around one of their own fellows—someone who either had been chosen by lot or who, by the readiness of his own will, had decided to offer himself as a victim for all and to become their expiatory sacrifice—and, surrounding him, would touch and stroke him with their hands, saying, “Become our *peripsema*.” From this, therefore, it came to pass that Paul, who often wisely brought many things into the obedience of Christ, made no less use of the phrases of the Gentiles—not insofar as they were polished and pleasant to hear, but insofar as they were best adapted to signify and represent the matter correctly. Having therefore caught up this expression, he says, writing to the Corinthians: “I have become the *peripsema* of all.” For indeed, just as an expiatory sacrifice for all, he was suffering and enduring affliction in every way, and was being stretched out by terrible trials. I pass over other things. For I find another expression of his of the same import to be compared with all the rest: “By our glorying, I die daily.” You see, in any case, how he was the atonement, the victim, and the *peripsema* for all. For he was not only burning within himself and suffering countless evils on the outside for the Jews, nor only for his own kin, but also for Greeks and barbarians, and for all men without exception, in order that he might, as he himself cried out, save some. What therefore was taking place daily, this he also testified to in words, professing himself to have become the *peripsema* of all.
D Furthermore, the series of the discourse itself confirms this significance of the term. For he says, “I am not writing these things to shame you,” that is, “I am not reproaching you for my generosity nor for the benefits bestowed upon you. What then? I am admonishing you as my beloved children.” For it is fitting that children remember the generosity of their father, and not just as children, but as *beloved* children. The meaning, therefore, is: “I lay such claim to you, and I burn with such love for you, that I do not hesitate to become a *peripsema* for your sake, to be offered as a sacrifice, a victim, and an atonement on your behalf.”
A And indeed, the precision of the structure of the words in the passage inclines more to this meaning than to the one I spoke of initially, since that which is held in contempt and is abominable is more usually attributed in the syntax to *all*, but not to *of all*. But the wise and divine Paul does not say, "I have become a *peripsema* to all," but "of all." Moreover, the preceding portion of the text also resonates with this understanding of the meaning. For having said, “Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat,” he added, “We have become as the filth of the world, the *peripsema* of all until now,” that is: Why need I recount one by one the hardships, the afflictions, and the struggles which I endure for the sake of your salvation? In a word, to say, “We have become as the filth of the world, the *peripsema* of all until now.” B For indeed, while the word *perikatharmata* ("filth") might be spoken regarding one who is abominated and shunned, it would now be more fitting to represent the cleansing and atoning sacrifices which were customarily sacrificed on behalf of others. However, since neither meaning is contrary to the truth, each is permitted to choose that which pleases him most. For whether Paul was sacrificed as a victim on behalf of his disciples—in which case he was imitating his Lord and Master—or whether, as he was teaching and admonishing, and laboring for their salvation, he was considered contemptible and hated, even in this, looking to the same Lord, he endured these things; for He, being burdened with revilings and injuries, and enduring every kind of mockery, did not cease to provide for the salvation and providence of the men who were insulting and abusing Him.
C But it has come to mind at a timely moment to recall that which you once asked me, namely, what is meant by that which is said in the Gospel: “And they struck Him.” Now this more commonly signifies “they mocked Him.” For *kolaphizein* (to strike/buffet) is a form of mockery, the usage having shifted, as is the case with many other words, from the *beta* to the *phi*; for the Attic dialect tends to pronounce this word with a *beta*. Therefore, the bloodthirsty and ungrateful nation of the Jews was so impotently carried away in its rage against its benefactor, that it not only laid its violent hands upon Him, but if there was any kind of mockery, derision, or wantonness left to perform against Him, they thought they had achieved nothing of great consequence if they did not inflict it upon Him. Thus they mocked Him with the crown of thorns, and the reed, and the title of king, and such things. D And now the sublime and great John, as if passing over the injury in summary, says, “And they gave Him blows.” But the divine Mark and Matthew (for the difference in the words they use is small) relate both the name of the injury and the act of the injury: “For they struck Him, and began to cover His face...”
exercise the faculty: "For they struck him with blows, and began to cover his face, and to strike him with blows." Afterwards: "And they struck him, and struck him with rods, and said: Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck thee?" A Divus Luke indeed omitted the word to strike with the fist, yet he abundantly expounds the sense of that same word by the things he uses: "For the men," he says, "who held Jesus, mocked him, striking and veiling him; they struck his face and asked him, saying: Prophesy to us, who is it that struck thee?" For such is the nature of the game. Some cover the eyes with their hands, and others, striking the cheeks with their fists, ask [the victim] to point out the one who struck. And if [the victim] succeeds by conjecture in identifying the striker, he is free from the blows; but if not, they persist, raining blows upon him. This, therefore, is what the literal meaning of B *ἐκολάφισαν* (they struck with fists) signifies and presents. That the Jewish nation would not be sated with either insults or wantonness, the wise Luke signals, being especially struck by it. For after saying that they struck his face and covered it, he adds: "And many other things they said, reviling him." But indeed, concerning "they struck with fists," and "offscouring" and "refuse," you have, I think, a sufficiently clear understanding, as far as can be done by letter. But you, bearing in mind the afflictions, reproaches, and temptations of Christ and Paul, act bravely, or rather rejoice, reflecting on the order to which you have been called, and whom you have for a guide against every assault of calamity, whether your wicked adversaries are demons, or those acting as demons in human form mimic C them.
QUESTION CXXXIV.
How many beginnings of the year ought we to conceive, and what are they?1. Roma, which has extended its spear to the very ends of the earth and made the limit of its power the boundary of the world, just as it is wont to glory in three names, so too does it assign three beginnings to the annual period. And for Rome, indeed, the names are mystical, sacred, and political. The mystical name is [Amor—tr.], that is, *amor* (love); the sacred is Flora, which signifies *florentem* (flowering); the political is Roma, which, when reversed, is fashioned into the mystical word. It was permitted for the sacred name to be brought even to the knowledge of the common people; but if any priest had divulged the mystical name, he became liable to capital punishment. Therefore, adorned, as we have said, with three names, Rome also boasted of making three beginnings to the annual time, of which [the first]...
was called sacred, the second ancestral, the third political and cyclic. It is sacred when the sun, going forth from Capricorn, makes the day increase. This occurs exactly in the month of December, but it is felt by the Romans, above all, in the month of January. The ancestral beginning was called March, at which time the Romans used to move their arms and be readied for war. Finally, in the month of September, the cyclic and political vote, about which you have diligently asked, was established as the beginning of the year. That which the Greek language knows how to call *epinemesis* (allotment), the Romans call *indiction*; and this, in the olden days, a five-year cycle used to bring around—which they also called, after the custom of their fathers, a *lustrum*. Then, because they worshipped Mars, whom they call the author of their race; and because this star finishes its own circuit by completing its shortest course in fifteen years, they decreed at an equal interval that the *epinemesis*, or *indiction*, should be celebrated. B However, as is recorded in their antiquities, a theological and mysterious method describes this cause. Nor does the opinion greatly stray far from this which says that Augustus, the emperor of the Romans, when he had learned that the equinoctial season was divided by some into fifteen parts, had judged that the period of the year should also be defined by the same number. But more civil is the opinion of those who trace the matter back to Augustus, who held the principate in his homeland for the same number of years that he managed public affairs with Antony, and held the rudder of the republic with him, and then fought against him and earned a triumph, and in the beginning of the month of September obtained Egypt by force of arms. At each beginning of the year, accordingly, they used to perform peculiar sacrifices and rites, for the sake of honoring and placating those whom they themselves considered gods; but especially in the month of September they performed these sacred rites more splendidly and with greater zeal.
2. Since, therefore, the new Rome occupied the lot of old Rome and acquired the common power, and turned the error of superstition into a godly and worthy religion of God, it also changed the demonic rites and sacrifices C into godly and worthy-of-God ceremonies. For this reason, it decreed that on the first day of September God should be propitiated with public litanies and other expiatory prayers, and that the high priest should be present at the rites, leading the pious and salutary duties and sacrifices. Furthermore, the appellation of the annual cycle denotes in the Roman tongue the *indiction*; for the beginning suggests the period, and this to them is the indiction. Greece also named it with a term appropriate to the matter: *epinemesis*. For in the olden days, the tribute was not imposed upon the subjects in an unchangeable and fixed weight, but the production of the fruits used to regulate the assessment for them with kindness; so that when there was a shortage, they lightened the burden, and when there was abundance, they did not increase it; wherefore, without bitterness, a just tribute was paid to the tax collectors, and indeed only when there was need: no
person being coerced, nor at all was the tax exacted, but the entire toil became profit for those who farmed. From the fact, therefore, that the assessment was distributed to the subjects, the period of the year received the name "indiction" [epinemēsis]. Those, however, who connect the indiction to the victory at Actium, seem to me to be forcing the word toward a meaning that is most painful to the ear and far from persuasive. But let these things be said as they occurred to my memory regarding the matters about which you inquired; if you should add anything that you have drawn from your long study of history to my statements, know that this would be most pleasing to me. A
QUESTION CXXXV
B Do not these things contradict one another: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other," and, "If I have spoken well, why do you strike me?"
Laying the foundation for a peaceful and stable society, the Savior inculcates a commandment like this: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other," yet He Himself, having been struck on the cheek by men, instead of turning the other, answered, "Why do you strike me?" In no way did He do this, as if He were turning the considered aspect of His reasoning into something thoughtless—thereby overturning His own word by His deed—but rather, in a certain way, He confirmed the word through this very act. For there, indeed, His precept forbids mutual injuries, through which contention proceeds to infinity; therefore, He commands one to abstain from retribution even from the very first one that might occur. C And now He was doing the same. For He did not exact the penalty for the insult with a vengeful hand from the one who struck Him, but, having spoken in defense of His own cause with regard to the indignity of the matter, He rebuked the injustice with words alone.
But those things that are thought to be repugnant to one another can be reconciled more appropriately as follows: there, He forbids resisting those who show themselves injurious toward the body and things concerning the body; here, however, if He had not set out to remove with words the accusation—as if He were perverting and seducing the men whom He was leading rightly and saving, even though He was being ill-treated—when the detractors dared to confirm their own wickedness with blows, He would have granted them free power to accuse Him, and He would have been the author of their daring even worse things, and He would not have freed Himself from that calumny and the lies which they were impiously spewing against Him. Where, therefore, is the conflict between these things, and how do they contradict one another: not to strike back the one who strikes you, and, if anyone writes against you, or D if someone should say to you that you are a producer of seduction or wickedness, or that you are preaching salvation...
you should not allow these things to be fastened onto you, nor, by submitting yourself, either by voice or by the habit of silence, or by any other manner, should you appear guilty of blame. Therefore, for every sensible inquirer of truth, not even the slightest cause for doubt will arise from those words.
But those words of the Lord, "Do not do your alms before men" B, and, "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand does," and, "When you fast, do not trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do," are so far from fighting against that saying, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven," that, in my judgment, they actually conspire with it remarkably well. For every ostentation and affected pursuit of glory is a vice, and it stirs up vengeance and condemnation—which otherwise would not arise from noble deeds. But the flight from vainglory is both a virtue and befits a noble character, and it knows how to bring forth thanksgiving to God from wise men, because they see that a desire for glory is despised, C while virtue is held in honor. How, then, do those who demonstrate their glory hunt it from men, from whom censure follows them all the more? And how do they receive their reward? Not, certainly, from those who are beloved of God and virtuous, but by deceiving the many and the common crowd, who are able to consider nothing more than what appears on the surface. If, therefore, vainglory makes men base and stirs up the judgment of men, while the flight from it does the opposite and directs the more equitable toward the glorification of God, how is it not found to be rather a confirmation of that command to not show off, nor to be vainglorious: "Let your light so shine before men"?
But how will the light shine before men, D if they do not perceive the things done in secret? It has indeed already been said. But it is thus, even more. For the Father who sees in secret, He is able to cause the radiance of the inner lightning to shine forth into the open. Moreover, a good man is characterized by two ways, and is distinguished by two marks above all: by the pursuit of virtues according to the likeness of the Creator, and by the flight from wickedness. Now, the flight from wickedness shines completely before men, even if someone, as far as he is able, keeps the lamp within himself. For if one does not use his hand for evil, neither regarding injury, nor regarding money, and does not refrain his tongue regarding slander, regarding oaths, regarding similar things, and simply in all things
A giving no handle; these and B even if we do not wish, shine brightly as a great light to men. This is what divine Paul, when drafting the laws of the priesthood for Timothy, says: “But he must also have a good testimony from those who are outside” (1 Tim. III, 7). But also being blameless before Jews, and Greeks, and the whole Church of Christ constitutes and prepares for the flight from evil. Fasting, however, and pity for the poor, and tears from the eyes, and the intensity of prayer love the privacy of their activity, yet nonetheless they sound forth as a resounding trumpet and a clear herald of that flight from evil, which, shining out to men beforehand, tends to draw them along and shine with them, and to show the radiance of hidden virtue.
B There are, however, some virtues which it is fitting to perform in the open, especially for those in positions of leadership: justice, I mean, and piety, and the fortitude which defends them, and whatever things are their collaborators. Therefore, the Savior does not command even these to be carried out in secret, but rather fasting, and almsgiving, and whatever is similar. Yet, concerning all of them, he wishes that which regards display and the eagerness for vainglory to be far away, and he indicates this through that hidden command: “Let not your left hand know what your right hand does” (Matt. VI, 4). But he who has a pure mind and is superior to passion, whether he performs a good deed at home, or in the church, or in the very center of the city, is a most precise observer of the Dominical commandment. For he himself does not perform the action for the sake of display or the projection of empty glory, and by his deed he turns those who see it toward the glory of the Father. But since we see few such men (inasmuch as the height of a noble work elevates the mind together with itself; for vainglory shoots its arrow fiercely from below, and is often capable of piercing a stout heart and turning it toward base things), it is found to be much safer, especially in the case of those being initiated, that the practice be kept in secret. For those who have become altogether outside the reach of this arrow, the practice performed in the open and in public is unhindered. Since even the Savior at times performed his miracles in the midst of men and in the synagogues, but at other times he did not allow them to be made public. The former he did because, just as he was entirely unassailable by other passions, so also he was not open to vainglory; the latter he did in order to provide us with a rule and standard for avoiding displays and for warding off the misguided praises of the multitude. Therefore, the practice in the public eye is more perfect and for the perfect, as we have said, but the secret way is safer. For while, in the former case, evil often sneaks in along with virtue, in the latter, on account of the very fact that the action is hidden, its infiltration is completely blocked off.
These precepts of the Lord, therefore, are by no means in opposition to one another.
A These things which have been said may be illustrated and perceived in another way as well. For the Savior, in rebuking the Pharisees and in attempting to reshape their dissembling and crafty behavior into a seemly and honorable manner, forbade them to live for the judgment of men, but rather to pursue those things which are approved by God. Therefore, in order to call those who were suffering from the malady of vainglory away from that sickness, He says to them: "Do not perform your almsgiving before men"; and, "Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing," and other such things. B By cleansing those beset by passions from their suffering, by driving the hypocrites from the stage, and by calling back those who were living their lives amidst darkness and error to a life of virtue that is unerring and pure—out of which there sparkles forth dispassion, and true glory, and the splendor of the soul—He shows that the divine and holy Oracles are not in opposition to one another; so far from it, that one could not even cause the brilliance of good works to flash forth unless one first dispersed the darkness of vainglory and removed it from oneself.
Further, if to avoid causing scandal to one’s neighbor is conjoined with—or rather, is primary to—men’s works shining forth, while to do nothing for the sake of display is required as a part with respect to the whole, so that we may not be a source of scandal; it follows that fleeing from vainglory is the preparation for a person to be able to shine forth before men through one's works. And so, in response to your request, it has been demonstrated by me for your sake in various ways that the words of our Lord are so far from being in opposition to one another, that their concord appears all the more manifest.
C Indeed, I here imitate the example of our Lord, who does this: He reconciles those things which appear to fight against one another by using many methods and arguments. For He who is our common Creator, and Teacher, and Savior, is seen to have been the teacher of this rule through the things which He Himself did. While I am on this subject, it may perhaps not be unpleasant for you to undertake an examination of the third question. For when the wicked and shameless nation of the Jews was demanding that the disciples give an account as to why they had eaten grain on the Sabbath, He did not silence their insolent discourses in only one way. D First, he set their need before them. This is established both by the deed in the case of David and by the example of him, who, having eaten the loaves of the presence which were not permitted to be eaten, was held to be free from guilt. Second, he drew an argument from the place, or rather from a certain prerogative belonging to the place. This argument, likewise, is taken from an example, but—
one that is not liable to judgment, while in the temple itself it is held to be free from fault; so, even if some people should eat grain simply on the Sabbath (let it be granted to you), they would be liable to correction; but the saviors and teachers of men, and those who are with the Lord and Lawgiver of the priesthood himself, are on that very account held immune from every charge. For the matters here are far greater than the temple.
Furthermore, he lashes their madness also in the name of mercy. For if sacrifice, he says, is better than the observance of the Sabbath, and your law indeed prefers mercy to sacrifice—"For I want mercy," he says, "and not sacrifice"—those who, instead of being stirred to mercy as they ought to have been, demand the penalties of transgression, are justly held guilty of a greater sin, vindicating the shadow of the law. B Furthermore, he attacks them with a fourth argument as well, saying that man was not made on account of the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath was established for the sake of man. And finally, with the lash of his words, he inflicts a fifth strike upon their folly, by which he chastises them with even greater authority and effect, like the Lord himself: "For the Son of Man is Lord," he says, "of the Sabbath." But if the Son is Lord, and the disciples are above all sons and heirs (for they were the first ones born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, and were deemed worthy of the adoption from above), they will no longer be slaves, but will be lords of the Sabbath. By this work of the Lord, then, and others similar to it, fortified and instructed, we have, as you wished, brought the apparent disagreement of the venerable oracles into an indisputable harmony. C And such as these are our thoughts for you. But if the felicity of your genius, and the sharpness of your judgment, the wealth of sacred doctrine, and the fluency of your speech should find more pleasant and sublime things (and will find them entirely, if you only wish, if indeed I know you, my friend, correctly), I shall accept this mutual benevolence as the greatest reward.
QUESTION CXXXVI [Coisl. CLVIII. Taur. CLVIII]
D *Why does the apostle Paul put his own name at the beginning of his epistles?*The divine Paul prefixes his own name to his Epistles because he would not open his mouth without mentioning the beneficence of the Lord. For grace had also imposed a new name upon him, which had changed Saul into Paul, not only in terms of character but also in terms of title. Wherefore he calls himself Paul, as one who bears the name of the Lord himself in him
A who was enriched by Christ with all things—the name, the faith, the desire, the course, the apostolate, and his way of life—rightly, therefore, [he is also called] a slave of Christ. For how should one who received such gifts freely, having contributed nothing beforehand, not be a slave of Him who honored him with so many things? For all men are slaves, even against their will, in so far as the Creative Word, having brought them from non-existence into being, compels them to look to their Master and to acknowledge the power of their Creator. For it is a necessity that the creature be a slave and subject to the lordship of Him who created it. Yet that man is truly a slave who receives the fruit of greater care, and who owes to Him not only his being, but also his continued existence. Those, too, might be considered slaves by right and merit who, having been delivered from a bitter tyranny and a harsh captivity by great ransoms, have come to recognize their redeemer as their Master. B But the divine Paul did not consider it a great thing to submit himself to Christ in these ways. For these are common things, and show nothing exceptional or marvelous. He adorns and fashions himself as a slave in more and greater ways, and he brilliantly demonstrates the purity and truly free nature of his servitude. First, by the talents given to him by the Creator, which he took pride in in a special way. Second, by a love for Him that is set apart from other men and is fervent. And third, by the unrefusably accepted service of the apostolate and the incomparable course of his ministry, by which he manifests his true nobility with a free spirit. And in addition to the things mentioned, [he does so] by the precision and purity of his way of life, through which he presented himself as a slave—body, soul, and mind—and everything else to Christ; nowhere disgracing his vocation or holding in low esteem the judgment from above, but rather everywhere declaring it truly divine, and confirming that judgment with his works. And leaving nothing behind—what need is there to speak C of the commandments, when it is possible to perceive that he even surpassed them? The admirable Paul is, therefore, shown to be a slave in one way, as a work of the creative hand; in another way, as one whose existence is sustained by the providence from above; then, as one bought by the Master's blood; and from thenceforth, in his own unique ways. For he does not stop at these things, nor does he circumscribe his own servitude with these common benefits, but, clothing himself with a wealth of graces, he yokes himself to another way and yoke of servitude, striving to requite Him who honored him with even newer graces with services not customary to others. Truly, he loves the Master for all things, lacking nothing in the excess of his love, and it is a greater thing D if one considers it worthy of admiration. And he considers all things as refuse, that he might gain Christ whom he desires. But even...
as a herald he is sent, and he fills the world with his proclamation, running from Jerusalem as from a starting-point to the very ends of the earth, and sounding forth the Gospel even to the streams of the Ocean. A Such was the servitude to Christ that Paul had learned. To this is added a seventh kind of servitude, when he observed and kept the laws and institutions of the life lived in Christ so holily and diligently—as no one else, of those who lived either then or afterwards, did—chastising his body and bringing it into subjection, lest while preaching to others he himself should become a castaway. These are the admirable modes of servitude, better than any liberty, which Paul breathed, which he never ceased to sustain, and with which, being burdened, he gloried. Therefore, writing his letters, he called himself a servant of Jesus Christ. "This," he said, "is my dignity! This is the mark of imperial authority! By this name I wish to be known to all!" Those who have their possessions in the world, they indeed desire to be celebrated by the dignities of the world, using the titles of consuls, or prefects, or tribunes, and suchlike. But to Paul, for the greatness of glory, power, and dignity, it is sufficient to be Christ's servant, and from this, rather than from any other, to be known. And so, indeed, let the reason be understood for both the placing of the name of Paul at the beginning of his Epistles, and for his always declaring himself a servant B of Christ.
As for what follows: "Who was declared the Son of God in power," etc., these words seem to me to carry this meaning. He calls Him "declared" as one who is known as such, and brought to the knowledge of men. For we are accustomed to acquire knowledge of things either by their name or by the help of some definitions. He calls Him "defined," therefore, not as if He had been adopted as a son by anyone—far from it!—nor that He had acquired the name of Son of God by some imposition, but he calls Him "defined" as one who has become known to us through His specific properties, and has arrived at our knowledge, so far as that falls within the grasp of human nature. Whence, then, and by what elements is the Son of God determined, and by what properties is He distinguished C and known to us? From prophetic oracles, he says. For this is what he signifies by saying: "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures." Then, indeed, from the miracles which He performed above the powers of nature. For he says: "Who was declared the Son of God in power." Furthermore, from the Holy Spirit, which He bestowed upon those who believed in Him. Finally, from the fact that He, who was born of the seed of David, rose from the dead. For the gathering together of all these...
A things distinguishes and separates Him from all others to whom it has fallen by grace to be called sons of God. And it shows and teaches all men that He is truly and by nature the Son of God and God. Whence it is possible, and that not by a mere oblique turn of words, but rather by a direct way—if the individual parts are joined together—to define and demonstrate in how eminent a sense Christ, our God, is the Son of God, and by the same labor to provide for believers a pure and distinct knowledge of Him. For example, if someone were asked: "What is Christ?" it would be easy and ready for him to answer: "Christ is He, who was indeed announced by the prophets, and born according to the flesh of the seed of David, who benefited the human race by His supernatural powers and by the lavish and abundant gift of the Holy Spirit, B and by His own resurrection put death to death, and having despoiled Hades, raised up with Himself those who had died from the first ages." This is Christ, this is the Son of God and God. For the Gospel of Him, Paul was set apart; this is indicated by the voice of Him who was declared to be the Son of God. Add also, if you please, for further clarification and understanding, that through Him Paul also received the grace of apostleship, in order to overcome the barbarous Gentiles by persuasion, and to prepare them to obey the faith in Christ; that is, to cause them to believe in Him and to serve Him alone as the true God and Son of God, having been freed from the customs of their fathers and from their ancient and superstitious error.
But as for that which is said to the holy James: "Let the brother of low degree rejoice in his exaltation, C but the rich in his humiliation," it does not signify this: that he should speak magnificently, boast himself, or glory. None of these things has any place here. For these words are customarily used with that sense, and the primary and obvious meaning of the term brings this forth. But in this place, the word
let... rejoice
means the same as "let him be confident" or "let him hope." For no one, he says, who is humble ought to despond because he is worn out by poverty or insulted by the reproaches of men. For our Lord Himself chose the humble, the lowly, the poor, and the needy, and left the rich, who boast magnificently in their glory and lineage, to rage. Therefore, no one ought to be despondent because he is humble; D but rather, it is right for him to rejoice, in that he understands himself to have been made a participant and consort of the apostolic choir by this very same abject and humble lot. Perhaps, however, someone might object against these things, that what we have said does not square with those who have just begun to believe, but rather with those who already believe. For at that time, the dignity of the apostolic office was not yet so bright nor so worthy of admiration that, taking them as an example, others could be stirred to the imitation of their virtue and to emulation. But this hinders nothing at all. For even then the greatness of their virtue escaped almost no one, since even by their sacrifices...A they studied to honor and revere them. And the Apostle Paul himself speaks openly: “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” The greatness, then, of the man who is humble-minded is [found in] humility, in which one ought to be so comforted and to be filled with such joy of soul as if someone else were wrapped in all the wealth and human glory and holding it in his hand. For he who is thus humble even in these things has God B to exalt and raise him up. “For he who humbles himself,” he says, “shall be exalted,” but he who, on the contrary, exalts himself, will find God standing against him, humbling him, and casting him down to the earth by his own vanity and empty pride. Do you see how the depths [(49)] of humility are the cause of greatness? Do you see how humility carries one up to heaven? How, then, would one not be of good cheer and exult [(50)] with reason—that is, be delighted and take heart—in this greatness of his humility?
Are the rich, then, deprived of this uplifting and exaltation? C I do not say this, since our common Master does not cast the rich out of the kingdom, but only those who are consumed by wealth and entirely addicted and distracted by its cares, who have tied their whole concern to their treasures, and possess their souls buried and fettered in the earth and in gold as if in a prison. The Savior, rebuking the madness of these men, said: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” For these rich men, the heavenly commonwealth is inaccessible, D “and it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for them to enter the kingdom of heaven.” How, then, shall the rich enter? And how will the heavenly commonwealth be their portion? If they imitate Abraham, if Job, if they become good stewards of wealth, and not petty tyrants, who with no less cost to their own salvation and that of their own kind, shut up the consolation of the poor with many locks and bolts. But whence will the rich man arrive at this action? And what is the cause of this virtuous deed? It is humility, he says. For if he humbles himself, and is not puffed up with pride, nor falls into folly, exulting and swelling [(51)] with gold and wealth, he knows that nothing of these is his own; that all things belong to God; that it is easy for Him to take these away from him and transfer them to others; that these things are given [(52)] not that their neighbors should be deprived of necessities, but that they might have wherewith to share from what he has received. Because he knows ten thousand other things, and, pondering these in his mind, he gives thanks to the Giver. He knows himself to be a debtor; he obeys the commandments of Him who created and enriched him; he uses his wealth as though it were another’s, and administers it—or rather, he administers it as though it were most truly his own by regarding and making his own all that...
AD AMPHILOCHIUM QUESTIO CXXXVI.
A and sharers of faith, having received the strength to heal, he provides for the needy so gently, so humanely, and so frugally, as one appointed by God to be the guardian and steward of common goods. Do you see how humility can make even a wealthy man illustrious, sublime, and worthy of the heavenly kingdom? For this reason he says, "Let the rich man glory in his humility (James 1:10)." In this, he says, let him hope; in this let him take heart; through this he shall be exalted. For if, he says, he does not gain this from the Creator, what else shall he have from Him, [being derived] from earth, from clay, from such small pebbles? Or rather, as the holy James says, [being] no different from the flower of the grass, which blooms for an hour and often gladdens the senses, but with the burning sun it withers and vanishes, leaving not a trace of its former beauty. B Just as the flower of the grass, in which it displays its beauty, is destroyed and perishes, so too does the rich man wither and perish in the very flower of his luxury. Nay, you will find him even weaker and more sluggish than the flower in the grass. For the one blooms in its own season and withers in its own season; but the rich man, in the very prime of his life, when pleasant, brilliant, and desirable things seem to blossom and bloom everywhere for him, and when he is swollen and puffed up with vanity and is fearful to many, then indeed—then often he is suddenly seized by the law of death and disappears from among men, or a shipwreck causes him to be submerged. And the strange and paradoxi- C cal thing is that sometimes it is not only he who is submerged, but the gold—his soul and his life—is snatched away by a hand even more tyrannical than that which he used; even as it abandons him, stripped of his pride and his life, so also do the machinations of servants and the snares of robbers [act]. Who, indeed, could list all the ways in which such a man is caught and perishes? So vile is his condition and the more prone is he to undergo the things that happen to flowers. But this, regarding what you asked, is what my letter sets forth. As for you, by showing yourself a servant of Christ our true God through both deeds and doctrine, and by administering your wealth well, be confident in such humility, and be of good cheer. Through humility, and in all other things, fare well in soul and body.
ADMONITION OF JOS. HERGENROETHER, PROFESSOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY, ON THE ELEVEN FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTARIES ON ARISTOTLE’S CATEGORIES.
The following eleven dissertations constitute a separate treatise on the Categories of Aristotle, which Photius had already explained more extensively to his disciples. These fill in the Vatican codex from question 117 up to question 147; in the Coislinian codex, which Montfaucon described, the questions are number [index: entries preserved].
A ten (q. 163-182), including those which are in the Vatican codex under question 142, inscribed "on the six remaining Categories," which is not numbered there. In the Turin codex these questions are entirely missing. For a long time, the commentary of Photius on the Categories of Aristotle was accustomed to be described by many as a separate book (see Oudin, *De Scriptoribus eccles.* II, p. 207, 214, Lips. ed. 1722); hence many ancient writers seem to have omitted these questions in the *Amphilochia* as if they were already common/published. Indeed, many traces of this matter can be found in manuscript codices, such as the Vienna philosophical codex f. 103, 276, in Lambecius VII, 65, Paris (catal. a. 1653, A. p. iv, p. 114), Paris, cod. 1843, (catal. ed. Paris, 1740, t. II p. 409) and others, to which we judge that the fragment in the Escorial codex (n. 226) of the 13th century, f. 49 (see the catalogue of the work, E. Miller; Paris, 1848 ed., p. 172), can be added. Many fragments of the same subject, marked with the name of Photius, exist like scholia in the most noble Munich cotton-paper codex, in-4º, which was written in the 13th century on solid and smoothed paper in a very fine and greatly abbreviated script, and contains the *Isagoge* of Porphyry with the scholia of Ammonius and Photius, then the *Categories* of Aristotle with the commentaries of an anonymous author and Photius. Thirteen fragments are attributed to Photius, the titles of which it is helpful to append here: I. On genus; II. On species; III. On difference; IV. On the proprium; V. On accident; VI. On the common; VII. On those things which are common to genus and difference, and on those things which are diverse; VIII. On quantity; IX. On relation; X. On quality; XI. On the ten categories; XII. On substance; XIII. On action and passion. The order in the leaves was disturbed, and in reality, VIII-X should have been placed after XI and XII. Furthermore, six of these fragments were collated with the text of our questions, which they illustrate in many ways. As far as I can conjecture, these fragments were excerpted not from our eleven questions, but from an earlier compendium which Photius had handed down to his disciples to be read and transcribed while explaining the first elements of philosophy, just as he himself hints to us in more than one place (cf. q. 77, and q. 78). Although nothing new as regards the history of philosophical studies may seem to be drawn from these lucubrations of Photius, nevertheless they are not lacking in utility and delight, especially for theologians, for whom that close nexus is clearly perceived which appears on all sides between the dialectical doctrines of the Peripatetic school and the exposition and evolution of the dogmas themselves among the ancient Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. From these dialectical notions, also, the holy John Damascene began the institution of theology in his tripartite work; and not only the Greeks, but even the Latin doctors followed these by almost the same method, like Alcuin, who is not far removed from the times of Photius.
QUESTION CXXXVII
B To the same Amphilochius, asking for a clear synopsis of the ten Categories.Now published for the first time by D. Hergenroether. On the categories in general.
1. Of things, according to a certain relation and communion among each other, some are equivocal, some univocal, some denominative, then of these some are multivoce (multinominous), and others diverse-voced (diversinominous); and in a certain way, the multivoce are opposed to the equivocal, and the diverse-voced to the univocal.
2. Equivocal, therefore, are things whose communion is in the name, but the difference is in the *ratio* (account), whether the *ratio* being given is definitive or descriptive; e.g., "animal" is said of both a man and an image of a man. Behold, these are equivocal (homonyms). For they agree in name only and in word—namely "animal" (for nothing prohibits calling an image an animal, since we also call those who paint these things painters of animals)—but they differ according to the *ratio*; for each of them admits a different definition or *ratio*. For the one is a living sentient substance, but the image is clearly neither living nor sentient, but by art...
an artifact produced through imitation. Now equivoca are described as follows: equivoca are things whose name alone is common, but the definition of the substance corresponding to the name is different. Here "name" signifies simply any word, and "substance" signifies simply the hypostatic existence of each thing, whether it be substance properly so-called or an accident. Truly, this definition fits equivocal things, but it does not appear suitable for equivocal words; rather, their description will be this: an equivocal word B is one that signifies many different things according to diverse notions. And let this be said regarding equivoca (homonyms).
3. Univoca or synonyms are those which have both the same name and the same definition, such as animal for both man and horse; behold, these are univoca; for their name is one, for instance "animal," and their definition according to "animal" is also the same. Univoca are described thus: univoca are things whose name is common, and the definition of the substance, that is, of the hypostatic existence, corresponding to C the name, is the same. Just as equivocal things received one definition, while the equivocal word received another, so it is also for univoca; for the aforementioned definition would not fit the univocal word, but its own proper definition would be this: a synonym is a word which manifests many different things according to one and the same notion. Just as in the case of synonyms and homonyms different definitions were shown—some of the things themselves, others of the words and names themselves—so also in the case of polyonyms, parionyms, and heteronyms, it is possible to D consider the same thing, and from what we have said, the distinction and comprehension of these is easy. For to discourse so minutely on each of them would be very base and puerile, and useless and superfluous even for those who are beginners. Therefore, passing over this distinction, we bid them gather the rest from what has already been said.
4. Paronyma are those which share in common according to a certain part, and differ according to a certain part, both in name and in the thing itself; for instance, as grammar and grammarian. For the grammarian clearly shares...
in grammar, but also differs. For grammar is knowledge, while the grammarian A is an animal, in which is the knowledge; and in respect of the name, he likewise shares and differs; for indeed, according to the beginning, he shares, but according to the final syllable, he differs. Paronyms are described, to speak more precisely, in this way: paronyms are whatever are derived from some thing and have something in common and something different both in respect of the thing and in respect of the name.
§. Multivocal terms B are those which admit of the same definition, but have different names; as, for instance, man is called *merops* (articulate) and *brotos* (mortal). For these differ from one another in name, clearly, but in definition they do not differ; for each of them admits of the same definition and is a rational, mortal animal.
§. Heteronymymous terms are those which differ both in name and in definition C; as, for instance, man and horse; for behold, these do not share with one another either in name or in definition; for the one is a rational animal, and the other is an irrational animal. And these things, then, concerning equivocal, synonymous, paronymous, multivocal, and heteronymous terms.
§. It must be said concisely that nothing prevents the same thing, with respect to one thing and another, from being both equivocal and synonymous; for indeed man, relative to an image, was shown as equivocal among equivocal terms, but relative to a horse, he is synonymous among synonymous terms. And not only these, but he is also multivocal among multivocal terms, and furthermore, he is also heteronymous among heteronymous terms.
§. 8. Furthermore, of existing things, some are said to be in combination, that is, complexly, as "man walks," "man runs"; others, without combination, as "man," "ox," "horse," "walks," "conquers," "runs." And of these things that are said without combination, some are substances, and others are accidents; and of these, some are universal, and others are particular. Now, accidents are called those which D are in a subject, because they have their existence in some substance. For this is their definition: it is in a subject—that is, it is an accident—which exists in some thing, but not as a part of it, and is unable to subsist in any way without the thing which is the subject for it. And substance is named
A *not in a subject*; for substance is never found in anything else that contributes to its subsisting.
9. The *universal* is said *of a subject*; for the universal is always predicated of some subject belonging to it. *Particulars* are said *not of a subject*; for particulars or individuals are never said of any subject. And because substance is called *not in a subject*, while the universal is called *of a subject*, these two—*not in a subject* and *of a subject*—taken together, will by all means designate universal substance; for example, to speak by way of illustration, "universal man." For universal man is indeed said *of a subject*—that is, of some individual man, such as Plato or another—but it is *not in a subject*; for we said before that things which are in a subject are accidents.
Again, since an accident was called *in a subject*, and the universal *of a subject*, these two taken together—*in a subject* and *of a subject*—will by all means designate the universal accident; for example, to speak by way of illustration, "universal color." For universal color is said B *of a subject*—namely, of some certain color, such as this white—but it is also *in a subject* as in a body, such as in snow or something else.
Furthermore, since the particular was named *not of a subject*, and substance *not in a subject*, these two together—*not of a subject* and *not in a subject*—will by all means indicate particular substance; for example, a certain man or a certain ox. For nothing of that kind is *in a subject* (for what is in a subject was shown to be an accident), nor is it *of a subject* (for what is of a subject was shown to be a universal).
Moreover, since the particular was called *not of a subject*, and the accident *in a subject*, these two—*in a subject* and *not of a subject*—will denote a particular accident; for example, to speak by way of illustration, "this white" or "this black." For this white is in a certain body, but it is not C *of a subject*—for what is *of a subject* was shown to be a universal. But so much for these things.
A 10. When one thing is predicated of another univocally, that is, as of a subject, all things that are said of the predicate will also be said of the subject; for example, "man" is predicated of a certain man, and "animal" is predicated of "man," and it is clear that "animal" will also be predicated of that certain man; for any given man is both man and animal. But when something is not predicated univocally of another, but equivocally, it is not necessary that all things that are said of the predicate also be said of the subject. For example: "white" is predicated equivocally of a body; for a body is said to be "white," but the definition by which "white" is defined by no means fits the body; for the definition of white is "a color," and some other things, but it is manifest that a body is not a color.
11. But it must also be known that for things which are of different genera and not subordinated to one another, the differences are also different in species, as with "animal" and "science." For the differences of "animal" are "land-dwelling" (pedestrian) and "water-dwelling," B but "science" has none of these; for science does not differ from science by being two-footed.
12. Furthermore, of things spoken of without combination, one is substance, another quantity, another quality, another relation, another place, another time, another position, another habit, another acting, another being acted upon. And substance is, for example, man, horse; quantity is, for example, two cubits long, three cubits long; quality is, for example, white, to be grammatical; relation is double, half, greater; where (place) is, for example, in Athens, in the Academy; when (time) is, for example, yesterday, last year; position is, for example, he sits, he stands; habit is, for example, to be shod, to be clothed; to do or to act is, for example, to cut, to burn; to be acted upon is, for example, to be cut, to be burned. Therefore, each of these spoken of simply signifies neither truth nor falsehood; but when combined with one another, they signify truth or falsehood; for example: "Man walks," or something else of this kind; for it is necessary that the proposition, "This certain man walks," be either true or false.
Question CXXVIII [CLXXIV]
On substance
Now first produced by D. Hergenroether.
1. First, we must speak of substance. Substance, therefore, is not said according to one and the same notion, but it is a word from the number of those things spoken of in many ways, even if...
A many who have chosen to say something about substance have overlooked this. For substance is said in one way as the supersubstantial and productive substance of B existing things, the contemplation of which pertains not to this present philosophy, but to primary philosophy; in another way, matter is called substance, and in yet another, the formative and specific form of matter; but each of the two is called substance, while neither of them is strictly a self-subsisting thing. For matter requires, for its existence and manifestation, a specific substance, and the form also, even if not in the same way, nevertheless itself requires material substance upon which to find a foundation and basis; the examination of both of these belongs to the physicist. Furthermore, substance is also said to be the existence and essence of each of the things that exist in any way whatsoever, which has "non-being" as its opposite. Moreover, substance is again said by politicians to be the wealth and possessions of each of the things and monies. Since substance is thus currently spoken of in so many ways, none of the things mentioned can in any way be or be named a category; but the substance that is preservative of existing things and supersubstantial, as being far superior to such words and concepts, or rather as being set apart and established above them by an ineffable transcendence; and matter and form, as being perceived only by the mind and contemplated within composite things, but not existing in activity and subsistence of their own; and regarding the other words, the one is perhaps habitual and proper to politicians, but not to philosophers, and the other signifies everything equivocally, without anything set down and defined; and predication differs greatly from C equivocation.
2. Yet, besides those things mentioned, that which is self-subsisting is also called substance, the definition of which one could rightly give by saying it is a thing that is self-subsisting, not needing another for its existence, such as a man, an ox, fire, earth, and the like. Such a substance could also receive the designation of a category, but it is clear that of those previously mentioned, it is not one. D And of the substance now set forth, some consist of matter and form, while others are removed from matter and form, though they are composed according to a nature corresponding to these. And of these, one acts in an instant and by a single impulse, such as the nature of angels, and then the mind; the other has its operations proceeding with a certain movement, such as the soul. Even if the operation and existence of these are different, it is nevertheless common to them to be and to be called incorporeal; for as many things as have departed from matter and the material form have passed into the definition of the incorporeal; for even if, when compared to that which is strictly and primarily incorporeal and supersubstantial, these things should also be reckoned and called bodies, nevertheless, having escaped the material and bodily
A nature, they are also associated with the nature of the immaterial and incorporeal; but this is a matter for another and deeper discussion.
As for substance composed of matter and form, one kind is uniform, which we are accustomed to call simple; another is multiform, which we properly call composite. Again, among simple substances, some move in a straight line, while others are moved in a circle; and among these latter, some move from east to west, such as the sphere called the "non-starry" and the sphere of the fixed stars itself; others, conversely, move from west to east, such as the spheres of the seven planets. Of the substances that move in a straight line, some are borne from the center, or from below, to the heights, while others, conversely, move from above to below; from below to above moves air and fire, of which fire is distinguished from air by dryness; from above to below moves water and earth, of which the nature differs in moisture. And this much, by way of example, regarding what is called simple substance.
As for composite substance, one kind is sensitive, another is insensible. The sensitive is that which is naturally fitted to use the senses; the insensible is that which is governed without any sense, of which one sort does not even possess the nutritive faculty within, like stones, wood, and similar things, while the other is governed and sustained by it, such as plants, shrubs, grasses, and the like. Those B which possess such a nature as to be able to use the senses also admit of differences; for either they possess a locomotive faculty and constitute the nature of animals, or they are deprived of this and constitute the substance of zoophytes; such are oysters, sponges, and many others. But substance that, along with the faculty of using the senses, has also obtained the locomotive faculty and for this reason is constituted in the species of animals, is divided into rational and irrational, and produces two differing species: I mean the rational animal, which is man, and the irrational, which admits of a greater number of differences. For of these, one is terrestrial, another is aquatic; and each of these is again further divided, and the incision proceeds further, so that I may speak briefly and not involve myself in recording a natural history of animals within the Categories. And this, according to my own conception, is the distinction of the various meanings of substance, and the partition of it as a genus divided into species. But how such a doctrine escapes those defects to which those who have attempted to divide substance otherwise are subject, and how much utility it brings and imparts, you will recognize for yourselves, either now immediately or as we proceed further. But this much regarding the division of substance, and the definition appropriate to it, and the distinction of its meanings.
Of Photius concerning Substance
Substance is a self-subsistent thing not needing another for its existence. CBut Aristotle (28), since he D puts forward [alt-version omitted] particular substance in the Categories, says thus:
A “Substance is that which is most properly, primarily, and most of all called so, which is neither said of any subject nor is in any subject (29),” such as Socrates, Plato, and the like. And universal substance, which he also calls secondary substance, he defines thus (30): “Secondary substances are those species in which the primarily called substances, that is, the individual substances, subsist (31); for example, universal man and universal animal; for in these are comprised the particulars (32),” such as Socrates and Alcibiades, which he himself calls (33) “primary substances,” both because they are more familiar and clearer to us (35), and because all other things are predicated of them and, as it were, rest upon them (36). B For some of them are predicated univocally (37), as are universal substances, but others equivocally, as are accidents; so that if particular substance did not exist, neither, in a certain way, would universal substance or accidents subsist; for which reason (38) it is fitting, he says, that particulars be called primary substances.
But let it not escape your notice, as it has escaped almost most people, that while individuals are called primary substances and universals secondary substances, they did not receive the name of substance univocally either in relation to themselves or in relation to the substance of which the definition and division have been given; yet, by the common principle of generic substance, they are called substances and are named univocally both to themselves and to that. That these things, called secondary and primary substances, are not said univocally either in relation to themselves or in relation to generic substance, although I have much to say, I will for the sake of brevity state only this: the very fact that they are not called simply “substance,” but with an addition—the one being called “primary,” the other “secondary”—is a clear demonstration that each is not called “substance” according to the same notion, and much less so according to another, again, principal notion. C
4. Whether Aristotle rightly or wrongly called the one primary and the other secondary substance, we have mentioned elsewhere, though not cursorily enough. But one thing must be known, which almost escaped us: that there is another signification of substance received in usage, distinct from those enumerated; specifically, that which signifies the species closest to individuals, according to which, although we know this man and this horse to be of the same substance according to the common account of substance, yet, when we refer them to this signification, we know them to be of diverse substances and so designate them; this D we are also accustomed to call nature, according to which notion
we say that Socrates and Plato are of the same nature, but such a man and a horse are of diverse nature. Whence it comes about that there are nine various significations of substance that emerge. But of the others more accurately elsewhere.
5. Now substance, whose definition and division have been brought forth, and which is also able to receive the notion and denomination of a category, has these properties; first, indeed, that it is not in a subject. This property belongs to every species of substance, though not to it alone. It belongs also to essential differences. For these, for example, the rational and the like, are evidently not in a subject; for they cannot be an accident. A second property of substance is that nothing is contrary to it. This property also pertains to every species of substance, but not to it alone. For no substance, in so far as it is a substance, has anything opposed to it as a contrary; and not only this, but quantity also has nothing contrary; for it is evident that to the number ten or seven or the like there is nothing contrary. A third property of substance is that it does not itself receive the more and the less. For no substance can be said to be more or less a substance than another according to the definition of substance purely and simply; neither if you compare singulars with singulars, nor universals with universals, nor singulars with universals. For how could it be possible that Socrates should be conceived or called a substance more than Plato, or man than horse, or, if you like, animal than plant? For one is not more a substance than the other, nor is Socrates more a substance than man or animal, nor, indeed, are these more than Socrates. And similarly for all others. Whence it will be a common property of substance that it does not in any way admit of the more and the less. A fourth property of substance is that, being one and the same in number, it is by its own change capable and susceptible of contraries A. This is also properly a property, because it reverses; for substance alone, and all substance, remaining the same and changing according to qualities, becomes B. C D
cold and hot, or just and unjust, or continent and intemperate, or prudent and insensate A, or something similar. But whether such a thing happens to substance, which is like matter, is not for the present time to judge. B Those, however, who say that this property follows both discourse and opinion, have their falsehood easily detected; for they say that the discourse stating that Socrates is sitting, remaining the same in so far as it possessed being a discourse, was indicative of truth while Socrates was sitting; but when Socrates had risen, it is found to have received falsehood; so that the discourse is also receptive of contraries. And likewise also of opinion; for while he was sitting, the opinion that he was sitting was true, but when he had risen, the same opinion became receptive of falsehood. But those who raise these difficulties say this; let them know, however, that it is not according to its own change that the discourse has become receptive of falsehood and truth, nor yet is it the opinion, but rather according to the change of the thing, which the one opined and the other reported. For if Socrates had not changed from sitting by rising, the discourse stating that Socrates sits would never have become a false discourse, nor would the opinion. So that from this too it is clear that the stated property is especially a property of substance; for it is not only of a nature to receive contraries according to its own change, but also, by changing itself, C it becomes the cause for others to appear receptive of contraries. Therefore, if discourse and opinion are granted to be receptive of contraries, they would not be said to be so at all according to their own change, as substance is, but rather according to the change of the substance, and because that substance receives contraries, they are shown to partake also in the appearance of being receptive of contraries, altogether not according to their own change, but D according to the change of the substance, they derive this attribution, and because substance admits contraries, therefore they too are shown to enjoy this, so that they also appear to admit contraries.
6. However, Aristotle, less diligently, lest I say more slothfully, when discussing substance, posits two other properties of substance: the one, that it signifies a *this-something*, which would be a property not of substance simply, but of that which is called by him first substance; and another, again, that it is predicated univocally. And this also would be a property of that which is called by him second substance. But to signify a *this-something* belongs only to the first substance; for only the particular, shown by the finger or some other such thing, is said to be a *this-something*; but to be predicated univocally…
A does not belong to second substance alone, but to many other things as well. For essential differences are predicated univocally; for “rational” is predicated univocally of Plato and Socrates; for Socrates and each of the others is called rational and is in truth rational. And in quantity and quality, and in the other categories, one can clearly see, as one proceeds, that genera are predicated univocally of the species subordinate to them, and species of the individuals contained within them (53).
7. But it is possible to adduce other properties of these aforementioned substances, derived from what Aristotle himself has said: that it is a property of the particular substance to be called substance more than the universal is, and of the universal substance to be called substance less than the particular is, and not only less than this, but also less than itself; that is to say, not only are universals less substances than individuals, but genera are also less substances than species. For example, "animal" is less a substance than "Socrates," and not only than Socrates, but even than "man"; hence second substances are less substances than particular ones. And each of these properties would be most principally and especially proper to each of these substances; for in all things, nothing is called substance more than the universal, except for the particular, and conversely, nothing can be conceived that is less a substance than the particular, except for the universal B. It can also be clearly considered from this: that universals and individuals, while they are called first and second substances, are neither called substances univocally with respect to themselves, nor are they substances simply. For the properties of these, according to what appears to be the most common name, are altogether foreign and alien; how, then, could their naming be univocal, or their formula of substance be one and the same? Aristotle, however, judges that for this reason the particular substance is more a substance than the universal, because, he says, the individual substance makes what is sought manifest more clearly than the universal substance (54). For he who says "Socrates" makes that philosopher in Athens more known, if it should happen so, than he who says that he is a man or an animal; and he who says "Bucephalus" has signified the horse C of Alexander more clearly than he who says that it is a horse or an animal; and likewise, the species is more a substance of the universal substance than the genus is, one reason being that the species is closer to the D most excellent substance—that is, to the individual—than the genus is.
A and another reason being that whoever mentions the species signifies Socrates more than he who mentions the genus. For he who mentions man has signaled more than he who mentions that he is an animal. Consequently, from what Aristotle argues, he gives us to understand that he calls that substance which is more significant and clearer regarding the subject at hand "more of a substance" than that which does so deficiently. But how that which is more expressive and significant of the subject at hand can be conceived as either a substance at all or as more of a substance, is not within the scope of our present investigation. But enough about substance for now.
QUESTION CXXXIX
On Quantity.
Nunc primum edita a D. Hergenroether.1. Quantity is that according to which each of the things that exist has been quantified. Its species are two: continuous and discrete. That quantity is continuous whose parts connect to some common boundary, but it is discrete whose parts connect to no common boundary. And the discrete is divided into two: into number and into spoken language. For neither is number continuous; for its parts do not connect to any common boundary; as, for example, ten—for neither do the five and the five, or the three and the seven, connect to one another, nor do the parts of any other number. Similarly, neither is speech continuous; for we measure it by a short and a long syllable, and its parts do not connect to any common boundary. B But the continuous is divided into five species: line, surface, time, place, and mathematical body. And a mathematical body is that which has length, depth, and breadth, but is not subject to touch and sight, but is naturally capable of being grasped by the mind alone. For each of these has a common boundary to which its parts connect: the line has the point, the surface the line, the body the surface, and time the present. For the present connects to both the past and the future. Place—which is likewise continuous—has a line as a common boundary; for place and surface are almost the same. But they differ in that it is not necessary for a physical body to contain a surface, but it is necessary for it to contain a place. C D
And because it contains a physical body, it is clear that it is continuous. For if the body is continuous, and the place contains the body and is, as it were, fitted to it as a whole to a whole, it visibly follows that the place is also continuous.
B 2. Now, of these things mentioned, some have position, others do not. Neither number, nor speech, nor time have it. As for number, since it is capable of augmentation unto infinity, it cannot exist all at once; and since it does not subsist all at once, it cannot have any position. Time, too, since it has its existence in that which is now occurring and does not subsist as a whole all at once, is likewise unable to have any position. In the same way, neither can speech have any position; for it has been uttered and no longer exists. But the line, the place, and the surface have a certain position; for each of these both subsists and lies somewhere; and by lying somewhere, it clearly has a certain position.
3. But these things which have been mentioned—to wit, number, speech, time, place, line, surface, and body—are properly quantities. If any other things are also called quantities, they are not called so properly, but because of these aforementioned ones. For example, we call the white or black "much" because the surface is large, and an action "long" because the time in which the action occurred is long; and in the same way, one must speak of the rest.
4. Quantity, moreover, has four properties. First, that it is measured. This property belongs to every quantity and to it alone. Second, that it has no contrary. But this property does not belong to quantity alone; for it has been stated (in the preceding section) that it also belongs to substance. If anyone should think there is something contrary to quantity, laying down the "great" and the "small" as contraries, let him know that these are not quantities, but relative terms; for it is in relation to something else that the great and the small are spoken of. Furthermore, even if we grant that these are quantities, not even so would they be contraries. For if the great is a contrary to the small, but the same thing is seen to be great or small in relation to different things, then it would follow that it is a contrary to itself, which is impossible; it is not
A difficult, therefore, for anyone to see, even if one does not posit these things as relative, but as quantitative, that the lack of capacity to receive a contrary applies to all quantity. The third property of quantity is that it does not admit of the more and the less; for three is not said to be more three than five, nor time more time than time, and similarly with the rest. This property belongs to all quantity, but not to it alone; it exists also in substance. The fourth property of quantity is to be called equal and unequal; but this is properly a property of quantity; B however, it follows from the first property, namely that of being measured. For those things which are measured by something, when compared to one another, are either equal or unequal—that is, either greater or lesser. This property applies to all quantity and to it alone. If anyone were to say that a disposition, being a quality, is also called equal or unequal, he would not be speaking correctly; for this should rather be called similar and dissimilar, and not equal and unequal; thus, this property applies to all quantity and to it alone.
QUESTION CXL.
Concerning quality.
(Now first published by D. Hergenroether.)1. Quality is that in accordance with which some are said to be such or to be affected in some other way. C It has four species, pronounced according to their conjunctions: first, habit and disposition; second, power and powerlessness; third, passive quality and affection; fourth, figure and form. Habit is a quality difficult to remove, making better or worse that in which it exists. Disposition, however, D is a quality easy to remove, that is, it comes into being and passes away according to time. It differs from habit in that habit is more long-lasting and permanent, while this is easily moved and quickly passing away. Such are the sciences, the virtues, and the vices; for we say that he has the habit of these who possesses something of them for a longer time or even throughout his whole life; just as we say that he who has received instruction in grammar and holds it, has it as a habit; in the same way with justice and the rest. We say that a man has a disposition who has received something of the aforementioned, but soon loses it, as, for instance, one who has blushed through anger or turned pale through fear;
for such people are said to have a disposition. For each of them was disposed for a short time according to the redness or paleness, but no one became a possessor A of these [qualities]. It is clear that he who has the habit first had the disposition; for such a man was first disposed according to the quality, and then became a possessor of it. And this much concerning the first species of quality.
2. The second species of quality is power and impotence. These do not exist in act, but are brought forth by aptitude alone. Power is the advancement of B aptitude, while impotence is the difficulty or excision of aptitude. For instance, we say that a boy of excellent natural ability has the power to become a geometrician, while a boy of duller nature has the impotence. In the same way, those are called adept at running and boxing—not those who are running or boxing (for these are called runners and boxers), but those who have aptitude and a natural capacity for the race and C the pugilism. Likewise, those are called healthy who are not just enjoying good health (for these are called sane), but those who have the power of not easily suffering from external occurrences (those who have a natural impotence and suffer easily from accidents are called morbid or sick). Let these things be said concerning power and impotence.
3. The third species of quality is the passive quality and the passion D. A passive quality is a quality long conjoined with some passion, while passion is the path toward a passive quality. Passive quality is spoken of in three ways: either it arose from a passion, as, for instance, fever from the irregular and unnatural heat around the heart, which also produces a certain passion upon touch, for it warms the one who touches it; or it did not arise from a passion, yet it produces a passion, as the heat of fire; for this heat exists in the fire from the beginning and contributes to the constitution of its own substance, so it clearly does not arise from a passion, yet it produces a passion. Similarly, the sweetness of honey did not arise from a passion, but it produces a passion upon the tongue. Or, again, it arose from a passion, but it does not produce a passion, as with the qualities that exist around the soul, such as manic ecstasy, anger, and others of that kind; for this indeed arose from a passion, but it does not produce a passion in the one
seeing, or touching. A Passible quality differs from passion in the same way that a habit differs from a disposition. For if a passion remains for a longer time, so that the one who has received it is named paronymously from it, it is called a passible quality; but if it is cast off and ceases immediately, it is called only a passion.
B 4. The fourth kind of quality is figure and form. These differ in that figure is properly predicated of inanimate things, whereas form is predicated of animate ones. Furthermore, there are other species, such as straightness and curvature, and those things similar to them, which stand in opposition to figure and form. For these are not reduced under figure, as appeared to some without right reason, since figure is the termination of any given mass, or, as some say, that which is contained and surrounded by some term or terms; similarly, neither are they reduced under form, since form is the termination of the whole species. But these are of themselves, as it were, certain species belonging to quality, just as are roughness and smoothness, rarity and density, and anything similar to these.
C 5. Quality is predicated in four ways: denominatively, equivocally, diversively, and innominably. Denominatively, as "grammarian" from "grammar"; equivocally, as a "grammatical woman" from the science of grammar; diversively, as "upright" from "virtue"—for the upright man is said to be upright from virtue, but not denominatively, as one is denominatively from "uprightness"; innominably, as "apt for running" and "apt for boxing." For there are no names laid down for the qualities from which these men were qualified. D For the vocal expression of "running" is not the name of the power of which one who is apt for running participates and is called "apt for running," but it is the name of the art from which not the "apt for running" one, but the "runner" is both named and produced. Similarly, "boxing" is not the name of the power of which the man who is "apt for boxing" participates and is called "apt for boxing," but it is the name of the art from which not the "apt for boxing" one, but the "boxer"—that is, the one who is knowledgeable in the art of boxing—is so named and produced. Such a condition is found in fewer cases; in most cases, quality is predicated denominatively of those who participate in it. And just as quality is not predicated in the same way of those who participate in it,
A but—as regards some items, denominatively; as regards others, homonymously; as regards others, heteronymously; and as regards others, anonymously—in this way, those things which participate in it are not qualia (qualified things) and are not spoken of as such in the same way. But as many as have participated in a quality without undergoing any change regarding the position of their parts, these are properly qualia and might be called such; but as many as have had the position of their parts altered, they would be said to have position rather than to be qualia. Thus, the grammarian, the just man, the red-faced man, and others of that kind would properly be qualia; for each, having partaken of its proper quality, has been altered in some other respect, yet has undergone no change in the position of its parts. However, the rare and the dense, the rough and the smooth, the oblique B and the straight, and anything of that sort, immediately upon partaking of the denominative quality, have also changed the position of their parts; and the participation in the quality did not primarily change anything else, but rather exchanged the position of the parts. For this reason, it has rendered that which received it not properly a quale, but rather one having position. For indeed, that is and is called dense, whose parts are placed close to one another; and rare, whose parts are in some way distant and divided from one another. Again, it is smooth, whose parts are placed against one another (in a straight line) one after the other, and do not differ from one another in that one stands out above another, nor in that one is lower and subsides; but it is rough, C whose parts project beyond others or fall short; and let this suffice concerning these matters.
6. It has three properties. One of these is that it has a contrary; for justice is contrary to injustice. But this property belongs neither to quality alone, nor to every quality. Not to quality alone, since it belongs also to acting and being acted upon, as will be said later; nor to every quality, since for pallor, which itself is a quality, there is nothing contrary. The second property is that it does not admit of the more and the less. For there is not a grammar that is more grammar than another grammar, nor a justice more than justice. Nevertheless, a just man is said to be more or less just than a just man, and a grammarian more or less D a grammarian than a grammarian. But this property does not belong to every thing affected by a quality, nor to it alone. Not to it alone, because the same things both act and suffer, and not to every quality, because a quadrilateral and a triangle, which are qualia—that is, things possessed of a quality—are not more or less...
For if you compare a triangle with a quadrilateral, it is not said to be more or less; for these, insofar as they are a triangle and a quadrilateral, cannot be compared with one another in any way, for the things being compared must partake of the same name. But if you compare a triangle with a triangle, or a quadrilateral with a quadrilateral, not even then will one be said to be more or less than the other. For these are indeed compared, but because they share the name and definition equally—both the quadrilaterals, and again the triangles—for this reason, a quadrilateral cannot be said to be more or less a quadrilateral than a A quadrilateral, nor a triangle a triangle than a triangle. The third property of quality is that it is called similar and dissimilar. This, moreover, is properly and strictly a property, for none of the aforementioned things is called similar except in regard to quality.
7. It must be known that all the most specific qualities are reduced to quality, such as grammar, justice, and the rest in like manner; but the more general ones are also reduced to relative things; for science is among relative things (for science is called such in relation to what is knowable), and so is habit (for habit is called such in relation to what is held). And let these things have been said concerning quality.
QUESTION CXLI. Regarding relative things.
Nunc primum edita a D. Hergenroether.
1. Relative is that which, for as many as exist, to be is the same as being related to something else; that is, those things whose existence consists in a relation to another; for example, as double and half, for the double has its existence in the relation to the half, and the half in the relation to the double; and likewise also for the others. But there are subordinate degrees among relative things, of which some are said according to identity, some according to inequality, some according to generation, some according to participation, some according to subjection, some according to affection, some according to judgment, some according to position, and some according to the relation to the genus. Examples of those which are said according to identity are, for instance, a friend is a friend of a friend, and an enemy is an enemy of an enemy, and the similar is similar to the similar; of that which is according to inequality, as the greater is greater than the less, and the double is the double of the half; [or according to equality, as the equal is equal to something;] of that which is according to generation, as a father is the father of a son; of that which is according to participation, as that which partakes partakes of that which is partaken; of that which is according to subjection, as a master of a servant, a master...
of that which is according to A passion, as he who strikes strikes that which is struck, and he who is struck is struck by him who strikes; of that which is according to judgment, as knowledge is called the knowledge of that which is knowable; of that which is according to position, as the right is the right of the left; of that which is according to the relation to a genus, as grammar and music and [thereby] those similar to them. For each of these, considered by itself, is not brought under the category of relatives, but according to the relation to a genus, it might perhaps be brought under it; for the genus of these is knowledge, and this is among the relatives; thus, even these, because of their genus, are among the relatives. But concerning this proposition, we shall speak more broadly elsewhere.
2. The definition mentioned at the beginning B of what are relatives belongs strictly to the nature of the relatives; but that which we now bring forward appears rather as a kind of corollary. It is of this sort: Relatives are those things which, whatever they themselves are, are said to be of others or in any other way referred to another. I have said, however, that such a definition is not indicative of the nature of those things which are relatives, because not everything that is said to be of others is also a relative; for the hand is called the hand of someone, and the head is called the head C of someone, and the other parts similarly; but these are not among the relatives, for they are substances, and no substance is among the relatives. One must know, however, that of things relative, some are expressed by the genitive, as "a master is the master of a servant," others by the dative, as "the knowable is knowable to knowledge," and others by the accusative, as "he who strikes strikes him who is struck." Therefore, the corollary which has been spoken of added "or in any other way" to the words "are said to be of others," so that by the words "are said to be of others" it might indicate those D that are expressed by the genitive, and by the words "or in any other way" those expressed by the accusative and the dative.
3. Relatives have four properties. The first of these is the existence of contrariety within them; for ignorance is the contrary to knowledge. This property, however, belongs neither to all relatives nor to them alone; not to all, since there is no contrary to the double, and not to them alone, since it also [applies to] quality.
B The third property of relatives is that they are spoken of in reciprocal terms; for instance, the slave is called the slave of the master, and the master is called the master of the slave; and the double is the double of the half, and the half is the half of the double; and the greater is the greater of the lesser, and the lesser is the lesser of the greater; and science is the science of the knowable, and the knowable is knowable by science; and sensation is the sensation of the sensible, and the sensible is sensible by sensation; and similarly in other cases. This property belongs to all relatives and to them alone. The fourth property is that of being by nature simultaneous. For the double and the half exist simultaneously, and while the half exists, there is a double, and while the slave exists, there is a master, and while the master exists, there is a slave. Similarly, the others behave in the same way. Moreover, they also cancel each other out; for if the double is not, the half is not, and if the half is not, the double is not; and similarly in other cases. This property, too, belongs to all relatives and to them alone. For the sensible and sensation do not conflict with this; for even if fire and water and the other elements existed prior to the animals in which sensation exists (for every animal is composed of the elements), yet they did not pre-exist as sensible things, but as bodies or substances; because when there was no sensation, since no animal yet existed, the elements were not subject to any sensation, and not being subject to sensation, they did not happen to be sensible yet. They became sensible when sensation perceived them. Likewise, if anyone posits that the stars existed prior to the creation of man and calls them "knowable" while science did not yet exist, he will be released from the difficulty through the aforementioned solution. For the stars indeed existed, but not as knowable things; for how could they be knowable when science was not yet contemplated concerning them? But it is clear that they became knowable then, when they were brought under science. And furthermore, those who determine that man has always coexisted C with the celestial body from eternity, it is clear that they cannot evade the fact...
that they do not acknowledge either the elements A of animals or the stars to have pre-existed in time; but they will judge it right to prefer the simple to the composite only in reason and theory; so that for all relative things it is a property to exist simultaneously by nature. But enough has been said concerning relative things.
QUESTION CXLII.
Concerning the remaining six categories.
Nunc primum edita a D. Hergenroether.Aristotle, perhaps as one not instructing but rather indicating or displaying his doctrine (if it is true what he said concerning his own books: B "They are edited and not edited"), has discussed the others, and the six (remaining) categories, even more concisely. We, however, who have discussed the four predicaments more extensively and as was appropriate to the subject, and have explained them to our students, have judged that the same method of explanation ought to be maintained by you regarding the remaining six. Therefore we say, that before all else it is necessary to know that each of the categories about which we are now speaking is in a certain sense simple. For although each of the six C categories is produced from the combination of two some-things, it is nevertheless clear that we do not say these very combined things themselves are the category, such that composition follows upon them from that; for these combined things are not taken as parts of it, nor as some subject matter, nor as some elements of a composite, but just as friendship is the union of two certain men, yet it is neither of the friends, nor is it in any way composed of them, but is entirely simple; and just as lordship is effected and manifested from certain combined things, D yet is entirely simple: in the same way also each of the six categories emerges from two convenient things, yet is not either of the convenient things, nor is it in any way composed of them. Thus I say that these remaining categories, besides those four, are simple, just as those are. And this simplicity is common to all categories; but that they are effected and emerge from two certain co-existing things is that which is especially proper to these six. Since, therefore, we have spoken of those things which are commonly inherent in these six, we also wish to institute a separate investigation into each of them; and first indeed concerning action, the description, species, and properties of which we shall delineate; and similarly also
concerning the others.
QUESTION CXLIII [CLXXVIII].
Concerning action.
Nunc primum edita a D. Hergenroether1. To act, therefore, is to operate in any way whatsoever. It has, however, two primary species: to operate toward something else, and not to operate toward something else; an example of operation toward something else:
A to strike, to burn, to teach, and the like; of operating, however, which is not toward something else: to contemplate, to play the cithara, and similar things. Each of these two has four differences: for it acts either by nature, as fire is said to warm and an animal to emit sound; or by choice, as to make someone rich, to praise, and to celebrate; or by art, as to build a house and similar things; or by chance or fortuitously, as a falling stone striking someone or hitting or releasing an echo. Furthermore, some acting leaves behind a product after the action, as for example, the house remains after building; whereas other acting leaves behind nothing: for after playing the cithara, no product of the playing remains. B Furthermore, acting is either in the body, or in the soul, or in the combination of both, or concerns external things: in the soul, as to teach or to habituate someone to some virtue or vice; in the body, as to burn or to cut; in their combination, as to heal (for this pertains to both, and is not of the soul or of the body separately); but concerning external things, as to make one rich and the like. Again, acting is either perfective or corruptive: perfective, as to heal; corruptive, as to render the body diseased. Finally, acting either produces such an effect as it itself is, as the warming agent makes something warm, or not such, as the cutting agent [makes] a cut; if this is so, and acting is coordinate with the agent, then acting will also have the same difference.
β'. C Acting admits of the "more" and the "less"; for one can warm more or less, and likewise cool. But this does not occur in all cases; for one cannot build a house more or less, although one can build it better or worse. The second property of acting is that it has a contrariety; for to warm is the contrary of to cool, and to cause sorrow [is the contrary of] to gladden. But one might see that this does not occur in many cases; for there is nothing contrary to cutting or burning or such things. The third property is that it is spoken of in a similar and dissimilar way; for we say to warm similarly and dissimilarly, and to render healthy similarly and dissimilarly, and to build a house similarly and dissimilarly; and this property applies to almost every act, even if not to it alone; for it applies also to suffering. The fourth property is that the things reduced under it are not referred to action in one way. For warming is primarily reduced under acting and is properly acting; but the warming [agent] is said to be reduced under acting because it is primarily related to the agent, which corresponds to acting (which is likewise in the same genus as action); so in the same way that which has warmed is said to be referred to acting, because it is primarily related to that which acted, which itself also corresponds to acting; D and likewise with the others. Since you have from this, as if by way of a corollary, that the categories are not altogether predicated as genera and species; for otherwise, how could it be said that that which is warming and that which has warmed are referred under acting? But that the aforementioned are reduced under this category is clear to one who marshals the other categories; for what is warming is neither...
substance, as is evident from the thing itself, nor quantity, nor relative (for it does not have its being in a relation to another), nor indeed quality (for heat is a certain quality, but what is warming is not said to be warming by being a certain quality, but by doing something). But that neither what is warming nor what has warmed, nor things coordinate with these, can be referred under position or any of the other categories, it would be vain to recount. But no one will say that these are not referred under a category, nor that what acts and has acted is not properly a category; for he who would maintain such a thing would increase categories to infinity, and would recognize no limit of knowledge. B Deservedly, therefore, this property has been assigned, and the corollary emerging from it—which many of the ancients, not to say all, did not know—has been examined philosophically, truly, and correctly. To you, however, this doctrine has been handed down more clearly and accurately through the exchange of our discourses and the practice of rational discipline. Nor is it only acting that has this property; suffering and being situated have it as well. The fifth property is that acting does not subsist without motion; for it is not possible to warm, or to burn, or to cool, or to teach, or similar things without motion. The sixth property, which is uniquely its property and which is convertible (for it applies to no other thing except acting), is this: that it is completed from the action and from that from which the action arises. Let these things be said concerning action.
QUESTIO CXLIV [Coisl. CLXIX]. On Passion.
Now first edited by D. Hergenroether.
Since suffering is not other than acting regarding the subject, C although their being is different, it will claim for itself almost all the aforementioned species and properties. That acting and suffering are the same regarding the subject, although their being is different, is manifest. For as there is one motion, it is called action in relation to the agent, but it is called passion in relation to the patient. It is its property that it is completed from the passion and that in which the passion is; this is most especially its property; wherefore it also is convertible.
QUESTIO CXLV [Coisl. CXLX]. On place (where).
Now first edited by D. Hergenroether.
1. Where is [to be] in a place. It is divided properly into six species: into being above and below, to the right and left, before and behind.
and each of these is either far or near. Furthermore, it is either in the first or in the second [mode]; I mean that a body is in the first when it is in a place equal to itself, and not contained in a larger and more spacious one; but in the second, when it is in a larger one, as we say, for example, that Socrates is in the house or in the city. Moreover, of the 'where,' when taken specifically, one part is said by nature, which is always understood in the same way, such as that the heaven is above (for its place, being ordered B towards one thing, is called below only, I mean only in relation to the place of the earth); or not by nature, but by accident, as when an animal is said to be above by reason of the roof of a house; for these two can be called both above and below, provided they are taken in relation to one thing or another.
2. There are three properties of 'where' in number: one is that it signifies a place; for example, 'to be above' pertains strictly to the 'where,' but it signifies a certain place, namely, the place above; and this property exists in every species. The second is that it signifies a local C relation; and local relation is twofold: for both the containment of the body, according to which it is said to be contained, would be a local relation, and the encompassment of the place, according to which it is said to contain the body, is likewise [a local relation]. Since, therefore, as has been said, the local relation is taken in two ways, both of these are signified by the category of 'where'; but it seems to signify the containment more than the encompassment, for primarily it signifies the containment; and the encompassment D is signified along with it. And this property too belongs to every 'where' and to no other of the remaining nine categories besides this one. The third property is that a certain position follows it inseparably; for to that which truly 'is where,' there always follows a certain position; for example, to the one who is above or thus has the position of the parts, or even of the whole, or thus; and likewise for the one who is below; and similarly for the others; so that this property would follow every 'where.' The fourth property is that it itself is the result of the body and of the place containing it; for 'to be above' was produced from both the place above and the body in it; and 'below' likewise; and similarly for the others. But let it not escape us that of the 'above,' one part is taken in respect to the place alone and is among the relations, but the other [is taken as] being in a place, and is under the category of 'where'; and this also you have heard treated more broadly. And the present property also belongs to every species, and to it alone, and always, and therefore it is convertible. But since there are more properties based on negation, I mean the fact that it does not admit contrariety and does not have a contrary, and does not admit the more or [[less...]]
and is not said to be like or unlike, and other infinite ones, those who desire to avoid unphilosophical and superfluous matters will need to be content with these affirmative ones which have been stated and discovered.
QUESTION CXLVI [Coisl. CLXXXI].
Concerning that which is to be situated.
Now first edited by D. Hergenroether.1. To be situated consists in parts having a certain position relative to one another. B But one kind of situation is uncompounded, which is properly called standing (statio); another consists of diverse things, such as reclining and sitting. If this be so, then "to be situated" is produced either from an uncompounded situation or from one that is compounded. Furthermore, one situation belongs to the parts alone and not to the whole, such as rarity and condensation, roughness and smoothness; another belongs to the whole alone, such as reclining and sitting (for a part is not said to sit or to be reclined, but the whole); another, again, belongs both to the whole and to the parts, such as standing properly so-called, which is an uprightness of both the parts and the whole. Moreover, that which is situated is either entirely upright and is said to stand, or it is upright in one part but reclined in another, and is said to sit. These, therefore, are species of what is "to be situated": to be reclined, to stand, and to sit. However, not only these, but infinite others also exist. For instance, the rare and the dense and the like, which are said to be situated, are not said to stand, nor to be reclined, nor to sit. Yet these too seem to fall under that species of this category which reveals the situation of the parts towards one another, but not the position of the whole. That rarity and condensation and suchlike are not positions of the whole is evident from the fact that it is not possible to have two situations for the one and same whole, whereas both rarity and standing are found in one and the same thing. Just as it is possible for all parts to have a private shape apart from that of the whole, so it is possible for them to have a private situation apart from that of the whole. Of those things which have a situation, some have received the same by nature, such as the rare and the dense; others by choice, as a man sitting; others by art, as a statue standing; others by chance, as that stone which has fallen into a certain position.
2. It is a property of being situated to be named paronymously from the situation (or position). D For from sitting (sessio) comes "to sit," and from standing (statio) comes "to stand," and from reclining (reclinatio) comes "to be reclined," and similarly in other cases. Wherefore, in those cases where there are no names for the positions, neither is there a name for the species of being situated. For such a configuration—for example, that of a crow or any other bird—has no name, because there is no name for such a position. In this matter, the augurs will not disagree with us; for as they assign names to the figures of animals with excessive zeal, they have either already provided names for the positions or they are to receive them from us.
B The second property is to be spoken of similarly and dissimilarly; for we say that one sits similarly and dissimilarly, and reclines similarly and dissimilarly. The third property is that the things referred to this category are not referred in the same way. For "to sit" is referred primarily to "position" and is strictly "position"; but "the one sitting" is said to be referred to "position," because it is referred primarily to the subject, which is coordinate with "position." Likewise, "the one standing" and "the one reclining" are said to be referred to "position," because they are referred primarily to its coordinate. And it is clear from this, as has been said before, that the categories are not altogether predicated as genera. The fourth property of "position" is that it is the result of the placement and of that which has the placement; and this would be strictly a property because it convertible. For that which is "position" resulted from both the placement and that which has the placement; and that which these are, is "position."
These things, then, are about "position." But as for the negative properties, since they are very many and not of much utility, and moreover are easily gathered, we omit them here as well.
QUESTION CXLVII. On "When."
"When" is to be in time. Its species are as many as one assumes the species of time to be. For if one counts the "now" as well, there are three; but if not—which is also the truth—there are two: being in the past and being in the future. Furthermore, being in time is said to be either in a primary or in a secondary way. In the primary way, when the time is neither longer nor shorter than the motion of the thing said to be in it. In the secondary way, when it is longer and more extended than the motion; as we say, for instance, that this person was born yesterday, although not the whole day of yesterday was co-extended with his birth, but only a short interval was measured against it, while the rest of the time was extended beyond it. Furthermore, of "when," one part is determinate and one is not. Determinately, as "yesterday," "today," "tomorrow," "last year," and the like; indeterminately, as "long ago," "a while ago," "just now," "after these things." These also would belong to "when," I refer to "at the time when," "then," "earlier," "later," "together," "already," "slowly," and "quickly." And one must know that "yesterday," "today," "tomorrow," and the like, are equivocal; for in one way they denote time alone and are species of time, but in another way they denote that something is in time, and are species of the category of "when." This has escaped no small number of those who have philosophized in ancient times.
It belongs D especially to "when" to signify time; and another property is that it is the result of time and of things subject to time, for it receives its existence through a certain relation to other things. This would be its most particular property, for it belongs to it alone and is mutually predicated. But this is enough concerning "when," omitting of course
A those negative properties for the reasons we have already mentioned (33).
QUESTION CXLVIII
EDITOR'S ADMONITION
This question explains the passage in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 5, the same one which we have already seen treated in question fifty-four. It is not found in either the Coislin or the Turin codices. Since, while traveling in Italy, we judged that it should be postponed in favor of other as yet unedited works, being of lesser value, and deferred its transcription to more favorable times, we have been forced to leave it still unpublished. The beginning of it in the Vatican codex, fol. 134, is: (Saying Paul, whose tongue is the instrument of the Holy Spirit); the end, however, is: (as for the books, just as your pontifical perfection knows, along with others from which we could have sustained our life, the captivity seized them as booty).
QUESTION CXLIX [Coisl. Taur. CIII]
Concerning the end of life.
Edited by Mai (Nova Collect. vol. I, p. 285 sq.; II, p. 683, ed. 1825). It exists among the works of St. Germanus, vol. XCVIII of this Patrologia, col. 90-123.
QUESTION CL [Coisl. CLX. Taur. CLIX]
How many Sibyls were there?
Edited by B. de Montfaucon (Biblioth. Coisl. p. 347, 548).
There were ten Sibyls, of whom the first was named Sambethe; the ancients say she was a Chaldean, but others rather a Hebrew, who was the wife of one of the sons of Noah and entered the ark together with him and the others. They say that she prophesied about the building of the tower and about what happened to those who dared such a venture; they say that she uttered her oracles in the Hebrew tongue, as she existed before the division of tongues; and furthermore, that she foretold the deeds of Alexander of Macedon, of whom mention is also made by Nicanor, who wrote the life of Alexander. The second was the Libyan, whom Euripides mentions in the prologue to the *Lamia*; however, they do not clearly state her name. The third was the Delphic, born in Delphi, about whom Chrysippus recorded history. The fourth was the Italian, who lived in the wilderness of Italy. The fifth was the Erythraean, who foretold the events that took place during the Trojan War; Apollodorus the Erythraean discourses on her. The sixth is the Samian, whose proper name they say is Phyto. The seventh is the Cumaean by race, but named Amalthea; others call her Herophile, while among some she gained the name Taraxandra. Furthermore, the Roman poet Virgil calls her Deiphobe. The eighth is the Hellespontian, who was born in the village of Marmissos, near the town of Gergethion; this village was once within the borders of Troy. The ninth is the Phrygian. The tenth is the Tiburtine by race, but named Abunaea. They say that these women, being out of their minds, prophesied future events; but when those receiving their oracles committed them to writing, not being able to [record] them capably and without error...
NOTES
(33) Regarding the final category, which is "having," Photius has nothing. See his treatment in *Aristotelian Categories*, ch. last (ch. 12, p. 24, ed. Paris 1848).
as they did not have hands, and since at other times they could not keep pace with the speed of the utterances to transcribe them, it happened that many of the oracles fell into choliambic meter and could no longer be corrected. For indeed, since those women who uttered the oracles were in a state of ecstasy when they were predicting the existence of future events, once they had ceased the oracular activity, they had no sense at all of what they had said, nor did they know what the oracles they had delivered were meant to signify.
QUESTION CLI. On the testimonies of profane authors which are cited in the Holy Scriptures.
B Judas the apostle, in his Epistle, brings forward this passage from the so-called apocryphal books of Moses: "Michael the archangel, when disputing with the devil he argued about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said: The Lord rebuke you." In the same Epistle, he mentions another passage of this kind from the apocryphal books of Enoch: "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and for all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, introduces the blessed Paul bringing forward a portion of the heroic verses of Aratus in his address to the Athenians, in which he says: "As certain also of your own poets have said: For we are also his offspring." C The blessed Paul, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, mentions this utterance from the so-called apocryphal books of the prophet Elijah: "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and it has not entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him." In the same Epistle, he mentions a certain popular Laconic proverb, which the prophet Isaiah also had set down beforehand in his own accounts: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die." Furthermore, in the same Epistle, he mentions Menander the comic poet—who himself records the sentiments of certain ancients—saying as follows: "Evil communications corrupt good manners," and what follows. D Indeed, also in the Epistle to the Galatians, he makes use of the saying from the apocryphal books of Moses: "For neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; and as many as shall follow this rule, peace be on them and mercy and upon the Israel of God." But also in the Epistle to the Ephesians, from the so-called apocryphal books of Jeremiah: "Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." And in the Epistle to Titus, he recounts the prophecy of Epimenides the Cretan seer, of whom Callimachus also makes mention in his own poetry: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies; this testimony is true."
QUESTION CLII
Why the Holy Scriptures are obscure.
The obscurity in the Holy Scriptures arises from many causes. I. Because every language, when translated into another, loses its own proper structure. II. Because the synonymous terms of the Hebrews were not sufficiently understood by the interpreters; A just as among the Greeks, where the meaning varies according to the diversity of the accent: for example, *opos* and the like. For *kalos* with an acute accent signifies beautiful, becoming, diligent in virtue, or useful; while *kalos* with a paroxytone accent signifies a ship’s cable. Again, *oros* with a paroxytone accent is either the definition of some thing or a high place or hill; but *oros* with an acute accent is the watery part of milk. III. There are some Hebrew words which, by their nature, could not be interpreted by the Greeks, and these they left untouched; such as the prison *sinoch* in Jeremiah. IV. Punctuation also often creates obscurity, as in: "The good shall be B the inhabitants of the land," unless we place a mark of punctuation after "the good." V. The difference in accent also makes a difference, as in "the beginning of wisdom, seek wisdom"; unless we write *arche* with a paroxytone accent and take it as a verb. VI. Many of their words denote both the singular and the plural in one single form, as with "God" and "gods." VII. Many change persons; for that which is said to Abraham, "Now I know that thou fearest God," is spoken for "thou knowest." VIII. The Hebrews also use genders preposterously; for they speak of the moon and the sea in the masculine gender. IX. Often something is missing, as in "mountains ascend and plains descend." The particle "as" is clearly missing, for it ought to be "they ascend as mountains"—for the discourse is about the waves—"and they descend as plains." X. Since the books had been burned during the captivity, and afterwards the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Babylon were secretly sending copies back and forth to one another, those who lay in wait would seize the books. The Hebrews, therefore, wrote again using symbols that foreigners could not understand; hence the obscurity arose, until at length, divinely inspired, Ezra recalled all the Scriptures to memory and entrusted them to writing.
QUESTION CLIII
On the same subject, more clearly.
The first cause for which the ancient Scriptures remain in obscurity is to be traced to the brutish intellect of the readers. Paul bears witness to this same thing, saying that the veil was not removed from the reading of the Old Testament, because it is done away in Christ. The second cause is because Moses D
A legislator wore a veil on his face, so, analogously, the things legislated also brought with them obscurity as a kind of veil. Neither the one nor the other bears the blame, but rather the weakness of the hearers contains the cause. For Moses covered his head because they could not bear the glory of his face when unveiled, and the law, in place of a veil, for this very reason clothed itself in obscurity; for in those things were stored up, as in treasures, the more perfect and higher doctrines—I mean Christ and His Testament—which it proclaimed in advance. B But the imperfection and infirmity of the mind of those people stood as an obstacle to them gaining the profit from that source, whereas for us it was preserved, being stored up so that, when Christ had arrived, through conversion to Him, the treasure might be revealed. And see to what great dignity the presence of the Master has brought us; for He has placed us in the ranks of Moses. But otherwise, the prophecy of things to come, even if it draws no other obscurity from anywhere else, is nevertheless never so clear as the narrative of present things. But when the things prophesied have received their fulfillment, then at last the obscurity is transformed into clarity. For even with the words, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” C when foretold by the Savior, not only did the unbelieving and desperate part of the other Jews neither perceive nor understand what was prophesied, but not even the band of the disciples—who were wiser among them and who enjoyed the instruction of the Master—not even they understood, but they required the outcome of the events to perceive the meaning of the prophecy. Wherefore the Jew is not to be held guilty for not having understood the prophecies concerning Christ before His presence. And for this reason the Savior said: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have had no sin.” For even if the oracles proclaimed Him, yet they were overshadowed by the absence of the One who was being proclaimed; but when He was present, they were no longer overshadowed from anywhere else, but were veiled only by the malice and wickedness of those who did not wish to D accept Him. Added to the causes of the obscurity is the fact that the Old Scripture was not written in the Greek tongue, but passed from Hebrew into it. It is the nature of every language, when translated into a foreign one, to draw along with it obscurity and difficulty of understanding. Now in the beginning, the Mosaic laws were entrusted to the Hebrew tongue, because at that time the Jewish nation alone attended to the knowledge of God, while the rest were brutalized by idolatrous madness. But when Christ drew near to arrive, and to call the world to Himself, and the Greek language was prevalent among the nations more than the others, then the Hebrew tongue was changed into Greek, a hundred years or hardly more before the presence of the Savior, in the time of Ptolemy...
of Egypt (6); for it was necessary that the means by which the majority of the nations were to be guided to the knowledge of God, should also be the means by which the oracles which prophesied the common Savior were announced. But languages were divided into many tongues, because man, having received one at the beginning, was lifted up toward arrogance and impiety; since, therefore, they used the one speech harmfully, the multitude was reasonably introduced. But the profit and utility of the one, after its division and the scattering at a time long after, the disciples, instructed with fiery tongues and preaching the great works of God, finally demonstrated and fulfilled.
QUESTION CLIV [Coisl. CLXXXIV, Taur. CLXXIII]. How many editions of Scripture have there been.
On the Greek versions of the Old Testament.
The first is [the version] of the seventy-two interpreters; these men, being Hebrews, were A chosen, six from each tribe, and they interpreted the divine Scripture under King Ptolemy Philadelphus, three hundred and one years before the birth according to the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ. The second is the edition of Aquila; this man, originating from Sinope of Pontus and being a Greek, was baptized in Jerusalem; afterwards, having renounced the Christian religion and joined the Jews, he himself also interpreted the divine Scripture under Emperor Hadrian, who was struck with leprosy, four hundred and thirty years after the seventy-two interpreters; he did not produce his interpretation with a righteous intent, but out of antipathy toward the Christians. The third is the edition of Symmachus; this man was at first a Samaritan; but since he was not honored by his own people, driven by a love of authority he ran to the Jews and was circumcised a second time, and, out of B hostility toward the Samaritans, he also interpreted the divine Scripture while Severus was reigning, fifty-six years after the edition of Aquila, making his own edition. The fourth is that of Theodotion of Ephesus; this man, who had been of the heresy of Marcion the Pontic, and was jealous of his fellow-heretics, made his own edition of the Scripture while Commodus was governing the Roman empire. The fifth interpretation does not have a known author; it was found, however, hidden in jars under Caracalla when he was ruler of the Romans in Jericho. The sixth likeness, C similarly having an anonymous author, also met with the same discovery; for it too was found hidden in jars under Alexander, the son of Mamaea, in Nicopolis, which is situated near Actium. In addition to all these, there came the interpretation of our holy Scripture which the saintly Lucian, a great ascetic and martyr, produced. For this man, having applied himself to the aforementioned editions and having luckily obtained the Hebrew copies with great zeal, and having D accurately inspected them, he cast away the things that were lacking or superfluous to the truth, and he made an edition of his own for the Christians of the same faith, which edition, after his struggle and after...
the persecution which arose under the tyrants Maximian and Diocletian, was found in Nicomedia, written in his own hand. For at that time, Constantine the Great was reigning; and the book was found among the Jews in the wall of a small tower, plastered over with lime for its safety.
QUESTION CLV
What did the shepherds signify to others concerning the child that was announced to them?B After they had seen with their own eyes the things which had been announced, they were seized with wonder at the reality of the event, and did not conceal the reason for it from those who were inquiring. Nay, rather, they were opening up and proclaiming to those present all things which they had previously seen, and which they had received by hearing, both from the angel who brought the good news and was the herald, and from the rest of the host of angels who were praising God. For they were relating what they had seen, which was beyond reason, not only to Mary and to Joseph, but after them also to all the others whom they happened to meet, taking them on as sharers in those supernatural sights and sounds by means of their narrative. And immediately the city of Bethlehem was filled—for it was nearby—with the truth of the saving birth and the precision of the testimony from heaven, as those God-wise shepherds eagerly recounted everything, and instilled that terrifying miracle into the souls of men. For the text says: “All who heard wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.” For how was it not a subject for wonder to behold Him who is in the heavens upon the earth, and Him who joins earth to heaven through peace, and makes the heavenly things familiar to the earth? Or rather, to see that ineffable infant joining heavenly things by His divinity and earthly things by His humanity to one another, and out of His own union, regulating a marvelous peace between them, which surpasses all reason? C Perceiving this—the angelic host—and led by spiritual dancing, they sang: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace.”
And so, the work, the proclamation, and the course of those shepherds were completed in these things. “But Mary,” it says, “kept these words, pondering them in her heart.” What words? Those of the archangel Gabriel, those of Zachariah, those of Elizabeth, those of the shepherds, in which the angel had brought them good news. And the ranks of the angels, who by their hymn-singing were providing more certain faith in the good news. But with what was she pondering these words in her heart? Is it not manifest that it was with the deeds of which she had had experience? With the seedless conception, with the painless pregnancy, with the incorrupt birth? Comparing the words to the works within herself, she acknowledges God—
and accepted the correct judgment regarding the one who had been born. As for the shepherds, finally, seeing the wonders which they had seen and filling their souls with joy A they returned, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, as it had been spoken to them.
QUESTION CLVI
B Was Simeon, who received our Lord Jesus Christ in his arms, a priest?
Simeon was not a priest, yet he surpassed the priests greatly in virtues. Therefore, another priest administered those things which the law commanded to be performed regarding the infant; but Simeon, raised above others both by his other illustrious deeds and by his venerable white hair, was deemed worthy—according to the divine oracle—to enjoy this sight. He recognized the one who had been preached; he saw the truth of the oracles; and he carried in his arms the one who carries all things by his word. And having in this way beheld with his own eyes the salvation of the human race, and being filled with a more divine joy, he was no longer held by the desire for this life, but was seized by the desire for the impending happiness, and he longed to lay down his body as quickly as possible and to announce to those in Hades the salvation and liberation that had been brought about.
Furthermore, he blessed God—that is, he followed Him with praises and proclamations. He praised Him C both for other reasons and, above all, because he saw that the promises made to him had come to pass in reality, and he understood that the consolation of Israel had been granted to him to behold with his eyes and to carry in his arms. Full of joy from these things: "Now," he says, "you dismiss your servant, O Lord, according to your word, in peace." Now, he says, since I possess the fulfillment of what was promised, let this fleeting life also have its end. For your word foretold these things to me. You yourself were the messenger of glad tidings to me, that I should not see death before I had seen the Christ of the Lord. Since, therefore, those things which I desired, which I sought, which I earnestly yearned for, have been presented to my eyes, now you dismiss your servant, not troubled by the trial of death, nor suspended by the anxiety of doubt, but rather in a stable peace, and one that bestows the most ample joy. For I have seen the salvation of all peoples.
Behold here the wisdom of the most holy divine elder! For before he was deemed worthy of seeing this most blessed sight, he was awaiting D the consolation of Israel. But after he had been granted his hope and desire, he no longer cries out to see the consolation of Israel, but the salvation of all peoples. For, he says, "for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all peoples." Thus, that...
A ineffable brightness, superior to all reason, which was seen in the infant, shone upon him, so that he might, even then, and indeed most fully, foresee the things that were to happen in the future and would shortly be revealed. But that he might not give anyone occasion to suspect that by those peoples he meant only the nation of the Jews, he adds what follows: "A light for revelation to the Gentiles." As if he were saying: Let no one think that I speak only of the entire Jewish nation; rather, I indicate the whole human race by this expression. For he whom I have seen and whom I carry in my arms will be the salvation and redeemer of all. Nor did he stop here. But wishing to distinguish Israel, he joins the words "all the Gentiles" to the statement, saying, "a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel." B The sense is this: The infant whom I carry in my arms brings salvation common to all the Gentiles and also to Israel; but to the former he is a light, leading them out from the darkness of idolatry; while for the latter he produces glory, because he renders the laws given to them (the Jews) long ago, which were becoming obscured by the mist of idolatry, more splendid and perfect. In another way, moreover, his birth tended toward the glory of the Israelite people, insofar as he had taken on human nature from the seed of Abraham. And the prophet Isaiah nearly proclaimed these same things beforehand, saying: "Behold, I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you may open the eyes of the blind," C that is to say, so that you may grant them to see and to distinguish light from darkness, truth from falsehood, and piety from the various errors of life. Therefore, David also, acting like one dancing and proclaiming this salvation, says: "All you Gentiles, clap your hands, for the Lord is most high, terrible, a great King over all the earth." Since, however, Israel is both called and is the people of Christ—when it is opposed to the Gentiles, and indeed it is opposed generally to the Mosaic laws and the Gentiles—it is evident that, even if it had never been made a partaker of grace and had never received its fruit, it would still have existed as the people of Christ. But if the people mentioned in the Old Covenant are the people of Christ, are not the unrestrained mouths of the Manichaeans, who attribute those people to some other principle, shut by this very fact? D Moreover, as the elder Simeon was discoursing on these mysteries, it says, "Joseph and his mother were marveling at those things which were spoken about him." They were marveling, he says, not because they were then being instructed for the first time in the knowledge of things that surpassed all reason, but because they were receiving these things in addition to what they had already known of the supernatural. For as often as the memory of extraordinary things is refreshed for those who know them, so often is their sense of wonder renewed. Then, having completed...
A the hymn of praise to the Divine, the old man then turns to the blessing of those who had brought the infant. Thence he directs his words to the mother alone. "And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother." Note that he says, "to Mary the mother," not "to Joseph his father." Yet he imparts the blessing to both, although he directs the address, concerning matters of a highly sublime nature, to the mother alone: so that, by the B common blessing, he might not entirely deprive Joseph of the status of a parent; yet, by his words specifically addressed to the mother, distinguishing the Virgin from him, he might proclaim her truly the mother. And what does he say to the mother? "This one is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against." Do you see how he summarizes the whole economy of this mystery for the Virgin, and how she herself later provides the account of it? But if it pleases you to C pass on to the solemn utterances of holy men that follow, the sequence of the history will bountifully furnish you with the solution to your questions.
QUESTION CLVII [Coisl. CLXXXVII, Taur. CLXXVI and CLXXVII]
. What does it mean: "This one is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against"? Since you have quickly requested the solution to the remaining points as well, we, relying on divine aid, shall likewise furnish it for you. D By "fall" he denotes here those who have fallen away from faith in Him and from piety; but by "rising," those who have acknowledged the Savior appearing in the flesh. This very thing Isaiah also foretold, saying: "Behold, I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal; and everyone who believes in Him shall not be put to shame." Thus it is necessary that those who do not believe in Him should fall. On the other hand, those who departed from the worship of idols and from other errors to which they were previously stubbornly held, are led by the hand toward a resurrection in the soul. He simultaneously reveals the reason why both the fall and the resurrection are to come to pass. For since the gracious economy is spoken against, this whole mystery becomes for those who assent to it a cause of resurrection; but for those who oppose it, a cause of fall and destruction. And what are those things that are spoken against? The ones who have risen have believed that the Virgin gave birth and remained a Virgin; but those who have fallen into coarser thoughts, and are unwilling to know anything that transcends nature, cannot be induced to acknowledge that He who fashioned the Virgin when she did not yet exist, can also, while she exists, preserve her as a Virgin—especially if the Creator Himself undertakes the birth; and it would be spoken against by thoseA who, for their part, truly consider the teaching concerning those who rise from the dead, that He who is born is both God and man. But as for those who look toward human weakness and do not wish to be raised at all higher than this, they refuse to acknowledge that the same [Person] is both God and man.
Many other signs also of the ineffable coming of the Savior were subject to contradiction. But the holy Symeon, explaining these things to the Virgin, at the very end adds the Virgin’s own grief and sorrow, saying: “And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” B “Through your own soul,” he says—that is, [the soul of her] who has accurately scrutinized all the heads of this mystery—“the passion of sorrow shall not spare even you.” For it is no one who would know better than you that you conceived without seed, that the birth was without seed, that the pregnancy was without pain, and the glad tidings of Gabriel, the accounts of the shepherds, and the myriad other wondrous and extraordinary things. But it is not only these that the lovers of error and adversaries of the truth speak against, but they will also slander you yourself concerning [your] conception and birth; and this slander, no less than a sword, shall pass through, biting and wounding your soul. But when they afflict you with these injuries, then, indeed, the hidden thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed and laid bare. But how, and in what manner? Truly, since the slanderers will not cease from [their] injuries, those who are burdened by the slander will take refuge in the judgment and testing C established of old by the Law. And what could this be, other than that which is brought about by the water of trial? For an ancient story has circulated that the ever-virgin Mary, when burdened by that slander, endured to submit herself to the judgment of the water; and [the water] brilliantly displayed and revealed her pure and spotless [state], so that the slanderers were put to shame, while those who previously doubted her virginity and the incorrupt birth were convinced by proofs immune to exception, and the Virgin was freed from the despondency and grief arising from that slander and abuse. For we have received by history that this water of trial flowed near Gabe, which is a mountain of the Palestinians, and that the ancient Law acknowledges this method of testing, which was used for women who had either preserved their chastity unblemished or had defiled their body with secret liaisons. D Yet perhaps faith cannot be given to this narrative, because the water of trial is read as having been applied to the Virgin before the infant had appeared, when the time still provided a reasonable ground for doubt, and the
judgment was not inappropriately instituted; but once the birth had occurred and the delivery was known, the water of trial had no place. A Nevertheless, these things are related in the history.
I know, moreover, that many of our holy Fathers maintain that that sword pierced the soul of the ever-virgin Mary at the very time of the saving passion, when she expressed her most bitter and vehement grief for her Son and the natural maternal compassion for a son implanted in her, both by the extreme sadness and by the violent stirring of her inward parts. For it was brought about by this motherly grief that the thoughts from the hearts of many were revealed, so that those who foolishly imagined B that our Lord carried about flesh only in appearance, and those who were not ashamed to claim that that flesh came not from the Virgin but from heaven, might be confounded. But if we should also say that that sword pierced the Virgin's soul at that time when her parents, having left the Son behind, did not find him after completing a long journey—nay, even returned and searched for him as for a lost treasure—we would establish nothing contrary to right reason. For even then the thoughts of many were revealed from their hearts, with the Virgin saying to C the Son: "I and your father have sought you sorrowing"; and the hypostatic Word, clothed in flesh, answering: "Why is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in the things that are my Father’s?" thereby pointing to that renowned people, which was called the temple and house of the Father. For while the Son was most clearly proclaiming his own Father, the thoughts of those who said he was not the son of the carpenter, nor the offspring of any other man, but of Him who begat him before the ages, were also clearly revealed. However, as for what some say—that that sword pierced her soul in the sense that a doubt D arose whether He who was crucified might perhaps not be God—this I would never say, even though it has been said by some.
"And there was," he says, "Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser, etc. And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years." Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, is distinguished from the Mother of the Virgin by these points of difference; yet she excelled the others in her extraordinary zeal for all the virtues. For from the fact that she did not depart from the temple, but occupied herself with fasts and prayers night and day, it is apparent that she was also adorned with the crown of the remaining virtues. Having been cleansed in her soul by these virtues, and having become a workshop of the most holy Spirit, and being enriched by His communications, at that very hour she stood by and gave thanks, and spoke of Him to all those who were awaiting liberation in Jerusalem. "At that same hour," he says, "standing by." Which hour indeed? That in which the Child, the Mother, and Joseph
were offering Him in the temple. A And observe how she was similar in virtues to Simeon, so that she also uttered similar prophecies. For they were present at the temple at the same time, and at the same time they were deemed worthy of the prophetic grace. But Simeon began by uttering his oracle; and she, though occupying the second place, was nevertheless not inferior in her oracles; but she called the infant Lord, to whom she also gave thanks; and she spoke of Him to all those who were awaiting redemption in Israel, proclaiming the redemption of the race and salvation. Perhaps for this reason one might piously say that Simeon preceded her, because he bore the type of the Law. And indeed, the very name signifies "obedient"; while hers, Anna, signifies—for this is what the name denotes when unfolded—the grace. B Christ was placed in the midst of both; dismissing the one as he who was to finish his course with the Law, but keeping the other, who lived on with grace. The Virgin, however, and Joseph, having offered a common hymn of praise to God, returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth, and after forty days the events concerning the Magi and the star were brought to pass; and, indeed, the flight into Egypt took place, and the return from it.
QUESTION CLVIII
Why did Christ choose Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons? C
We find that Holy Scripture employs the number seven both in matters of virtue and of wickedness. It is therefore reasonable that the Savior chose Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons, in order that through her He might drive the prince of wickedness from human nature. It is said that the histories teach that this Magdalene remained a virgin her whole life long. And a testimony regarding her is brought forward, in which it is said that, because of her extreme virginity and purity, she appeared to the investigators D like the purest crystal. It is also said that, after the falling asleep of our Lady the Theotokos, the myrrh-bearing Mary went to Ephesus to the beloved disciple, and there finished her apostolic course through martyrdom, not wishing, until the end, to be separated from
A the virgin and evangelist John. As, he says, the head of the apostles, Peter, was named for the unshakable faith which he had in Christ the Rock, so she too, having become the leader of the disciples, was named by the Savior with the same name as the Mother, on account of her purity and the longing she had for Him. Just as the chorus of disciples followed the Master, so the chorus of women learning from the Lord followed the Mother of the Lord. For the disciples, he says, were once amazed that He was speaking with a woman. It is clear that such a custom did not belong to the Lord, but rather that the Mother of the Lord was advancing the course of the Gospel together with the Son and Creator, and those women who accompanied her were ministering to the common Master and his disciples out of their own resources. B
QUESTION CLIX
What does it mean: "I do not speak from myself"?
The false messiahs spoke from themselves, not from the law nor from the prophets, but from their own opinion and impulse. But the Savior did not depart from the law, nor did He abandon the prophets, but said now, "Well did Isaiah speak," and now, "Is it not written in your law," and countless things of that sort. Since, therefore, those who came before Christ, and wickedly attributed His name to themselves, were sowing errors not from the holy Scriptures but out of their own madness, our Savior therefore says: "I do not speak from myself, as they do." For to speak from oneself is the same as to speak apart from the C holy Scripture. And that speaking from oneself is the mark of false messiahs and false prophets, God Himself testified through the prophet Ezekiel, saying: "I did not send them; they have spoken from themselves; they utter things from their own heart." Since, therefore, the false prophets were preaching from themselves, by rejecting this madness (for the ungrateful Jewish nation was even slandering Him as a deceiver D and as one who deceives the world), for this reason He said: "I do not speak from myself," but from the law, from the prophets, [things] which I heard from the Father in the law, [and] in the prophets. But with regard to His human nature, and for the sake of removing that malignant suspicion against Him, He speaks thus: "But you," He adds, "speak those things which you have heard from your father the devil." For just as the things of the father fall to the sons as an inheritance, so also do the things of that one
A are carried over to the heirs. Thus it is evident that these things are similar to one another and carry the same meaning—that he speaks from himself and speaks from his father, the devil. Just as Christ, coming into the flesh, was the fulfillment of the Law, so also was the Spirit the fulfillment of the Gospel. Christ arriving confirmed the things that were spoken by the Father in the Law and the prophets; therefore Paul also says: "Christ is the fulfillment of the Law." In turn, the Holy Spirit, coming afterwards, fulfilled the things that are of the Gospel. Whatever is contained in the teaching of Christ, the Holy Spirit possesses; whatever was delivered in the Law, Christ fulfilled—not indeed as if the Father had done nothing here, but because Christ proved to be the interpreter and fulfiller of the words of the Father. Similarly, the B Spirit illuminates and explains the words of the Son. "I have," He says, "many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit comes, He will lead you into all truth," and so forth. For He does not speak from Himself; for He does not contradict the Son, but fulfills the words of the Son, just as the Son fulfills those of the Father. In this discourse you will see Chrysostom toward the end demonstrating that the mission makes neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father, since the Father Himself is also sent by the Holy Spirit and by the Son. His words are these: "If I show you the Creator of heaven and earth being sent by the Spirit and by the Son, what will you do? Either deny Christ and cast away C the Scriptures, or, since you are subject to the Scriptures, submit yourself to the Scriptures." Where, he says, is this said? "Hear God, through the prophet Isaiah speaking: 'Hear me, Israel, whom I call.'" And having expounded the whole passage of the text up to, "And now the Lord has sent me, and His Spirit," he insists that the Father is speaking these things, establishing his argument from the preceding context, and making it evident that it is the Father who is now speaking and is being sent by the Spirit and by the Son.
QUESTION CLX
How does John the Theologian indicate the saving dispensation through "the arm of the Lord"?D John the Theologian interprets the arm as referring to the economy of our Savior and His divinity.
A Although, he says, Jesus performed many miracles, yet the Jews did not believe, that the saying of Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" He himself, then, is also righteousness. "For my righteousness is near to be revealed." He is also the Savior, and He is the arm. Therefore, Paul also, gathering all things together, refers them into one, saying: "Who has been made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He raised up for us a righteous branch. "For behold," he says, "I will bring forth to the house of David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign as a righteous King." There is one branch, but many are its rays: rays of philanthropy, of healing, of peace; rays of righteousness, and of countless other things. Wherefore David also, prophesying, sang: "In his days righteousness shall spring up, and abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away." This branch, then, sprang from on high, and from the earth: from on high according to the divinity, but from the earth according to the economy.
QUESTION CLXI
What does it mean: "That the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage," etc.?
The creation served man, not as one worthy—namely, the sun and the moon, and the stars and the earth, and what is in them: I say, not as worthy. C For he was also a transgressor and liable to punishment. It served, therefore, by God so commanding, so that His image might not be utterly defaced, even though it had sinned. Since, then, every creature was making itself rebellious, God nevertheless commanded the creature not to refuse its dominion, but willed that the sun should provide its rays, the earth its fruits, the sea its fish and merchandise, and likewise each of the other creatures, that which was necessary and beneficial to men. Explicating this sentiment, the Apostle says: "For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope: because that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." This, therefore, I say: After God saw man fallen, and the creation refusing service to the fallen one, He restrained it even against its will, and commanded it to serve as before, when man, obeying the commandments, preserved his royal and imperial dignity sound and protected. For the creation was ashamed to recognize as Lord, and to serve, him who through the fall had made himself a captive D and whom it saw had become a slave to sin. But the Creator did not...
A abnegate the violator of the law, but rather He commanded it to demonstrate the abundant grace and immutable benevolence of the common Lord; He promised to the same creature that, when man, lost and captive, should be renewed and restored to his integrity, it too should be renewed; as if He were saying: "The image has fallen, and has failed through its transgression, and perishes through its disobedience. Endure, therefore, to serve the corruption of that lost one, so that when I renew my image, that lost man, I may with him renew you, the creation, and make you a co-throne companion of his glory. You, indeed, who were cast down along with his calamity, shall also rise again as a participant in his glory."
But what is meant by the creation fleeing the dominion of man? He says: "The creation was not subjected to vanity..." B To what vanity? From the moment a man turns away from God, he is called vanity. Hear David singing: "Surely everything is vanity, every man who is living" (Ps. XXXVIII, 6). Every man is vain who abandons God and pursues vain things. God established angels over the climates of the inhabited world, each one to preside over that which Moses also mentions, each of the nations; and He established them so that they might bridle the inanimate creation—the sun, and the moon, and the sea, and the earth—and that the things in them might serve for the enjoyment of man.
Again, the angels were being consumed with toil, serving men who were unworthy and liable to punishment; C and this was especially true when they saw them attributing the Lordly dignity to idols and offering it to them. The earth brought forth fruits, and the altars received libations; they were commanding that other fruits also be dedicated to idols. Because of this, the angels were complaining, seeing things that are not being worshipped in place of the One who is.
Hence there arises also the other question, which refers to the prophet. "There came to him," he says, "the angel Gabriel, and says to him: 'Daniel, servant of God, from the day you set your heart to afflict your soul before the Lord, your prayer was heard, and I was sent to report these words to you. But the prince of the kingdom of the Persians withstood me, had not Michael, the prince of your people, come to help me'" (Dan. X, 12 sqq.).
For someone might well wonder: if the angel presiding over Persia was appointed by God to preside, and likewise Gabriel was sent by God to bring back Israel D from captivity, how could the prince of the Persians withstand him? This question might be resolved as follows: The world was teeming with idolatry. But the angels who were set over the nations were indignant and aggrieved. Meanwhile, Daniel, having been led captive to Babylon with his fellow countrymen, was preaching the knowledge of God; and likewise the three youths, whom the fire—exchanging its burning power for a pleasant breeze—refreshed. By this action they ensured that many, having been removed from idolatrous error...
might worship the true God. The angel set over the Persians, therefore, rejoiced when he saw God worshipped in his territories in place of idols. He saw Nebuchadnezzar—who had formerly forced men to perform sacrifices to idols and subjected those who did not obey to extreme punishments—now at last greatly magnifying the true God and saying: "Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, A servants of the most high God," and many similar things. Since, therefore, the blessed Daniel was praying to God, once those seventy weeks which had been appointed for the captivity were fulfilled, that He might lead Israel out of captivity, and Gabriel had been sent to bring him the announcement, the overseer of the Persian domain stood against Gabriel, being grieved that the land B over which he presided—because the teachers of piety were being removed from it—would fall back into its former impiety and error. Yet he stood against him not by fighting, but by arguing the justice of the cause: "What is the haste," he said, "for the return? When inhabiting his own fatherland, Israel often slipped into idolatry; but now he not only worships purely, but even contends for piety, and is turning many of those who were led astray toward the true God. Since, therefore, nothing more salvific for the soul happens even to those who have received grace, and since impiety—the ultimate of all evils—makes those who had just begun to worship God through them subject to itself again, how much better would it be for Israel not to be led out of captivity for the time being, and for those who just now look toward the light of the knowledge of God to be kept in that same piety! You say you are sent to C restore the people to their fatherland. What fatherland? That which, while they inhabited it, they defiled by savory offerings, by sacrificing to demons, and by idol-madness? Does Jeremiah not accuse them of these things, saying: 'According to the number of your cities were your gods, O Judah; and according to the crossroads of Jerusalem you sacrificed to Baal'? At that time, though they were flooded with countless benefits from God, they did not desist from their malice and impiety. But now they endure countless evils, and yet they do not depart from God. What, therefore, will be the profit of the return?" The resistance, then, was not of evil against good; for he did not say he fought, but he "resisted." For there is often a resistance of the just against the good, just as humanity often stands against the law, and the law against humanity. For the law punishes the one who sins, but the clemency of a king often has mercy on the same [person] D and frees him from punishment. The struggle here, therefore, is not of an enemy against an enemy, but of one kinsman against another. For justice is not found without goodness, nor is goodness found without justice.
A He says that creation, as was stated before, was ill-affected and indignant, and that because of this it had supplied what was necessary to the transgressor even against its will, and had served him; and that the angels were troubled by the ingratitude of the one who had been benefited, and that the whole world was corrupted through its lawlessness. “For God,” he says, “saw the earth, and it was corrupted, because all flesh had corrupted its way.” B Creation was not as God had established it for them from the beginning; the heaven did not, as before, shine with the stars without any stain; the earth did not, as before, bring forth undefiled fruits; nor did the sea or anything else of those things that are in creation. For the transgressor, having entered into it, polluted and muddied everything with blasphemies, with words against God and shameful utterances, with murders the earth B by pirates and robbers, the sea; the springs and rivers with idolatries, by attributing everything to nymphs and demons. All of creation was being fashioned by men into gods. But nothing so pollutes and debases creation as that it should be taken for God. The Savior of the world entered into it through the flesh, and having freed it from these myriad pollutions, He renewed it, having delivered it from sufferings and passions that were much heavier than bodily corruption, He renews creation through His first coming, so that you may learn that He is the one who also created it from the beginning. For it is not the work of one to create, and of another to renew what has been corrupted; but both belong to the same wisdom and art, to renew creation during the first visitation, so that no place for unbelief may be left for you, as if it will not be renewed at the second coming, and you yourself before that into incorruption, into impassibility, into unspeakable beauty. For if, when He was willingly in the weakness of the flesh, in sweat, in passions C Christ, while being slandered as a deceiver and a Samaritan, cleansed creation from such and so great and long-standing passions and pollutions, when He comes as judge of the living and the dead, when He is escorted by myriads of hosts of angels, when He is master and Lord of all, when all things shudder and tremble, how will the change from corruption into incorruption not be seen to have been the easiest thing? And it is consistent and decorous that the Savior arrives, with the prophets proclaiming Him, so that no one might think that in the way man, having failed in his former intention and assistance, comes to a second, so also does God. In order, therefore, that no one might suspect this, the prophets foretold His coming from above, so as to show that God does not find what is beneficial by deliberating, but foreknew everything from the beginning. For we humans do deliberate, and if we fail in our first attempt, we move on to another; but God does not D
A act in this way. Rather, He gave the Law, the prophets, and after these the Gospel, not because He learned what was beneficial in the course of time, but because He knew from the beginning that it was not possible in any other way for the creation, and for the man within it, to come into being, to be instructed, or to receive the dignity of incorruptibility, except in the manner which His ineffable providence and benevolence ordained.
Some, however, say: If God foresaw that Adam would sin, why did He bring him forth? There are many excellent solutions to this question. For instance, the god-wise John Chrysostom says: "I do not merely say that He foresaw it, but that He also foresaw that He would restore him after the fall through the economy; and He did not first see the fall without pre-conceiving the resurrection. He knew that he would fall, but He proposed beforehand the remedy of the resurrection, and allowed man to come to the test of death, so that he might learn what he would enjoy for his own sake, and what he would enjoy by the grace of the Creator." He knew that Adam would fall, but He saw Abel, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Elijah, the prophets, the wondrous apostles, the nobility of nature, and the clouds of martyrs awakened by God and dripping with piety, all to be born from him. God B saw these things. And where would it have been good, just, or worthy of God, for the sake of one man who was going to sin, not to create him from nothing, and at the same time to cut off the harvest of so many men, of whom the world is not worthy, to pluck up by the roots such a joyous and beautiful sowing of the human race, to bring ruin and wrath upon it, and this at a time when the man who later indulged in sin had neither sinned nor thought of committing sin, since he did not yet even exist? For if it is the mark of wise men not to exact the penalties of sin from one who has intended to sin but has not actually done so, how would it have been fitting for God to subject to the punishments of sinners him who had not even set out to sin at that time? Especially when, although sin was so grave (for was it not serious to violate the commandment of the Lord?), the same benevolence of the Creator would admit of a remedy for returning man to his original dignity. If, therefore, he had not been created C because that first man was going to sin, God would truly have appeared as one who had punished a man not yet guilty of sin, and deprived him of the subsequent recall and salvation, and finally despoiled the creation of so many and such excellent and good men.
QUESTION CLXII [Coisl. CXCII, Taur. CLXXXII]
What is meant by: "The firstborn of all creation"?When the divine Paul calls (the Lord) "the firstborn of all creation," the heretics, he says, not understanding D concerning
A what creation he speaks, drag the Son down into the number of creatures. But there is a double kind of creation: one is established, the other is renewed. For Paul himself cries out: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." And in order to show clearly that he calls Christ the firstborn with respect to the renewed creation, he adds: "The firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence." The preeminence, that is, among those who are renewed, who are called to incorruptibility, who are raised from the dead. He holds the preeminence—not according to his divinity; God forbid! For it would be an insult to God to be called the first of creatures, he who by an ineffable word and an unthinkable excellence is set above and established B over every nature. But he holds the preeminence according to his humanity, having become our leader in the resurrection and in the transformation from corruption to incorruptibility. For although Elijah raised the son of the widow, and Elisha that of the Shunammite, and our Savior himself brought back to life Lazarus, who had been dead four days, yet none of them rose to incorruptibility and immortality. For death again held dominion over them. But Christ, having risen from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him. Nor, indeed, over those whom he will raise at his second coming. O our perverse and foolish judgment! Christ came to us, gave us his Spirit, and took up our body; and the exchange was effected. Taking our lump, he exalted it and seated it at the right hand of the Father. And yet our ingratitude insults this benefit! We received the Spirit from him, and we insult him by counting him among creatures and servants.
QUESTION CLXIII
What is petition and prayer?
Prayer and Petition
Petition, he says, is said to occur when someone invokes God for a matter; but prayer, when he praises God; thanksgiving, when someone confesses thanks to God for the things he has received; and intercession, when someone appeals to God against those who wrong him, calling upon him for vengeance. And that "interceding" does not mean to supplicate, he says, but to ask and to receive an answer, God says to Elijah: "What do you...
A do here, Elijah?" The prophet, being questioned, answers: "I have been very jealous for the Lord Almighty, because the sons of Israel have forsaken you," etc. In this place, it is not a supplication, but a questioning and a response. And from both an intercession is formed. And whence is this clear? Listen to what Paul says: "Have you not read what the Scripture says concerning Elijah, how he intercedes with God against Israel?" Thus, an intercession is not a supplication. But these things are from Chrysostom. It is helpful, however, to inquire more accurately into the difference between these terms, and at the same time to show that they are sufficient not only for the abundance of those who speak, but that they remain intact and unassailable even for those who wish to examine them more skillfully. B
QUESTION CLXIV [Coisl. CXCIV, Taur. CLXXXIV]
"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is the righteousness of God," etc.
For Paul says: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for the righteousness of God is revealed in it." How then is the righteousness of God revealed in it? How, I say? In that the first Law was given to the Jews alone, and not to other men, although they possessed the same Creator and the same nature; whereas the Gospel, for all who are born of the same kind, applies equally. In it, therefore, the righteousness of God is revealed, and that righteousness is called the Gospel. C In the Old Testament, therefore, the calling was not righteous; for it did not call and enlighten all equally, but the Jews alone. It was not, therefore, righteous, but providential, preparing a way for righteousness. Far be it from me to call this righteous and that unjust! But the Jews supposed this way to be a preparation for that one, because the Gospel would also be given to them alone, just as the law was once given. But their expectation fell out differently than they hoped. Therefore David also says: "We have awaited, O God, your mercy in the midst of your people." And soon after: "As your name is, O God, so also is your praise," not only in the midst of your people, but to the ends of the earth. But being about to show that it is of righteousness to have mercy upon all the ends of the earth, he adds: "Your right hand is full of righteousness. The Lord has reigned." D How is it said: "God has reigned"? Is it not for the reason that he recently received that royal dignity? For if he had said "The Lord reigns," his eternal...
interpreted the power. But when he says, "he has reigned," he speaks of the dispensation performed by him in the flesh, by which our nature, having shaken off the dominion of the devil, of sin, and of death, recognized the Creator as the true king, the provider of immortality A and of the resurrection. Therefore David brings this good news to those who had long been ruled by sin, by death, and by the devil, that that yoke is broken, the power is dissolved, and the Lord reigns over all, just as he himself said after the resurrection: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth." Before this, death and sin ruled over us: "For death reigned from Adam until Moses," and so forth. And the Savior said concerning the devil: "And if Satan casts out Satan, his kingdom is divided." Thus, before the advent of Christ, Satan ruled over our race, and sin as well. For Paul says again: "For just as sin reigned in our mortal body, so also grace reigns through Christ." "The Lord has reigned"—the power of sin, of death, and of the devil has ceased; therefore let the earth exult, the earthly nature, once tossed by errors, now glorified, once buried, now placed upon a throne.
For he says that most things in the Old Testament were performed by a certain economy, but did not please God in themselves, nor did they satisfy his primary will; they were types and shadows of things to come, and not the realities themselves. And it is possible to see in them other figures, and different meanings; for instance, certainly God does not find rest in hyacinth and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. For God requires the purity of souls, not the bloom and splendor of bodies; but he depicts the image of the virtues B in bodily splendors. For if he truly found rest in those stoles, why did he not clothe Moses rather than Aaron, but adorned the priests with that garment which he did not use? And Moses was not washed with water, nor did he wash others. Why is this? So that you might learn that these things were not primary to God, that for a perfect man virtue is sufficient for ornament, and that these things merely shadowed virtue, but were not virtue itself.
QUESTION CLXV.
Why is it said that the high priest wore a tiara on his head? C Because he who is appointed as head of all, according to D
A necessity, ought to know that, although he stands out as head of others, he himself is under a head—namely, the common Lord and Emperor of all. For an authority that is utterly unbound and free from laws is grievous and difficult to bear. Therefore, even in the New Testament, those who are inaugurated into the supreme priesthood have the book of the Gospel placed upon their heads, so that the one being ordained may understand that he has received the true tiara of the Gospel, and that, even if he has been constituted by sacred rite as the head of others, he is nevertheless subject to the same laws, and while commanding others, he is himself held by the command of the Law. Thus, that tiara signified the power which he had over the people, and [the authority] to which he himself was subject before God. B Furthermore, the golden plate, on which the name of God was inscribed, rested upon his breast, and at the same time signified that the movements of the heart must be carefully observed and be accommodated to the will of the supreme Deity.
Moreover, upon the shoulders were two emeralds, having the names of six tribes on one side and the same number on the other. Truly, they were a symbol of beauty, or of that form which befits a priest. For the emerald, a stone endowed with a comely greenness and a pellucid purity, indicates the faculty of a mirror. For it behooves a priest to be vigilant in the exercise of virtues, and to present his life to those who are subject to him as a mirror. But upon the shoulder hung the emerald, because it was a sign of action; for the power of acting hangs from the shoulders. Therefore, C God also says to Jerusalem: "Set thy heart upon thy shoulders, O most honored daughter, for the Lord created thee for salvation." For Scripture understands both hands and shoulders in terms of actions, as when it says, for instance, concerning David: "And he guided them in the prudence of his hands."
Furthermore, twelve stones were fixed to that oracle which was fitted to the breast, which signified the twelve tribes. Here I would have you observe that, above and upon the shoulders, there was one single stone, namely the emerald, but below and upon the breast there were twelve. This truly suggests that we were all once born of the same stock, but in the passage of time, we have been divided into different pursuits. Thus, one thing is attributed to our own study, and another to nature. Beneath the fringe of the priest D a hem was observed, from which pomegranate flowers, golden pomegranates, and bells hung. But how could these things please God in themselves and by reason of his own primary counsel? Beyond that, he caused the virtues to be depicted in this priestly garment itself. The flowers and fruits that were below represented the most excellent virtues, such as almsgiving, justice, humanity, and the concomitant choir of the rest that are similar to them.
A "Do not," he says, "change the words of the living God. You were baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; why do you remove the living names and introduce names of your own devising, calling Him 'offspring,' and 'unbegotten' and 'begotten,' 'always existing' and 'not always existing'? Will God tolerate such vain words? There was once a danger that a single word might perish, to the perverting of the prophets." And behold the precision regarding a small word: Some, through ignorance, used to call the words of the prophets the "burden" of the Lord. God says through Jeremiah: "If the people, or the priest, or the prophet, ask you, saying, 'What is the burden?' tell them, 'You are the burden of the Lord.' Because I will take you up as a burden, and I will shatter you, that you may not say 'burden.'" B If God threatens over a single word, lest it be changed, do you, while perverting the whole integrity of the dogmas, think to escape the hands of God?
QUESTION CLXVI.
How did Christ come as an ambassador from the Father?De Christo tanquam Patris legato.
That Christ came from the Father to men as an ambassador, this proves it: the ambassador was slain, and then peace was made. But ambassadors coming bring gifts and at the same time receive gifts. What gift, then, did He bring when He came, and what did He receive in return? The gift was marvelous, just as the ambassador himself was marvelous; He came bringing His own blood as a gift. He came bringing His body as a gift. But what gift did He receive from us? Faith. And what did He provide me in return for it? Grace. I believed; He granted favor; the enmity was dissolved. When an ambassador comes to a nation, he does not deign to converse with any of the plebeians or the poor, but immediately offers himself to the king. But this Ambassador came, and immediately conversed with a prostitute, and a thief, and a tax collector, and magi. Do you see the philanthropy of the Ambassador? For He did not come to one or two, but to the common nature. And He came wearing my garment, so that if He had come with His divinity unveiled, we would have feared His approach.QUESTION CLXVII.
On the oracle: "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come."That the Gentiles and the Judaizers say: "What does Paul boast of, saying: 'The old has passed away, behold...
I will make eyes for you, that you might see. Do you give eyes, then? Indeed, I do. Are you the Creator? Certainly. Are you out of your mind? By no means. So, do you create eyes of the body? Not those, but what is more important, those of the mind. And can you provide me with eyes? Most certainly. Do I not have them? No. But you have them? Yes. How? Tell me. When you enter a temple and see there a naked image, a mute stone, and you say, "This is God," do you have eyes then? For external eyes are of no use when the internal A ones are blinded. You see, therefore, that it is necessary for me to provide you with eyes, so that you may see that stone is stone, and wood is wood. Do you have eyes if, seeing that wood, you adore it? I, for my part, would burn it. Do you therefore have eyes if you call that which is burned, God? When a man is drunk, he stumbles about and is mocked, and instead of a man, becomes a brute. But you say: "Drunkenness is a god, Bacchus; theft is a god, Mercury." Do you see that you have need of eyes? The law punishes wicked deeds; but you, while committing them, feel nothing.
Now, I beseech you, attend to how all things have become new. In Scripture, a "creature" is called not only that which begins to exist from nothing, but also that which, already existing, is changed for the better. God created the heaven; this means He made something out of nothing. He also creates when He makes a wicked man good; here, "to create" means a change for the better. And hear David speaking. For since he, and his heart too, had been created, yet he was defiled by adultery and murder, and was being carried toward ruin, he beseeches God and says: "Create a clean heart in me, O God" (Ps. L, 11). Not that he did not possess a heart before, nor does he speak of the essence of the heart, but of the B best condition that adorns it. You see, therefore, that "creature" is spoken of not only as a production from nothing into being, but also as a change of a corrupted nature for the better. Thus the harlot is created if she becomes chaste; thus the rapacious man, if he becomes merciful. Thus the wolf is changed into a sheep, and the hawk into a dove—these are two sorts of creation. Therefore, the laver is also called a creation; the laver, I say, of regeneration. "For having put off," he says, "the old man, and having put on the new man, who is being renewed according to the image of Him who created him." You see, then, that there is a new creation. For what good is it to me if the heaven becomes new, and the earth new, but I have grown old in my sins? The heaven is a house, and I am a dweller C in it, and I am sick. If a physician enters the house of the sick man, and takes no care of him, but whitens the walls and gilds the ceiling, you would not say to him, "Man, raise D
the sick one; why do you adorn the house? Help him who is lying down." And Christ also entered into this world, in which he found my nature sick and lying down; and he directs all his struggle toward its healing, and renews and restores A nature. Why, then, do you blame the physician because he did not do those things, yet on the other hand charge Christ with a fault because he does do them? Thus the old things have passed away; thus all things have become new; thus the creature has become new; and one could attach infinite such examples.
QUESTION CLXVIII
B Why does the Apostle, when speaking about Christ, call his death "death," but when about ours, "sleep"?
What is the reason that, when Paul is discoursing about Christ, he calls his death "death," but when he speaks of our departure, he names it "sleep" and not death? For even in the same passage, mentioning the departure of men three times, he nowhere calls it death, but calls the departure "sleep." For he does not use this observation of words idly, but he establishes something wise and great. On the one hand, regarding Christ, he calls it death so that he may confirm the suffering; but regarding us, "sleep," so that he may soothe the pain. For where the resurrection has already followed, he confidently calls it death; but where it still remains in hopes, he calls it sleep, intending by this very appellation both to console us and to arouse us to a beautiful hope. For the one who has died will entirely rise again, since death itself is nothing other than a C long-lasting sleep.
QUESTION CLXIX
Why, having abandoned the vision, does Isaiah discourse about heaven and earth?
Tell the vision which he saw; but instead he says: "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken." You promised other things, yet you say things that are other? Beginning, you said: "The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem," and having abandoned your narrative, you address heaven and earth; have you abandoned mankind?
A with the irrational creatures you converse? Yes, because those who enjoy reason have become more irrational than the irrational creatures. And not for this reason only, but also because Moses, when he was about to lead them into the land of promise and foresaw the things that were to come to pass, says B something like this: "Hear, O heaven, and I will speak; and let the earth give heed to the words of my mouth." "I call heaven and earth to witness against you," says Moses to the Jews, "that if you enter the land of promise and abandon the Lord your God, you shall be scattered among all the nations." Isaiah therefore came; the threat was about to be fulfilled. Moses could not call upon those who were already dead, nor those who had heard him at that time; it remained, therefore, for him to call upon the creatures whom Moses also had called upon to bear witness. Although that man could have called upon Aaron and many others C to bear witness. But for this reason, I would say, I did not call them, because they were going to die and would not be present as witnesses, for Israel was inclining toward lawlessness; therefore, I call upon the enduring creatures as witnesses. Thus also does Isaiah, not only on account of the points already stated, but also because, having discoursed with the Jews and finding that they would not hear him, he turns to the creatures and takes them as his witnesses: "Hear, O heaven," for you brought the manna. "Give ear, O earth," for you gave the quail. "Hear, O heaven," for you provided for them things that are beyond nature; you remained above in the way you were established and did not divert from the form of a circle. "Give ear, O earth," for you were below and you provided food for them D without any effort of theirs. For this reason another prophet also, seeing a king raging, idols being worshipped, God being insulted, and others fallen into sin, makes no discourse to any of them, but turning away, "Hear," he says, "O altar, hear me." Why then does he speak to a stone? Yes, he says, because the king is more senseless than a stone. "Hear, O altar, thus says the Lord." And immediately the altar was rent and broken, and it poured out the sacrifice; yet the man did not hear, but the king stretches out his hand to seize the prophet. And what does God do? He made his hand wither. He does not make his hand wither from the beginning, so that he might become wiser through the perception of the stone; for He wanted him to become wiser without any punishment being applied to him. But since the stone was broken and you did not return to a better frame of mind, I turn My just anger against you.
QUESTION CLXX
What is the parable concerning the son who claimed his paternal assets for himself and journeyed into a far country? [index: entries preserved] That the company of the just does not desire to to...seize for themselves the power over created things by rapine, but desires that the administration of all of them be subject to the Savior’s providence. For this reason the parable introduces the younger son, who, having received his paternal substance, journeyed into a far country. That long journey was not measured out by stadia, but was distinguished by character. For one who sins becomes far from God, not by place, but by character. A Having received his paternal substance, he wasted it by living dissolutely. He received the sun for his enjoyment, and he worshipped the gift as God; he received fountains for his refreshment, and he made the gift into a god; he was ignorant of the Giver, and the same creation magnified the gift excessively. But the paternal substance is not seen by all in the same way; rather, one uses it well, another ill, yet both constitute an order of men, although distinct from one another. The pious man sees the beauty of the heaven and because of that beauty praises the Creator. "For I will look," he says, "at the heavens, the works of your fingers" (Ps. VIII, 4). The impious man saw it, but did not direct his mind toward the Creator; remaining fixed upon the beauty of the heaven, he imagined the handiwork to be God. The pious man does not insult the creation, but reserves worship for the Master; he honors the creation, B but as a fellow-servant; and he does not take the honor due to the Creator and bestow it upon the creature. He praises the handiwork, but does not transfer to it the glory of the craftsman. But the impious man did not indeed see incorrectly, but he worshiped incorrectly, and overturned the whole order, because the Scripture often calls the devil a dragon and an oblique serpent. Therefore also the Savior says, "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions" (Luke X, 19); and in order that you might not suppose he meant crawling creatures, he added, "And over all the power of the enemy." The dragon and the serpent is the devil—not as the root of evil, as the Manichæans say, but as the one who rules over the demons and who has become the author of the fall for them.
QUESTION CLXXI
C Salutation from on high; conception without seed; birth inexpressible; delivery without a midwife; the seal of virginity; the absence of labor pains (for the generation was without corruption, and she who gave birth remained a virgin even after the birth); what was being born was God in the flesh; the chorus of angels performing the song of wonder; where there is such and so great a concourse, how could anyone dispute it, even if allA that was set before him was the peak of impiety, whether the Virgin remained a virgin even unto the end? But if some people seek to build for themselves a foundation for blasphemy out of the phrase, "And he did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son," let them understand that the truth of the immaculate oracles willed to present that which is paradoxical, supernatural, and beyond comprehension—namely, a birth without the knowledge of a man—but it left the realization of what followed to be understood as a necessary consequence. For that she who remained a virgin in the birth should also remain a virgin for the rest of her life was not at all novel or paradoxical, but rather a thing that followed of necessity from what had gone before. Moreover, the text also intended to silence the blasphemous mouth of the Jews, who slandered the seedless birth as being the result of fornication. It therefore confronted their impious opinion by revealing and proclaiming that she who had brought forth the Son had remained untouched by man.
Furthermore, they ought to understand that they have not even wished to grasp the force of the words of which the divine oracles consist; otherwise, they could not deny that the word "until" is sometimes used by way of contrast with the time that follows, while at other times it is employed for the declaration of great and divine works. As is the case here, it is not used to distinguish some other time, but on the contrary, to intimate an B immeasurable span. Examples are ready to hand: "And righteousness shall spring up in his days, and abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away," and, "Sit at my right hand" (it is the Father speaking to the Son) "until I make your enemies your footstool," and, "Behold, I am with you always" (again the Savior says to the disciples) "to the end of the age." It is clear that here the word "until" does not introduce any temporal interval or limit, but that the word indicates the excellence of divine matters and transmits the minds and souls of the readers to contemplate an indefinite extension.
But "until" does not only signify this; rather, it is possible to observe a third meaning, by which nothing great or exceeding is indicated, but simply the opposite of the former "until" is signified, as in: "The dove did not return to Noah until the earth was dried," and, "Until you grow old," it says elsewhere, "I am God." And there are six hundred such examples at hand, which are enough to teach these deaf men that this word is accustomed to be used for what is continuous and for the ages. Since, therefore, these most audacious men have taught that, after the removal of the moon, the righteousness of Christ our God is to vanish into nothingness, and that the abundance of his peace is to be diminished or spread into hatred and enmity; or that when he has subjected his enemies under his feet, he is to be moved from the seat C at the right hand of the Father (may this blasphemy turn back upon the heads of the shameless!), and then also after the end of the age, he is to withdraw from his intimate relationship with his disciples; and that when the people of that time grow old, God will no longer be
or if you wish to consider it, let them inquire whether, after the earth had dried, the dove returned to Noah, and whether, after the ineffable and virginal birth, the Virgin could even have considered an intimate relationship with a man. If I were not writing a letter, I would have provided you with more proofs, God willing; but these are sufficient for all those who have not, together with their ignorance, also suffered the loss of their own minds. For the rest, be well in soul and body.
QUESTION CLXXII. On Providence.
A 1. If no one among those who behave unrighteously and who are completely given over to sin had punishment present at hand, and if, on the contrary, all those who are workers of virtue were spending their lives in misery, the argument concerning providence would not seem to you to be altogether absurdly lacking. But since many of those who pursue wickedness are seen to have paid the penalty at the very moment of their deeds, and many who are regulated by virtue are known to have lived prosperously, how is the conception against providence not foolish? But if it is because not all here receive the recompense that this provokes you to oppose it, know that, by the very things through which you thought you were fighting against it, you are all the more proclaiming its irresistible power and wisdom. For if all in this present age were to pay the account for their sins, B while those who had chosen the better part were enjoying glory, honor, and blessedness, the judgment of the world to come would have been established in vain (which is however ordained by the supreme wisdom and care of God), and the flight from evil would have been rendered violent and involuntary otherwise; for those who had determined to do wrong would have feared the punishment that immediately follows and clings to them, and they would have been pulled away from wickedness not by the choice of a good mind, but rather by fear and cowardice. Moreover, the practice of virtue would have come to be for the sake of reward C and not for the sake of virtue itself; and there would no longer have been a distinction between the earnest and the base; nor would the practice of virtue and its use out of divine love have resulted for some in the attainment of the heavenly kingdom and in the keeping of the commandments of the Master, while for others it would have been aimed at passing the present life in enjoyment and happiness.
2. Furthermore, that which is most beautiful of all, I mean the contests for which the righteous are specifically crowned, would be rendered void.
A if no one at all were afflicted by the miseries and calamities of this life. And I will not just say this, but I shall add that which is no less valid than any of the prior arguments: that it would imply a God who increases punishment and blazes with anger more vehemently against those who sin. Each of these is alien to the philanthropy of God. For both to take away crowns and to devise a most bitter and unmitigated punishment stands far removed from [His] beneficent governance; and how could it not be [the case] that an inexorable punishment is set against those who sin, and a purely punitive retribution B is prepared in its entirety, when benevolence so abundantly overflows that it is permitted for those who have lived more honestly both to enjoy the happiness of the present life and to partake of future goods? But for those who are not so prepared, the deprivation of rewards takes the place of punishments. Wherefore, the fact that not all upright men have things here according to their will, nor are all the wicked involved in miseries, declares the supreme love and providence of God toward the human race. Therefore, some good men are punished here so that they may subsequently be redeemed with crowns, and that they may be excited all the more to the admiration of God's love, since it appears and blossoms even through tribulations. But if that which the divine Paul says C also appeals to you, I will add: it happens for this reason, that they themselves might not be overly exalted, nor seem to some to be much greater than what is perceived by the eyes.
3. You should also understand from me, if you wish, why those who are drenched in the highest and indeed most pure pleasures of virtue, and are in a state of prosperity, should fittingly and justly encounter, as it were, a bracing and astringent medicinal draught D consisting of afflictions; and why the grace of God shines forth more and is admired through their infirmities. Moreover, [this happens] for the complete shame and downfall of the wicked, in that those who are drenched with the sweat of their own contests and temptations have neither relaxed the tension of their virtue, nor were they softened in their struggle against it. But not all are handed over to temptations, lest the reflections of the weaker be disturbed regarding providence; but among the wicked, some are punished for the purging of their defilements, insofar as they have sinned more moderately; others, for the extension of a harsher reckoning reserved for them in the future for the things they did impiously in life, and so that even the most foolish may have a perception of God's hatred of evil. And not all [are punished], lest the zeal of free will be proven to have been employed in vain; and in order that the purity and unmixed nature of the authority that is present, together with the utility that results from the observance of the divine law, may be manifested; concerning which observance it is fitting that all and each must undergo judgment in the future age. Again, many righteous men live in quiet and happiness, that they may be a comfort and solace and a common good to those nearby, and as a pledge of the enjoyment of the future life, and in order that they may believe that the unerring Eye also surveys the things here. But not all [of these], lest grace appear to be given for a temporary reward of virtue.
A And lest the punishment, provided in a certain way for those who have stumbled, be most grievous and complete, seeing that it is altogether positioned for sin that is without excuse. For what if, B both here and there, one were to live in ease? But you, after the punishment is set for either one, would have exchanged the better for the worse; nor should the superabundance of goodness, when compared with the superabundance of the [divine] requirements, be considered a hyperbole [excessive].
4. Similarly, in the second course, many present [good things] B are carried toward the wicked, so that if any trace of virtue was performed by them, they might receive the reward for it in this life, since the act is too weak to reach the retribution there. C But also [this is done] so that they might not bring forward their miseries to use as pretexts for their own wickedness. Yet things of the straight path are not distributed to all of them, so that the path of wickedness, being widened further, might not drag many into the abyss; D and so that those who are lovers of sin might not incline even more towards lack of feeling, and the divine verdict be thought a mockery by the many. And there are ten thousand other [reasons] through which it is possible to behold the good-working, wise, and superior-to-human judgement, methodology, and investigation of Providence.
By applying yourself to these and such-like meditations, and by exercising your thoughts, you will render yourself free from the opinions of confusion and anomaly which you seem to see in the things of the present life; A and let not the calamities that have befallen us, or the continuous temptations, arm you against Providence. For whether, as we pray, we are cleansed through them of the greater part of the filth—in which case the all-wise and philanthropic quality of Providence is brilliantly displayed—or whether, as you yourself suppose, we are undergoing struggles and contests, do not grudge us the crowns of the future, B and rather acknowledge the good-working and majesty of Providence, which permeates all things. And may our sufferings, through the tender mercies of Christ our God towards us, yield to the one or the other of the aforementioned [outcomes], but not become a prelude and beginning of some more grievous and inconsolable punishment.
QUESTION CLXXIII. Concerning the Trinity.
The confusion of the Trinity C causes the destruction of the persons; but the division of the essence implies the alienation and cutting up of the Deity. Flee the precipice on either side of the royal road, and according to the ecclesiastical rules and decrees, D worship a single essence and Deity in three hypostases and persons, and...
preach the Christian faith regarding God, or the theology comprised in these terms. A
QUESTION CLXXIV
*How is that which is said of Job to be understood: "Let the day perish wherein I was born"?*Job curses the day of his birth, selecting this among many causes: that he was greatly agitated in his mind, lest perhaps he had fallen into such great guilt as to have provoked such great wrath of God against him—that is to say: "Have I so far departed from the Dominical commandments that the magnitude of my evil is hidden from me; and have I so provoked the long-suffering and philanthropy of God that I have been judged worthy to be subjected to such wrath and to be required to pay such penalties?" This day is cursed, however, in such a way that this malediction is not an indignation against the things he had suffered, but rather lamentations and supplications for those things by which he seemed to have offended God. And the Lord clearly explains this when He says to him: "Dost thou think that I have dealt with thee in any other way than that thou mightest appear righteous?" B—meaning, "The sufferings which thou hast been allowed to endure are not a requirement for thy sins, but are rather an exercise of virtue, and a provision for prizes and more beautiful crowns as compensation for thy pains and blows. Therefore, it was not by an impulse of wrath that I tested thee with such labors; but rather so that thy virtue might appear more brilliant, and that, fighting against the common enemy of our nature, thou mightest be seen as strong and laden with every trophy."
Yet he curses the day of his birth, and this not absolutely, but because on that day he was wont to entertain with splendid banquets those who were joined to him by friendship or blood. For it is the custom for those living splendidly to delight themselves with the pleasure and delicacies of spectacles and certain songs, by which both sight and hearing are bewitched. For when kings are feasting, it was customary for such things to be introduced into the banquet. C Therefore, he was surely troubled in mind, lest these things might have been odious to God and have excited His wrath against him. Therefore, he curses the day of birth—that is, the day on which he allowed the tension of his soul, and that which was braced and inclining toward itself, to flow away into luxury and to be softened by these superficial pleasures. And if he also brought forth the curse through his lips, lest he seem to be suffering that terrible calamity without feeling it before the eyes of many, it is not absurd to suppose so. For he brings forth the curse not against something that truly exists, but against that which, having happened before, no longer exists; D and this curse would be making manifest both the magnitude of his suffering and his perception of his pains, while demonstrating that he who was being cursed was guilty of no fault. For his indignation was against nothingness.
But if anyone should say that he said this while mindful of the Dominical decree, he will have embraced a pious opinion. Of what decree, indeed? That which He promulgated against Eve, when she caused Adam to be a partaker in the guilt. For then He says, subjecting the birth of humans and their death to pains and toils, from which the hope of joy was occurring, subduing it with sad moroseness. To this pain, therefore, Job raising his mind, not
A exactly admiring the decree, but praising the Lord, says: "Cursed be the day in which, having broken through the maternal bosom, man comes to the splendor of the sun."
QUESTION CLXXV.
[Coisl. CCIV, Taur. CXCV.] What is that which is said: "I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord"?"I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord." In what sense ought it to be understood that God has sworn either by Himself or by another? And how can God swear, when He commands us in the Gospels to beware of any oath and forbids the use of the tongue for service of the sworn word? For the Son is in all things in agreement with the Father; and whatever He says, He has received from Him. What, therefore, is this: "I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord"? It means that, just as among men the strength of an oath renders promises more secure, so is the inviolability of my promise. For often, though an oath has preceded, either the instability of the mind has dissolved the oath into perjury, or the flow of matter and the instability of earthly things, or forgetfulness of mind, have brought an end to B the things sworn. But concerning the simple promise of God, there is nothing of the sort to think or to believe. And so, while God does not receive any oath—because the divine promise is more powerful than any oath—He is accustomed to add: "I have sworn by myself"; or rather, He even places it before His own promises, whether they be harbingers of sadness and punishment, or of joy and gladness. Therefore, those who insult God by swearing flee in vain to this mode of speaking. For nowhere is God seen to have used C either an oath or any such verbal expression.
QUESTION CLXXVI.
[Coisl. CCV, Taur. CXCVI.] What is that which is said: "And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also"?The sword passed through the soul of the all-holy and ever-virgin Mary during the very saving passion of Christ, not because she was pelted with uncertain thoughts, nor wounded by the arrows of unbelief, D nor because she was exchanging joy for sorrow over the things in which she rejoiced; but because she was giving her maternal bowels to natural sympathy, her Son being crucified, to act as was fitting. For what would a mother not suffer, seeing her son—and especially one who was living better than human nature, and who was submitting to the judgments of criminals—in suffering? This passion became for the all-pure Mother of the Word more bitter and more sharp than any sword. For even if she had many reasons for recognizing that the Son was God incarnate, yet for all that, she did not dissolve the laws of nature in all things, but allowed nature to shine forth within its proper bounds; therefore,
A seeing with motherly eyes the sight before her, she was cut and divided as if by the blow of a sword.»
QUESTION CLXXVII
What is, «Do not murmur against one another, so that you may not be judged»?How is it possible for a man who is insulted, or driven out by his own kin, or struck, not to murmur against the authors of these things? For while not to take revenge, nor to fight back, is indeed difficult, it is nevertheless possible for those who love wisdom and faithfully observe the divine commandments. But as to murmuring against those who do us injury, how will room be found for that in a frail and mortal nature? Is this not much easier than the former, when it was permitted to be filled with wrath and to take revenge and to proclaim every injury? But since these things are so great, and a strong soul is required to despise and tame human sympathy and antipathy—which, to be sure, we know how to conquer and overcome, even when directed toward those prone to pride, although many, through the love of wisdom and the fear of God, have become superior to the aforementioned passions—if then you have been able to overcome passions so intolerable, will you not, a fortiori, avoid murmurings, which are of such small moment and can bring no benefit? B Furthermore, he who murmurs, if he has not received the vengeance he craves from another, pays for it with his own ardor and impulse and the violence of his onset, or, if it be permitted to say so, even something more grievous, inasmuch as he considers the good outcome of the one who has harmed him a misfortune. But if he groans and yet does not wish to take revenge, he enters the contemptible scene of women's pettiness with a manly mindset; so that one only needs to be sober and turn toward oneself, and the scene is dissolved. And thus, that which is wise and easy—and, if you will, that which is also profitable and salutary—springs forth from the brother of God’s exhortation.
QUESTION CLXXVIII
What is, «Adulterers and adulteresses»?The Apostle divides our propensity toward sinful passions into two species. For the adulterer is he who not only departs from the love and fellowship of God, but also puts all his care into leading away the soul joined to Christ the true bridegroom, C and by joining her to himself, imposes upon her the name of adulteress. For to apostatize from God makes the one who causes the apostasy an adulterer, and the soul that has followed his deceits an adulteress. An adulteress, strictly speaking, would be she who has departed from divine works and commandments and has inclined toward worldly pleasures, whether someone deceives her or she is impelled by her own inclination. For being joined to Christ through baptism, and having stained the nuptial, pure, and immaculate bed, such a soul, by imitating the way of acting of an adulteress, deserves D
to receive a name consistent with its deeds. For if you have preferred the love of riches to Christ, and have attempted to lead others by exhortations to the same way of acting, the one who has been persuaded is a lewd woman and an adulteress. And if you have preferred the glory of this life, or other transient pleasures, or if by some other needs and delights you have bewitched the free will of the soul and subjected it to the mind of the flesh, such a miserable soul is an adulteress, and it is right for it to pay the penalties that those who are convicted of adultery must pay. There are many adulteresses, therefore, and the number of adulterers is but a little smaller. For to do what one ought not, many, through negligence, find it easy to choose; but to draw others to the same way of acting, and to incite them to the imitation of impiety, and to present one’s own sins to others as an example without shame, is not the way of the many, but of those who have been driven to the extreme of blindness. Therefore, the Apostle says: B “Adulterers and adulteresses.” He puts adulterers in the first place in evil before adulteresses. For every instigator of sin incurs a double accusation—both for those who confine sin within themselves, and because he himself has perished, and because he has attempted to destroy others with him.
QUESTION CLXXIX.
C [Coisl. CCVIII, Taur. CXCLXI.] What does this word of the Apostle signify: “Be subject to every human creature, for the Lord’s sake, as free”?This text is connected with the preceding ones; for example: “Be subject to every human creature, for the Lord’s sake, as free,” that is, not because of the fear imposed upon you by those who govern. For those who are subjected in this way take the position of slaves, and as slaves they show their subjection, fearing the beatings of masters, fearing the threats of the laws, and being forced into subjection by fear. But he who is subjected for the Lord’s sake—that is, he who obeys the Lord’s commandments voluntarily—is free from all earthly fear, free from all accusation, free from all suspicion that draws on penalties. But through love for the Lord and the keeping of the commandments, he ennobles his own soul, and thus offers a voluntary subjection to human authority. D Furthermore, since Christ once set us free from the tyranny of the devils, having redeemed us with His precious blood, lest anyone should say, “If we have become free, why do you again make us subject to those who rule in this world?”—He says, “As free, obey,” meaning: do so voluntarily, from your own conscience and by your own choice. For just as that of slaves is involuntary, necessary, and forced, so that of the free is voluntary, without necessity, and of their own choice. Therefore, when we are voluntarily subjected, obeying the Lord’s laws, we strengthen our freedom all the more, and we show and demonstrate ourselves worthy of this gift. For by honoring the Lord, while cheerfully following His laws, we confess that we have received the gift and marvel at the generosity, and hence we bring an ineffable glory to the Giver. Furthermore, is it not salutary for the mind, by consent, to observe the order
A of the state and to render what is due to those who preside? For such people truly show their souls to be free from all disorder and sedition, and show themselves worthy of the freedom granted to us by God; but those who, with a depraved mind and with wicked daring, delight in tumults and proclaim freedom—breaking the good order through their dissension, and using the name of liberty to cover their malice and arrogance—they are slaves to irrational passions, slaves to tumult and perturbation, enemies of liberty, and therefore unworthy of it.
But the Apostle B wishes, by this exhortation, to prepare us to be teachable toward the laws in all our life’s transactions and in other civic matters, as long as divine love and faith are not harmed, and to be compliant toward those to whom the authority and government of the laws have been entrusted, and not to despise those who preside, even if their reverence for the truth has shifted to the opposite. Why? First, so that those who disagree with us regarding piety, seeing our compliance and our honesty and teachability in our actions, might, while seeing our character and our life, blush, and not think that we do not obey them in matters of religion out of pride or for a show of an indocile mind, but out of love for the divine word and for the power and efficacy C of the divine; and at the same time, so that they might be able, through our mild and gentle manner of conduct, if ever they should wish to turn their gaze toward the ineffable beauty of our religion, and having been winged by the love that comes from above, to detest the demonic and idolatrous frenzy, and to exchange it for the communion and love of the Bride of Christ, which is the Church. This is indeed the first cause of the apostolic admonition. But if you wish for a second, it is that those who, while professing the worship of the pagans, persecute and drive out and punish the faithful, may not have other certain reasons to which to attribute their persecutions, nor bring us to trial as seditious persons and agitators, but only because of religion itself D and because we could not be persuaded to render divine worship to creatures and to matter.
And he himself explained this, saying: "That in the things in which they accuse us as evil-doers, they may, by observing our good works, glorify God in the day of visitation." And again: "For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may silence the ignorance of foolish men." Does some pagan or Jew call you seditious? Show your peacefulness. Does he utter words provoking rebellion and disobedience? Impose silence upon him through your obedience. Does he utter proud and arrogant things? Restrain his vain desire for speech with sweetness and humility of mind. Does he destroy the political order? By acknowledging nothing of such things in yourself, expose the slander. Thus a foolish man can be muzzled; thus a servant of God is glorified; thus he conquers the world, even if he is scourged, even if he is tortured, even if he is crucified—he who preserves an inviolable trophy against sin. Qui
to himself. He who conducts himself according to these mandates will bear himself freely in purity, both in his actions and his words, and, before these, in his very soul.
QUESTION CLXXX.
*Questions regarding Theology. To the same (Amphilochius).*The Divine is A indeed ineffable, just as it is incomprehensible, because it neither is, nor can we grasp it by any bare concepts that might have existed beforehand, through which reason might proceed to provide knowledge and grasp of that blessed and unspeakable spectacle. Yet, being ineffable and incomprehensible, it is possible for us, from secondary things—nevertheless through a certain radiance descending into them from thence, and by means of them preparing our mind to gaze toward that inconceivable beauty—to receive certain god-befitting imaginations. For just as those who sit enclosed in thick darkness receive at least a small and faint radiance of the solar rays, so those who are clothed in the B flesh, from that radiance of the intelligible sun, as if through a certain mirror, are able to be raised to a certain knowledge and god-befitting imagination by drawing forth, as it were through an optical device of desire and inquiry, shadows of these rays.
If, then, the sun preserves a reason in sensible things, one can provide and receive a similar knowledge regarding the Divine, as if from an image in the things that fall under the understanding. C
But indeed, even from the negation of all things that are, we are led to the contemplation of the substance and divinity that is set apart from all things. For that which is none of all things, but is better than the whole, that would be God, who brought the whole out of non-existence into being, and holds the providence for the remaining and harmonious movement of the things that have been brought forth.
And before these, that God is, has been commonly sown into all human minds, the radiance from thence, as through manifestations, awakening our mind and illuminating it, even if not to the extent of knowing what God is, yet at least not to be ignorant that He exists at all.
If, indeed, D a multitude—all that receives the name of the continuous, or that which is defined by the discrete—can be severed and scattered as into infinity, and thus also be carried off toward corruption; it is raised up by participation in some One to avoid suffering these things immediately upon its coming forth, but rather to enjoy permanence—
A I mean participation in the One, not the One properly so-called, which is above substance, since by participation in that, things could neither be severed nor dissipated, nor would they be entirely of a nature that is fluxional and mortal. But I speak of participation in the One; and he who might call this a faint shadow of the One properly so-called and above substance, would approach near to a conjecture that does not propose anything daring. Such is the unity that exists among us. Wherefore the multitude, as has been said, being a recipient, is indeed severable and dissipatable and fluxional, yet has not yet proceeded to the point where it has flowed away or been broken apart.
Therefore, the very multitude, which by its own nature lacks termination and form, is defined and given form by that One. For the quaternary, and the septenary, and the denary, and the tricenary, are like B images and offspring of the One that is among us, which introduce form to the multitude, and unite it, and define it, and circumscribe it.
Similarly, every unified thing does not unify itself, but is unified by unity; and therefore it also is preserved and kept safe by participation in a one—not, of course, that One which is properly so-called and above substance, but, as was said before, a one that enjoys the shadow of that former One.
Furthermore, if among existing things it is possible to find one who rules and one who is subject to the ruler; and the one who rules, if he submits to the order of the one who is subject to the ruler—that is, if he is not ruling—he does not rule properly, because, being deprived of ruling, he is subject to the ruler; if this is so, there is also some C superior ruling placed above, which did not have a beginning from that which rules, having received a dark adumbration of a likeness, it drew to itself the relation and the name of ruling.
Again, in another way: just as one may see that which is subject only to the domination of another, and is not itself ruling, so it is possible to contemplate that there is some exalted sovereignty, surpassing all other things, which did not have a beginning, which is proper to Him, and which is greater by His divinity than to be comprehended by mind and intelligence.
If we can find good in the nature of things, or rather many and various goods (for that which does not enjoy some goodness, but has reached the summit of malice, cannot exist at all; for it would immediately be dissipated and perish, inasmuch as being is the ruin and dissipation of evil), it is clear that some things are D more so, and others less so.
A If, then, there are some things participating in the Good more and others less, it is not in doubt that the things that receive [participation] are made good by those which participate in the first, second, or some other rank. Yet all things, nevertheless, derive the grace of the Good within themselves through the provision and enjoyment of a certain goodness that lies above. If this is so, there is therefore a super-good Goodness from which, for those being made good, the gift of being made good is received in proportion to those receiving it. From the things said, it is therefore evident that it is possible to hunt down a certain cognition: that God exists, and that this [God] is the super-essential One, and a super-archic Principle, and a super-good Goodness, as the source of goodness. And just as has been said from the beginning, other things can also be taken from the latter, as if they were images; through which it is possible to gaze upon that unreachable and inexpressible beauty of the super-essential and super-natural divinity; B most especially since it is not even difficult to collect such things through the aforementioned method. And for the present need, and the scarcity of scribes and the captivity of books that holds us, these [reflections] may be sufficient for you.
QUESTION CLXXXI
Why does the divine extend as far as the Trinity, and is neither circumscribed within the Trinity, nor extended further? C
Indeed, the discourse which is among the mysteries, and which surpasses the knowledge that is in mirrors and enigmas, would be for others, being stored up in more theoptic and heavenly mystagogies; but the things that are possible to behold through the setting of the scene and to hear with earthen ears—if we set these forth in the second and subsequent [rank], even if we are not able to hunt down the object of our inquiry through the first ones, we shall not be liable for the penalties of those who have remained silent. Now, one of these things, and more divine, is to say that the mystical and ceaseless hymn of the Cherubim, being gathered through the Trinitarian holiness into one Lordship, D delineates the perfection of the divine Trinity. And the simplicity of the names being brought forward in continuity—inducing nothing in between, but furthermore the unvaried [repetition] of the word—portrays no less the simplicity of the super-essential essence. In a similar way, it instructs...
A regarding the non-separation of the hypostases from one another, and their connaturality and unalterability according to essence.
Furthermore, in those things which are perfect, the beginning, the middle, and the end are suitable. The number three has obtained these as the first among all other numbers; for reasonably, since the hidden and inconceivable divinity wished through things that are known to us, as symbols and traces of its own knowledge, to shine forth, it willed to make itself known to us through the triad of divine theology. Moreover, because whatever fitting (theoprepe) attributes we behold in God, we find to have received a summation from the beginning, and they are gathered neither into fewer nor into more. And what are these? Into essence, into power, and into operation. For it is not holy to remove power from the divinity, nor yet operation, and much less so the essence. Nor, however, is it possible to draw these into one and the same hypostasis, and to give one and the same account of power and essence, or of power and operation, B or of operation and essence. Since, therefore, there are three things to which other names that suit God, and properties, are referred and reduced, God is consistently neither included within the Trinity nor dilated outside the Trinity.
(43) Moreover, as to how one might be led to [identify] each of these three notions, it is neither laborious to discover, nor, once discovered, to make others participants in the benefit. For instance, the name "above essence," "the good," "without form," "the one," "without magnitude," and the like, would declare the essence, even if some [of these] do so directly, and others with some intermediate notion simultaneously considered. But "to be free," "to be of one's own power," "Lord," "Creator," "almighty," and similar [terms] are comprised in the contemplation of power. But creation, and providence, and salvation, and the distribution of graces, and the gift, and what are akin to these, signify the operation in diverse and mystical words. If, however, any divine names and notions (44) do not pertain to one of these three alone, but circulate throughout the whole Trinity, this not only does not conflict with the reason of truth, nor with the Theology of the Trinity, but it even further confirms their stability and their freedom from all reproach; C nay, it even provides an occasion for secondary arguments, by which we demonstrate that God is reasonably unfolded into the circumference of three persons.
Similarly, if someone through another consideration shows the divine names and notions D into the triadic enumeration of the persons.
A Indeed, it is very far from being the case that it should therefore provide a cause for introducing the number of six persons, or the number of one, or any other multitude, but rather it will demonstrate the inviolable immutability of the Trinity, confirmed by various arguments, and it will exhibit the doctrine of Theology as even more fixed and immutable. For if the Trinity, which is beyond nature, cannot be comprehended in its composure and expansion by a single contemplation, but its immobility and stability are revealed from many sides, how could this not be an irrefutable confirmation of the cause provided from the beginning? For if the triadic recapitulation were shown by different considerations in one subject and then another, and not in the same and single divinity, nothing would prevent the divinity, which is otherwise B not to be multiplied, from being multiplied by the multitude of arguments. But how often, whenever we are graced and gifted by God to contemplate the Trinity—in that same Trinity, beyond which there is nothing good—do we understand this sacred number, which surpasses number, as neither to be contracted nor expanded by the intelligence? How then does the multitude of arguments not all the more teach us that that which is of the Trinity is not to be multiplied, is inviolable, immutable, and most true, and cannot be taken away?
1.
There are also other things through which the Trinity is demonstrated according to the likeness of the aforementioned reason, C just as these are: intellect, the intelligible, and intellection, then the Word and the Spirit, and that from which these proceed. But there is also a first and innate principality, and one that is above principality, and from which, according to the reason of connaturality, the principality that is in all things according to lordship and authority proceeds. Afterwards, [there is] the begetter, the begotten, and the Spirit; for the source is not sterile, nor is it the cause of all things that are begotten, nor is the bounty of the breath of all things without breath. Nor is it in need of its own creations, since it vivifies primarily and first, D supernaturally, but according to its own innate and ineffable property. For the nature and life that are without beginning, and which are above all things, must precede by reason of creation and lordship those things that have been brought forth and vivified; and every other nature and life consists as a radiance, as images, and as a copy, since even in earthly things the nature of art is established and sits before them. What necessity—again, not self-governing [894 D] nor without beginning.that it should be formed and constituted, as it were, according to the likeness of another, which is the creator of all natures, and, beyond what can be expressed, excelling? Many other things could also be applied to this same contemplation.
B I know, however, that some have brought forward yet another symbolic explanation of this mystery. They say that God weighs the providence of all things with the virtues and the balance of justice; and since, therefore, that which has been devised by men for passing judgment concerning equal and unequal things is properly called a balance—from which both extremities hang from the middle point, which they call the beam—by its triple property it indicates the difference of the divine persons; but of these properties of the balance there is a single judgment and a single operation; and thus the balance expresses within itself, as if by a certain image, the consideration of both the three persons and the singular nature [of God]. Yet the Judge of all—as if He were a weigher—did not consider it insulting to Himself to reveal and explain to us [the knowledge of Himself] through customary terms.
You yourself may also observe that in no other number [besides the ternary] are the two extremities joined to the middle point through a singular equality, free from all difference, indiversity, and indistance, or, in the thing itself, an inseparable [yet inconfused] union; and this delineates for us a certain sacred idea of our Theology as if in a mirror. Because it teaches C this, rather than through any other number, the Church, which initiates us into the sacred mysteries, has deservedly studied to instruct us in the Theology of the Triune and One Deity.
But it is also necessary that he who wishes to understand why the Holy Trinity can neither be multiplied further nor receive any innovation should take this as a guiding clue. And what sort of thing is this? Since, of those things which have been brought into existence from non-existence, each one consists of matter and form, or at least of some elementary duality—which has a certain proportion with matter and form—it is necessary that the nature which is devoid of all matter, placed above all substance, and the creator of this universal world, should surpass that binary number which befits creatures as being earthly and material. If this is the case, it is right that it should not tolerate being comprised by the dual number. In the Trinitarian theology, it leaves behind matter, and things of matter, and, being removed from it, it does not admit the numbering that follows it. So that it may not, toward the...
A poured-out and ineffable notion of number, be carried away, should it flow down from that primary comprehension [of the Trinity] and be dispersed into every human cogitation.
Now God indeed possesses the Trinity, and not duality; so that he might not, by bearing within himself the cause and principle of division and dispersion, bring a certain indignity upon that singular, indivisible nature which is the fount of all unity. Much more is quaternities excluded from God. For this section is twofold; the one of which 52 anticipated creation, while the other divides and dissolves that which was composed from it. Nor would the number five have room to be perceived, nor those that follow. Both because they hold second place after the Trinity, and have fallen away from the indivisible conception pertaining to it; and because they are more participant in dispersion, and section, and matter [insofar as it pertains to composition]. B Therefore, rightfully and deservedly does theology assume the Trinity for the declaration of that mystery which is hidden in the [divine] nature: but the unity, for the reason that nothing signals the hidden nature of the Deity—which is superior to every created mind—as well as the unity, and speaks of it in a manner that becomes God; besides the fact that the divine principle of unity is celebrated as the fount of every natural kinship.
QUESTION CLXXXII
C To these things, duality above all others bears in itself the traces of nothingness, or of that which does not exist. For it is, more than the others, the fount of dissolution, division, and dispersion; and it offers to all things the cause why they should bear within themselves certain first principles of corruption. But the Trinity first represents that which cannot be divided or dispersed; and if any other thing is participant in that indivisible and non-dispersing nature, it is known to be a participant of it from the Trinity itself. For which reason the Divinity has expelled from itself the cause of flux, dissolution, and corruption: and it has deigned to be known through the Trinity, which represents immunity from flux, dissolution, and dispersion. For indeed, to despise the cause of division, flux, and other passions of the same order, is truly proper to the Divinity: but that we have not despised the Trinity, which exhibits all the contraries of the aforementioned passions as by a certain image, nor has God permitted the human mind to wander into the D straits of doubt; this is truly the most evident argument of that beneficence and Providence which it befits God to have toward men.
QUESTIO CLXXXII [Coisl. CCXI, Taur. CCII]. Edited by Basnage (l. c. p. 431-433).
We speak of God theologically as one and three; and our Theology declares that the one and the three in the Godhead, which is above nature, does not signify the one or the three in numbers properly so called, as in those things which according to nature exist from matter and form; or from any duality which corresponds to matter and form.
A For the super-essential Goodness, by an ineffable measure, is set above every number and units—which are the parts of number and fill up every other quantity. Yet, by means of "the One," it allows its hidness B and its unspeakability—and its "non-going-forth," 7 and how one might speak of that which folds itself into itself, and is silent in its nature, and is beyond everything, both mind and thought—to be developed symbolically. But "the Three" mystagogically teaches and reveals its manifesting goodness and its procession and expansion. It does not cause all its brilliance to shine forth, but as much as human nature is able to receive, in which the Creator and His power, and the providence which exists by itself, shine forth and appear together in a life-giving and all-sustaining energy. For that C "monad" in the ineffable hiddenness, and its complete immobility, is hidden away as if in chambers of silence, and so it has withdrawn from every mind, since there is no mind that can ascend to understand those things which are above the mind.
In the first place, then, our thought—as befits God—contemplates, in a joined and coupled manner, the mansion and station, and the motionless rest, and the identity, and as much as human nature can receive of the lights sent from above by that illumination. Here, indeed, it considers the unity, and the deifying diversity, and the inseparability D of the motionless persons, abiding as is fitting for God, as if from an arcane and hidden fountain. God is, therefore, One and Three, not according to the art of numeration; this, surely, before us, that great master of arcane mysteries, Dionysius—instructed by *Him* who teaches the things that cannot be expressed—signified when he said that He who is the cause of all things that fall under the intelligence, in an exemplary and excellent manner, is neither "one" nor "unity," placing Him above all things that are held in honor and esteem among us, and declaring that, just as He is before other things, so also is He before numeration. And again, he says, we see the Divinity sacredly praised as a monad, and an unity (God, I say, as the only One) on account of the simplicity and unity of the partlessness above nature, from which...
we are joined into a God-like monad and a God-imitating union, and our diversities being divinely complicated and gathered into one, we are yoked into an unity similar to God, and a union which imitates God.
But attend to the Trinity; for he does not speak [of it] as if it were numerable, but [speaks] on account of the manifestation of the three persons in that fruitfulness above nature, from which every fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and is named. And many other things of this sort may be found in the divine spectator of invisible things, and one worthy of the initiation of Paul. That the Trinity is not strictly of things numerable can be seen from the things mentioned, and other diverse reasons demonstrate this; for in things which are strictly numerable, such as men, for example, or angels, or ten thousand other things, we can say both "a trinity of angels" and "a trinity of men," but also "three angels" and "three men." B But in the case of the more-than-holy Trinity, which is above every mind and number, no pious person could say "a trinity of gods," nor even "three gods." Again, the persons taken in the more-than-holy and consubstantial Trinity, it is clear, contained within each other, preserve their own spotless and undefiled properties. The Father fills all things, the Son fills all things, and the Holy Spirit likewise. And conversely, where the Spirit is present, there also are the Father and the Son; but also in those things in which the Son is present, the Father and the Spirit are present together. But among things strictly numerable, there is nothing of the sort, nor can one conceive of it. Furthermore, in the case of things strictly numerable, there occurs both an addition and a subtraction of the things numbered; but in the case of the above-essential and incomprehensible Trinity, how could this even be conceived of at all? And one could observe many things of this sort.
QUESTION CLXXXIII.
On the same things, to the same.The One and the Three, C as applied in theology to the thearchic nature, is not strictly a number, nor the beginning of a number; but the One is a symbol of an hidden mystery, and it makes an enigma of the ineffable nature of the existence. But the Three displays the manifestation, and lays bare to those who are divided the knowledge of the indivisible and incomprehensible Divinity. For the substance, which is above mind and every comprehension, is manifested by the appellation supplied to it of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit. Just as it is gathered toward the hidden and incomprehensible by the One of the super-essential mystery, which is not even deprived of conceptualization. And as the names are distinguished from one another, the ineffable and inseparable D substance, which is above mind and above all comprehension, is theologized by them, as it were, through the one mystery which is above nature, and which is neither thinkable
A nor can the non-multiplied B withdraw from unity, but proceeds without multiplication, being multiplied into the Trinity; and the one causes the three to sprout, while the three do not stand apart from the simplicity and conjunction of the one. For this reason God is also truly incommunicable; for there is nothing of the kind in creatures. But if He were either one alone or three, the divine would be forced to have infinite sharers and participants, and the creature would show the Creator as being established in its own properties. C
QUESTION CLXXXIV [Coisl. CCXIII, Taur. CCIV].
To the same. Continuation of the former.
But if God and the divinity are in all things and pass through all things, what is surprising if He is also in man as man? To be in all things, then, is understood both from other things and from the reason of creation; but to be in man is known from the assumed humanity, which He assumed because of His love for us, D and from the beginning which He took, by a sharing and communion of ours, which, as regards honor, came after the first. The one of these the hand of the Creator bestowed; the other He granted by coming to us Himself. Just as, therefore, because He brought into being things that were not, we call Him Creator—even if the procession is far mightier than the creation—so also, because He benefited men with a providence distinct from all other creatures, even if the birth from the Virgin and that ineffable generation is beyond human birth, we say that He who is from eternity was born, and that the Creator of nature came to be called man. We do not make man God—away with the thought; for this is as impossible as it is truly contrary to the judgment of reason—but we confess that God came forth as man, which is easy for God, who was the author of nature, and which proclaims a great force of His love for us.
QUESTION CLXXXV [Coisl. CCXIV, Taur. CCVI].
How is it possible to understand at all that the divine was incarnate?
I do not believe that anyone is so void of divine illumination that there is not implanted in him, and by common notion...
A anticipated, that God is everywhere without any interruption, and that He fills all things. But if God is present in all things that exist, 64 with no change occurring because of His presence in these things, nor any variation of state brought upon Him from the fact that some are beneath others, nor any defilement cast upon Him because of the stains which exist in creatures—but rather, He is established above all that can be said or understood, in that ineffable and inconceivable excellence of blessedness and impassibility—He is present to things that exist, and He holds them together and governs them; how could it be impossible, or how could it bring any reproach, for Him to be present in the human mass, and to demonstrate His love and providence, which are greater than can be expressed, through the incarnation? Or rather, how is it not excellent? How is it not appropriate? B But this is the argument. Perhaps someone might object, assuming that one must hold that the Divine not only became human, but that He also traversed the nature of all other creatures and accepted them for a substantial union. But as for the flexibility of your mind, my noble friend, while I accept it, I do not accept that other line of reasoning, because you did not recognize it quickly, nor did you pay attention, while vehemently denying the initial position. For he who contends that it is impossible for God to become flesh and to assume a human form appears to confess and prove this so much through the second objection C that he declares that He did not assume the nature of any of the other creatures; and he who sees the impossibility in one case has judged the possibility regarding all things together; so that the possibility of God becoming flesh will not even be found among the impossibilities for one who, like you, occupies himself with such questions.
QUESTION CLXXXVI
Why did God become flesh? Of the causes of the Incarnation. Because it is the lot of very few, by means of mind and contemplation, to...A arrive at a conception of the Divine that is worthy of God—and this is evident from the fact that those who seem to have reached the highest peak of wisdom among men have differed greatly both among themselves and from others—for this reason God became man, so that not only those who seem to possess more knowledge than others, but also the common mass of men, who are guided more by sense than by reason, might be able, through what they see and hear, to have recourse to a pious and salutary knowledge of God; and ascending through things that fall under the senses to Him who falls under the understanding, and from those things which were done by God through the flesh, they might rise to the contemplation of the incorporeal and supernatural divinity. And this is evident from what has come to pass; for ever since God became man and, bearing the form of our nature, performed those wonderful and supernatural works, man has cast aside B his absurd and manifoldly erroneous imaginations, and, having bid a long farewell to those interminable trifles and the fictions of idols, he confesses and worships as the true God Him who appeared in the flesh. He who has been deemed worthy, through the presence of His body and the sight and hearing of His works, to know Him, is led by such knowledge to the knowledge and contemplation of His invisible nature.
But this is one cause. The second is that the strong man would by no means have been bound, had he not sturdily undertaken this struggle and this contest. The third is that instruction presented to the eyes and ears is mightier and much easier to carry out than that which is reported from afar and through other intermediaries. C Furthermore, action by the imitation of virtues is easier and more convenient than that which is required without imitation. But men cannot have an imitation that raises human life on high, if there is no one who undertakes this action of human virtue. How could such human action exist if the incarnation of the Word of God had not taken place? Therefore, out of love for men and immense providence, the Word of God became man, and lived among us in a deifying manner, and walked among men.
QUESTION CLXXXVII [Coisl. CCXVI. Taur. CCVII].
On the Incarnation of the Son. — Unpublished.
Why did the Son, and not another person of the holy Trinity, D assume our nature and become incarnate?
QUESTION CLXXXVIII.
A Why, when it is acknowledged that the Trinity is of one essence and enjoys equal honor, is the Father nevertheless said to create through the Son and through the Holy Spirit, but not vice versa?1. I hear that some are in a state of perplexity, wondering why, when the most holy Trinity possesses the same substance and the same degree of honor, and when the divine Scripture declares this most clearly, the praise of creating is nevertheless attributed by that same Scripture more to the Son than to the Father; for although we find that the Father is also called Creator, we find the Son to be so much more. Furthermore, why is the Father said to create through the Son, but not, conversely, the Son through the Father; nor, likewise, the Spirit through the Father or through the Son? Is it possible to understand this concerning the Father—a thing marvelous to hear, but not impossible to grasp? Since both the Son and the Spirit, even if they do not create, nevertheless work when He sends them for other B works; how then is this paradox not incredible? And who bears witness to this fact? No one other than the Father Himself, who is actually the one who is sent. For He speaks through the voice of the prophet Isaiah: "Hearken to me, O Jacob and Israel, whom I call: I am God first and I am hereafter, and besides me there is no God" (Isa. xlviii, 12). "I founded the earth with my hand, and my Spirit established the heaven" (Isa. xlviii, 13). See how He creates through the Son and the Spirit. "I directed all the stars" (Isa. xlviii, 13). Having spoken these things through the Prophet, the God of all makes Himself manifest through these words, that He who speaks these things is the Father; for His right hand is the Son, and His Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
2. O recondite words! Or rather, a sense not immediately apparent, C but which, when explained, is easy to understand. "And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit" (Isa. xlviii, 16). Therefore the Spirit, just like the Son, is thus sent by the Father, and now He sends the Father; for He said, "And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit." It is therefore clear, even to those not very keen-sighted, from these things that this mission does not lower the Son to a lesser nature or rank, nor indeed the Spirit; since the Father Himself is also said to be sent by both. The Father sends the Spirit, and the Son sends, and He sends the Son and the Spirit. "For the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which he has anointed me; he has sent me to evangelize the poor" (Isa. lxi, 1; Luc. iv, 18). He also sends the Father. Therefore the Spirit is not lessened by the mission. Nor does He merely send, but He also anoints D the Son. How, then, can the mission lower the Spirit? For He not only returns this same mission to the Son, but even adds to it the anointing;
deep is the word, but in as much as it reaches such depth, it stops the mouths of the heretics. Mark this also. He remains upon the Son; He raises Him from the dead. Are these things a second, and not the first, order—or has He grasped the order of sending? But neither do these things act to place the Spirit above the Son, nor does the mission lower the Spirit who is sent from the equal dignity of the Son.
3. But you will say that to anoint and to send and to raise occur after the sacred economy, after the incarnation. For if they were spoken of beforehand, the oracles were proclaiming things to come—well and good. But consider, moreover, how when the Savior taught that the Spirit is also sent by the Son, and that He Himself had been sent by the Father and "speaks nothing from Himself," at that time He claimed the mission of the Spirit as His own; when He Himself was being sent, He also accepted the sending. Do you see how all these are words of the economy, but not of authority? Understand that which is of the economy, and distinguish it from that of authority; the mission does not destroy consubstantiality; it does not draw that which is of one substance into difference. C When the Son went out from the Father and came, then He sends the Spirit; there is neither distraction in the outgoing, nor separation in the mission. He went out, yet remained; and He sent, yet kept Him at His side. The Spirit raises Christ; not that the divinity in Him was weaker, but so that you would not think the active power of the Spirit to be foreign to the divinity of the Son.
Then, the Spirit does indeed send the Father; yet not often. But so that, through the sending, the Spirit might not, according to the raving of heretics, fall away from the same equality and divinity; and through not doing it often, the Cause in the Trinity might not be thought common to all three. For this reason, it is said that the Father often acts through the Spirit; likewise also through the Son; the former is said to occur often so that the causality might be confirmed as the Father’s; but the Spirit and the Son are not said to act through the Father often, so that through the frequent acting of the Spirit and the Son through the Father, the malicious and multifaceted rabies of the heretics might not lower the hypostasis or the glory of the Father to a lesser order; or—what is more obvious—strip Him of the honor of being the Cause. D The Father sends both the Spirit and the Son; the Son also sends the Father and the Spirit. Behold the equality of nature. But the Father sends often; behold the prerogative of the Cause. Thus, in the unchangeable nature of the substance, the paternal character shines forth, and at the same time permits the homogeneity and parity of honor of those who have proceeded from Him to shine forth along with it.
4. It is said, therefore, that through the Son creation is brought into being from nothing, and furthermore that He is proclaimed as the Lawgiver of the Old Testament; the divine Providence, indeed, from of old refuting and rooting out the folly of those who dare to refer the Old and New Testaments to two contrary principles. For if the Church, though clearly acknowledging that Christ demonstrated the truth of the ancient oracles, and the same [Christ]...
author of the New Testament being the one who is the source of the nature created from nothing, nevertheless the Christ-hating and God-opposing nation of the Manichaeans (75) and the followers of Marcion do not tremble to attribute the Gospel preaching to one principle, and the Mosaic institutions to another contrary one; to what a mass of blasphemy would they have descended, if the Father were proclaimed separately as the lawgiver of the Old Scriptures, and the Son separately as the benefactor of grace? But these matters are rather for another time and another topic. We must return again to the question from the beginning: how the Father creates through the Son, but the Son does not create through the Father. For the solution already given clearly resolved one part of the question, but made the remainder even more difficult. B However, since it is better not to rely only on reasonable theories, but also to confirm them by the use and teaching of the Scriptures. For our arguments are contained by the oracles of the all-holy Spirit; as much as they obtain strength, to that extent they are led to overcome the reproach.
QUESTION CLXXXIX
Why do we speak theologically of the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, yet we do not agree to call the Father the Spirit of the Spirit, nor the Son [the Spirit of the Spirit], conversely?The supreme and super-divine deity of the sovereign persons has, for the most part, placed itself beyond comprehension, not only in the contemplation of its nature, but also in the inaccessible concealment of its properties; C and it has retreated far further from the causality of earthly minds. However, in its kindness, as the rays of that glory shine down upon us, as through a mirror, we enlighten our understanding through our sincere desire and the clarity of our faith. For that which is completely invisible and unlovable is not able to cast even a spark of desire, nor ignite the flame of desire, nor offer any aptitude to be drawn toward itself. It is a rare thing, this outpouring of inspiration from above, providing higher learning and needing a purified mind, separated from the assumptions of the many. But as much as our weak nature does not permit us to see clearly the things proceeding from above, the philanthropic Goodness has deigned to grant us grace, D leading us by the hand through our own customary things and drawing us toward a contemplation of Him that is above our understanding, guiding us and fulfilling our divine love through analogy, when it is constricted by complete ignorance. For this reason, then, we do not hesitate to speak of the all-holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; since we see that even in our own human affairs, both the Father and the Son possess a spirit, and certainly…
A know how to profess this. Yet, to say or even conceive in our minds that the Spirit has a Son or a Father, we neither endure nor admit to our reason. For, led by the analogy of the things acknowledged among us to the theology, which is beyond us, concerning the supra-essential and super-divine, God-ruling persons, we are rightly taught to speak of the Spirit as of the Father and of the Son; but to learn B that there is a Father or a Son of the Spirit, this we no longer sustain.
QUESTION CXC [Coisl. CCXIX, Taur. CCX]
Why is it that, although the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial and equal by nature in power, will, and authority, the Father holds the first place in the enumeration?Published by Mai (l. c. 185, 193)
1. Perhaps someone else, B relying on more theological thoughts, and who has made himself more fit by the merits of perfect virtues to receive the rays of the celestial light, will explain his understanding uplifted to a higher contemplation, and will provide a reason for the things that are questioned—points to which it is not easy for those to ascend who have not become free from C the mingling of earthly concerns. But as for me, knowing myself to have no such lofty attainment, and not yet having withdrawn my mind from this common way of life, if I have learned anything from the meditation and study of the Scriptures, with the help of heavenly favor, I shall not be loath to contribute my fair share to the common benefit, for those who are joined to me by the common religion and the same zeal. The Father, Son, and Spirit are, therefore, of one essence, and it is impossible to see any difference in them regarding will, virtue, or power, or, finally, regarding the other God-befitting and supernatural names by which the supra-archic and super-divine Godhead is designated. D Yet, the Father is the causal power of those who flow from him—one by generation, the other by procession—who are indeed referred to him as to the co-eternal beginning and associate of power. And yet this very relation shows quite beautifully that the Father should be placed before those who proceed from him; but the same argument does not demonstrate that the Son should be placed before the Spirit. Therefore, the reason of those will seem more familiar who have made the enumeration of the most holy Trinity in that order which the knowledge of each particular person designates. For first, the Father occurs to the notion of men, then the Son, and through the Son, the Holy Spirit. And indeed, the knowledge of each person was revealed to men by the divine persons themselves; the Father showing the Son from heaven, the Spirit conversely testifying to the same by His A coming, and the Son again honoring the Father and making Him more clearly known through His own sacred sermons, and sending the Spirit to the disciples; and finally, the Spirit Himself confirming the authority and property of the Son: for no one can say "Lord Jesus" except in the Holy Spirit. [(α)]
TO AMPHILOCHIUS QUESTION CXC
A 2. For the manifestation and comprehension of each of these flows interchangeably or from one to another; so that through them we may be enabled in our mind to reach the innate and undifferentiated nature. Now, to those to whom it has been granted to know clearly and purely one of these blessed and creative persons, the knowledge of the others is also accomplished. For he who knows the Father knows also the Son; and he who has perceived the Son—according to the perfection of knowledge possible for men—is not deprived of a similar knowledge of the Father. Likewise also of the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God and reveals to men the hidden and more perfect teachings: he who has received the pure knowledge of Him is not alienated from the theology of the Father, nor from the mystery of the Son.
But although these things are thus woven together and unfolded in a harmonious union, it is not unknown that the name of the Father was known to men at an earlier time, and echoed in their ears more frequently than the name of the Son. And although the term "Spirit" was taught by the Mosaic history even more evidently than the calling of the Son, yet it did not have the same power as the appellation of the Son to persuade the mind of the individual subsistence of both. For the ambiguity of the word "Spirit" allows it to be applied both to those things that subsist by themselves and to those that perform the function of a substance in a certain way. And so this appellation was inadequate to provide the worthy knowledge of the Spirit, so much so that no small part of those who adhered to the Mosaic law were in no wise willing to confess the person of the Holy Spirit, B just as they did not confess the nature of the angels. Thus, the accessibility of the word "Spirit" in the Mosaic writings became useless—even to the Jews themselves.
Wherefore, for this very reason, not only is the Spirit not to be preferred to the Son, but even everything that can be gathered into, or deduced from, the calling of the Son—as an occasion of a superior order if not of nature—finds its place. For this reason, these things were never a matter of dispute for the Jews—I mean the Word, the Right Hand, the Power, and the like. For no one was ever found who denied these, nor was anyone so shameless as to refuse to apply these to the Father; although the person of the Son, which is the scope and summary of these names, has not been confessed by all in the same way. In this manner, therefore, the Son naturally holds the second place in counting, but not the Spirit.
C 3. Moreover, there is another reason, namely, that the clear teaching of the Spirit came only after the grace which gave us the holy knowledge of the Son; for when fiery
tongues were sent from heaven and the Spirit endowed the apostles with the gift of many languages, and made those who were recently illiterate into extemporaneous orators for every nation, then, and even more then, did it come about that the human race was led to a more precise understanding of His divinity. Therefore, since the voice of the Father was known to men beforehand, while the grace of the Son was [subsequently] proclaimed by theology, and the dignity of the divinity of the all-holy Spirit was revealed thereafter through the God-befitting operation in the apostles, it is reasonable that in enumerating them they should preserve this same order. B And this knowledge was ordained so to proceed, lest man, who was given over to the error of idols, upon hearing suddenly and clearly of a Trinity of Persons, might become difficult to draw away and hard to lead from his superstitious slip into idolatry. For if, even when the Trinity was at first hinted at in steps and through enigmas and veils, the human race still only with difficulty turned away from polytheism, how, if it had been proclaimed clearly and suddenly, would their superstition not have rejected and scorned all instruction and exhortation toward the worship of the one God, and preferred their own destructive rites to the proclaimed salvation? Therefore, it is with good reason that the knowledge of the Father was revealed first, and then, by degrees, that of the Son and of the Spirit; and from this is derived our sacred and God-befitting order of initiation in knowledge, and consequently the same prerogative is preserved in our enumeration.
4. Moreover, to call God our Father is neither blasphemous nor unpleasant to the ear, but rather something we do commonly and confidently without shame; but to declare the Son or the all-holy Spirit to be our Son is not tolerable to the mind, but rather an absurdity accompanied by impiety follows such a designation. Therefore, the human mind does not find it difficult to accept the name of the Father, thanks to everyday usage and natural intuition. C Now, the prior knowledge of this name resulted in the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, proceeding by a certain chain from the familiar use of this word, not being difficult to instill in us the fore-ordained learning of supernatural things. And if you prefer, consider also that neither natural reason nor the usage of speech desires that the Father should proceed from the Son or the Spirit, but always knows the opposite, and does not hesitate to instruct the faithful accordingly; hence it happens that when it is accustomed to place the Father before the Son and the Spirit in enumeration, it does not in the least violate sacred doctrine. For this reason, the Son is also called the right hand, and the word, and the power, and the wisdom of the Father, and so forth; the Father, however, even though He has a nature in no way different from Him, can nevertheless be neither considered nor spoken of in relation to the Son. For, as He is not referred to the Son as to a principle and cause, nor in whatever ways the latter is referred to Him and made familiar, hence it is that, when we speak theologically, we say that the Father performs through the Son, or even through the Spirit, D whatever the blessed nature acts, nor do we permit ourselves to say the contrary; nor [do we say that the] Son
or the Spirit acts through the Father in our sacred institutions.
5. But setting even these aside, not only to the Jews but also to those who are followers of the error of idolatry, it was sweet and pleasant to claim God as their own Father. And, to pass over the license of the poets, one may hear the son of Ariston (78), along with many others who were equally zealous in Greek philosophy, celebrating God as Father and Maker of this universe—though he also philosophized that it is a difficult task to find Him, and having found Him, impossible to declare Him to all. To the Jews, moreover, the name was ready and sweet and an occasion for self-importance. Wherefore, raising their eyebrows—when they ought rather to have been ashamed and to have put aside the swelling of their minds—they used to say with boastful speech, "We have one Father, God." Do you see how sweet and delightful it is B to human nature to call God its own Father? But concerning the Son or the Spirit, who would presumptuously dare to say anything of the sort, or who would not blush if he did? And for this reason, then, it was not easy at the beginning to proclaim the Son as it was the Father; but the mystical initiation concerning Him was handed down to those who were not unworthy by other equivalent terms—I mean by "arm," and "right hand," and "wisdom," and other terms that convey a similar power. The designation of "Son," however, was kept within the bounds of silence. Why? Because the name "Son" intrinsically and immediately introduces a distinction of person, which would have drawn weaker minds—or those contentious for polytheism—headlong into error. But the term "right hand" and anything similar, since they serve almost both purposes—namely, both to demonstrate the distinction of persons and to persuade of the unity of the Godhead—were not at all a cause of equal harm to those who were gaping after idolatry.
6. Moreover, the name of the Spirit, being able to be divided between what is self-subsistent and what is existent in another substance, does not, like the name of the Son, compel and urge those who are unwilling to accept Him as a self-complete person C to pass over to agreement, but still requires the support of logical construction and examination. For this reason, then, even if the Spirit was announced at the beginning less than the Father, yet more than the Son, the order of the proclamation does not grant Him the same status in the enumeration. For the Father and the Son, when proclaimed, introduce the self-subsistent undivided; but the utterance concerning the Spirit, while able to signify the self-subsistent in like manner, yet because it does not similarly pertain to a sole hypostasis, does not preserve the dignity of being placed first. Furthermore, if the Spirit was sent to the disciples through the Son, the nature of the mission not diminishing Him at all, but maintaining its own state, the order of enumerating personal properties can likewise both signify and proclaim the immutable D
A and unconfused nature. For we have learned the theology of the Spirit especially from the Son: that He proceeds from the Father, and is referred to a coordinate order with both the Father and the Son, and that He serves as the teacher of perfections. For since the disciples’ human weakness was not yet able to receive more perfect things, the Savior did not instruct them [in those things], but promised that the Paraclete would come to them to be their teacher in such matters. Therefore, it is seen that the Son, having become present in the world, acted as the leader of this pure theology concerning the Spirit, to which the human mind previously did not attain.
7. Now, because of the prior knowledge of the Father, and because both the Son and the Spirit have their procession from Him; and because the former B can be spoken of as proceeding from Him, but the latter not so; and because the former is accustomed to acting among men, to becoming familiar and inscribing Himself upon them, while the latter can be conceived of by no one as doing this; and because the former inscribes Himself as sweet and gracious upon His creation, while the latter admits of no such passage; and for other reasons which have been mentioned, the Church has, for the most part, accepted such an enumeration of them, being as they are consubstantial and of the same nature. But this is thus far the elementary theory of the enumeration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; for a more absolute and accurate study demands and awaits a treatise of its own.
QUESTION CXCI
Why the redemption of the human race was performed neither through some one of the incorporeal powers, nor through a mere man, but through the emptying of the Word.1. I know that some men of letters ask why the correction of the common fall did not occur through one of the men; for a nature of the same kind is more persuasive and more approachable for persuasion. But it is not a difficult task for them, if not before, at least now, to perceive that even these [arguments] are encompassed C by the incarnation of the Word. For as to that marvelous thing which the emptying abundantly fulfills, it is impossible to find [any such] if one among the human race had attempted to free the race of men from the tyranny [that held sway] over all. For first of all, he who undertakes to accomplish such a task, and to procure the salvation of all through the riches of wisdom and incomparable goodness, must not be chosen from the number of those who themselves stand in need of being saved and corrected elsewhere. Moreover, the entire human nature was subject to sin D and stood in need of much care and expiation. How, therefore, could it be, that someone who is in the same need of medical care could provide the clearing and the...
source of healing?
B 2. Furthermore, how could it be that an action B both of God and divine, and new under the sun, could be accomplished by a man? For if someone were to conceive such an ambition and wished to attempt what is in no way possible to come to pass, he would the more quickly and easily bring that fall either back upon himself, or make it even worse. For those who enjoy the benefit would, on the one hand, not think they were sinning greatly if they acted ungratefully toward a man of like nature; and on the other hand, they would rush to such a point that they would offer to their Savior the obedience they owe to God. For if the Israelites, against whom they had often mutinied, and whom they deemed a worse evil than the calamities of Egypt, even though they enjoyed through him the salvation that came down from above—if they, I say, after his death, were inclined to venerate Moses as God, as the mystical and sacred teachings instruct us (for which cause his tomb has remained invisible and unknown to the eyes of the Jews even until this day; for the enemy is wily in working evil, and uses both right and left-hand weapons to deceive the human race), how would they not have proclaimed as God one who had delivered them from a greater tyranny, even if they knew he was of the same nature? (I pass over for now the example of Paul 41, whom the pagans sought to deify). This is surely evident, that there would have been no resurrection from the fall, but rather a more grievous and incurable collapse. For it would not perhaps have seemed absurd to declare oneself a debtor—just as creatures, on account of His transcendent dignity and divinity, offer to the Creator the worship that is His due—so too, the saved [might offer] to the Savior, and those who were shattered [might offer] to the one who recreated them. For this reason, not even the nature of the angels takes upon itself the salvation of our race, but He who created it is seen to be the Creator and the Author of the recreation as well.
C 3. Moreover, it is not the place of servants nor of created things, just as it is not theirs to annul royal and sovereign commands, to lead them on to something better. Yet Christ, by becoming man, among other good things, and indeed D even more than many other benefits, did this remarkable thing: He promoted the ancestral laws, which were more suited to the Israelites of those times, to a more perfect condition. For it was said to the ancients, "You shall not kill 42;" but I say to you thus: "You shall not commit adultery 43;" but I say thus: "An eye for an eye 44;" but I say thus: and those ten thousand things which were formerly ordained for the imperfection of the hearers, we see to have been brought to a better state by the sovereign judgment of the Master. And this was done for many other reasons, but especially because if the ancient laws had remained wholly intact, the same commonwealth would necessarily have had to be preserved along with the laws; but it possessed no power to receive the supernatural blessings that shone forth later—just as it had not [the power] before, though it had been instructed by ten thousand lawgivers and prophets and many other sacred teachings, nor could the enterprise have advanced to its goal.
A Wherefore, if human life had remained in the same rites, the concern and solicitous efforts of the Savior would be proven in vain; for human endeavor can accomplish nothing great. Indeed, it is neither possible for a servile creature, nor can it be done with impunity, to pervert the laws of the Creator and Lord into another form; but it was fitting only for Him, who, moved by His own clemency, undertook to procure the salvation of the creature, to reform the Dominical laws, since He possesses the Dominical power by His very nature; and to Him the transition of public sacred [rites] to a better state is most easy and suitable.
4. B Furthermore, the demonstration of such and so great a love, of the extent of which we know through the emptying of Him who could not be emptied for our sake—how could it have come to our knowledge, or how would we have recognized the magnitude of His providence toward us, if God had given the effort for us to obtain the salvation common to the race through some other being besides Himself? Nor indeed was it granted even to the angelic nature to claim for itself so great and universal a mystery. For although the angels were each allotted the guardianship of the boundaries of the nations, nevertheless, the government of the entire race—not to mention its renewal—was not entrusted to them. Much less, indeed, was it permitted for a mere man to do this, however much he might excel others in virtues. For we see that even the most celebrated among them were often set in charge of the regulation and guidance of a single nation, and that not a very large one, and not even that did they discharge without some defect unto the end. Consider Moses in your thoughts, if you will, or his successor Joshua, or anyone else of those who took up the leadership of the nation. Beyond the fact that this matter, the greatest of all things miraculous throughout the ages, and truly more than wondrous, would have turned out quite trivial, and would have possessed nothing that we might deservedly admire. For if a creature associates with creatures, and if someone favors his fellow servant, nothing ineffable follows from that, nor anything which, by its incomprehensible and rich clemency, would beget wonder. C For why would it be wondrous, or why incomprehensible, for the nature of man to be assumed by an angel? For both are fellow servants, and both are subject to change: although one is affected by a greater honor, the other by a lesser. Whether, however, both are convertible would indeed have remained concealed until the conjunction took place; unless the inferior part should sway the scale against the prevailing one in subjection to it; or unless the worse part should prevail over the nobler.
5. D But truly, I almost forgot the most important reason why, if an angel or a mere man had attempted to recover us from the fall, we would by no means have been able to enjoy salvation, since the human race would have fallen short of the most beautiful and most precious and ineffable glory. How, and for what cause? Because it was not possible for us, nor even close, to attain what now the Word... [index: entries preserved]
incarnate provides and we enjoy above what can be conceived. For when or how would it have been granted to our race, if human or angelic nature had undertaken our redemption, to be placed at the right hand of God and Father, and to be exalted above all the choirs of angels and archangels A, and to enjoy such honor and glory, so that the very heavenly powers that stand closest to God would desire to look into our glory, which we enjoy in the flesh, but would feel that the matter was above their own desire? But consider, truly, if the human race had been excluded from this blessed and ineffable lot, which is above all comprehension; that is to say, if our flesh, through the conjunction of human and angelic nature, had not attained that glory in which it now shines, and had not risen to such strength and power and to this height of honor, why would the devil not have displayed his audacity against us? What machines would he not have moved? What hopes would he not have nurtured that he might again subject our race to himself and reclaim it for his ancient tyranny? Whom would he not have forced to submit to his powers? Would he not have assumed a pride greater than before? And he would not have thought it reckless even to lie in wait for heaven itself. Because of these things and many others of this sort, most wisely and most fittingly, the Word of God, and Son, and true God, and no one else besides him, having taken on our flesh, wrought the common salvation of our race.
QUESTION CXCII.
Why is it that in the coming age the Son alone sits as judge?1. Every creation and every action which one of the divine Persons is said to perform is indeed the common work of the others, as much as it pertains to the same providence, and proceeds from the same certain and unique source of power, goodness, and counsel. But to the Son, the dignity C of the future judgment is assigned for many fitting and divine reasons, not, however, as if the Father and the Spirit were absent from the participation in the work, but because the Son, having undertaken the judgment, holds the primacy of this work. First, because he is called the Creator and Administrator of created things, which he brought into existence from nothing at the beginning, and also because he was the Author of the renewal and restoration of the human race after the fall. Therefore it was necessary that he who had shown himself to be the Creator and Provider of human nature in both works, should also be given to it as its judge. For providence comes with and is implicit in creation: a judgment and examination of those things provided for follows providence. Wherefore, it is apt and just that he to whom creation and renewal are attributed, the judgment of the thing made should also be referred to him. Second, if it is the duty of a lawgiver to judge those to whom it was commanded to live according to grace (understand the human race); and the lawgiver of the New Covenant...
is the Son—even though the will of the Father and the collaboration and communion of the all-holy Spirit are not to be separated—it is A fitting that the Son be established as the judge of those things which were ordained.
Furthermore, because he was invested with human flesh, he attained experience of human nature, and was imbued with a twofold knowledge concerning the matters of those being judged. This is almost what the divine Paul cries out, when celebrating his mercy toward us and his propitiation for our sake: "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted" (Rom. ii, 25). Nor indeed,1 say I, does this reasoning revolt from pious consideration. But neither that which I shall add will appear, perhaps, absurd to contemplate: namely, that because the Son lowered himself to such an ineffable and inexplicable humility, when he adopted flesh and blood similar to ours, for that very reason the judgment of the universal world is delivered to him, that from that humility he might be so greatly exalted, and the dignity of his divinity might be proclaimed.
Finally, do not consider this reason inferior to those previously mentioned: since in the universal resurrection not naked souls, but souls united to their own bodies, shall rise again, and shall thus be set before the tribunal that is to judge, and in this habit of person shall receive the sentence of judgment; it was entirely fitting that their judge should also exercise justice in this form, so that the judged men might be able to behold the one judging, and that the judgment might be conducted through words known to them, and the notice of the judgments might be conveyed most clearly to the ears and minds of those present. Moreover, we know that our form is common to none of the divine persons, except to the Son. B
Question CXCIII [Coisl. CCXXII, Taur. CCXIII]
[Ed. Montacutius (ep. to John Chrys., p. 95) — On the Trinity and the Incarnation.]Just as in theology, to confess three substances introduces many gods, and therefore atheism, and to posit one hypostasis, or subsistence, savors of Judaism and Sabellianism; in the same way, regarding the dispensation of the incarnation, to imagine a solitary nature and hypostasis savors of Manichaeism; and two natures and two hypostases savors of the Paulianists, the haters of Christ. What then must be done? This, indeed: that we, following the middle way, should hold to the ecclesiastical dogma in all our steps, which declines and avoids blasphemy from either side, while teaching this: one hypostasis in Christ, but two natures, as the divine sense confesses.
Question CXCIV [Coisl. CCXXIII, Taur. CCXIV]
[Ed. Montacutius (ep. to John Chrys., p. 95, 96) — On the Incarnation.]Just as Nestorius, drinking from the defiled cups of Paul of Samosata, became drunk with impiety; so also Eutyches, gathering the seeds of his own D religion from the bitter offshoot of Manes, [brought forth] the bread of sorrow...
A and perdition for himself and those who follow him. The choir of the orthodox, however, having taken as their teacher not so much Peter, the leader of the apostles, as the Lord Himself, our common Master and Creator—for He says, "For you, do not be called Rabbi on earth; for one is your teacher, Christ"—clearly confess the unconfused [union] of the two natures in the one hypostasis of the Word, namely, of the divinity and of the humanity. For the Truth Itself taught this; for having called Himself the Son of Man, and having been hailed by the leader Peter as the Son of the living God, He confirmed both: the one, in that which He Himself said, and the other, in what He acknowledged was said of Him. Wherefore, He gave to Peter the reward of right confession, placing the keys of the kingdom of heaven in his hands; and He confirmed with much asseveration that the Church was established upon his confession, and fortified against the gates of hell, so that, with the lips of all heretics whatsoever stopped, she might bear away from there the garlanded trophies of victory.
Question CXCV. - On the Incarnation.
If one nature were acknowledged in Christ, one will would also flow from it; but since there are two natures, two wills B must also spring forth. And if a nature is not devoid of operation, then undoubtedly its own proper operation must also proceed from each. But just as the human nature followed and was subject to the divine nature of the Word, so clearly did the human will [follow and was subject] to the divine will, and the human operation to the divine operation.
Question CXCVI. - On images.
Pagans do not wish to depict Christ, our Lord and God, through an image, precisely because they do not confess Him to be God. Jews, suffering from a greater disease of insanity against Him, do not admit the matter even at the mere mention of His name. There are others, an impious party to be consigned to curses, who either by telling a monstrous lie conclude that His body is [hidden] in the sun, or that it is dissolved into the elements from which they [themselves] composed it. Those who follow Manes as their leader argue that He did not in any way assume our body, from which it follows as an absolute necessity that Christ is not to be represented by an image. Let those offspring of a multiply C erratic and adulterous seed—I mean the new shoots of the Iconoclasts—therefore look, and let them beware of what sort of forefathers they credit to themselves, and of what faction they desire to be considered initiates and disciples among Christians. D
Question CXCVII. - On images.
Simon Magus and Carpocrates were initiated by baptism; for
that reason they carried about the image of Christ, but they did not abstain from magical illusions and lasciviousness; and for this reason they carried about the images of certain others as well. Let the leaders of the Iconoclasts, therefore, be put to shame, for they are proven to be more devoid of sense than those very superstitious men who were led astray in both belief and life. B
You ask why I reproach the heretics with this shame. If I were not likely to grieve you, I would show that the question is that of a senseless man, and furthermore that, if you wish, I will show them to be gripped by folly as well as by impiety. For by the very thing through which they practiced casting defamation on Orthodoxy, through that, they mostly witness to the antiquity of image-making, not perceiving that it is contemporaneous with Christianity and with baptism, even as they confess—if unwillingly. And because they do not even introduce those who around Simon were baptized to insult this [image-making], they forgot that they were showing themselves to be afflicted with a shamelessness greater than that of those people. C
QUESTION CXCVIII. On conflicting words.
Edita a Montacutio (Ep. ad Leon. p. 99). — On Matth. xix, 21.
You think that command, "Sell what you have and give to the poor," is heavy and unbearable. But I would desire you, because of this very thing, to behold the yoke of the Lord as truly being sweet and the burden light. For the Lord commands us to lay aside a burden, and to shake off the crop of cares and temptations, not to carry a burden placed upon our shoulders. He commands to distribute those things to the needy, and for those abandoned things, He has granted us to grow rich in a heavenly treasure. Which, if they are not distributed, lie idle and useless for the present life, and when we have departed from here, they will fail us. Wherefore, note with me the mercy of the Lord and the manifold variety of His ineffable Providence; for those things which, of necessity and even against our will, are accustomed to follow us, these—provided only that our will be added—He accepts as our own labors and fruits; and as though having accomplished everything, He welcomes into the lot of His kingdom those who have contributed only their own resolve. "Come," He says, "you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." D
QUESTION CXCIX. [Coisl. CCXXVIII, Taur. CXXIX]. Edita a Montacutio (Ep. ad Sergium, p. 103). — On the solution of the law and on the words of Matth. v, 13-17.
It is not the sun that is opposed to the stars, nor night to day, nor the rays of the sun to the splendor of fire; nor, indeed, is the perfect and virile age opposed to the adolescent nature of men. I will add, if you please, nor does the astringent quality, which prepares the underlying material for a scarlet dye, contradict the flower of purple; nor does either the mixing of colors, or the assimilation of images, prior to the lines and outlines of the figures that have been pre-formed...
A, contradict that. And why does the comparison of things that seem to be opposed want to overturn the appearance of contrariety through the comparison itself? Nor, as you yourself are at a loss about it, does grace contradict the law; but the law is a guiding hand and a herald, a harmony and a preparation B, and it exists as a path and a furnishing—and all other things—for the law of grace. For grace is the completion; but all things which pertain to completion have pre-existed. The law was shown as serving grace: it led by the hand, it announced beforehand, it prepared; it became a path and a type, shaping in itself and demonstrating the truth; nothing of those things which were preparing it was lacking. But grace came; the law fittingly desisted. For it is the nature of that C which brings things to completion to withdraw and give way to perfection. And so that the people who were attending to the law might recognize the God who is in grace, and who is the Lord of the legislation (for "Be at leisure," He says, "and know that I am God, and I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth" [Ps. XLV, 11]), grace came, the law withdrew. Like stars when the sun is shining D, like night when the day is dawning, like the flames of a fire being obscured by the solar light in the clear air and in the stable noon; like the infant being nullified when he has run up into the man of full age, like the quality of an astringent being overcome when the dye of purple has prevailed, like the lines and the preliminary sketches being absorbed for the formation of the image that has been brought to completion. For each of the things spoken of in either series, the one preceded as imperfect, and the other followed as perfect; and that which has supervened is not hostile to that which pre-existed: rather, there is much harmony and kinship between them, and the former things do not remain when the perfect things supervene. Such is the nature of the law when perfection is at work: those things which were taken up for its furnishing and consummation become empty and vain. Thus, the law has been made idle—the guardian of grace—and it has not been abolished; it has ceased, and it has not been maligned; and Christ has fulfilled it, having loosed not one iota from it; and He has entirely caused it to disappear, having brought it to completion. For there is no need of the pedagogue when the teacher himself is present. For to abolish it is to be guilty of slander, to tear it down from its foundations, without having made use of any of its justifications. But to cause it to rest and to become idle only, is done with due praise: to serve those things which he legislated, but to bring in grace, and through the perfect to conceal the imperfect. He truly abolishes it—not the one who does not transgress the laws of the law, but the one who does transgress. And he transgresses, not the one who knows that it is fitting for them to cease and to...
A be accustomed to grace, while knowing them to be useless, but the one who, before the advent of grace, while they still held their operation, would reject them as profane. The law, therefore, is holy, just, and good—proceeding, as it truly does, from one who is good and most holy, and who works all righteousness most perfectly—it served as a herald. But it is useless, and it is idle, and it has ceased. For when the Lord is present, the offices of the steward must cease. And no one, after health has been confirmed, resorts to medicines; nor will one who can partake of stronger food have any concern for a nurse; nor will one who is declaiming rhetorically go about searching for teachers of syllables; nor, indeed, if he has been raised to the rank of general, will he desire the lot of a private soldier. Nor would one who has obtained the heavens prefer the goods of the earth; just as one who has donned a royal robe would not exchange it for a common tunic and the rank of a subject, instead of one of authority and mastery. B You have, if I am not mistaken, as far as the form of a letter allows, sufficient solutions to a doubtful question often tossed to and fro, and one which has many times presented inextricable difficulties; whereby the assertions of the Jews, the Pagans, and Marcion will be confounded—they who have often thought, through such a conflict, to rise up against the Church. For Christ fulfilled the law, but did not dissolve it; and he caused it to be still, but did not overturn it; and he is its end, but not its destruction; and he made it idle, but did not calumniate it; and grace and the law are in harmony, and do not fight. But if anyone were to say that the Lord dissolved the law in the letter, but fulfilled the law in the spirit, he will say no absurdity. But to say that he dissolved the law of the "second ordinance" [deuterosin], but fulfilled the law of the first legislation, is the sentiment of those who are delirious.
QUESTION CC [Coisl. CCXXIX, Taur. CCXX].
When the Lord says: "Do not cast pearls before swine," etc., how are the infidels to be taught?
C Holy [things] and pearls—they signify both the word of the divine preaching and the immaculate body of the Lord. Pearls, because they are precious, and because they emit a dazzling splendor of salvation to those who approach with a sincere mind. Holy, because they are venerable, and because they attach us to the truth after error has been shaken off. "Dogs" are both heretics and pagans, who, although they have often heard the first rudiments of religion infused into them, not only are not in a better state, but reveal their own rabies much more furiously, barking D against our sacred and holy piety more than dogs. "Swine," however, they are called, as many as are wallowing in the mud and filth of the passions, and who conduct themselves insensibly and without repentance toward admonitions. To all these the divine oracle forbids us to impart the divine mysteries, lest in making ourselves unworthy through...
B their actions, we also make them unworthy of that excellent grace and salvation. But if they are to be shared with neither of these, one might not absurdly doubt whether they are to be shared with anyone at all. I affirm, therefore, that they must be shared with the faithful and the orthodox, whose life is in accord with their profession. But even the unbelievers, and indeed the heretics, and also those who are cast aside for the purity of their life and who slip from it—these must be instructed by the word and must be diligently led by the hand; for they are like sheep not having a shepherd, and they strictly need pastoral oversight and instruction. For toward these the Lord is moved with the bowels of mercy, and He prepares food that both strengthens the body and improves and confirms the soul.
Well then, but how is it that the swine and the dogs, once turned, cast aside those things if someone should offer them what is not meet? Is it not clear that the former—those who mock and sneer and jeer at things stronger than all praise—and the latter—who, through their own uncleanness and incorrigible depravity, profane and defile that which is pure and brilliant—do so? Whichever of these cases occurs, it redounds upon those who have dispensed the mystery without consideration and without forethought, causing a grievous fall for them and bringing upon them great disgrace. C And pearls and holy things would be not only the things mentioned, but also the gifts of miracles; and in addition to these, the miracles themselves; and thirdly, if you will, the apostolic and divine dignity, which the race of high priests is seen to possess by succession. For it is not permitted to set any of these before dogs, nor before swine. And there is a common law concerning all of them, namely, the aforementioned verdict and determination of the Lord. One could also find, without any difficulty, the testimonies concerning each one individual.
For instance, toward those who displayed a shamelessness like that of dogs, and who demanded a sign when the sight of the miracles already performed before them had hardly yet faded, the Saviour of our race not only showed no sign at all, but even refused that it should be given, and revealing the cause for not providing it, He called them an evil and adulterous generation, D demonstrating by both terms that they were in no way better than dogs and swine. And again, in His own country, He did not perform many miracles because of their unbelief. And in many places He appears to demand faith first, and only then performs healings. So that the man who is dog-like in his nature and swine-like is unworthy of the benefit from signs. And if this is true, how much more so is he unworthy of the very gift of the signs themselves? But this is clear enough even from that source; nonetheless, Peter, the foremost of the disciples, in the manner by which he rebuked and repelled Simon, who was superstitious, wicked, and a lover of money, provided the most accurate proof; and that no one of such a kind is worthy to share in even apostolic dignity or high-priestly honor, the Lord Himself again demonstrates in deed and in word, when He not only rejected the one who asked to follow Him, and who was conspiring to obtain the lot and the privilege of the apostles, but also by the [means through which he...]
A revealing of the secrets of his heart, He made a public triumph of them, and removed him from the discipleship. For He who beheld all things before they existed saw him to be a den and nesting place of birds and foxes, and for this very reason, because he was filled with deceit, vanity, and singular impudence, and was furthermore subject to the disease of avarice, he had dared, before casting these beasts from his heart, to thrust himself into the calling of the disciples, and to imagine himself a suitable vessel for those transcendent and lordly gifts; and so, He who draws all men to Himself, and wills that all should be saved, utterly dismissed him, being far removed from that hope of his. And that chosen vessel, who traversed the heavenly poles no differently than a terrestrial stadium, who crossed the whole world in the course of his preaching, and who in these things which he suffered for the sake of piety became like his Lord and teacher, in the writings in which he addresses Timothy, concurs, saying: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” B There are six hundred other things of this same kind. But enough of these.
And I, for my part, since I see that narratives of this sort are objects of love, delight, and study for you, will not be reluctant to lead you to the consideration of another matter, not foreign to the former (since for you such things are both a joy, a delight, and a spectacle), even though I see that I am drawn to follow the laws of the epistle against my will. He who knows and has called the pure and refined reasoning concerning virtue "pearls," and the honorable and venerable respect of pious and orthodox arguments "holy things," will by no means stray from the truth; he will rather reckon the impious and heretical thoughts as "dogs," and those who are pleasure-loving, foul-smelling, and passionate as "swine." C Therefore, one must not cast or propose pearls and holy things to such swine and dogs, for the sake of fostering contention and litigation. For many, while proposing these very things to them, and exciting contention in the rational part of their soul as if it were a performance on stage, because they do not possess a sound judgment due to their extreme inclination toward the passions of the soul, have unwittingly brought ruin upon themselves and have fallen with a fearful lapse, as the better parts have been overcome by the worse, and they have displayed themselves as a tragic spectacle rather than as spectators. And if you should go on from conflicting thoughts and opinions of the mind to the actions that clash with one another, and to the dispositions D of those who are involved in those actions, you will observe the development progressing in the same way. For an honest life, conjoined with the orthodox faith—which, not otherwise than pearls and holy things, casts forth its rays—ought not to consort with or be mingled with heretical, foul, and filthy behavior. For “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and I will receive you.” And, “What fellowship...
A hath light with darkness?” And, “Put away the wicked from among yourselves.” And, “With such a one, no, not to eat,” and an infinite multitude of others. But let these, B by your favor, suffice; for I know that the domain of anagogical contemplation flourishes, spread wide by discoveries and speculations of this kind.
QUESTION CCI
How ought one to judge the things that happen in this life? BSome who commit injustices suffer their punishment in this present life; you have here a most evident proof that there is a Providence presiding over affairs, calculating reasons, and taking diligent care of what happens here. Many who have lived more unjustly have not suffered punishment; this is an even greater proof, namely that they have been reserved for a different, more bitter and grievous judgment. Many of the righteous have lived prosperously; take this again as a prelude and token of the retribution that will be there. Yet many have struggled with many miseries; this, too, stops the mouths of the most contentious, in that it indicates that another life surely awaits us, and another tribunal, at which each will receive the reward due for what he has lived through in accordance with his deserts.
QUESTION CCII
How did the apostles, being unlearned men, surpass all rhetoricians? CIf the mind exceeds letters, and divine grace exceeds the mind by an incomparable measure, do not marvel if the apostles, having received the fuller and greater measure, surpassed by far those who—I mean the rhetoricians and philosophers—take great pride in the least of things.
QUESTION CCIII
Why does Paul, when speaking to the Athenians, draw his arguments from their own writings? DIt is to be expected that others might be in doubt as to why the divine Paul, who teaches that one must compare spiritual things with spiritual, and who deemed even the Mosaic philosophy itself to be but refuse in respect to the excelling wisdom of Christ—why, I say, he who said and taught such things, when speaking among the Athenians, drew his argument from the inscription that was written on the altar among them. For it seems unworthy of the divine inspiration in Paul to seek assent for the truth from myths. However, I would not greatly blame others who are in doubt about this. But you, an ardent lover of dialectic, even though I could direct you by means of very many writings and logical points, I would blame most of all—and quite justly—by one of those very things you yourself hold, and which is by no means the lowest, since you have forgotten it, even though it was a most wise and useful principle. And what is that? Namely, when the senses of the listeners do not admit the truth demonstrated from its own...
A nature, it is necessary to take them by the hand, from those things which are naturally possible, and to establish the truth for them by these means, and to cause the brightness of that truth to shine clearly into their minds.
QUESTION CCIV
Why was prophecy shrouded in obscure images?
Adhering to your question as to why prophecy is veiled with the tropes of obscurity, I answer in brief: because prophecy is not history. For if there is any virtue in history, it is to relate all things clearly and to bring forth nothing that has been thought through in a hidden way. For it teaches what happens in the midst of the people, which all, both the lazy and the industrious who live in the nature of things, understand, and no one is prevented from knowing it now. Prophecy, however, is that whose work is accomplished most fittingly by revealing to the worthy those things that are obscure, while making them impassable to the profane. Accordingly, it proposes things that are shadowed and enigmatically veiled. From this, it seems to me, your doubt is satisfied: namely, that if things were not to be understood, they should not have been expressed in speech at all; but if they were to be learned, prophecy should not be obscure, or be the same as if it had not been published. For it has been settled from what was said before that it was fitting for it to be learned, and necessary that it not be expressed after a profane or common way; but that it should be spoken clearly to the mystics, while being preserved as occult and not at all accessible to the uninitiated.
QUESTION CCV
On the effiguration and character of the holy images.
You ask, regarding those among the Iconoclasts who are more audacious and ill-willed, and who consider curiosity to be wisdom: what is the genuine likeness of Christ? Is it that which the Romans delineate, or that which the Indians, the Greeks, or the Egyptians represent, D since they do not agree with each other in likeness? Whichever one of these someone calls genuine, he utterly rejects all the others. But this objection of theirs, or rather this malicious machination (O you, noble image and representation of Orthodoxy!), we can repel in many ways, having dealt them a blow, and convince them that it is filled with much folly and impiety. And first, this must be said to them: from that very source from which you proposed to declare war on the creation of images, you, even if unwillingly, nonetheless admit the existence and veneration of images throughout the entire world where Christianity exists; so that those who attempt to pull them down, rather, establish them, and are caught by their own arguments. Second, that they have forgotten themselves, by which all...
they say; for it is equally fitting that what has been said regarding the venerable icons should also be said regarding our other mysteries. For what divinely inspired sayings of the Gospel, they might say, or what Gospel at all do you name? For the Latin [Gospel] is composed in other shapes and types of letters, and that of the Indians in others, and the Hebrew in others, and that of the Ethiopians in others. And they are not only written in different types of letters and shapes, but are also uttered with a ringing and meaning of the voice that is different and most foreign. Would they not then say—Or rather, why do you not say that it is fitting for no one to obey or approach the Gospel because they are proclaimed in differing types of shapes and in different ringings and meanings of voices? For this, too, is a daring claim of your arguments; for not even a Greek could easily propose such things to us. For there are many things among them, too, that are similar to our venerable practices. And just as there is for them a nature common to us, and mind, and reason, and a similar tempering of soul to body, and countless other things, so also is it regarding the conception of the Divine, even if they differ in the most numerous and principal points; yet there are things in which, because of the clarity of common notions, not even they dare to contend. Accordingly, not even a Greek would dispute with us about this, but rather some person who is completely godless and irreligious, who has admitted neither a conception of the Divine nor any worship at all.
C Third, and coordinate with the second: what kind of cross will you insist is entirely similar to the archetype, the one which is fashioned with the title, or that which is delineated and traced without it? For whatever similarity of ours is acknowledged, from this (according to your clever syllogism) the making and veneration of the rest will—for you who dare such things concerning such great matters—be denied; or rather, it is already denied.
Fourth, you bring forward the difference and dissimilarity that we see in the mystical sacrifices and other holy services, to the slander and subversion of all our immaculate rite and worship; for from those very things by which you have contrived an evil meditation in your minds against the icon of Christ, you are convicted of shaking the entire sacred rite of the Christians and the divine mysteries from their very foundations.
Fifth, one must state what even strongly brands their impiety and hatred of Christ: for why do you stand at the icon and spin out such babblings, when you should divest yourselves against him who is being depicted, which you cover for the time being? For why do you show the implacable war you are festering in your minds against Christ, not with your lips and a naked face, but under a mask, through the icon? For let them say, since the Greeks think that Christ appeared on earth similar to themselves, but the Romans [think he was] more similar to them, and the Indians in turn in their own form, and the Ethiopians, it is clear, as themselves; since these things are so, who is the true Christ—the one supposed by whom? Does it then follow that we must not confess or believe that Christ came in the flesh? For truly, to these wretched men, he did not even come.
For in that they have dealt wickedly against the image, they have A much earlier puffed themselves up against the one represented, decreeing a total abolition of the imagined person based on the disagreement of those who have supposed him. You see what their goal was and toward what kind of stratagem against the image their efforts were directed. Yet, regarding the things mentioned, this must be said—not indeed to them (for they are unworthy), but to the faithful and those who love Christ: that the dissimilarity which is discerned between images does not wholly evacuate the nature or the truth of the image. For the one represented is expressed in colors not only by the shape of the body and form, but also by a certain disposition of himself, by some fitting action, by the expression of passions, by dedication in holy places, by the interpretation of inscriptions, and by other more distinguished symbols, none of which, or at least not the greater part, ought to be absent from the images of the faithful. Through these, no less than if all were present, we are led to the memory and honor of the one represented, which is the goal of making images. And these things briefly, and in an epistolary form. But a more exact handling will, with God’s favor, be led to its own proper subject.
QUESTION CCVI
B *Why is human life called a shadow, and a dream, and smoke, and vanity?* *On the various names of human life in the sacred Scriptures.* Edited by Montagu (Ep. 72 to Serg., 121, 122).Sacred Scripture does not declaim against our lowliness in the manner of rhetoricians, when it has distinguished human life with the titles of shadow, and dream, and smoke, and vanity, and others similar. For C in what place would you have the childlike age? What is more vain, empty, and senseless than that? Or even youth itself, which seems to be a certain flower of nature, but abounds in many storms; but many levities, vanities, and inconstancy are in it: yet it flows past more quickly than any dream, bestowing or providing nothing else than that, by stirring up the tumult of waves and the swellings of passions against the soul, it has submerged the first movement ordained for the path of virtue. Regarding the middle period of life, what else is to be said than that it differs little from the flight of smoke? For it runs about by leaping hither and thither, but clearly it rests nowhere. For it is in a certain way a participant in that most light and disordered movement which befits the youthful age, D for it has not perfectly freed man from those darknesses and tumults. But when it has neared old age, having cast forth ashes thence, it is occultly and gradually filled without sensation; whence it obtains the beginning of fading and flowing away: it seems indeed to be more remote from the evil and detriment which is brought in from both extremes; but it nonetheless partakes of the turpitude observed in both, and into smoke, as it truly is, and into a dream it is dissolved; and old age itself
A what, I ask, is to be thought of it? Even if we were to remain silent here, it would of itself proclaim its own sufferings, its heavy burden, and its difficulties—that it is, in truth, more despicable and obscure than dust, smoke, shadow, sleep, and all things. How, then, is it possible to avoid evils? By all means, if during the age of childhood we make use of a correct upbringing, having obtained prudent instructors. This is not within our power, but it is the duty of parents or guardians to see to it. Through adolescence, however, when our own part begins to be played, this is achieved through tighter reins, most precise instruction, and a training and discipline that go hand in hand; and in middle age, through the habit of virtue that has been previously ordained and impressed upon the soul—and it possesses the greatest strength toward subsequent successes—and through similar zeal and diligence leading to perfection in virtue. B To the man who has thus ordered and governed his life, old age will come as a harbor and a rest from labors, a repository of joy (which is in accordance with God), whereby the pains of the body are pushed aside and hidden, and man is truly declared blessed. But you, my son, see to it that you not only read eagerly what I write, but also, and even more zealously, verify the same through your own deeds.
QUESTION CCVII
[Coisl. CCXXXVI, Taur. CCXXVII]Regarding the passage: "Put your hand under my thigh."
Edited by Montacutius (Ep. ad Eulamp., pp. 122, 123). — Explanation of the words of Gen. xxiv, 2.
C "Put your hand under my thigh," says the patriarch Abraham. By this he commands the servant who is to escort the bride, indicating two things: one, which is immediate, is the oath taken in the honor of circumcision; the second, which is implied, refers to Him who was to be born from him, Christ our God. By binding him—and indeed, by making him more secure in swearing correctly, while at the same time making him more eager to perform his duties—he acts as an overseer and witness to the oaths concerning the bride-escorting. He does not set anyone else over him, but rather Him who also had promised that his seed, the one in Isaac, would be multiplied as the stars of the heaven; and He is able to bring these promises to fulfillment, and He knows that His gifts and graces are without repentance. D It is as if he were contemplating this and saying: "O attendant of my noble son, you need only be eager in this service and bring a diligent resolve to the fulfillment of your duty; the rest will be brought about with ease by Him who is summoned as the overseer and witness of this oath, and who promised the multiplication of his offspring." See, therefore, with how much love for God and how justly he ordered him to swear by touching the seal—which he had received as a sign of the multiplication of his seed in faith—since it would be the mediator of the future offspring. It is as if he were saying: "He who gave me circumcision holds the Chanaanite race, among whom I dwell as a sojourner, as accursed,
A and as one whose association is to be avoided, while as for myself, I am granted to match a maiden from my own kin to my son." B By doing something like this, a pious man—and one who is a practitioner of the grace—shows that his aim is to have fulfilled, by also setting forth the tokens of the divine and saving baptism, I mean the white robe and the other marks of the gift, and then, having touched these, to demand that he who promises to serve the will should take an oath upon them. You have, therefore, in the aforementioned letter, as I think, both the reasonableness and the consistency and the God-pleasing character of the faithful Abraham's thought and deed, through which any base, abject, or truth-opposing reasoning is driven away.
QUESTION CCVIII
[Coisl. CCXXXVII, Taur. CCXXVIII]. — Edited by Montagu (Ep. to Euschem., p. 124). — On Mark VIII, 15, 17, 18.Why do you wonder so much at the dullness of the disciples concerning the loaves, so that you say: "Did they not see? Did not their own eyes and hands minister to the miracle? Why did they not believe them? How did they not understand? How did they forget?" Certainly one may wonder, though not to such a great extent, but rather this difficulty must be addressed in the proper way. The things that were taking place, they saw with their own eyes and handled with their own hands, and they neither disbelieved nor fought against them; they gazed upon what was done and were astounded at what they saw. For they were not disposed like the ignorant, blind, C and shameless Jews who fought against everything. But they had not yet ascended to the degree of perfection of one of the saints and prophets of old, who performed divine signs whenever and wherever divine grace moved them. They did not, however, think of their teacher as God, performing signs with all authority and sovereignty: hence, when they had brought only one loaf with them, upon hearing Him say: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," since they were unable—as we said before—to grasp that He was able by His own supreme authority to do whatever He willed, they were led into reasonings about how they might be fed. The Lord, by rebuking this, not unjustly imputes to them hardness of heart, because they had not yet formed an opinion of Him that was worthy of God and that transcended the human measure.
QUESTION CCIX
[Coisl. CCXXXVIII, Taur. CCXXIX]. To the same doubter: "But they did not understand." Edited by Montagu (Ep. to Euschem., p. 125). — On Luke XVIII, 34.You doubt again and ask, how is it that when the Lord plainly and clearly foretold to the disciples the insults they would suffer from men, D the scourges, the cross, and the death, they nevertheless did not understand? For Scripture says: "But they did not understand, and this word was hidden from them, and they did not know the things that were being said." But consider this for me, that the Savior, while making the disciples sharper,
A spoke to them frequently in parables. And the fact that the matter was otherwise paradoxical—to raise the dead, and to promise an eternal kingdom, and to predict his own death. And not only this, but also because the love for their master was already growing strong and flourishing among the disciples with the passage of time, and they did not want him to suffer anything severe. Yet what one does not wish, it is difficult to grasp even when it is standing present and imminent. For all these reasons, the apostles supposed that B it was a parable, and not a prediction of certain intolerable evils that concerned his passion; and for this reason, even if the things said were otherwise clear and manifest, they were not able—or rather, they did not wish—to understand them. If, moreover, you should wish to add to them the business of the resurrection—a matter greater even than faith, and when considered by itself, a resurrection brought about by the one who had died; and especially when placed alongside other gloomy things C and those which, from diametrically opposite directions, were clashing and being predicted—you will no longer wonder that they were in total ignorance because they did not understand.
QUESTION CCX
"That, 'God is able even from these stones to raise up children to Abraham'—some of those before us have interpreted this as referring to those who believed from the Gentiles, who, after the manner of stones and rocks, had an hardened and insensible heart (for what is more absurd than to worship stones and wood, in hardness and insensibility?), yet, being broken apart from that state, they rise up as a seed to Abraham through faith. But if it is not to be rejected to speak something closer to the wording and the history, one must not overlook that when the Baptist wished to represent the ineffable and supernatural and all-working and all-powerful will of the divine counsel, he spoke these words; D signaling that, just as in the beginning God, having willed it, fashioned man from clay, so also now, from the kindred stones and those of the same consistency as clay, he would easily, if he willed it, fashion and raise up seed and children to Abraham. But consider for me also a third, of the things I have said, so that I may not say one closer, nor yet another further removed: that from those very stones which the Forerunner was pointing to when he said, 'God is able even from these stones to raise up children to Abraham,' it is possible to see accomplished in the deeds themselves—both the children to Abraham being raised up, and the prediction being fulfilled. For when the passion valid for the salvation of the world was being accomplished, then, as those stones and rocks, along with other things, were being split, many both of the Gentiles and of the Jews, having their hearts—which had previously been hardened—broken apart through that miracle, were grounded in the faith of Christ, and were enrolled as children of Abraham, both by lineage and by their allotted portions. The interpretation has thus been brought before you, as you see, according to both contemplation and history; and the history, being double, the one already past, the
following one as well, and in both the creative power and unlimited authority of the divine will becoming apparent to the eyes.
QUESTION CCXI
[Coisl. CCXL, Taur. CCXXXI]. To one asking how the divine Apostle is not found lying, who called himself both a Jew and a Roman; and who at one time said he was born in Tarsus, and at another time, in Rome A.(Published by Montacute, Ep. 102, pp. 143–148.)
That disciple of truth, Paul, did not lie, neither when he called himself a Jew, nor when he called himself a Roman. For it was impossible that he, being a herald of truth, should lean upon a lie—especially when standing before a tribunal, and being summoned into judgment by the Jews, about to pay the penalties for the fraud and wickedness which he was completely eradicating. For how could he have dared to use a lie and to confirm the sycophancy of the Jews which they had concocted against him? Would he not have immediately feared conviction, or what would follow thereafter? And did he not foresee that, when his person was revealed, he would acquire no benefit for himself, but would be held guilty and worthy of double punishment: namely, for those things which the Jews accused him of, B and for those things about which he had lied? And how could Lysias, who was in office and could easily have fished out the truth, have desisted from the scourging if he had not believed him when he asserted it? How could he have been led into such credulity by a captive and a pauper, if the truth itself had not compelled him thereto? And how, when writing to Felix, would he have declared that Paul was to be counted among the Romans? "For having learned," he says, "that he is a Roman, I came with the soldiers and delivered him." But perhaps Lysias was deceived and tricked. By what art, I ask? How was it introduced? And why did Felix not detect the imposture, especially when he was gratifying the Jews against the laws? Or was he diligent and attentive in those matters where his favor was against the laws and alien to reason; but when it was possible to gratify them according to right reason, did he appear slothful and remiss, C so that he gave no effort to initiate even the beginning of a just and upright favor? What persuasion or consistency could this have? But also, those who were present at that time, breathing the same things against him and inciting the Jews in every way—that is, the Jews themselves—if Paul had tried to avert the torments by means of a lie, how could they not have raised their voices and filled the theater with their shouting: "Look, men, how much he is lying! He is an impostor and a deceiver; he is not a Roman; he has found a way to deceive you and avoid the scourges! But you, from the things he has dared to perform even before us, and from the things we allege, take the proofs and free the common society of men from this common pestilence!" But none of these things did they say; nor did they, in fact, have the power to say them, nor did they dare to—neither then, nor thereafter; although a tribunal was once again gathered D for them.
A But the truth of Paul was so plain and held such sway over the opinions of all, that it stopped the mouths even of the shameless Jews, who dared to say and do everything. Thus, being in many ways beyond all falsehood, divine Paul is shown to have spoken the truth when he proclaimed himself a Roman.
But if he was a Roman, one might say, how is it that he, in other places and in this very same assembly, insisted on saying that he was a Jew and that he had Tarsus as his fatherland, saying: "I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city"? How then is it possible for both to coincide, that the same man should be called both Roman and Jew? To this we say that there is nothing absurd here, for by birth and by his conduct according to the Mosaic law, he was established as a Jew, having Tarsus as his fatherland, where his mother was relieved of her labor pains to bring him forth; B yet as for his father, whether through Roman favor or through money paid, he was enrolled as a Roman, and for this reason he himself was called and, in fact, was a Roman.
For this reason, also, when Lysias said to him, "With a great sum I bought this citizenship," he replied, "But I was even born [a citizen]." He did not mean, obviously, that he was born in Rome; for not even Lysias boasted or insisted that he was born there, but rather in this Roman nomenclature and civic status, in which he himself prided himself as participating. To him the divine Paul, speaking directly, said as if to deflate his spirit: C "You speak to me of a newfound nobility that originated with yourself, but for me this prerogative is inherited, founded by my ancestors and derived to me through the glory of my father." Hearing this, and being convinced that he was a Roman—especially because he had laid stripes upon him—Lysias’s anger was dissolved into fear and faintheartedness, and he became restrained. For in those times, honor was enjoyed not only by those who were native Romans, but also by those to whom this title devolved by law through favor or money. Therefore, nothing prevents the divine Paul from being both a Jew and being called a Roman. For individuals, like Lysias, as well as entire cities, though of foreign origin, assumed the title of Romans for themselves. D And that I may pass over the rest, hear how the Philippians pride themselves on being Romans. For when Paul cast out the spirit of Python from the slave girl, her masters, who instead of being grateful were inflamed with rage, dragged their benefactors into the market place before the magistrates, saying: "These men, being Jews, are exceeding troubling our city; and they proclaim customs that it is not lawful for us to receive or to practice, being Romans." You see how the Philippians were both called Romans and named themselves Romans; the Philippians are so named from their fatherland.
while the former A are so named from decrees. What, then, stands in the way? Or rather, how has it not become clear that the blessed Paul, being a Jew, was also a Roman? It is clear even from this, that the claiming of the Roman name was not a pretext for deceit or falsehood on the part of Paul. For if he had called himself a Jew to some, and a Roman to others, the performance of deceit might have had some basis. But if he maintained both before the same people, how is it not utterly foolish to suspect that, having planned to tell a lie, he would set that forth and declare it in advance, by which one might more easily be convicted of speaking falsehoods? It was more appropriate for a man who confidently relied upon the nature of the facts and the truth—which is more effective and more brilliant than any slander, suspicion, or falsehood—both to declare himself a Jew before those very people, and in a full assembly at that, and to proclaim that his patris was Tarsus, and consequently that he was a Roman. And this is all the more true because he did not profess himself a Roman once, nor as if in secret, but twice and even a third time, B intimidating the chiliarch—an act which, above all else, ignites anger and stirs up and rouses even those who are not inclined to a more precise investigation.
It is possible, therefore, to learn that the inspired Paul was a Roman from the many things already shown: first, from the truth residing in him, whose herald he was known to be; second, because even when standing before the tribunal he proclaimed himself a Roman; and third, that he was being accused of imposture and trickery, in which case it was impossible for even a very foolish and shameless man to lie. And further, that he did not simply utter this word nor in a trifling manner, which someone might perhaps disregard, but he was rescuing himself from torture and intimidating the magistrate. Moreover, because he drew Lysias to his side so that he would abstain from inflicting outrage; and because Lysias wrote to Felix that he had rescued Paul, a Roman citizen, from the bloodthirsty fury of the Jews. And surely Felix, even if he had wished to gratify the Jews, did not even consider such a suspicion; C primarily, it cannot be refuted that the very people of the Jews who were present, breathing murder against him, and ready to dare anything, did not dare to charge him with lying in this regard.
Added to this is the fact that he professed both before them, namely, that he was a Jew and that he was a Roman—a thing no one would willingly profess unless he relied utterly upon the truth; and that he did not do so simply, but bore that title with asseveration and persistence. If you wish, there is also the fact that both individuals and entire cities, not having obtained it as their fatherland, acquired the title of "Romans" through decrees. From which I consider it manifest and beyond doubt that Paul, more than anyone else, spoke the truth in every respect, both when he revealed himself as a Jew and as a Roman. But, they ask, was he not a Christian? He certainly was. Why, then, did he not call himself by this name? Indeed, D there it would have been superfluous; for on behalf of this religion and this calling, everything was suffering...
and with everyone he was stoutly contending, and he was rejoicing; this very thing he was—by teachings, and labors, and sweats—having prepared the city of Antioch, first of all cities, to take pride in the name of Christians. A If one needs also to hear some history, it is said that a certain [tribe], having grown into great antiquity, just as the tribe of Benjamin in Palestine took root, extended its shoots as far as the borders of Italy, granting to the Roman race itself and to Rome itself both its genesis and its name. From which the divine Paul, as he traced his blood to Benjamin, might reasonably be called a Roman; for there were descendants of Benjamin, others not a few, from whom Aradus and other cities and lands received their names; and indeed, a certain man named Ros, who having set out to the parts of Italy, and having there begotten many of his seed, and having attained to great glory and power, gave to Rome the name drawn from himself, and to the Roman race; for those who say these things do not even listen to the causes of the Greeks concerning it, which are many and not even in agreement with one another. Therefore, Ros, being a descendant of Benjamin, and an ancestor of Paul, reasonably declared the man to be a Roman, B bringing from himself the cause of the more distant lineage, and from the Roman system one that is nearer. But this story, though pleasant to hear and charming, does not, however, carry with it the grace of persuasion; for I would have placed this cause among those I have set forth first, had it not been too ancient and too grey with age to be believed, not only by those now, but also by those of that time, and possessing nothing reliable to rescue Paul from being scourged. Therefore, having dissolved your noble queries with these points (nobly, indeed, because they blossom from an honest, diligent, and God-loving mind), if anything else occurs to you, confidently—not to us, but to Paul, and to the common teacher of both Paul and us, Christ our true God—inquire, and farewell.
QUESTION CCXII Cur velum templi scissum est?
The veil of the temple is rent, as the Lord is being lifted up on the wood, for many reasons, I think. C For that the earth, at that time of the saving passion, was shaken by tremor and quaking, and nearly brought to ruin, might be granted even by those who are obstinate and refer the afflictions of the elements to natural causes; but that the veil was rent, with no one pulling it to the contrary, from top to bottom—a thing which had neither been done before, nor ever afterwards, nor inclines to any natural tendency—grants no refuge even to the most wicked to cavil that this prodigy did not proceed from divine wrath against the Jews, so that it might be an indelible conviction against their homicide. One may assign as a second cause, and say that it was a symbol and a premonition D of the destruction that would occur after so many years, and of the [desolation] of the renowned temple, and of the Jewish rites and...
orgies therein, a great part of which was performed with the utmost zeal behind that veil, so that they might be seen by no one of the common multitude; and for this reason that veil was extended, that those venerable mysteries might be kept remote from the eyes of the populace and be visible to the priests alone. But that the veil was rent, and they were laid open to the eyes of all, it is clear; and [it is clear] that what until then had been holy and sacred became common, brought forth into the sight and profanation of all. And these were, as it were, the preludes to that universal abolition which made their laws and legal worship cease forever.
But one may also observe a third reason, which, though it seems contrary to the preceding one, yet draws its origin and source from it. What, then, is this? It is that the Jews' knowledge of God, and their worship of the known Deity, was confined within a circumscribed place, namely, the borders of Judea and Jerusalem—though all these things fulfilled the role of types and prefigurations of the grace to come. Since, therefore, it was necessary that the worship and knowledge confined to a narrow space should cease, and that the worship which was to be revealed through the passion of the Savior’s cross should be spread unto the ends of the earth, and be introduced in their place, for this reason that veil is rent—that covering stretched out like a frontlet—through which the Holy of Holies was enclosed in darkness and in an B untouched place. It is as if it were proclaimed by the very deeds in a clear voice: "Come, all you, to see the invisible, to the divine intuition and knowledge; and let divine worship no longer be confined, as of old, to a certain part of the earth and to one nation, not so numerous, but let all nations and the ends of the earth freely enjoy those things which, for the Jews themselves, were inaccessible and unattainable."
But proceed further from this, and observe these things: the ark, and what was contained in the ark, served as a type of heaven and of those things that are under heaven. "See, for He says, that you do all things according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain." [Num. VIII, 4]. This ark, then, together with the other hidden things, was concealed in the temple, excluded by the interjected veil, and access to it was permitted to no one except the priests. This declared and delineated that the ascent into heaven had been kept inaccessible to men, and that no one of those who had been followers of the legal worship had been admitted to this dignity. Therefore, this obstacle is broken when the Lord is crucified, and it is signaled and proclaimed more clearly than by a trumpet that the entry into the heavens C is open to us all individually. For assuredly He who for this very reason was emptied, and assumed our flesh onto Himself, and suffered all things for our sake, that Christ our God, by His life-giving death, restored the entry into the heavens for the whole race of mortals. D
QUESTION CCXIII
A Since, in addition to the interpretations which our divine Fathers—more than four, I believe—have set forth regarding “All sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven,” and, “Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the coming one,” you seek yet another, though there are so many already—and I know not why, for those are sufficient to fill the desire of even the most eager soul—it will perhaps be no bad thing to observe one that maintains the greatest possible consonance with the facts themselves. And what is this? It is that he who offends against Christ our God, through the demonstrations of His humanity—as, for instance, that He ate (and that with publicans and sinners), that He slept, that He was weary, that He said, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” and things of that B kind, each of which the Word, who wisely administrates all things, performed for the confirmation and manifest declaration of the flesh He assumed—those who, because of such things, have offended against Christ can, as is likely, easily obtain correction. For in a certain way their blasphemy resulted from ignorance, because they were unable to peer into the depth of the dispensation and the ineffable condescension. Wherefore, upon being influenced by His diviner works and deeds, they will demonstrate a most rapid change, and will obtain a forgiveness corresponding to that in which they were sinning. Thus Paul, being a persecutor, hearing of the cross and death, and that He ate and drank, and whatever else was brought forward by the Jews as a calumny against the Lord; yet when he received a diviner C experience through the heavenly vision, he immediately cast away all those blasphemies and became a herald of Him whom he was persecuting. Just so, again, three thousand at once, and thereafter more of them, and then a multitude too great to count, having been converted by the divine signs, hastened with speed before the preaching of Him whom they had been attacking. It is clear, therefore, from what has been said, how forgiveness is granted to those who blaspheme against the Son of Man, since the ease of conversion is followed by the readiness of pardon. But as for those who have before their eyes those more wondrous things, which belong solely to divine power—the operation of demons driven out, illnesses dispelled, the sight of the blind restored by a word alone, those supernatural and paradoxical things—and who yet are unwilling to turn toward any of these, as if D choosing to be blinded to the works and the light of the Spirit, these possess a repentance that is difficult, or entirely impossible, from which forgiveness is also taken away from them. For by what would they be persuaded to turn toward such new things, which are far above nature, when they have been hardened, and not even—
A by any means can they be induced to reflect upon their own conversion? Not without reason, therefore, is this sin of theirs without pardon, and their blasphemy exceeds B any indulgence. Let the examples of Annas, Caiaphas, and many of the Jews be set forth; for these, when they saw Him casting out demons, when they ought to have revered the benefactor, dared to utter a thing exceeding all impudence, and through insults to say that He cast out demons by the prince of the demons; when they beheld the blind seeing, and those fixed to their beds providing, through their running and carrying, a manifest proof of their healing, they said nonetheless, "This man is not from God"; and because Lazarus, dead four days, had been restored to life, they were inflamed with greater envy. "For they were seeking," he says, "to kill Lazarus also." C And after they learned that he had risen, they attempted to conceal that resurrection with money and a lie. And when the disciples were whetted by tongues of fire, and were proclaiming the great works of God in strange languages, and were leading a vast multitude of men to piety through this miracle, they, without any shame, strove to attribute that august and venerable deed of the miracle to must and drunkenness; nor did those most wicked and vengeful men fear lest they be consumed by that miraculous fire. Thus, nothing, however much it might transcend nature, sufficed to change their wicked and absurd opinion, since once they had disposed themselves against the principal and divine works of the Holy Spirit without any modesty or shame, and had hardened themselves to dare such things. Justly, therefore, is it strictly and wisely said: "Whoever says a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever says it against the Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the age to come." For to those who were scandalized by the more human and humble things in the Lord Christ, there is an easy conversion and forgiveness through greater and higher things; but for those who have lost their mind toward spiritual, supernatural, and divine things, repentance is extremely difficult or even impossible. For this reason, no forgiveness will be encountered for their transgressions. D
QUESTION CCXIV
[Coisl. CCXLII, Taur. CCXXXIV]. (Edited by Montagu, ep. 129, to Christoph. pp. 170, 171). — On the precept of Christ, Matt. vi, 17.Since anointing the head and washing the face were practiced according to a certain ancient custom by those who were affected by joy and gladness, and these were considered certain symbols of joy and delight; the Lord, when about to introduce the law concerning fasting, and wishing us to fulfill it with joy and gladness, says: "Anoint your head, and wash your face," not meaning by this to soften the head with oil or to cleanse the face with water—for He Himself, who fasted for forty whole days, did not use these; nor is it possible to see any benefit accruing to those who use them. Therefore, He did not command them to be anointed or washed with these things, but through the symbols of joy and gladness He willed and commanded that we perform the fast with joy and pleasure. In this way, if we compose and adorn ourselves, so that what we do may be hidden from others, and we may not undergo the struggle of fasting reluctantly—
for where there is eagerness and joy, there the burdensome is light; just as where there is sloth and displeasure, there even the easiest is found most difficult. Anoint, then, your own head, and wash your face—which is what you asked to understand—preparing yourself to be bright and cheerful from the joy and exultation of heart in your fasting, and striving in every way to keep your good deed hidden from men, so that you may have as your rewarder God, who looks upon all hidden things. If, however, while you fast, you plentifully irrigate with the oil of beneficence your head—the ruling part—and from there, as if from an intellectual spring, you wash and cleanse your whole self and not just your face (for, it is said, almsgiving cleanses sins), you will show that the development of the divine oracles has become most profitable to you.
QUESTION CCXV
B C D (Ed. a Montacutio ep. 132, ad Taras. p. 171-175). — Matth. XII, 48; Marc. III, 33 (85).What the Savior said in the Gospels, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?", he did not say—as one might foolishly suppose—out of shame for maternal pangs, or to cast his mother out of her maternal glory and privileges. For how could he, who even before the time of performing miracles, out of reverence for her, turned water into wine, and who at the very time of the passion, when he was stretched out with wounds, and spear, and cross, and nails, still even then showed that he had the greatest concern for her; and who before all these things was subject not only to her who truly gave birth to him, but also to his supposed father? "For it says, he was subject to them." But why do I cite these things? He who did not blush to inhabit a womb, and who took upon himself the work and the reality itself willingly, how could he have cause to be ashamed of the name? And he who ordained that one should honor parents, immediately after God, how could he himself be seen as guilty of maternal contempt? It is not possible, therefore, it is not possible to say that our common Creator, when he said, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?", was holding his mother in shame or disregard; but through these words other, greater things are being administered. For he, who in many places teaches that the salvation of the soul is to be preferred to all other things, and that we should not prefer father, nor mother, nor children, nor brothers to it, and not even the whole world itself, now demonstrates this very thing clearly through their own actions. For when he was teaching the crowds and sowing the word of salvation into their souls, his mother and his brothers stood near, calling the benefactor and common Savior to themselves; to which summons
he did not turn, nor did he obey, nor did he abandon his teaching or slight the salvation of his hearers to prefer his mother’s greeting. By his deed he taught that when A one takes on the cultivation of spiritual salvation, just as the one being cultivated ought to attend only to the cultivator, unless he intends to receive the seed by the roadside, or among thorns, or on rocky ground, so too the spiritual [πνευματικός] cultivator is owed the dedication of his whole self to his labor and husbandry, and must not divide his concerns—not even if it be his mother or some other of his closest kin calling him away from there and pulling him aside. This is not B any slighting of a mother, but great providence and concern for those being saved; for one ought not to spend the time assigned for teaching on the care of relatives. Therefore, the Savior, uniting the disciples to himself more closely, says, "Behold my mother and my brothers." That is to say: These, having received the paternal seed of my teaching into the bosoms of their souls, fulfill for me the place of my mother and brothers. It is clear that this is not to disparage her who bore him (for how could he raise such men to the motherly lot as if to great glory?), but rather that he honors and reveres her worthily. For he is saying: whatever affection and disposition one is owed to possess toward a mother and brothers, these men are also deemed worthy of it, becoming fulfillers of the teaching and producers of the good works that spring from it. Note also this, that C just as he had previously said, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me," [Matt. 10:37] in order that it might not seem a heavy and difficult command to give, he himself first fulfills it by his own example, making imitation easier by putting the utility and salvation of the many before his mother’s care; by his very deed, as if uttering the voice: Do not think my command to be heavy and difficult to accomplish; for regarding the work that I, who am in debt to no one, am the first to begin, I set your salvation—as you are able to see with your eyes—before the veneration of my Mother. When I, the King of all, and Lord and Creator, did not disdain to D conduct myself toward you in this way, so as to prefer your salvation to my motherly affection and love, surely you are under a much greater obligation to reciprocate in like manner, and to place affection and goodwill toward me, your benefactor, before all else! And yet, this is not for my own profit; for what would human affection add to him who rotates all things with a nod, and whose handiwork is the very nature of men, and the heavens, and all things that exist? These things I desire, like all others, for the sake of your own salvation. It should not, then, be thought surprising if Christ, while honoring his Mother as was fitting, nevertheless did not prefer her to the salvation of men; for he assumed that mother for our sake and for our salvation, so that in no way might he...
A spare himself for our sake, but, having undergone those ten thousand sufferings and that most reproachful and violent death, that he might show us, in place of death, to be heirs of immortal life, he would not irrationally have deemed our salvation preferable to maternal sympathy. But if you wish to consider this also (for the husbandry of divine Scripture is fruitful, and bestows much benefit upon those who labor at it), you will see not less than the others that the Savior did not say, “Who is my mother and my brothers?” directed at his Mother. For that blessed Virgin stood outside, modestly and with reverence as was fitting, and did not claim free access to approach the Son; nor, indeed, did she interrupt the teaching, but longed only to see him. To whom, then, does the Master’s word look? It is clear that it looks to him who, at an unseasonable time and boldly, was calling out and crying: “Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, seeking you.” For that Jew (and we have no more specific name for him from the Gospels) when he addressed the Master, not only did not join any word of reverence, but did not even wait for the appropriate time, but interrupted the teaching, and using much arrogance and boldness, cast out, “Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, seeking you.” B And I think he did this as one scheming to taunt the common Savior of the race regarding his lineage. For he would not have spoken so boldly and in the hearing of those being taught, making the insult more familiar, or rather, he would not have dared to make the challenge to the Master; and he contrived and orchestrated these things, making the crowd, as far as pertained to him, more indifferent to hearing, and cheapening and diminishing the authority of the teacher, based, as he supposed, on his kinship. For indeed, the Jewish nation appears elsewhere too, and especially at the time of his teaching and miracle-working, to be consumed with envy and to be furiously inflamed toward the defamation and insults of the Master. “For is this not,” he says, “the son of the carpenter?” And again, “We know his father and his mother.” C And, “We do not know where this one is from?” And, “Are his brothers and his sisters not among us?” And many such words of malice. Wherefore the Master Christ, rebuking the lawlessness of that man, and through him the system of those who were of the same mind, shaping the argument of his answer toward such a thought, says: “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” That is to say: “Why have you set your mind to bring forward my mother and brothers for reproach? In vain has your scheme been contrived; it shall turn back upon you to the contrary.” D
A For I am so far from being ashamed of the lowliness of my relatives that I not only rightly declare as my mother her who gave me birth according to the flesh, but I do not refuse to adopt as mother and brothers even these lowly and stateless folks, the homeless and the poor, even though they have no kinship by blood, provided they are in the position of fulfilling the Father’s will through my teachings. For just as I, though she had nothing in common with the divine nature (for what does the human race have in common with Divinity?), nevertheless, incarnate from her by the Father’s will, showed her to be my mother, and kept for her all maternal privileges along with her inviolate virginity—so too, even if these people possess no right B or claim upon me from the tribe related by flesh, if only I find them to be fulfillers of my teaching and the Father’s will, I raise them to the lot and dignity of mother and brothers. From what has been said, I believe it is clearly evident to you that by the saying, “Who is my mother?” and what follows, our Lord and Savior was in no way guilty of any contempt or slight toward his mother; rather, through these as through all other works of God, it is shown that she who gave birth to him most deservedly enjoyed maternal privileges and honors from the One whom she had borne.
QUESTION CCXVI
The voice of that herald by which he proclaimed, “I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal,” which you have asked about, we find explained according to different points of view. For there are those who not only approach the goal more closely, in my opinion, but also more properly to the literal meaning of the words; they understand the sandal and the strap as nothing other than what all people know in common usage, and by these words they mean for the Baptist to signify the incomparable excellence of the One being baptized. For I know, he says, that He is endowed with such excellent dignity above myself—not as a servant is distant from a master, but if there is any other difference and distance that is surpassed by no other thing—that I do not even place myself in the number of those who relate to Him with the lowest service; for that is what “to untie the strap of the sandal” signifies. Others, perhaps more allegorically, suppose the “sandal” to be the world, and the “strap” to be those contemplations within it whose comprehension is not easily found, but are bound by an indissoluble bond of ignorance. They suppose this to be Jesus’s sandal, because, they say, His Providence permeates all things, and embraces and contains the whole world. Rather, He directs and acts with his own foot—that is, with supreme wisdom; He does not on that account need much counsel D or provident care, but through a final and ultimate inspection He preserves and orders such a great and vast work of art.
tion, a work elaborated with the best skill by him, such and so great as it is, he preserves and adorns. This exposition, however, the more it is embellished with a certain ornament, the more, in my opinion, it recedes further from the intention of the truth. There are others who understand the shoe to signify the flesh, which the Word undoubtedly put on for Himself; but they understand the thong as the connection of the natures one to another, which that Forerunner did A not dare to untie, let alone the hearers of his own teaching. For it was not lawful for anyone, through absurd opinions of any kind, to untie by their own authority that hypostasis which the Word assumed for Himself. There are others besides these who understand not the flesh simply as the shoe, but the very incarnation and the humanity assumed; and they interpret the thong not as the union of the natures, but as the bond and connection of those questions and doubts which are stirred up concerning the humanity assumed in the flesh, which far transcend every human mind—the solution and explanation of which questions not only should no one from the common people arrogate to themselves, nor busy themselves too curiously about them, but they B should first of all recognize exactly this: that not even the followers of John, who possessed something sublime and excelsior in both action and contemplation, could understand these hidden, barely comprehensible, and certainly inexplicable things. For when he himself, the “greater than all born of women,” professes that he is unworthy to untie the thong of the shoe, by that very act he acknowledges that he cannot solve such doubtful questions. But what are these? What is the emptying (kenosis) of the Word? By what means is the Creator of all things united to the thing created? By what means did the Virgin give birth, and the birth provide both the dissolution of birth-pangs and the seal of virginity? How did the Savior, who had [the] weight and a body, walk upon the backs of the sea? How was He contained in the tomb, and by bars and seals? And while these remained unmoved, how did He depart from thence? How then, with the doors shut, did He appear in the midst of the disciples with the same body? And how do eyes and fingers search out the wounds and the strikings of an impassible and incorruptible body? How might anyone explain that food and drink are of benefit to One who has no need of them, and to a body that is not subject to flux? Neither any man from the common herd and dregs of the people, nor even if someone should ascend to the perfection of the Forerunner, will he solve these and similar bonds C plainly, clearly, and perspicuously. It may be possible, however, that one person might say something more soothing to the souls of the hearers, and as a consolation for the great perplexity, than another; but the truth—without mirrors and enigmas—is removed beyond the boundaries of this life in these matters. And so I have recounted to you the chief of those expositions which are committed to memory. Do you, having conducted the discussion, embrace the best one. But if you feel shy about passing judgment, I prefer the first and the last to the others. For the one has a greater affinity with the subject matter and with the words; you will find the last one more suited to the analogy of contemplation. Farewell. D
QUESTION CCXVII. On the difference of images.
A It does not detract anything from the image of Christ if the Son is called the true image of the Father, or if man is said to have been truly made after the image of God; and this is not the case even if we affirm that those who live according to virtue are conformed to the true image of Christ. For this is not said for the sake of disparaging the artificial image, nor to ascribe falsehood to it, but so that the diversity which exists between them may be understood. For neither when we name the Son the true Wisdom do we exclude the wisdom of the divine Oracles from the truth, nor because we call Him the true Light or the true Life do we imply that solar light, or our life here (not to mention the life to come), is based upon a false existence. In the same way, when we profess the Son to be the true image, we do not relegate to the order of falsehood those images which derive their origin from imitation; we merely signify the difference B which that image has over these by way of superiority.
Hear, therefore, the son of thunder, how he, thundering from heaven, suggests to us such an understanding of his words. For in saying, "and grace for grace," he calls both the Old and the New by the one and same title of grace; then he adds the eminence, where he compares one with the other, saying, "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." It is manifestly clear that when he says this, he does not sever grace or truth from the Mosaic Law; for he himself was the one who, a little before, had distinguished it with the name of grace. Nor does he impute falsehood to it. For that statement, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," was not adapted to the evangelical ordinances in insult or disparagement of the law C (as Heracleon might say, and the children of Heracleon), but clearly to show the more illustrious and perfect magnificence of the Lord, wishing to demonstrate it above the legislation through Moses, he encompassed it with the common appellation of grace and truth.
Moreover, the divine Paul also, when he said, "The law having a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very image of the things," did not proclaim that the law is a type and image of future blessings; but through the tenor of those words, he wished to teach that it is the grace, rather than the law, that represents the enjoyment of future blessings.
Indeed, John Chrysostom, celebrated for explaining and teaching the divine Scriptures, is recognized as having used this figure of speech in many D places. For in interpreting the divine oracles and applying his tongue to the exposition of those things which, with Nicodemus...
A relate to the regeneration by baptism and the timeless generation of the Son from the Father, he says: "For even if this birth be heavenly, yet when compared to that true generation which is from the essence of the Father, it will be considered rather earthly." Do you hear how he speaks with respect to that true generation? What then? Is the regeneration by baptism not true? And who, unless he were utterly mad, would dare say so? How then did he say, "Compared to that true generation," but that he was extolling the higher and more miraculous nature of that one, without depriving this one of truth? And why do I say this? Listen rather to him saying the same things as I do, not only in meaning but in the very words themselves, and showing that such a usage of terms lies even in the sayings of the Master. For when the Savior spoke to the Jews concerning the manna, saying, "Moses did not give you the bread, but my Father gives you the true bread," he himself, expounding the Master's thought, says this: "He calls it 'true bread,' not because the miracle which was in the manna was false, but because it was a type and not the truth of the thing itself," and countless other things. But why do I cite this witness or that one? In general, all, both those nurtured by the Church and the most learned of those outside her, with the exception of the Iconoclasts, as it seems, acknowledge this usage of language; and books are teeming with such peculiarities of speech. As, for instance, when there are two or more things that, through homonymy or some other mode, are drawn to the same appellation, or are otherwise found to have a sharing of idioms; whenever someone wishes to discourse about the one among them that excels, he attributes to it, by way of preeminence, those things that belong to all in common, not entirely taking them away from the others, but by this means indicating the excellence of the matter before him in comparison to the rest; and the example already given will suffice, I think, to demonstrate my argument. But if you desire a collection of other examples, by going through the books yourself, you will compose a whole volume by recording the examples of such usages. B C
QUESTION CCXVIII
(Coisl. CLXIII, Taur. CLXIII. Edited by Montacutius, ep. ad Amphiloch. pp. 190-193. — John xx, 17.)That which Christ, our God, said to Mary Magdalene as she was approaching him, "Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father," D seems in a way to be difficult to understand. For what is it? Shall he then be more willing to allow her to touch him after his ascension to the Father? But the meaning is this: "It is not permitted to you," he says, "to touch me." But why? "Because you do not yet appear to me to have ascended to the height of the Father, and to have assumed the dignity of that transcendent essence; but you are still thinking lowly things about me, as you approach me, and you do not exceed human measures." But note that this is not because...
he brings no hope, but rather, by saying "For not yet," he offers her hope, that she will not be excluded from her desire in the end; but that, after a little while, she will attain what she sought. It is as if he were saying: "With the frame of mind with which you now approach me, you are not permitted to approach me; for you would not attain your desire. But if you raise yourself from these lowly thoughts to higher and God-befitting reflections, your access will be permitted, and you will be deemed worthy of greater things than those you had hoped for."
For she, indeed, as she had done before, wished to associate with the Lord in a more human manner, and after the fashion of the temporal economy. For she did so many such things, and while sitting by the tomb, she both acted and pondered much of this sort, offering ointment, shedding tears, causing the translation, and interpreting the resurrection in terms of it. B But Christ, leading her away from this affection and purging such notions, and showing her the untimeliness and impossibility of the attempt, says: "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." This means: "It is not fitting that I should prefer what pleases you to the common providence and the benefit of the whole world; nor is it equal that, by validating your affection, I should obscure the paternal divinity in me, or allow you still to approach me as if I were a mere and naked man."
The whole time which preceded the cross was a time of condescension and humiliation; at that time you were permitted to acquiesce in lowly thoughts, C and not to be cast out from greater things, as if to be utterly separated and torn away from them. But now is the time of higher and divine things. For death, having been swallowed up in victory, has been put to death; and Hades, having been emptied of the dead from all ages, has been stripped of its tyranny; and bright trophies have been raised against all enemies through the resurrection. Therefore, you too, raising your mind to higher and God-befitting things, must no longer ask for the previous things, those of the condescension, nor remain in and be carried along by the lower ones. By managing this properly, you will find what is desired, and your mind will not err. For having conceived the right thoughts, which you have not yet grasped, you will admire much more the ineffable and supernatural mode of the incarnation, D and you will show a greater affection of benevolence for me than that which is being restrained, when, out of fear and reverence, you could not endure to approach and touch me in an abject manner; for this is worthy of my divinity and of your now perfected faith.
That the woman was not simply forbidden to touch by the preceding word, but only because she desired to touch with a base and groveling mind, is clearly proven by the two women who happened to meet the Lord, to whom he clearly pronounces, "Rejoice!"—the salvation of all—and lets them touch with both minds and hands, having completed...
A their inner disposition. But since the woman had been forbidden to touch him for the time being, so that she would not, by missing the mark of her zeal, fall into sadness and [distrustful] reasonings—for the female sex is prone to pusillanimity and the suspicion of being despised and rejected; whence, "Woe is me! What am I?"—that she might not run into such thoughts, the Savior anticipated her, comforting her, and said, "Go," he says, "to my brothers, and tell them." By two means, through these words, he drove away the tumult of her reasonings, and urged her to cheerfulness: the first is that he ordained her as an evangelist of his resurrection; the second is that through her he ordered her to have equality with the disciples. For he says, "And tell them, I am ascending to my Father," as if he were to say: "Do not let it grieve you that I forbade you to touch me. For I did not do this out of disdain, or because I hold you in contempt; but the state of the events themselves, and the nature of things, and the B ineffable law of my providence and dispensation, wills that this be maintained above all. And you will have nothing less, if not even more, by not having your own desire fulfilled. For behold, I am sending you as a messenger of my resurrection to the disciples, and I am telling you to understand the same things that I tell them: that I am ascending to the Father; and that they should no longer imagine, in a human and abject manner, that I shall, as before, walk together with them, or undergo further labors or hardships, frequently going from place to place, or reclining at table." See also, then, how in the words to the woman he named the disciples "brothers," preparing her to be confident in all respects and to harbor nothing grievous. For he who bestowed the name of "brothers" upon the disciples, and then numbered himself with them, and counted them as equals, surely cast away from her all sadness and the tumult of suspicion. C And most wisely, and in a manner worthy of God, the phrase, "To my Father, and to your Father," was set forth with a distinction and separation; for while the words are joined together, the difference and otherness of the things themselves are made clear. For by that which is proper to him, he showed his nature; and by that which is common, he indicated grace. Inasmuch as nature differs from grace and adoption, in that same measure of excellence does the relationship of the one and only-begotten Son to the Father, according to essence, transcend the relationship towards others, which arises from love and compassion; and it is exalted—the only-begotten, clearly, over the many sons whom grace D has brought forth and given birth to. Therefore, by saying "my Father" and separating the genuineness of nature by that which is proper, he added "your Father," indicating the adoption and calling of the apostles resulting from the vehemence of his love. And the phrase "my God and your God" also looks to the same intent and is connected with the same thought. For through "my God," the congeneric and peculiar nature of the one is proclaimed; and through...
A the words "your God," the servile and obedient condition of the many and their being created is made known. For it is clear, clear to all, that just as sometimes that which is lower and different, or that which is superior, is indicated by the word "my," so again, the equal, the congeneric, and the most genuine is characterized by the same word. But I have sketched these things for you as a pattern, more humbly than the subject demanded, yet not altogether meanly, if the purpose of the letter be considered.
QUESTION CCXIX
[Coisl. CLXIV, Taur. CLXIII]. Edita a Montacutio (ep. 138, ad Theodorum, p. 193, 194). — On the bloody sweat of Christ. Luke xxii, 44.A proverb is used regarding those who are suffering greatly and enduring agony: "He sweated blood"; just as also regarding those who are bitterly lamenting: "He weeps blood." If, then, one should think that the expression recorded by blessed Luke is derived and used in this way (for that man was not lightly initiated into such doctrine): "And his sweat became as it were drops of blood"—then you have the answer to your problem. But if it seems to you that this should be investigated more curiously, yet that is easily solved of itself, because by saying "as it were drops of blood," he did not declare that he sweated drops of blood (for he would not have said that the drops were like these—for this is what "as it were drops" clearly signifies); but wishing rather to signify that the Lord's body was not moistened by some thin dew, appearing as if for display, but was truly dripping all over with the sweat like large falling drops, he took the drops of blood for the image of what occurred. He was demonstrating, therefore, that just as through the intense prayer and the great agony, so also through the thickness of the sweat, it was shown that truly and by nature, and not by display and appearance, the Savior was manifest as man, and served the natural and blameless human passions. For the Lord, wishing to demonstrate by deeds that he underwent the passion not according to his divine nature but in his human nature, prayed and was in an agony, and exuded those thick and dense sweats that were likened to drops of blood. By no means, therefore, consider that this passage of the Gospel should be cut out—it is not right; whatever may be the case, as you claim, with some of the Syrians—but, recognizing that it is not impossible, but rather highly consistent, that it is contained therein, accept it as sound, count it with the other divine oracles, and read it without doubt or misgiving.
QUESTION CCXX
[Coisl. CLXV, Taur. CLXIV]. Edita a Montacutio (ep. 139, ad Theodorum, p. 194-198). — In Matth. v, 28.Since I have many things to say, from which it is possible to clearly recognize
A that the Lord’s utterance—which says, “Everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”—is by no means burdensome or impossible, but rather light and convenient, I shall suggest them to you by means of the present letter. First, naturally, because we who live under grace are bound by the obligation to perform much more good than those who lived under the law. Nor is the precise promulgation of the law equally burdensome to either party; rather, what perhaps seemed burdensome to them will appear well-proportioned and light to us, and what is of such a nature to us will not appear so to them. For the law only turned them away from things B that it was not right to do, but it granted no power for the fulfillment of what was commanded by the law.
But for us, the aid through baptism and the other gifts has become great, lightening almost every difficulty and not allowing the impulse of evil spirits to set upon us with tyranny; it leaves them the opportunity to attack us only due to our own sloth and, as it were, our giving ground. So that if a more precise law had not been ordained for us than for them, the justice and goodness of God would have been overturned into its opposite, if the same precision and similar conduct were demanded C of us—who benefit from the greatest aid—as of those who enjoyed no such thing; and if, in an inequality of power, an equal action were sought. For just as it is both unjust and most burdensome to demand ten talents from the one who received two, at the completion of his work, so it is careless and, on the contrary, unlawful to accept a sum reduced to four from one who received five. Each must, according to his strength and the gift bestowed upon him, be made to pay the required labor. Such is the ordinance of equality, of an impartial mind, and of judgment. It is clear, therefore, from what has been said, that for us this should be D considered in the same way as "do not commit adultery" was for those under the law—not even to look at a woman to lust after her. And the truth and consistency of the words do not testify to this alone; it is also clearly seen through the works themselves. For it is not possible to see more of those under Moses who had fled from the act than of those under grace who have withdrawn from the things pushing them toward the act. Indeed, there are very many of our number who not only did not cast inquisitive and lustful eyes upon strange beauties, but did not even look at a woman’s face at all, having preserved their own modesty even by a mere glance.
Second, that to those who were being schooled under the law, provided they performed what was commanded, the goods of the earth were offered as a prize. But to us, the kingdom of heaven is offered, and things “which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man.” Thus, even from the difference in the prizes, the lightness and convenience of the evangelical command are demonstrated. For it is not equally burdensome to run...
A a stadium to obtain a crown of wild olives, as to run two stadia to be honored with one of gold. It is clear that the labor of two stadia is lighter than that of one, because the incomparable superiority and brilliance of the prize lightens the distress, and does not even allow the one who toils to feel the double exhaustion and double sweat. Upon these matters, moreover, he did not simply define such an entanglement through the eyes as adultery; but he named it adultery B of the heart, and through the law of ineffable compassion he cut off what seemed severe and harsh in the judgment. “In the heart,” he says, “adultery consists,” which the stimulus and itch through the eyes have brought about. How could one speak more humanely than this? You have cast a lustful eye upon the face of another man's wife; you have indulged, where it was not permitted, in a wanton and foreign spectacle; with softer glances you have instilled the poison of passion into hearts that were too tender; from there you have ignited, henceforth more violent and uncontrollable, the flame in your thoughts; the burning has C reached the heart; only opportunity is lacking for the act. How is it that you have not committed adultery in your heart? But perhaps another might say that he would have committed even complete adultery, if he had seen this very thing attempted against his own wife. For everyone is accustomed, just as he considers the things he himself has done against others to be moderate and is slower to examine them, so also to be keener in looking at an injustice done to himself, and then to become a severe judge. You have cast your eyes upon the sights of others, sending forth through them lustful rays; from there, in turn, more foul D darts have been reflected back at you; you drag the whole living creature, tied from the middle of the heart, as a captive, being yourself drawn by the same ropes; you have been wounded and you have wounded; you have been cast down, and you have cast down.
And why is this not clearly adultery? But our merciful God does not reckon it so; rather, he circumscribes the sin to the heart, where the passion was produced. For he says: “In the heart you have committed adultery with her.” Do you see how kindly, how lightly he decrees everything; how he spares us? Besides the things mentioned, consider also this: that he did not devise this judgment to plan punishment for us, but to deliver us from punishments. For he who dwells upon such improper spectacles is near to being completely submerged in the act itself. Therefore, that he might rescue us from being punished, he preemptively removes the causes from which we bring punishments upon ourselves. And you would see, if you observed more closely, that he does not contrive for us an inexorable penalty nor an unreasoned punishment, but rather a humane diversion and a saving guidance through this commandment. How? Since because, as is the case with many human things, even without practice or deliberate intent, we are carried away into wrong actions, so that since we have practiced nothing beforehand, nor have our thoughts...
fixed the passion, but we are carried away into such an action by some force, or seizure, or craft, we may not fall down completely, nor cast ourselves into despair. But pondering that neither practice, nor zeal, nor reasoning, nor assent preceded the fall, we might more quickly raise ourselves up from it, and run toward repentance, having found a great occasion for forgiveness: that we did not fall by intent. In order, therefore, that we may have wherewith to comfort ourselves when we are caught by an onset, or by some craft, or even by tyrannical force, and may run more readily toward correction, the Savior declared this judgment: that He placed the nature of sin in the choice of worse things and in the consent of the thoughts, and not in the act alone. And this is not to burden, without reason, the conscience of those who sin, but rather it is to relieve and comfort the burdened conscience of those who are not caught as a result of practice. For just as for those who have proceeded through these incitements, the judgment is great and intolerable (For what were you practicing? Why were you provoking the passions? And why were you setting yourself wholly toward embracing wickedness, voluntarily declining and receding from the better things, when nevertheless it would have been easy to seek better things? "For it lies at hand for everyone, as Paul cries, to will what is good," and there is no difficulty in hating the opposite). But as it is grievous for such as these to be condemned; so, for those who are not carried away through [the] like [means], philanthropy prevents the punishment, and in [their] swift repentance, grants easy forgiveness and acquittal. And this much for these matters. But do you avoid any absurd actions, and refrain from erecting idols in your thoughts through curious and passionate gazing, so that you may at last delight in such discourses, and not be vexed.
QUESTION CCXXI
Of what heresy was Eusebius of Pamphilus?Eusebius, whether he was the servant or the associate of Pamphilus, that he was caught by Arianism, his books shout. And he himself, repenting, as it were, and against his will, confesses the sickness, and yet in his repentance he shows himself even more unrepentant. For he does not show himself to have departed from his former false doctrine by the apology he prepares, nor does he with the holy and ecumenical...
synod indicate that he agrees, but he creates a portent by claiming that the defenders of the consubstantial doctrine share his own sentiment and mind. And this, among many other things, is clearly shown by the letter he wrote to the Caesareans. But that he fostered Arian opinions from the beginning, and did not cease his efforts to defend them until the very end, many know well, and it can be easily proven from many sources. Furthermore, that he labored under the disease of Origen, by which that man was affected regarding our common resurrection—though many may be ignorant of it—if you examine his books with scrutiny, you will surely see that he suffered no less from this pernicious disease than he was seized by the Arian furor.
QUESTION CCXXII
B Quid est illud: "Qui minor est in regno cælorum, major illo est?"What is said as a question in praise of the Forerunner—"But he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he"—I know that most of those who have preceded me have thought that the Savior spoke this to explain His own meaning. Some among them connect the term "least" with "in the kingdom of heaven," and pronounce it as a single clause, and they consider him who is less than others in that kingdom to be greater than John. They interpret "kingdom" here as the time destined after the Lord's resurrection: during which period of time the matters of faith were acquiring perfection and strength through the cross, baptism, and the Spirit. They mean by "least" in it the last among those who live in that polity; he who possesses less than the others, yet attains more than John. For the Forerunner, they say, living still under the discipline of the Law, is reckoned among those born of women, and above all of them he brought back the precedence. But he who lives under grace is among those born of the Spirit, and regenerated from above. "For He gave them power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." And of these, they say, the Forerunner is not the greatest; indeed, he is C inferior even to the least of them. And thus far go those. But others, I think, rightly reverence the Baptist, fearing to equate such a great and illustrious man with none of those who are perfected through grace, or to consider him more insignificant than even the least; regarding, first, the phrase "he who is least," they read it by separating it from the following "in the kingdom of heaven." Secondly, they understand "kingdom of heaven" more readily as the second coming of the Lord; and they wish the "least" to be called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who, even if at the time of His first coming he was not considered by the opinion of many to be greater than the Forerunner, yet at that time he will be [known] to all, even to those who formerly did not wish to acknowledge and confess Him, with fear...
and trembling, as he appears as judge of all and king. But even those who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ was the "least" did not take this in one and the same sense. Some refer it to the time of His birth in the flesh (for the birth of the Lord followed that of the Forerunner by six whole months); A others refer it to the length of age and the span of life, for the tradition is given that the Forerunner excelled the Lord in bodily course; others understood the saying "the least" according to the opinion of the many. For John was considered greater, as one who had been consecrated to God from infancy and had adopted a life without encumbrances and an eremitic one from his very swaddling clothes; and because the ready reasoning of the masses holds the baptizer to be more venerable than the one being baptized. But these [interpreters], even if they agreed for different reasons that the One being heralded was considered "least" by the many compared to the Forerunner, nevertheless unanimously proclaimed and taught that the Lord is greater than the servant in that heavenly and fearful kingdom. B I, however, withdrawing myself from arbitrating these things, and not deeming it my task to judge who among them spoke better—nor is it for me to condemn with severity those who are called the Forerunner's [interpreters], for neither, brothers, has anything great been thought out for you by those who blamed [Him] by declaring the Lord greater than the servant (for what glory is there in the Lord appearing greater than a servant, and that at that ineffable and fearful coming?)—since I have decided it is not for me to say anything of these things, but rather to show affection for the men—who are especially bishops and servants of God—and to confess that I owe them great thanks for what I said (for not all that causes difficulty C to the minds of others provides an occasion for those who spoke from the beginning; it is a desirable thing if one, embarking on some sublime contemplation, reaches the truth to any extent; and our renowned Fathers, for the most part, have revealed the understanding of the divine oracles with precision), nevertheless, while holding the men in the highest honor and admiration, I shall not be silent about what has occurred to me. I see, therefore, that the goal for the Lord in this place is not to show that He has fallen below the Baptist, nor any other person (not to mention being more dishonored than the "least of all"), but rather to glorify him with praises in every way. For of the aforementioned [interpretations], the one is perhaps inconvenient, the other lowly. D For if you drive the herald to the lowest ranks, you will not preserve the high status of the One being heralded; and to diminish the servant is especially superfluous now, and does not escape [the charge of] pettiness. But the Lord's purpose clearly tends toward praising the Forerunner, and quite rightly so. For that great man, indeed, was led to the prison on account of divine laws; but he disregarded the evils with which he was beset; he did not, therefore, fear the sword, nor the slaughter, but rather, let it be said, the death that is ascetic.
A For he would not leave behind for his life a lethal doctrine; and the majesty of the Master, in the depth of his own heart, he would not belittle in any small way. For many supposed the herald to be greater than the One being heralded. Among whom, some of his own disciples, suffering from this disease due to vanity, drew their teacher's excellence to the enhancing of their own glory. Seeing this, he was entirely inflamed, and acted in every way so as to cut down this wicked assumption. Often he attempted to lead his disciples away with various words, [regarding] the state of their opinion; but when he saw that his words were being defeated by their disposition, and that the matters of contention were prevailing, he looked to another path, and he contrived to bring them to persuasion through the evidence of sight.
B And see how prudently he handles the subject. He sends his disciples to him of whom they were jealous, and by prescribing the form of the question, he prepares for their own salvation; so that through the things they would see, he might cause their former error to be corrected, both in the amendment of the disciples and in its being cast off and completely dissipated among the others. For immediately upon their arrival, the Savior (who also granted the Baptist the grace to think these things) answers nothing to the question in words; for He knew—He knew the one who, from his mother's womb, had heralded Him with leaps and with a mother's tongue, and who after this had rendered Him [testimony] by countless brilliant testimonies and divine declarations, stood in no need of further instruction regarding Him. But by paradoxical C signs and wonders, He set forth the incomparable [nature] of His divinity (for this is what the one who sent them was working to achieve); He hung their attention, as it were, upon the very miracles themselves, and thereafter sent them back as obedient to their teacher and as heralds of His divinity. And the Baptist, in this way moving the disciples away from their error, through them likewise set in motion the rest of the people to run to their common Master. But the Savior, while prompting His hearers to the emulation of the rest of the man's virtues, and welcoming such and so great zeal and eagerness of his, repays him with masterful and just praises; for the One who appeared as a gratuitous and common benefactor to all would not permit Himself to send away the Baptist alone of all men unhonored, in return for the love poured out beforehand and the affection inflamed even unto death: and this, I think, was the primary cause of His praising him. D But there is another no less significant than this. Since that question, "Art thou he that is to come, or look we for another?", he asked for the sake of procuring the salvation of his disciples. The first appearance of the interrogation suggests to those who have not pondered the prudent and artful question more intently that the Baptist had asked this out of ignorance: so that he might, from an abundance of caution, humble him [also] regarding this suspicion.
A For it is indeed a great reproach and accusation of a herald, if the ignorance of the one being heralded comes upon the praises; and he weaves them together in more ways. For it is truly absurd if, by the very means through which the Baptist might have otherwise gained, he should fall from his former glory. Therefore, first he brings a praise from the very judgment of the hearers themselves; the third from the testimony and prediction of the prophets; and of the remaining two, each from his own and the Lord's peculiar judgment. But the second mode states the praise directly; the fourth weaves the encomium from the absurdity that follows for those who, out of ignorance, suppose that the Baptist posed the question. The first and fourth modes of praise, therefore, being woven from the sublation of those things which in no way befit the Baptist, but which are vainly suspected by some, are fashioned by way of question, and both demand and teach the contrary of the question. But the intermediate ones set forth the eulogy directly and affirmatively; for just as in the passage, B "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the winds?" the argument fashioned by way of question does not declare the Baptist to be a reed, but on the contrary establishes that he is far removed from all those who, like a reed, are shaken in their judgment; so also that statement, which is constructed in a similar way, through the passage, "But he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," being brought forward in a like manner, does not indicate that anyone is lesser, still less that anyone is greater than the Forerunner. For the Savior would not have suddenly deprived him of the praises which He had previously woven, nor would He have cast the one being praised all at once into the lowest [rank]; but, keeping the same sequence, He nowhere permits the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven to be thought greater than the excellence of John. C But the praise which is woven from the judgment of the hearers, to explain it in more detail, is of such a kind as this: Why did you go out into the desert? Was it to see a reed shaken by the wind? Or to see a man clothed in soft garments? It is clear that it was neither; for you yourselves, by the very thing you did and your hastening to the desert, testified to the contrary of this opinion, thinking him to be someone wonderful and one who had, by a little, transcended the human limits that you truly considered such a one to be. Therefore, not even now has such a man as this brought the question to me through his disciples out of any change [of heart] or ignorance, but on the contrary, he wisely contrived to have those who were being taught confirm by the very sight itself what they had been taught by word. D For what reason could there be for a man so great to undergo a change or alteration of his better state? Since every declension toward the worse is brought about by some weakness of judgment, or by the enticements of pleasures, or by avarice, or by the love of this empty and vain glory. Which itself, into the rest of the...
A passions, easily makes us slide. To these, many others indeed—but especially those who are fearful around royal courts, and who are easily captured by that dust—are influenced; by whom John is not easily—nor is it easy for everyone to say, not even in the smallest degree—conquerable. For he is not a reed receiving the succession of winds. This is to say, he has escaped the ways of the unstable, and the malady of those who, like a reed, are blown to and fro. Nor, indeed, has he been accustomed to soft garments, nor to other customs in which those who frequent royal courts become effeminate, being enslaved to gold, to pleasures, and to ambition. But the desert is to him an illustrious home; it is a paradise, it is a palace. His body is clothed in camel’s hair; B and a leather girdle is around his loins, binding and mortifying all the carnal and human stirrings that gather about the loins. If you should ask for food, he took nothing of food at all, except that which was bitter and without nourishment—and not even such food, except in that measure which might satisfy the necessity of nature. To these things, how could luxury or vain glory dare to sneak in? Or riches, which exercise a heavy and bitter tyranny both over those who possess them and over those who, unwillingly, lack them? And these things not only proclaim his deeds, but you yourselves also, who have used your eyes to C see these things, being exhibited as witnesses, descend into that same opinion. For by your very work you have borne testimony that the Baptist has proved himself superior to those who are of an unstable mind, who are enslaved to pleasures, to ambition, and to riches, from which a turning and changing for the worse is wont to proceed, as well as every ignorance. And this is that form of encomiums which leans upon the votes of the hearers. D There clearly follows that which is woven together by the assertion of Christ the Lord Himself. But what is that? Namely,
did you go out to see a prophet?
That which they had manifestly acknowledged by those things which they had done; as if He were saying: I know that you did not go out into the desert to see a man of inconstant mind, nor a lover of money, nor one addicted to ambition or luxury, but a certain sublime and elevated man, a participant in the prophetic grace and gift; and you judged altogether correctly. Certainly, I testify to you that you went out to see a prophet; nor does He stop here, but recognizes him as more than a prophet. And since judges, lawmakers, and kings have been held in high regard for their virtues, lest he who is asserted to be superior to the prophets should succumb to any other as his inferior, by His own unique assertion He teaches that the Baptist obtains preeminence beyond all, saying:There has not arisen among those born of women a greater than John the Baptist.
And thus is the second mode of encomiums. The third mode interposes the prophecy of the prophet between the praises preached by the Lord. This is he, He says, of whom it is written:Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
There remains a fourth mode, concerning which especiallyA the inquiry is made; which, just as the first, is established by the refutation of an opinion regarding the Baptist that was in no way fitting. This mode itself proceeds by way of question and doubt, not being set forth directly nor affirmatively; but it removes that base opinion by the absurdity that follows from it; and from there it weaves together and completes the eulogy of the Baptist. What, therefore, is the false opinion that is supposed? Surely, that some might think that the Baptist was ignorant of Him whom he was proclaiming, and for this reason brought forward the question.
And what is the absurdity that follows? That, for this reason, he is cast out of the kingdom of heaven. For if he who is the least in it is greater than whom could he be, except one who is far removed from it? Why he would be cast out, there is no need to explain. For one who is not thoroughly convinced that He who was born of the Virgin, baptized by John, testified to by the voice of the Father, and pointed out by the kindred Spirit, is the Redeemer of the world and the despoiler of Hades—it is evident that such a one B is outside the kingdom of heaven. For how would he inherit a kingdom who does not even know its Maker, and dispenser, and distributor?
And how, then, is this absurdity removed? By itself, indeed, since it is an absurdity. For it is as such: that he who proclaimed that kingdom to others should himself be excluded from it; but it is also removed by what was said before. If John was ignorant of Him whom he proclaimed, if he buried in oblivion what he had heard from heaven, if he did not know whom he was baptizing, but asks in order to learn who is the Expected One; it is evident that he will not be deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven at all, nor of that state in which the least one dwells. But this must be considered among the most absurd things, since it is evident from other considerations and from what has been said from the beginning. Where is the prophet who does not see what is placed before his feet? Where is the one greater than the prophets who was ignorant of Him whom he proclaimed? How, among those born of women, could he be C greater, if he is not even worthy of the kingdom? He is not, therefore, in any way less than the least of those in the kingdom of heaven, nor did he therefore ignore Him whom he proclaimed; rather, not that he himself might learn, but that he might improve his disciples through their own sight, he shaped his teaching into a question.
But this is the unfolding of the whole thought. The Lord’s divine oracle, through a sharp and concise word, by means of the questioning form of doubt, presented the whole meaning, saying: "But he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he?" For this saying, as soon as it is heard, and because by the excess of the absurdity it does not permit us to descend into any unbecoming opinion concerning the herald of truth, immediately drives us to perceive the wisdom and usefulness of the question posed for the sake of the disciples; and from there, D we are drawn even more to the acceptance of his praises. And we do not judge the Baptist to be less than he who in the kingdom
A of heaven is the least (most certainly not), but we agree B that he has risen above judges, lawgivers, kings, and even patriarchs themselves, as Truth itself has clearly declared. And most reasonably so; for he was bound in chains and a manifold affliction, destined at length for death, in order to undergo a struggle for the sake of divine laws; nor did his burning desire for the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, wither away, but rather it flourished more and more, and through death it strove to be kindled the more vehemently and to become immortal. He did not cease, with hand, with tongue, and by every means, to proclaim that heavenly Bridegroom, ardently striving to unite each person to him and to implant the love of the bridal chamber. Indeed, it seems to me that he even rejoiced at the sword, and was distressed by the delay, and hastened to those who were in the underworld, so that even there he might arrive before the others to announce and be the first to preach the expected one. Were not these praises worthy of the Lord’s tongue? He looked upon the sword, he looked upon the executioners, and he turned the slaughter into a goad for the Lord’s love, turning himself entirely toward Him. It is altogether true: "Among those born of women there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist." He touched the head of the Master; he preached from the womb; he preached until death; he drew the world to repentance. I pass over his life in the desert, his unusual diet, his way of life and conduct beyond human strength that put even the shameless Jews to shame and sealed their shameless mouths, a life beyond man. Is he not deservedly greater than those born of women? Did he not deservedly enjoy the Lord’s voice? Is the least in the kingdom of heaven greater than such a man? Therefore, it is evident from what has been said, that one should not read it affirmatively, "The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," but [should read it] in that form in which those words are read: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" Prudently, then, note that we were not forced to understand that "in the kingdom of heaven" against the sense obvious and known to all, or to drag it by force into some other goal; nor were we forced to attach to the word "least" some more scrupulous additions in order to make the confession of "greater than those born of women." We merely adapted the figure used from the beginning to the interrogative form, and although we exceeded the length of a letter, we have made the meaning of the matter explained clear. C
QUESTION CCXXIII
[Coisl. CLXVIII, Taur. CLXVII].If God is everywhere, how can the mystery by which he is present in a woman’s womb be accused? Certainly, they say, that he is present in a woman’s womb, as he is also everywhere, there is no objection; but that God was incarnate from her, how is this and of what nature? D — Concerning God present everywhere and the mystery of the Incarnation.
You therefore, my friend, [refute] the accusation against the mystery...
you have left unwillingly, and have yourself passed from an enemy into the camp of friends, without knowing it. For he who, having neglected the accusation, seeks a demonstration of the proposition, does not dispute about the things that do not turn him away from believing, but about those for which he might accept it. Furthermore, for one who is in such a frame of mind, it is enough that he understand the truth of what is proposed to be free from accusation; for if someone rejects something as absurd, if he sees that it involves not only no absurdity, but is also based on the principles of reason, ought he not, once the accusation is laid aside, to embrace it? Is virtue impossible? But I have shown many following it, therefore the possibility was substituted for them; and he who formerly rejected it, now ought to be a servant of it. Is fortitude fatal? But I have shown it to be useful for life, if anything else is. Therefore, that which was deemed hateful because of the harm it produced, has now become lovable from the fact that it does not produce harm. Is it impossible for God to be in the womb of a virgin? You have confessed that it is rather impossible for Him not to be. What other preparation, then, does the proposed question need? "But I must," he says, "learn also what it means to be incarnate, or rather, if you do not find that what is called the incarnation of God puts on the form of every living creature." Now you are no longer among the friends, but have returned again to the hostile attacks of enemies; provided, however, that in what you have previously felt the defeat, you will not be able, even in these matters, to remain undefeated while arrayed against the truth—and indeed, rouse yourself for the skirmish. Is there a greater providence of God toward men than toward herds of animals? You would not say so; for the creation and providence of these also exist for the sake of the needs of men. Therefore, the divine presence is not the same in men as it is in other living creatures. For being one, and not manifold in its diversity, it is said to be immense without multiplicity, so that the many forms are reduced to one alone, that of human nature. You see with what ease the first bulwark of unbelief falls. B And what of that? he says. For if the Word did not put on the forms of other living creatures, it remains for it to be said that He was not incarnate from one virgin, but from all women and virgins. But, my good man, the guilt of the shameless is visible even here, in that they have not feared to behave themselves irreverently. Therefore, at the same time, as it seems, you have risen... it would suffice for me to refute you again with wise words. For I would say that it is even more impossible that He who has been once incarnate should need a second incarnation. Therefore, an incarnation from all virgins has no place, but only that which is from one.
QUESTION CCXIV
Whether the devils know that by doing penance for the things they have dared, they would be freed from their sins, or whether, having once fallen from divine wisdom, they have been deprived of the knowledge of this? C But if the first be said, how can a nature that is incorporeal D
A and not weighed down by such a burden of the flesh, become worse than the one subject to it? For many men, having reached the depths of evil, have through repentance surpassed their prior manner of life. But if after their fall they have been entirely ignorant of both their audacity and their turning, and thus lie sleeping, buried in deep darkness, how do they not drive men toward every sort of malice that surpasses all reason, whose practice they have often not even previously considered, yet at the same time they incite and draw them into secret outrages? Your proposition, I think—if one were to summarize the many arguments—would be this, or something like it: the devil has fallen; how can he repent? But he is blinded; whence comes this blindness? For he himself is the cause of blindness in others. How then is he blinded? Yet he cannot make others blind nor increase the blindness. How, moreover, does he who was formed entirely for the good not incline B toward it in any way, but on the contrary, immerse himself in that to which he was not directed? And what might this be, which he underwent, not having deemed the devilish race worthy
QUESTION CCXXV
A dialogue of a man devoted to pagan factions with a Christian, or certain heads by which the Trinity is asserted.
[i]Edited by Mai (Nov. Coll. t. I, p. 202-207). — A dialogue on the Holy Trinity.[/i]
CEthnic. Since I know you to be a protector and champion of the Christian dogma, and furthermore one shining with kindness, I shall not fear, for the sake of inquiry, to set forth—if you consent—the view of the ancient and principal discourse among you: a view which I indeed see to be highly incredible; and even if it should perchance become credible, it nonetheless has no less the power of contradicting and overturning that which it previously strove to establish.
Christian. What reason has persuaded you to think and speak in this way? That your opinion does not fight against us or against the truth, there is no need to state; and that those who are darkened by murky dogmas do not see the light of the true religion, this also is easily understood. Come, however, tell me by what reasons you are moved to say that our discourses concerning religion, while they strive to persuade on the matter, rather show it to be incredible and lacking demonstration.
Eth. I shall speak, therefore, not of new or recent arguments, but of those stated by your very ancient fathers. For they, while they join the Son and the Spirit to God (for this indeed is your, O Christians, dogma D and teaching), weave these subtle points of discourse almost in the form of a question. You will say that God is not devoid of a mental word. If you avoid this blasphemy, you will surely say that God possesses a mental word. Likewise, if God is not inanimate, nor endowed with the nature of insensible things, He must necessarily have a Spirit. Therefore the discourse concerning the divine nature...
A must not be celebrated without the Trinity. They proceed to weave other sophisms of this kind as well. God is not lacking the power of begetting; therefore, He is a parent of generation and has begotten. But neither is He without spirit; thus, from these things, God is again configured in the Trinity. Many other things of this sort those who idle in the manner of dreamers will not unreadily assemble, and they will flatter themselves—but not others—with this fallacious reasoning: and they will persuade no one of this incredible thing, except the inconsiderate.
Ch. What reason, or rather, what bold insanity, has driven you to utter such things against religion?
Eth. You speak nothing but the beginnings of your kindness and benevolence. And yet, if you were not angry with me, I would not be silent about any of those things which you ought to know, and which are also consistent. B
Ch. Speak readily, fearing nothing; for you will not find me any harsher than I was at the beginning: provided, however, that you yourself, unless compelled by the necessity of the argument, do not sharpen your tongue to heap reproach upon religion, nor contract your brow after the manner of fools.
Eth. From my own store, I will utter nothing insane or contumelious. But if, by chance, those demonstrations which are found among you carry something insane, I do not bring this forward; rather, the authors of them sustain the blame.
Ch. Speak, then; for the investigation of truth will undoubtedly detect what is erroneous.
Eth. I will say nothing else but those things which I began to say at the start of our discourse.
Ch. What are those things?
Eth. Those who persuade [men] that Christ is the Son of God, are accustomed to ask whether God has a Word (Logos), or not. C
Ch. They do indeed ask; though I do not know if they do so in the way you pervert the interrogation. But let this be passed over for now, lest, before one question is yet instituted, we take up another and ruin the order of your discourse, and obscure the entire disputation. Indeed, if you were to ask me what I myself would say, I would make you quite certain, as well as this mind of yours which is being carried off into a crooked path.
Eth. For my part, whenever I hear this type of interrogation being put forward, I am broken into laughter. But we ask the questioner which part of the response he prefers to hear; for as for me, it is not unpleasant to state either side. For if I say that a Word of mind exists in God, I have already prevented the Word from being God; for there is no "Word" within the Word, unless, perchance, you wish to challenge the contentions of the Greeks regarding the multiple nature of the gods. But if I deny that the Word exists [within Him], the interrogation immediately collapses. Under this same refutation also fall the phrases already mentioned: whether God is sterile or genitable? whether He is breathing? and whatever other sophisms are produced by you as if upon a stage. These, I say, are not insults, but refutations; they disperse the fabrication that hinders the truth, and clearly reveal your malice.
A Ch. It is well that you have finally, though late and with difficulty, vomited forth the entire venom putrefied over a long time against religion. And you will surely realize, if only you are willing to come to your senses and consider, how potent it was in corrupting your own vitals.
Eth. How so?
Ch. I do not think you are unaware, as I have already said, that these things are spoken by the pious, though not in the manner you suggest.
Eth. What other manner, then, I pray?
Ch. Those ancients certainly do not ask in this way, but by a different method.
Eth. Once again, I am acquitted of just accusation and heavy reproach while I censure those for whom even you do not take up the defense. For the fact that you pass over what I criticize and bring forth other things—the force it adds to you for bringing them forward is matched by the amount it subtracts from those whom we are reproaching, in terms of their confidence.
Ch. Who would now look upon you with a kindly eye or call you a man of worth? For when you have fallen to where you ought not, if someone lifts you up, you do not rejoice; on the contrary, you complain because you were not left lying where you had fallen. B
Eth. How can it be that these things are so?
Ch. Because, forsooth, you attributed as a fault to the ancient fathers things that no one ever said. But now, when you perceive yourself excluded by the accusation, you do not ask pardon for your sin; nor do you consider that gratitude is owed if anyone recalls you from this rashness. On the contrary, because while attacking one thing you provoke another in its place, you think you should be proud. What insanity could be graver than this?
Eth. Before the refutations, I pray, do not raise your eyebrow nor assume such great airs. For who would dare to mock those who rely on reason and hold it out before them?
Ch. You speak rightly. Follow me, therefore, with your reasoning. I say that our people do not ask whether God possesses a word of the mind.
Eth. What then do they ask instead?
Ch. Is God set above every nature, both creator and inspector, or not?
Eth. This has nothing to do with my argument. For because I do not join the faculties of the divine nature to that nature itself, I shall not for that reason appear to be slandering the sophists.
Ch. That is not what I am saying. But make your mind attend more diligently to the hearing. This divinity (I pass over its praises now)—do you call it rational and spiritual, or irrational and inanimate? Answer boldly and pointedly. C
Eth. I do not know which of these I should say.
Ch. And yet, does not one or the other of these options fail to lead you away from your former reproach? For whether you say the divinity is rational and spiritual, you will not force us to say that the Word is in a word, nor the Spirit in a spirit. But if you say that that divinity is devoid of reason and vital spirit, you cast yourself, and not others, into the abyss of impiety. Nor does there remain for you [the ability] to [defend] the polytheism of Greek D atheism.
A You do not cast upon us the polytheism of piety; nor is the Word or the Spirit excluded from the divinity. Do you see how the same [argument], when set forth not in the same way, casts a great storm and confusion upon those who are unaware of a clever and irreproachable method? Why are you silent? For if you have understood, one should not feign lack of understanding; but if not, nothing prevents the same thing from being stated by me again, as you can see.
Eth. I am astonished how the same argument, when shaped differently, gave many causes for objection; but now, when brought forward by you, it has been shown to be clearly free of all those things. And not only this, but what is preached by you also seems to have the power of persuasion.
Ch. It is not only in the aforementioned proposition, O good sir, that it is possible to perceive this, but also in many other ways of speaking. For a proposition put forward maliciously creates perplexity, but when set forth directly, it preserves and maintains its own inherent dignity.
Eth. Such as what?
Ch. Let us leave aside, if you wish, things that are far removed; but let us say that which, along with the aforementioned proof, has become a participant in the mockery.
Eth. What are you saying?
Ch. I will not ask again, "Is God fruitful or not?"—lest perchance you, by removing the "fruitful" [aspect] from the Son, might also remove the divinity, or by granting it, entangle us in polytheism. But I would frame it thus: Is the Divine—I leave aside now the hymns which that blessed nature is compelled to speak—but is the Divine generative, or is it deprived of this power? B And with our mind, [that is] the simple [mind], instead of inclining toward the barrenness of generation, [but rather] turning back toward the generation [itself], we have the Son, neither alienating [Him] from the divinity nor acknowledging [the property of generation] as peculiar to the birth. For these things are in the whole divinity, but not in each of the persons being theologized within it.
QUESTION CCXXVI.
What is the meaning of, "Whence have you come?" CNot simply, as one might think, is the voice put forward as a mere form of questioning, but it also reveals a contemplation of a deeper investigation. "You," He says, "having been condemned, on account of [your] arrogance and boastfulness, to have [your] dwelling among the lowly and earthly, whence or in what manner have you arrived here, having no authority to investigate the lives of holy men, but having been cast off [only] toward those who, through the sins committed in their own life, make you the master and leader of [their] absurdity? Whence, then, did you dare to set yourself up as a censor of a life which in no way at all pertains to you?"
QUESTION CCXXVIII [Coisl., Taur. LXXXIX.]
A Utrum in verbis: "Misit Deus Filium suum," *genómenon* (natum) an *genómenon* (factum) per unum *nu* dicere oporteat? One must say *genómenon* (factum), "born of a woman," just as it is said "born under the law," with only one *nu*, which must never be changed. First, because thoughts and words must always correspond to one another; and second, because while Christ was indeed begotten (*gegennētai*) of the Virgin—where that word must be written with two *nu*s in the second syllable—He is no longer being begotten: for He was begotten of the Virgin only once. Let no one here allow the saying of Gregory the Theologian to become a cause of error. For he said, "Christ is being begotten," not because He is always being begotten of the Virgin, but because the festival at that time happened to be the day of our Lord’s Nativity. Therefore, in every way, one must be on guard not to write or pronounce the phrase "born of a woman" with two *nu*s.QUESTION CCXXVIII [Coisl., Taur. LXXVI]. — Inedita. On nature and person.
What was that which appeared in Christ, was it nature or person? After citing the arguments that militate against either side, Photius replies that what appeared and was seen in Christ was neither nature simply, nor person simply, but a part of the composite hypostasis, which is an abiding entity (subsisting).QUESTION CCXXIX [Coisl., Taur. LXXVII]. — Inedita. On person.
Is the composite person of the Word consubstantial with the simple person of the Word, or is it of a different nature, or is it the same in one respect and different in another? For if it is of the same nature—and the simple hypostasis of the Word has the same nature as the hypostasis of the Father—then the composite hypostasis of the Word also has the same nature as the simple hypostasis of the Father. How, then, is the composite consubstantial with the simple? And how would the hypostasis of the Father not also be termed composite? And thirdly, will there not be a quaternity—the three simple hypostases of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, C and the composite person of the Word? But if it is of a different nature, even so a quaternity remains. And how can it be of a different nature from itself, unless one posits two distinct entities, the composite and the simple? But if it is of different nature in one respect, and of the same substance in another, then the difficulty follows that the Trinity would have to be termed a quaternity; there follows also the difficulty of how He exists as one with Himself, being in one respect of the same nature, and in another respect of a different nature. These absurdities arose from the fact that, from the beginning, one thing was taken as if it were two; for from this, it followed in these hypotheses that the Trinity was gathered into a quaternity; for there is no other... Dand different person of the Word, the simple and the composite, so that one should have to inquire as if concerning two, B whether they are of the same or of a different substance, or in one respect the same and in another different; but it is one and the same. Therefore, to those who ask these things, it must be answered necessarily and truly: it is neither of the same nature, nor of a different nature, nor something from both. For these things are said, at the very least, concerning two; but the hypostasis of the Word, whether you call it composite or simple, is one and the same. A
It has been permitted to us to transcribe this earlier part of the question; as for the rest, we have noted in a few slips how Photius pursues his argument. These are the more important points: He notes that some of the ancients admitted neither a composite hypostasis nor a composite nature, but only the incarnate person of the Word and [the person] void of flesh, whereas the more recent ones often say that it is composite in the sense in which they call it incarnate. He notes that the ancients avoided the mode of speaking about a composite person, chiefly due to the difficulty that it cannot be explained by what logic the simple and the composite are called equal and consubstantial. Hence Photius teaches that the person is the same, but that it is predicated in diverse ways being affected by various qualities—as, for instance, Peter crucified and not yet crucified, a man naked and clothed, Paul a persecutor and Paul an apostle. The person of these, Photius says, C is one and the same, but the things which are about the person and affect it are not the same. For the rest, compare a similar question which is ventilated in the *Panoplia Dogmatica* in Mai’s *Nova Patrum Bibliotheca*, vol. II, p. 623 seq., question 8.
QUESTION CCXXX (Coisl. Taur. LXXXVIII). — Inedita. On Divinity.
Whether Divinity and Deity are the same or different? For if they are different, what is this, and what is Divinity beyond God? But if they are the same, and each of the three persons is God, then any person is also Divinity.QUESTION CCXXXI (Coisl. Taur. LXXIX). — Inedita.
Whether Christ assumed universal man or a particular one? D We say, neither universal man nor a particular one...QUESTION CCXXXII (Wolf. LXXXI. Coisl. Taur. LXXX).
What does it mean: "We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, as though God were entreating by us: be reconciled to God"? (cf. 2 Cor. v, 20).The expression "for Christ" signifies "in the place of Christ," because the disciples had taken up the ministry in the place of the Master. I would have you consider here that we too, if perchance we conduct an embassy in grave and honorable causes, usually make mention of the person himself, rendering the embassy itself more illustrious. Paul does the same, saying: "We conduct an embassy in Christ's stead," intending to stir up to reverence toward the majesty of this person those to whom that embassy looked. Therefore, he says, we exhort in the place of Him who reconciled the world by His death. And so we too ought to be compliant, since otherwise that signal and ineffable humanity of His toward us would be to us ineffectual and full of reproach. Then, extolling that person still further, he says: "That God made him, who knew no sin, to be sin." And again, an addition of another increase from the benefit...
brought forward, he subjoins: "That we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Working together with him, he says, we also exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain. Thus, A Paul represents himself as if fulfilling an embassy for Christ. To what end, I ask? That you might show that his benefit, so great, has not, on your part, been rendered void among you. We not only set ourselves up as ambassadors to you, he says, but in such a way that God himself and the Father exhort us together with Him on behalf of the Son. Reverence, therefore, the ambassadors, value highly those who exhort, and hold in esteem Him for whom the exhortation is instituted. But if we accept that saying according to this reasoning, it will not be the same as "instead of Christ," but rather, as has been said, it will be understood directly.
QUESTION CCXXXIII [Coisl. Taur. LXXXI]
What is that: "Or, to speak more accurately, those which are the divinities"?Now, for the first time edited by D. Hergenroether. — An explanation of certain words of Gregory Nazianzen. Since, he says, the word "in which" does not signify one thing—as, for example, that which is in heaven and those things which are in it (for heaven is one thing, and what is in heaven is another)—so that you might not suspect any other similar thing here, he immediately adds: "Or, to speak more accurately, those which are the divinities themselves." It is permissible also to take an image of this discourse. For just as one saying that there is a kingdom in kings, and wishing to indicate more accurately that it exists in them, might add: "Nay, I affirm that the kings themselves are the kingdom," and B by that means clearly vindicates for them the power of the kingdom, but does not convert their nature into the quality of kings; so nothing prevents someone, by saying: "Rather, those that are the divinity," from indicating the inseparability and indivisibility of the divinity from the persons, without, however, resolving any person into the divinity or into the same nature, but rather, preserving the property of the persons, he declares through those words that these things are of one nature, and divinity, and essence.
QUESTION CCXXXIV [Coisl. Taur. LXXXII]
For what reason was he who was leprous over his whole body in the Old Testament called clean, while he who was only in part, unclean? — Regarding the diversity of lepers according to Leviticus XIII, 13. Edited by Mai (Nov. Coll. t. IX, p. 112). Because he who was a leper over his whole body carried no hope of healing, and therefore the merciful God did not judge it right to offer him a double pain—that is to say, the leprosy, and the name of impurity, and exile from sacred things. But he who was a leper only in part, since the hope C of healing removed from him the greatest part of the evil, deservedly was not deemed worthy to enjoy the same philanthropy.NOTES. (95) Colbert: *pro* τούς. (96) These are the words of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 39, p. 630 ed. Bill. "For in three there is the divinity, and the three are one: those in which the divinity is, or, to speak more accurately, those which are the divinity." Gregory Nazianzen declares the real identity of the three persons with the deity by three formulas. The persons are those whose deity is [nothing other than] that in which the deity is [what Gregory calls] "those which are the divinity themselves." We have discussed these mutually illustrating forms of speech in our book *Doctrina de S. Trinitate ex Gregorio Nazianzeno*, Ratisbon 1850, p. 41, edited in German. In the cited place, Gregory joins the last two formulas, and Photius explains the power of the latter.
QUESTION CCXXXV [Coisl. Taur. LXXXIII]. A Why is the Spirit said to be the image of the Son; and what is the Pythagorean tetractys? (97)
The Son is called the image of the Father both as being referred to Him as A to his Cause, and as showing forth and imaging the Father in Himself, He who in some place says to Philip: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." But the Spirit is not called the image of the Son as being referred to Him—far from it—but because it is not possible to know the Son from elsewhere, unless one takes the all-holy Spirit as a helper for the guidance. The Pythagoreans honor the tetractys as being an image of the four elements.
QUESTION CCXXXVI [Coisl. Taur. LXXXIV]. Why does Jacob anoint the stone? B
He was foreshadowing the intractable and hard heart of the Gentiles, which was to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and dedicated to God—just as that stone was. It may also be understood in another way: why he anoints the stone; because the flesh assumed by the Divinity was to be anointed through ineffable mercy. But the Stone is Christ, the precious cornerstone, joining through Himself the two peoples.
QUESTION CCXXXVII [Coisl. Taur. LXXXV; Wolf. LXXXVI]. Why does he worship the top of his staff?
The mind that sees God, indeed, worships the staff of the son. For this is what Israel means. (98) Because a flower blossoming from a rod signified that He would be worshipped not only by the young Israel, but also by the aged one. Furthermore, he does not distribute his blessings equally to his children (99); rather, he overwhelms some with blessings, while he reprimands others, his sons, with curses. C For just as he begat the old people, so also the Lord, laboring spiritually, gives birth to the new people and imparts the blessing, not to all (2), but to those who have prepared themselves to be worthy. Therefore, Jacob does not distribute the blessing to his children out of favoritism, but makes their deeds the judge of this distribution. D
QUESTION CCXXXVIII [Coisl. Taur. XCVI]
«Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest. » (Ps. L, 6).David indeed destroyed another’s marriage, but to the adultery he added murder, and he strove to conceal the deed. But when the Divine confronts him with the proof of his audacity through the Prophet, he turns into himself and says: "Against thee only have I sinned." For even if Uriah has been wronged, yet I, having learned through the reproof that the sin had been dared against You, hasten to seek forgiveness. For You did not allow me, while sinning against my own servant yet simultaneously insulting You my Lord, to remain unaware. Why? "That thou mightest be justified in thy words," that is, that Your justice might overcome human machinations, and that no one might think to outwit Your judgment by sinning. For this is what "[thou] mightest overcome when thou art judged" means: You overcome in that no one can appear righteous before You; and because, in Your exceeding goodness, longing for the salvation of all, You overcome our sins with Your mercy, receiving conversion and repentance in place of the greatest gifts. For God judges His own cause against us, weighing His own mercy against our sins, and His clemency will prevail by absolving the punishments of sinners. A B
QUESTION CCXXXIX [Coisl. Taur. LXXXII, Wolf. LXXXII]
What is this: "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing"? (Rom. VII, 18).Paul does not say this of himself, but in that he represents the person of human nature. Now, the good does not dwell in our flesh when, through habit and time, having become enslaved to sin, we carry within us evil that is persistent and difficult to eradicate. For whoever has served the long-standing habit of these things, even if he strives to return to the pursuit of virtue, finds the resolution difficult and not without great labor. Therefore he says: "It is no more I that do it," that is, I recognize that this work is not mine; for how could I perform it, being constrained by evil? But rather [it is the work] of sin dwelling in me, which has acquired a fixed and immovable habitation. Therefore I also lament, panting after freedom and crying out: "O wretched man that I am," and so forth. C D
QUESTION CCXL [Coisl. CCCVIII. Taur. CCXCVII. Maio q. CCXL]
On the term of life.1. You call us to former struggles, and to those where...
A many have exercised themselves and have contended not ignobly, yet have left us no hope for a visible victory (that I may speak of nothing more abject); but since we have collected not a few arguments from the holy and blessed men who preceded us, and are joining to these those things which the clemency of divine aid has not disdained to suggest to us, we indeed pray that your zeal and hope may not depart empty of graces and of a knowledge that requires no explanation from elsewhere; or, if it does, that it may require the briefest correction. For to seek a writing that is exhaustive is to force it into excessive length, while to require brevity is to permit many necessary things to be omitted. Nevertheless, for my part, I shall endeavor according to your request to extend the discourse concerning the term of life.
2. Those who bring forward fissures of the earth B and shipwrecks and pestilence of the air and other such things that involve a sudden death for many and diverse people, and then ask whether it was determined for them to come 6 to one and the same end, these seem to me to bring into question that which is seen by the very eyes; whence those men have need of sense rather than demonstration—not to say, if I examine the matter more deeply, that they are themselves destitute of judgment emanating from the reasoning of the mind. For to confess the things that are, but to ask whether they are, is nothing other than to indicate and betray the infirmity of the mind and understanding. For if C individual multitudes are comprehended under the same circumscription of death, and a term is nothing other than the end of each person 7, how are they not convicted of seeking that which they confess, while they ask whether one term has been established for all? But this is only one of the arguments; the second is this: Why, I ask, do they take refuge in a crowd, from which such a sudden and indiscriminate end is demanded? It is surely because they confess a term for some, but do not concede it (they doubt) for the majority; for they would not have devised such a refuge in the multitude dying in one column. D And yet, if they affirm a term for some but not for all, then by the same arguments by which they themselves tacitly admit a term for some, they can be compelled and drawn, even against their will, to give their assent to those who affirm a term for all. For by the same responses with which they refute the objections of those who resist this opinion—those who admit a term for some—the catholics teach that they can also refute the objections leveled at those who assert that one common term for all had been established in that multitude 8.
3. Furthermore, not only when some unusual circumstance arises, and sudden and diverse kinds of men...
are surrendered to death, is the human constitution of life daily seen to present such narratives; for it is impossible to find a day in which both the old man and the youth, the child and the woman and the virgin, the poor and the rich, the subject and the ruler are not all caught in the same net of death. Why, then, do they abandon the daily constitution of life and flee to those destructions that occur from some misfortune? It is, of course, because from the former they do not think it possible to effect what they contend, whereas from these latter cases they believe there is room for their doubt; yet even there, varied kinds of humanity are found to be surrendered to one and the same death, just as they are here. From the latter, however, B they do not dare to bring forward an objection; and therefore, through those things which they teach regarding those natural deaths, they show that what they boldly conjure up in these events is rather a work of impudence and temerity, and they do not indicate that anything plausible or necessary is exhibited by this argument.
4. God did not make death 75; for He set before us life, and then death, not as a natural thing subjected to necessity, but as something dependent on the free leaning of the will; for sin, once perpetrated, gave birth to death. Look at Adam: it had been determined for him to live a course of nine hundred and thirty years, and had he not sinned, C he would have been brought to completion (that is, led to perfection, or if the reading be changed: and for one who does not sin, a life of perpetual duration was decreed). Life was defined before God, but death was also foreknown; for this reason, God is not the cause of death; for foreknowledge did not effect death, but the transgression of the commandment did. But Enoch is still living; how is this? Having obtained translation as a prize of piety. What, then, of Noah 76? Was he not justified, who, as a second seed of the world, repaired and saved it in the waters from those who were drowned because of the multitude of their crimes? What of Lot, a Sodomite, but not one with Sodomitic purpose? What of Moses, who saved the Israelite people D while the Egyptians were cast into Tartarus? What of those whose limbs fell in the desert, though they had not sinned? What of those whom the earth swallowed alive, when the princes of the tribes stirred up an insurrection? What of that utterance (to omit all slaughter brought on as a punishment for sin and all voluntary slaying): «If you are willing, you shall eat the good things of the land; but if not, the sword shall devour you» 77? What of those whom Elias consigned to ashes with heavenly fire, those impious priests 78, and the twice fifty men—against whom He said: «I have left for myself seven thousand men»—and [what of] him whom
A a dead man, [was there] a resurrection? If these and similar things are [the work of] Clotho through God, where will be the freedom of the will, not to say the absurdity? But what of the final slaughter of the Israelites, inflicted by Roman arms as a penalty for the blood of the Lord and the murder of the prophets? Did it happen from a term or decree, or from the freedom of the will or some other [reason]? And what of the bloody murder perpetrated upon Abel? If the term predetermined by God was fulfilled, why is Cain, who killed his brother as a minister of the divine decree, condemned to groaning and to the destruction of his entire race? And how does the divine law from Noah to this present time condemn a murderer to death? Or how is that [passage] concerning Agag to be judged? If the term had been predetermined for him, would he not have died, even if Saul did not want to kill him? And what of the sons of Job? Did they fall by a term or by the B petition of Satan? What of the Ninevites? What of Hezekiah? What, indeed, of the others who have been saved or are still being saved by some prosperous event? Moreover, what of that saying: «That one should lay down his life for his beloved,» the rule for which are the holy martyrs? What, indeed, is to be determined concerning that which Phinehas did? Did that happen from misfortune or from a decree? And where is that [saying]: «If you do well, you shall be long-lived»? Where is that: «Sins diminish the tribes»? But what of those who are strangled by the fear of death voluntarily, or who in any way whatsoever kill themselves, or who suffer this same thing against their will from others, or by famine, or by gluttony, or by severe cold, or by a scorching heat, or by a pestilential disease, or by as many things as are more powerful than any aid or are incurable—not to mention all those things C which result from the drawing of blood? But what if one leaves an artery unbound, whether deliberately or not? Does not the intellectual spirit, which is bound within it, escape along with the blood of his soul, as soon as the blood condenses into flesh? For flesh and spirit exist simultaneously. And how is this? Because the divine Word, both in and through Himself subsistence-bearing, became flesh and dwelt among us. But what is to be said when those who dwell on the land are destroyed by an earthquake or a fire, and those who are in the sea are kept safe, just as others perish in a storm while those on the land are not harmed? What of the dead who were raised to life by Elisha? What of those whom Christ, the author of life, raised? What of Tabitha? What of that which happened to Ananias and Sapphira? What of the other raisings of the dead which are performed by the saints down to this very day? If the term had been fulfilled, how was that which had been D decreed not brought to effect?
5. All the Old Testament knows no other term, except for that single one which is set for sin and transgression: «In the day that you eat of it, you shall die.» But whether the Gospel proclaims a term, I cannot affirm. One supreme term I know, indicated by Christ. For when questioned by the Pharisees about those Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with the sacrifices and those whom
A the tower in Siloe had crushed, He denied that they were the most wicked of all; and He added not only those words: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish,” but He also established the boundary with the example of the fig tree, saying: “Cut it down; why does it even occupy the land?” Likewise, the divine Apostle also adds B this, defining it regarding those who, like me, unworthily partake of the sacred mysteries: “Therefore many are infirm and weak, and many sleep.” But what of David, the ancestor of Christ, when he defines the measure of human life as seventy or eighty years, beyond which he weaves labor? Then elsewhere: “Bring my soul out of prison”; and again: “Do not take me away in the midst of my days”; and, “Men of blood and deceit shall not halve their days.”
6. Which of the Apostles, or [even] those who shared the life, or which of the holy Fathers, writes this boundary? But if they bring forward the great Basil, those who suppose this of him understand him ill; for everywhere he teaches that death comes from us, and not from God. The passage cited by them, however, is of this nature. It was the intention of the holy man to show that God is not the cause of evils; for, discussing it piece by piece, he demonstrated that it is ours to be infirm, but God’s to heal, according to that word: “There is no malice or affliction which the Lord has not made.” C
QUESTION CCXLI
What is the meaning of: “You are of your father the devil”; and, “Who is the devil’s father?”
First, it is countered by the fact that nowhere in our holy Scripture, neither in the older legislation nor in the grace itself, is the term “father of the devil” to be found, although many words have often been set forth concerning that evil power. But the Scriptures are found to call the arch-evil enemy of our race Satan, and devil, and apostate, and such things; and sometimes they also call one a “son of the devil” who manifests his evil seeds D within himself, and is shaped by the character of deception, as that which was said by the blessed Paul to Elymas: “child of the devil.” But this is the first point: that “father of the devil” is nowhere named in the idiom of Scripture.
Secondly, our Savior was not aiming to teach who exactly the father of the devil might be, but rather to show whose sons the ignorant people of the Jews had prepared themselves both to be and to be called. For they were professing at one time that they had Abraham as father;
but now, they say, "We have one Father, God." And not, "We have the Father of God as our Father." And the Savior, leading them away from the paternal relationship in that invocation, since they themselves had separated and severed themselves from the likeness to Him, says: If you dare to call yourselves sons of the Father, you are sons of the devil. Then, "And you wish to do his commands." Not, evidently, A the commands of the Father, but of the devil. For where has That One given commands, He who is not even known to the Scripture at all? But of the devil, who is your father, the commands are—sexual immorality, adultery, theft, murder, lying, and whatever other evils he has sown in their judgment, and is the leader in daring what is not to be dared, and in perpetrating it. And as for what is said: "He was a murderer from the beginning," to whom could this more appropriately be referred than to the devil himself, who by his tongue cast Adam out of paradise, and became the purveyor of death and corruption for him? For God did not make death, nor does He delight in the destruction of the living (24). And who else forged death through a lie, and corruption into the bowels of Adam, if not he who, having taken the habit of the serpent, through it mixed for the woman, and through her for Adam, the death-bearing venom of blasphemy against God?
From all these things and others like them, it is shown that the Savior’s account is to be understood as being about the devil, and that it is him He denotes as the Father of the ignorant Jews. For they, too, were ambitiously striving to call God their father, and to be numbered among His sons. The Savior, dividing this present discourse into two parts, connects each again with the other. Now placing the devil first, and placing the Jews afterward, and now B (25) placing the Jews first, then introducing the devil. Therefore, having discoursed beforehand about the devil, and having shown from the kinship and likeness of their works that the Jews have him as their father, He turns back again to the Jews themselves, from whom that entire dispute had arisen. And He says: "Whenever the Jew speaks a lie,"—just as you are saying now: "We have God as our Father," and, "We have Abraham as our father"—"he speaks from his own." That is, he speaks from his belly, and not from the judgments of the Spirit. That such a man is a liar, is shown both by those things of which he boasts, and by those things through which he has openly manifested himself by the likeness of his actions, to have claimed [the devil] as his father. Therefore He says, "Whenever the Jew speaks a lie," because he is a liar himself, and so is his father. Him, the Savior, as has been said often, has testified to be the devil, and has expressly named him as such, and no other. C D
QUESTION CCXLII
A What is the New Moon, what are the Kalends, what are the Ides, and what are the Nones? Now first edited by the work of D. Hergenroether.Those who ruled over the Roman empire divided every month into three parts. The new moon, or the beginning of the month, they called the Kalends. After this, they called the ninth day of the month the Nones, and in addition to these, they called the third part the Ides. Those who were schooled in Greek culture derived the term from the appearance of the full moon (for "species" is *eidos* in Greek), but the Roman priests derived it from the act of sacrifice which they performed on those days, which they called *Idulim*, a word signifying a sacrifice from white sheep. Many other subtle and scholarly observations regarding these terms could be brought forward, which would require greater leisure and diligence.
QUESTION CCXLIII
B Concerning the divine nature and person. Now first edited by D. Hergenroether. — Dogmatic matters against the Monophysites, drawn from the words of Cyril of Alexandria, which they use to impugn the dogma of the Catholics."One nature of the Word incarnate" presents one single pure conviction, or rather, it is in agreement with those who decree two natures united inseparably according to person. And this is evident from the fact that Cyril uses both forms of expression, neither rejecting the formula "one nature of the Word incarnate," nor denying that there are two natures united inseparably according to person. Nor is this true only of Cyril, but also of all those who, after him, were recognized as belonging to the pious party. But it is no wonder if, although that expression indicates the pure conviction of the Catholics, the heretical mind nevertheless twists it to suit its own perverse opinion. For those who prefer to act wickedly rather than to learn are audacious enough to distort other sacred expressions as well; and these men effect nothing more, just as the others do not, than to give proof of the wickedness of their own intentions. But the evil craftiness of those who do not embrace the right conviction will certainly be turned against them, whether they blaspheme by imagining that God the Word wore flesh only in appearance, after the manner of the Manichaeans, or whether they affirm that the Word was changed into flesh, or that the nature of the body was absorbed by the invisible, supernatural, and incorporeal Deity. If the blessed Cyril and C six hundred other Fathers often use "nature" in place of "hypostasis," and this is not forbidden to these authors of confusion, how will they not move us, the orthodox, to laughter when they cast at us the expression of Cyril which affirms "one nature of the Word incarnate"? For if it is possible to see Cyril's custom of often using "nature" for "hypostasis," it is in greater harmony and agreement with us than with the apostates. For it is ours both to think and to say "One D nature of the Word incarnate."
one hypostasis of the Word made flesh. You see A how they are impious and detestable; for they concede even unwillingly what they do not claim as plunderers, and they turn out to be accusers of those for whom they pretend they would undergo six hundred kinds of death, were they not to renounce them. For the Acephali, or the Severiani, divide the nature into two natures, and they call one particular and the other universal, although this invention contributes nothing to their impiety; for this vain terminology, by which one nature is feigned in Christ, can neither establish their absurd doctrine nor is it put forward effectively against the orthodox. One must ask them, however, when they say that Christ is "out of two natures," from which of the two they say he is—whether from the particular, as they call them, or from the common. For if from the particular, how do they not blush to abuse Nestorius, whose doctrine they foster and pursue? For what is asserted to be composed out of two hypostases, while it indeed simulates a composition into one person, nevertheless none the less introduces and proclaims two hypostases subsisting peculiarly by themselves, and puts forward common B doctrine. To say that Christ is composed out of two common natures confounds Nestorius (for the composite is not necessarily divided into two persons subsisting by themselves); but to say "out of two," as they are compelled to say, is to proclaim not so much their own sentiment as that of Nestorius first of all; for whether one says Christ is composed of two hypostases, or in two, or that there are two hypostases, the fight of Nestorius against God is strengthened. Just as if one were to say that the hypostasis of the Word has sustained in itself the human nature, whether one says he is out of two natures, or in two, or that there are two natures, in the same way he confesses the hypostatic union and proclaims the orthodox doctrine; for Christ is composed both out of God the Word and out of human nature; for the Word, which is a hypostasis, has become flesh, the word "flesh" not introducing a person, but denoting the human nature.
QUESTION CCXLIV
What sense does that saying of the Apostle have, "He has seated us at the right hand of God and the Father"? That we are made excelling the angels through the advent of the C Word in the flesh, and that in the resurrection we shall be equal to the angels, the divine Scripture proclaims, "For he has seated us at the right hand of God and the Father," as the divine Paul shouts, and so on. And these things are not in conflict. For through the sharing of the seat with the Father's throne by that which was assumed from us, it is evident that we have been raised above the angelic glory and dignity. But when in the resurrectionwe are neither dragged down nor swayed, nor are we A in any need of those things to which fleshly nature was once subject, [having attained] the lot of the incorporeal beings, we are granted kinship with them, so that with good reason we shall be equal to the angels and superior to them. By the fact that our nature is seated with the Father in the One who assumed it, we are superior. And by the fact that each of us has attained the impassibility, incorruption, and [freedom] from everything bodily, from passions, from impetuous movements, and from the speed of the unstable, we have accepted an equality with the incorporeal minds. B
It must also be observed what is meant by those words: "They shall be as the angels of God." They do not proclaim an equality of nature, but rather that we shall suffer none of those things of which we were previously victims, being fleshly. Similarly, that we shall live in the resurrection, having been freed from fleshly things, in accordance with angelic impassibility; and yet we are superior to the angels in another way as well, because for us, who had slipped, the Son of God assumed and saved the nature, whereas for them, He did not. And one must seek the reason: for they themselves strayed, while we were the victims of those who strayed. And because they themselves had many opportunities not to sin—both their lack of passion, and their being closer to God, and their being incorporeal. For us, on the other hand, the fact that we are more prone to passion and are dragged down and bound to the body offers an impulse of mercy; and what is greater, no others have arisen from the fallen ones for whose sake He who loves mankind would draw the fallen toward pity. But they, those who transgressed, continue to love the transgression C forever. Furthermore, it is not even similar, nor is it close, to assume the nature of angels and that of humans. For what would this have profited those angels who had not fallen? If, indeed, it had been done for the sake of the fallen, would not those who had not fallen have been, by this act, in a worse condition than the fallen? Moreover, the incarnate Word taught us the precepts of virtue and piety, through which, if indeed we observe them by His grace, we are made partakers of those things which the perpetual inheritance of the kingdom of heaven bids us hope for. Now, the nature of the angels was instructed in the knowledge of both virtue and piety. Of virtue, indeed, as is evident from this: that they enticed men, drawing them away from it, into all opposite things; and no less of piety. The one who cried out is proof of this: "I know who you are: the Holy One of God," and "You have come before the time to torment us." Many such things exist elsewhere. Therefore, the Lord [did not assume] the nature of the angels in vain. D
A Indeed, it is a curious thing to go beyond the nature of God regarding the angels. Rather, it would be a greater and more grievous thing, if it were possible, than the punishment laid up for them. Furthermore, if the Word was about to assume the nature of the angels, how would He have assumed it without the birth interceding? But if this pertained to the demons simply by way of appropriation and a relative union, then they were shattered away from that 39. A Furthermore, of whom 40 among the fallen was He making that absolute appropriation? If it were of those who stood firm, what would the fallen have gained? For even while those remained 41 in the better state, the demon is tormented. But if it were of those who have fallen, where is the justice? And how would there not have been a place for choosing that which Paul rejects: "Let us do evil"? Furthermore, if birth were not interceding for the angelic powers, it would not have been possible for the Word of God to assume their nature, but rather one individual or another. But whomsoever He had taken, Him alone He would have saved. Thus it would have happened that He would have assumed the indivisible individuals 42 of the angels a thousand times over. Rather, He would be unmerciful 43 to the demons, who proved themselves instruments of all wickedness. B
QUESTION CCXLV. Why are we taught to renounce Satan and not wicked men?
We renounce Satan and his works, and not wicked men, first, that we may not take from this renunciation a motive, however irrational, to hate, avoid, repel, or reject those of our own kind. Second, if we were to renounce wicked men, neither we, nor before us the teachers and apostles, who among the sinners would have been saved? For renunciation produces aversion, while it destroys exhortation and instruction, and thus it takes away conversion and repentance. Third, and who is he who says: "I renounce sinners or wicked men"? If he says he is among the sinners, would he not be renouncing himself? But if among the just, not to say more, in the time of repentance and salvation, he would be digging for himself a pit of pride and pharisaical destruction. Fourth, not man from the beginning, but the wicked one deceived. Fifth, Satan is unchangeable in evil. Sixth, in the renunciation of the works of Satan are also contained all things that man does, since the seed of deception is from him; for they are referred back to him. C D
QUESTION CCXLVI. Why are Samonas and his companions called Confessors?
A Confessors, those martyrs around Guria are so called, not because they confessed Christ in the stadium—for that is the common struggle of all martyrs—but because, having been taken as witnesses and mediators of the promises which men make to one another, they did not disappoint the hope of those who relied upon them, and they demanded just punishment from those who failed in their promises. Since, therefore, they became strict and inexorable witnesses of the promises which men have made to one another, they have deservedly obtained the name of Confessors.
QUESTION CCXLVII. Why is Christ crucified?
B The incarnate Word of God, and God Himself, is crucified so that He might openly refute the injustice of the devil, and so that He might demonstrate His immense love towards men, and so that the fact that He is God might not easily provide the many who believe with an occasion to set themselves up as gods, thereby introducing a deadly error. Furthermore, it is so that, for those who are being put to the test by insults, hardships, and evils leading to death, He might set Himself forward as an example of patience and fortitude, preparing them to bear what befalls them manfully and gratefully. C And also, so that the omnipotence of His power might shine forth more brightly; for to overcome an adversary by might, and hand, and weapons, and allies is indeed praiseworthy, but it belongs to the order of ordinary events and reveals no sign of divine working. But to annihilate and conquer death itself, and Hades, and the devil, and the principalities and powers of the world, through death—this is, without doubt, of the omnipotent divine power which surpasses all sense and intellect. And so that, by exhibiting the greatness of the benefits bestowed upon us, He might make us debtors of pure love towards Him, and of a life constituted according to His own laws; from which the profit reverts to us ourselves, being the inheritance of the kingdom, and rest and pleasure in the ineffable.
QUESTION CCXLVIII. How can the apostolic utterance which says, "Signs are not for those who believe, but for the unbelievers," be reconciled with those oracular sayings of the Lord which say, "Your faith has saved you," and, "He could not do any signs there because of their unbelief," and other passages inculcating the same thought?
D To one who inquires with a love of learning, the understanding of these statements will not be difficult. For to those who by this time have already believed for some while, and are troubled by no doubt concerning that great mystery which we profess, and likewise to those also who are utterly gripped by unbelief and do not
desire to be led toward piety through signs, the demonstration of signs is offered in vain and to no purpose. But to those who have been reared in unbelief, and later somehow quietly prepare their reasoning to yield toward piety, to these the manifestation of wonderful deeds is fitting and profitable. For this reason, the Lord neither asks for faith from those who are utterly faithless—for He knew He would not find it in them—nor from those who have sincerely believed, for He knew they had already approved of it beforehand. A He asks it, rather, of those who, changing from impiety to piety, are already laboring to bring forth faith within themselves. Therefore, to the faithful, signs are not given, for it would be redundant. Nor to those who are unchangeably held by unbelief, for it would be in vain. But to those who are changing from unbelief to faith, in whom faith is sought to be brought to completion, and in being brought to completion, becomes the cause of the enjoyment of divine signs. The voice of divine Paul, therefore, in no way conflicts with the words of the Gospel. For God, who does all things for the salvation of men, did not deign to perform miracles—or as it were, prodigies—for the sake of those who were hardened in heart. But those who had sincerely believed did not need these in order to believe. It remains, then, that the Saviour of our race performed miracles for the sake of those who had not yet believed, but who were still filling the place of unbelievers, yet were seeking [proofs] by which they might believe, and, taking signs as a guide, were transferred into the company of the faithful. B
QUESTION CCXLIX. If the earth already existed, how was it created? It says, "The earth was" (Gen. 1, 2)
.It is a foolish question; for he who said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," clearly did not say that the earth was eternal; nor did he say that the earth was in an absolute state, but that it was "unfashionable" [or unformed]. For it was still invisible, surrounded by water and unadorned, in no wise prepared for fruit-bearing. And why did He constitute the form of light first, and only later the underlying subject, that is, the body of the sun? In order that He might perform greater miracles, says the Theologian. Since, in the case of other things, having first brought forth the matter, He gave it form, and afterwards disposed the order, state, and size of each, here, more miraculously, He created the form of the matter first; for the form of the sun is light. C
QUESTION CCL. If God created the light, He did not Himself create the darkness; for these things are contrary to one another
.They are indeed contrary to one another, but both are necessary to men. And this is what David, exalting the magnificence of the Creator, proclaims, saying: "For Thou hast made darkness, and it became night," etc., until D "God the author of light could create darkness."
A "Man shall go forth to his work and to his labor until the evening." That darkness is necessary is evident; but that it is not a substance, but a certain accidental thing, is easy to understand, for it is the shadow of heaven and earth. Wherefore it vanishes and fades into nothingness when the light returns; but light is a substance and subsists in itself. Thus it shines when rising, and when it has set, it rises again; and when it has departed, it returns. From this, anyone may learn that darkness is an accident. For a house not having lamps is entirely in darkness; but when lamps are brought in, it is illuminated—not by the darkness migrating elsewhere, but by perishing utterly at the arrival of the light. Darkness, therefore, is not an uncreated substance, nor even a created substance, but a certain necessary use, originating from those things that have been made and proclaiming the wisdom of God. Immediately, therefore, the prophet for this reason praises God, saying: "Who made," he says, "the light and prepared the darkness." Concerning the light he speaks fittingly: "Who made"; but concerning the darkness: "Prepared." For it is a certain accident which both consists and is dissolved.
B QUESTION CCLI
[Coisl. CCLXXVI. Taur. CCLXVI]. Why did God make wild beasts and reptiles? Of wild beasts and reptiles created by God. Gen. 1:20.Children have need of both terrors, and also of straps and rods. And by the former we frighten them, while by the latter we instruct them. God, therefore, knowing us to be prone to indolence, prepared for us wild beasts as certain cords and terrors, so that, being terrified by them, we might be drawn to Him and made ready to call upon Him for assistance. But just as adults despise childish fears, so too those who are confirmed in virtue do not fear the attacks of wild beasts. For even before Adam, before sin, wild beasts stood by acknowledging their servitude; and they dwelt with Noah in the ark; and for Daniel in the pit, the lions did so, although cruelly tormented by hunger. Moreover, the viper, seized by the hand of the Apostle, and finding no weakness or softness of sin, immediately cast itself down and rushed into the fire, as if inflicting punishment upon itself for having cast itself upon a body that was in no way appropriate. C For us, then, who have become weakened, He has made provision, having allotted to them the desert places and the time of the night. Furthermore, He assigned to reptiles the crevices in the earth, so that the human race might not easily be harmed by them. It happens, however, that some are occasionally wounded by them, so that everyone, fearing lest he suffer a similar harm, might flee to Him who is able to save—that is, to God. From other aspects, too, they serve for many salutary remedies. Let no one, therefore, considering wild beasts individually, find fault with the Creator, but let him seek out their utility. For even the human body has much grace and harmony and utility in its parts, but it also has phlegm and recesses for its secretion, and an ill-smelling odor. No one, however... D
who is of sound mind would on this account condemn the animal; for to live without these things is impossible. For it is by these that it is nourished and flourishes, both by blood and phlegm and each of the biles; yet just as it consists through these, so also, through one of these things mentioned, it perishes if it be excessive or deficient. And if one were to cut off a single phalanx of one of the fingers, he would see it to be utterly useless. It is proper, therefore, that we also should not examine each part of creation by isolating it by itself from the whole, but should seek and inspect whether it contributes in some way to the common utility. The wild beasts fear man on account of the authority over them given to him from the beginning; but having transgressed the divine law, sometimes they despise him. A
QUESTION CCLII.
To whom did God say: "Let us make man in our image and likeness" (49)?Evidently to the Son who is consubstantial and of the same nature; for of them alone can there be one image. Those heretics, however, who foolishly thought this was said to the angels, or even to the demons—which reeks of greater impiety—are utterly senseless. B For what communion does the image of God have with angels or demons? Since their substance differs by an incomparable measure, what device allows one to conceive of the same image for them? There is no one who would not deride the madness of the Jews; for they say that God spoke this to himself, bringing forward, by way of imitation, those things which He also states in the plural number, such as "we command"; but there is a great difference between them. For the word "let us make," as if for a common action, calls upon an equal; but "we command" or "we decree," C although it is formed in the plural number, in no way supposes that another is called to a common action. Moreover, the word "we decree" and "we command" clearly appears as to what it is spoken, for it is evidently directed toward a subject. But here the word "let us make," especially because of that which is added, "in our image," allows one to conceive of absolutely nothing other than the Son and the Holy Spirit, to whom are entrusted the greatest powers, who were accustomed to say "we command" and "we decree" and "we order" and other things of this kind. D Yet, for the most part, the holy Scripture presents God speaking in the singular number: "For the time for all things has come before me," and, "I repented that I made man," and, "I shall blot out man," and, "There shall be no other gods besides me," and countless others. But sometimes, speaking in the plural number, He seems to signify the number of the persons of the Trinity, as when He says: "Come, let us go down and let us confound their languages," and also that word which is the subject of our inquiry. For here, when God was creating the rational animal, which after many generations He was also destined to renew by the invocations of the Holy Trinity when perfecting the all-holy baptism, being about to create—that one receiving the mysteries—
in an enigma the unity of substance and number of persons. For when He says, *God said*, He manifests the commonality of the divine nature; by adding *let us make*, He disclosed the number of the persons. Again, by speaking in the singular, *image*, A He showed the identity of the nature; but by adding *of ours*, the number of the hypostases. For God, foreseeing all things and the incarnation of His Only-Begotten, namely that He would assume this nature from the all-holy Virgin, quite reasonably deemed even its foundation of generation worthy of great honor. For first He set forth the counsel of creation, so that He might pre-signify the rationale of the things to be created. Afterward, He manifested the number of the persons of the Godhead, so that the man being formed might receive the mysteries of theology, and that he who is deemed worthy of holy baptism might clearly know that He who formed also saved, and He who saved also formed. Moreover, as the author of the formation, He showed His immense love toward this creature; but we do not say that the Divinity has hands, nor that It is in need of any counsel B or forethought, so as—according to the words of Plato—to prepare His handiwork according to a conceived idea of the form: but each of these signifies the immense concern of God for creatures.
QUESTION CCLIII.
What is meant by «After the image»?Some have said that "after the image" refers to the invisibility of the soul: but if this were so, the angels would be "after the image" much more. Others very foolishly say that humanity was made "after the divine image," being deceived by the fact that the divine Scripture often says of God: *Eyes, hands*, and the like, not understanding that God, while speaking to men through other men, C measures His words to the weakness of the hearers; and because we see through eyes, He named His faculty of vision "eyes," just as He did "ears" for the faculty of hearing, and "mouth" for speaking. Nevertheless, the immensity of God is easy to learn from many places in Scripture. Some teachers, therefore, understood that phrase, "after our image and likeness," to mean that when the God of all had made sentient and rational creatures, He made man in the last place, placing him as a certain image of Himself in the midst of inanimate, sensible, and rational creatures, so that the inanimate and animate creatures might bring to him utility as a certain tribute. But the rational creatures, by providing for him, show their benevolence D toward the Maker. Others said that the words "after the image of God" meant that man was made for dominion: for He added, they say, *And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,* etc. For just as He has authority over all things, so He also gave to men authority over irrational creatures.
A It is possible, however, to find other examples that are, as it were, of the archetype; for man, too, according to an imitation of God, the Creator of all, brings into being houses, walls, cities, and ports—likenesses of the heavens—and images of the sun, moon, stars, men, and irrational animals. Although the difference in the act of creation is ineffable, yet man, in creating, imitates his own Maker, as an image imitates the archetype. For the image does indeed possess the appearances of the archetype; it has the forms of its parts, but it lacks their power, for it is deprived of the soul by which the body is moved. So, again, man also reigns and judges in imitation of the God of all. But the one has need of witnesses, accusers, and a myriad of other things for judgment, whereas the other has need of none, for He knows all things even before they come to be. Thus, man is also called "god," because he is also called the "image of God." For Paul says: "A man ought not to have his head covered, for he is the image and glory of God B (1 Cor. XI, 7)." But again, God is what He is called according to nature, whereas man has only the name as an image. Furthermore, God is, strictly and truly, uncircumscribed, and human reasoning imitates this in some fashion; for in a moment it traverses the east, the west, the south, the north, and even the heavenly and the subterranean realms. But man does this only by the imagination of the mind, whereas God is uncircumscribed in essence, wisdom, and power. One might find another, more accurate imitation in the human soul; for it possesses within itself both the rational and the vital, and the mind begets the word, while the spirit accompanies the word—not begotten like the word, but always accompanying it. These things are in man as in an image, and therefore the word in him is insubstantial, just as the mind is. But in the Holy Trinity, we believe in three Hypostases, indivisibly united and subsisting in themselves.
QUESTION CCLIV
Calling God good, how do you attribute such severity to Him? For it is cruelty and hardness to inflict such great punishment for a small act of eating, not only upon those who sinned, but also upon their descendants (51).
C First, it is fitting that those who desire to be pious be convinced that everything whatsoever that is done or commanded by the God of all is holy, just, good, and philanthropic. Then, one must know that every law, even if it decrees regarding small matters, has the same authority as that which commands the greatest things, and especially so when the law is divine. For take, for example, the law that commands all to be circumcised, which, if someone transgresses it, causes no injury to his neighbor; yet the Lawgiver says, "That every uncircumcised male who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day shall be utterly destroyed—"
"—and the same penalty which He specified for murderers and adulterers, He sets for them. A If, however, Marcion and those of his same impiety for this very reason criticize both the Law and the Lawgiver Himself, let them be silenced by the Gospel: "For he who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and, "Whoever says to his brother, 'Raca,' is liable to the council; and he who is angry without cause is liable to judgment; and he who calls him a fool, is worthy of hell fire." Why then do they call the One good, but the Legislator of the Old Testament cruel? For these things, according to their own standard, are harsher than those. But we know that both these laws and those come from one source; the difference resulted from the quality of those subject to them. For as a good teacher provides imperfect things to the imperfect, so he provides perfect things to those who are perfect.
B Furthermore, it should also be considered that to those who are the first to transgress the laws, punishments are inflicted without indulgence, so that others, seeing the penalty, may not dare to transgress. Thus, he who first gathered wood on the Sabbath was stoned by all the people. But later, when many transgressed the law of the Sabbath, the Lawgiver bore with them long-sufferingly. Thus, Cain, who was the first murderer, was punished with inexorable penalties, although subsequently many murderers did not pay the penalties immediately. It was necessary, therefore, that Adam, having received the law—and this one a very light one (for He had given him abundance of all kinds of fruits, and had only forbidden one), should pay the penalty for his transgression for the benefit of the human race. And if, being prone to anger, as the ill-named Marcion said, he had inflicted the punishment of death for a small act of eating, how is it that when all men lapsed into impiety and lawlessness, He did not bring about their total destruction, but on the contrary even gave His Son, and granted salvation through the passion and the cross? Though it is clear to those who have been instructed in divine things that God does nothing out of inconstancy of mind; for this is a passion proper to those who have a mutable nature and who do not know the future. But God sees things that are not yet as if they were already done. C Therefore, God, foreseeing that Adam would become mortal by transgressing the commandment, prepared his nature accordingly into male and female. For such is the disposition of bodies for those who are mortal and in need of generation for the duration of their race. For an immortal nature has no need of a female; for this reason the Creator brought forth the number of bodies all at once, but the mortal animals he brought forth in pairs, and after each had been created, He bestowed upon them the blessing for multiplication.
God, therefore, foreseeing these things, not only fashioned man into male and female, but also gave them a law concerning eating. "For behold," He says, "I have given you every plant yielding seed," and so on, "I have given you for food." And these things were before the commandment. The punishment, therefore, is not so full of anger, but is a mode of wisdom.
A For in order that the race of men might hate sin as having become the cause of death, the all-wise One, after the transgression of the commandment, brought upon them the sentence of death—on the one hand devising this as a hatred toward sin, and on the other hand preparing beforehand for the race the medicine of salvation, the incarnation of the Only-Begotten, through whom the resurrection from the dead and immortality have been wrought for us. And what is there cruel in the decree? "You are earth," He says, "and into the earth you shall return." From the earth, He says, I fashioned you into a nature much better; but since you did not wish to keep My commandment, you shall return to your former nature. And does the sin seem small? He gave the power of all things, but forbade only one; yet he, abandoning all else, plucked that one and first fruit. B And for this the Master rebuked him. "For who," He says, "told you that you were naked, unless you ate from the tree from which I commanded you never to eat?" The devil also showed that they had not eaten from any other tree; therefore Eve says: "Why did God command you not to eat from every tree in the garden?" For if He had known them to have eaten, He would not have thought they had received the commandment concerning all the trees. The transgression, therefore, is not small; for they laid hold of the first, the only one they were commanded not to touch.
QUESTION CCLV
Whom does Moses call sons of God? C Those who suppose them to be angels are mad; but He calls those sons of God who are descended from Seth. For when the Scripture says how Enosh was born from Seth, it added: "This man hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God." D Now Aquila says: "Then he began to call upon the name of the Lord," implying that through piety he was the first to have attained to the divine appellation and was named "God" by his kin, whence those who were born from him were called sons of God. Therefore the Lord also says through the prophet David: "I said: You are gods and all of you sons of the Most High," and: "God has stood in the assembly of gods; and in the midst He will judge the gods." Thus he names those who govern; for he adds: "Till when do you judge injustice and accept the persons of sinners?" and so forth. And in many places of Scripture you will find those who are distinguished from the many men called gods. Those, therefore, who are descendants of Seth, whether born from Enosh, who was the first to be called God, or simply because they differed in piety from the offspring of Cain, were called sons of God and did not mingle with those who descended from Cain because of the curse brought upon him by God of all. In the course of time, however, seeing the beautiful daughters of Cain, and being beguiled by the musical instruments invented by them—for Jubal, who was born from them, [demonstrated the psaltery and cithara...]]they intermingled with them and corrupted their own nobility, and received punishment sent by God, finding total destruction as the fruit of their transgression. However, it must be noted that the divine Word does not simply rebuke them for sin, but for their zeal and ardor in transgressing; for this is what it indicates: "Every man diligently devises evil in his heart all the days." For those who bear the victory of sin with difficulty, being overcome due to weakness of mind, but not out of malice, and who afterwards suffer pain and lament, have a reasonable excuse in some way. But those who are in every way inclined toward license and malice, so that they always devise new ideas of malice, of what pardon are they worthy?
QUESTION CCLVI
The law not yet having been promulgated which commands to honor father and mother, how is Ham judged as a parricide?B God has inscribed the necessary laws in nature; thus He condemned Cain, because nature taught him that murder is lawless; and at once, therefore, using guile as a helper, he led his brother far away from his parents and slew him. And when God asked, "Where is Abel thy brother?" he denied it, clearly because he knew that what he had dared was evil; but being convicted by the just Judge, he confessed that he had sinned beyond pardon: "My iniquity is greater than that I should be forgiven." And indeed, even Adam, perceiving the divine presence, attempted to hide himself, knowing certainly that theft is evil. Thus, then, Ham incurred the accusation of parricide, on account of the transgression of the law of nature. But that nature also teaches to honor those who have begotten us, Ham’s brothers bear witness, who covered their father with great modesty.
QUESTION CCLVII
Why, when Ham had sinned, is his son cursed?C After the end of the deluge, all were sharers in the divine blessing. Noah, therefore, was afraid to bring a curse upon anyone who had shared in the divine blessing; for this reason he laid it upon that man's son, and this punishment is just. For since he was a son and sinned against his father, he receives punishment through the curse of his son. Furthermore, it should be considered also that, if Ham himself had received the curse, the punishment would have extended to his entire progeny. For from him sprang the Ethiopians, and Egyptians, and all of Libya, and Phoenicia, and Palestine. Therefore, so that the whole race might not D
A be touched by the punishment, he transferred the punishment to his youngest son. And it is fitting to realize that the words of the righteous man are not a curse, but a prediction. For since Israel, originating from Shem, was destined to be the master of Palestine, and since the sons of Canaan had long dwelt there, he declares the prediction in the form of an imprecation, announcing what would happen, and striking terror into those who would come later, lest they should sin against their parents. And the blessing of Shem clearly teaches us this: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; Canaan shall be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” He prophesied the numerous progeny for Japheth, but for Shem, piety; for he foretold that God would dwell in the tents of Shem. And He dwelt among the patriarchs descended from Shem, and among the prophets who sprang from them, and in the tabernacle at first, and later in Jerusalem. The prophecy received its exact fulfillment in the mysterious dispensation of the economy, when God the Word Himself became incarnate and called the flesh which He had assumed from the seed of David and Abraham His temple. For they, too, traced their lineage from Shem. And the servitude of Canaan received its fulfillment in the Gibeonites.
QUESTION CCLVII
How is Abraham called faithful, having said to God: “By what shall I know that I shall inherit it?”On the questioning of Abraham. Gen. xv, 8
C This expression, “By what shall I know?” is not of one who disbelieves, but of one who desires to learn the manner of the inheritance. For since he had seen Myriads of multitudes inhabiting Palestine, he wished to learn in what manner he would take possession of the lordship of that land: by right of war? without war? while those people were alive? or after they were destroyed? or after they were driven out? For this reason, after the sacrifice, God, who had appeared as the Lord of all things, said, “Knowing, you shall know that your seed will be a sojourner,” and so forth, down to: “For the iniquities of the Amorites are not yet filled up.” From that divine answer, therefore, it is possible to know the [nature of the] question. For since he had said, “By what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” he learned how many years they would dwell as sojourners, and how they would be afflicted, and how great the providence they would be deemed worthy of, [hearing] that some of those who had warred against them would be punished, while others would enjoy their D fortunes. And he learned that he himself, having suffered none of these things, would depart this life in peace. He also learned the reason for this delay, so that no one might surmise that it was on account of the multitude of the inhabitants that the Lord God of that land was unable to hand over the lordship, for He said, “Because the Amorites have not yet deserved total destruction.” For it is not fitting that punishment be inflicted from foreknowledge before the sin is committed. And that there were indeed righteous men at that time is clear from Abimelech and from the inhabitants of Hebron whomthe inhabitants of Hebron, from whom one might hear the patriarchs saying: "Thou art a king from God among us; bury thy dead in our choice sepulchres." A
QUESTION CCLIX
For what reason does the angel struggle against Jacob? BSince he feared his brother, the angel gives him courage, and for this same reason also cedes the victory to him, saying as it were, "Thou who hast conquered me, dost thou fear a man?" But lest he should be puffed up with pride, thinking that he had conquered God, the angel showed by the touch of his thigh that his defeat was voluntary; for by the touch of his thigh he caused a numbness. But when Jacob understood the power of him who appeared to him, he asked for a blessing, which the angel granted to him who asked; and he changes his name. Even after his waking, his thigh remained affected with numbness and slightly lame, so that he might not take this vision for a mere illusion. For this reason, when he also asked by what name the angel was called, not only was his petition not granted, but he himself was rebuked for having transgressed the measure of his nature. "Why," he says, "dost thou ask my name?" And it is noteworthy, and marked here, that he called the same person both man and God, for he said, "If thou hast been strong with God, thou shalt be powerful with men." C And Jacob called the name of that place Phanuel, saying: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved." And again: "The sun rose upon him when he had passed by the face of God." By all these things we learn that the only-begotten Son appeared here to Jacob.
QUESTION CCLX
Why is Jacob said to have blessed his children, when he certainly cursed some of them?1. The final words of the patriarch are neither curses nor blessings, but predictions. "Assemble yourselves," he says, "that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days." He also remembered things committed by some of them, not because the children were being made to pay for the sins of their fathers, but because he was fashioning his words into cursings and blessings for the common benefit of those who would read them. D He reproaches Reuben for his arrogance, his ferocity, and his violation of his father’s bed; and he predicts that his descendants would be few; for this is what the words "do not boil like water" mean, that is to say, do not become hot unto fruitfulness in progeny. He is also angry with Simeon and Levi, lamenting the unjust slaughter of the Shechemites, and he prays that he himself may have no part in their transgression; however, he does not curse them, but rather their wicked affections.
A And he called their anger "exasperation"; for from this the word anger takes its etymology; for the one who is angered yearns to avenge himself upon his enemy. And this retribution itself was a prophecy: "I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." However, the tribe of Levi was scattered for the sake of supreme honor; for so that there might be Levites and priests in every tribe, and that they might reap the benefit from them, they did not receive their own portion, but in each tribe certain cities were assigned to them, and a defined number of cubits of suburban land. And the tribe of Simeon also did not possess a separate portion, but, according to the prophecy of the patriarch, it was scattered among the other tribes.
β'. B He proceeds to recount many praises of Judah. "Judah, let your brothers praise you; your hands shall be upon the necks of your enemies; the sons of your father shall worship you. Judah is a lion’s cub; from the shoot, my son, you have grown." But none of these things suits Judah personally, but rather the tribe that grew from him; for this was a royal tribe, with David being the first to reign, and then those from him, and it was also the most powerful of all the other tribes. For when King David ordered the people to be numbered, he found four hundred thousand of Judah, and nine hundred thousand of the other tribes. And even when they were numbered in the desert, they were found to be more numerous than the other tribes. But the exactness of the prophecy received its outcome in the Lord Christ, who grew from the shoot of Judah according to the patriarch Jacob, and according to the prophet Isaiah: "A rod came forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower grew from the root." C And to Him also the text fits: "He lay down and slept as a lion, and as a lion’s cub." For just as a lion is terrifying while sleeping, so the Lordly death became a terror to both death and the devil. For He called Him a lion and a lion’s cub, as King and Son of a King, and God and Son of God. And according to His humanity, He grew from David; and as God, He was begotten of the Father before the ages. And the words, "Who shall awaken Him?" demonstrate His ineffable power; for He awakened Himself according to His own prophecy: "Destroy this temple," and so forth.
γ'. He also foretells the time of His manifestation: "For a prince shall not fail from Judah," and so forth. For this is a most clear sign of the Lord’s presence; for the Jews lacked not only kings, but also high priests and prophets; for as our Savior was about to be born, aliens ruled over them as kings, so that the eternal King, the expectation of the nations, might be shown. For God had promised to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob that in their seed He would bless all the nations of the earth. And Jacob, indicating this also here, says: "A prince shall not fail," and so forth, until, "And He is the expectation of the nations." And when the Jewish people... D
A shall be gathered together, He shall be the expectation of the nations. "Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine," he says. That Israel was called a vine, the prophets teach everywhere; and David says: "Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt." And the Lord in the Gospels also says: "A certain man planted a vineyard." By the foal, he signifies the people of the Gentiles, inasmuch as they were still untamed and lacked a trainer. The Lord Himself hinted at this when He commanded the disciples to go into the village over against them, and to loose the ass that was bound, and her colt with her, upon which, He says, no man had yet sat. For B neither patriarch, nor lawgiver, nor prophet had cared for the salvation of the Gentiles. But the divine apostles, having been commanded to disciple the nations, loosed the ass—that is, the nature of men, which had previously been bound by the thongs of sin; they loosed also the foal, the people who had sprouted from this nature. And having placed their own garments upon it—that is, the grace which they had received (for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ)—they rendered the untamed foal tractable, and placed the Master upon it, and bound it to the vine, that is, to themselves; for the apostles were descended from the Jews. And the faithful are bound not only to the apostles, but also to the disciples of the apostles. And the patriarch, foreseeing this, said: "Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine."
4. Then he also foretells the passion: "He shall wash his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of the grape; his eyes are more gladdening than wine, and his teeth are white." He designates His body by the name of garment, and His blood by the name of wine; for the consecrated wine is blood, as the Word of the Savior bears witness. C Then we hear the evangelist teaching that when the soldier's spear pierced His side, blood and water poured forth; and since these springs flowed down upon His body, for this reason he says: "He shall wash His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of the grape." Furthermore, showing the joy that would arise from the passion: "His eyes," he says, "are more gladdening than wine," for the Savior's passion is the joy of the world. That the patriarch designated the passion by this figure, the Lord Himself is witness, saying: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." Then He also said to the sons of Zebedee: "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" Therefore, the gladdening of the eyes signifies the joy that followed the passion; for after the passion and the resurrection, D the disciples were sent into all the world, offering salvation to those who believe. And he has compared the purity and clarity of doctrine to the whitest teeth. "His teeth," he says, "are white as milk." And thus far the patriarch commended Judah.
the clarity and transparency of the teaching by the whitest of teeth: "For his teeth," he says, "are white as milk." A So much had the patriarch spoken beforehand, blessing Judah.
5. Furthermore, he predicted the maritime dwelling of Zebulun; the agricultural pursuit of Issachar; and of Dan, according to some, those things which happened to Samson—for he was of this tribe, and is numbered among the Judges. Therefore, he says, he declared: "Dan shall judge his people, as one tribe in Israel." Others say that he is recounting those events which happened at Laish, now called Paneas. For suddenly some who had set out from this tribe, attacking that city, took it by force, inhabited it, and imposed their own name upon it; for they called it Dan. But I think that the divine Spirit, just as He discloses the things concerning our Savior, so also discloses through the patriarch the things concerning the Antichrist in this prophecy. For, he says, "Dan shall judge his people, as one tribe in Israel." B For just as, he says, the Savior blossoming from the tribe of Judah saves the world, so from the tribe of Dan an C exitial serpent shall go forth; for this is what he says: "And let Dan be a serpent on the road, lying in wait on the path, biting the horse's heel, and the rider who expects salvation from the Lord shall fall." For because he uses deceits of every kind and attempts to catch those who are being deluded into destruction, he compares him to a serpent lurking by some path and harming those passing by; and I think he calls the body the horse, and the soul the rider; and the falling backward, that is, to lie supine, signifies death: for such is the posture of those who have died. And by the heel he hinted at deception; because, indeed, the Antichrist will deceive some, and will torture others with most bitter punishments. By the horse, as I said, the body is hinted at; when it is wounded and corrupted, death follows, which nonetheless brings the fruit of hope to the brave: and the fruit of this hope is salvation.
6. He predicts to Gad the schemes that will come upon him from D plundering forays; for this is what he says: "A plundering troop shall plunder him." But he also predicts his future victory: "For he himself," he says, "shall plunder him in pursuit." Likewise also he predicts to Asher his grain-bearing land, and to Naphtali his increase in multitude; for this is what he said: "A shoot cast forth, giving forth beauty in its offspring." Then, having revealed the envy toward Joseph and the schemes of all kinds, he celebrates the divine providence, by which he overcame those who had warred against him. "For they were shattered," he says, "with vigor, their bows; and the sinews of the arms of their hands were loosened, by the hand of the powerful one of Jacob. From thence is the one who strengthens you, Israel, by the God of your Father. And the God who is mine helped you; and he blessed you with the blessing of heaven from above, and the blessing of the earth which contains all things," and the rest; by all of which words he celebrated his God, who rendered him superior to the brother who was his adversary.
and showed the son to be invincible, even when plotted against by so many brothers. A This guardianship, he says, you have obtained, having received the reward for your care toward your parents. For this is what he says: "Because of the blessing of the breasts and of the womb, the blessing of your father and your mother." For he had been a devoted supporter of his aged father; and he says that what was done for him was common to both himself and his mother, for she would have enjoyed this same care had she not departed this life sooner. Then he prays for him to have great glory, so that he might be distinguished among all men. "You shall excel," he says, "the blessings of the everlasting mountains and the desire of the eternal hills; these shall be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of those brothers whom he led." Now Aquila translated the word *thinas* as "hills," B and since both hills and mountains are seen from afar, he prays accordingly that Joseph might become known and most conspicuous to all.
7. He called Benjamin a ravenous wolf because of the calamity that befell this tribe. Therefore he added: "In the morning he shall eat, and in the evening he shall distribute food." For in the first and second encounter the Benjaminites were victorious, but in the end they were utterly destroyed, except for a very few, whom the victors, moved by mercy, did not give women in marriage because of the religious nature of their oath, yet they contrived a marriage for them in another way. One should also know that some have applied this prophecy to the divine Paul; for like a wolf he was harmful to the Church, C breaking into houses, but later he distributed spiritual food to the whole world. After Jacob had said these things and announced his own death, the historian proceeds to say: "Having gathered his feet onto the bed, he breathed his last, and was gathered to his people." The common God of all had said this very same thing to Abraham: "But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age." From this, the Lord also refuted the unbelief of the Sadducees, saying: "But that the dead rise, have you not read? I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Glory be to Him unto the ages. Amen.
QUESTION CCLXI
D What does the burning of the bush without being consumed signify?
It proclaims the power and love of God for mankind, that the unquenchable fire did not consume the bush, which was woody. I believe, moreover, that it also signifies that Israel, though plotted against by the Egyptians, would not be destroyed; and furthermore, that as the Only-Begotten, having assumed human nature and dwelt in the womb of a virgin, would preserve her virginity intact; and some say that God appeared in the bush,
A and in no other plant, because it is impossible for anyone to carve God out of a bush; for it was likely that the Jews would have dared even this, had He been seen in another plant.
QUESTION CCLXII. What does the leprosy of the hand signify?
The race of Jacob, having been reared in piety, had entered Egypt; but there it unlearned their impiety, and having been delivered from their servitude, it unlearned the God of all things. God, therefore, through the change of the hand, manifested their leprosy and their cleansing; and in addition to these things, God was providing for another matter: since He was about to lay down the law concerning lepers and to declare them unclean, God, providing for other matters through these, made leprous the hand of the lawgiver, which was trained for perfect things, teaching that nothing of such a kind is, in a true sense, unclean—for how can that which is involuntary be unclean? Thus, the right hand, which had wrought those miracles, having first become leprous, served the divine signs; and this also taught the lawgiver not to be high-minded, but to know the nature of the hand that had been leprous, keeping it in remembrance. B
QUESTION CCLXIII. For what reason did the angel wish to kill Moses?
His wife conjectured it was because one of the two children was uncircumcised, and therefore she immediately circumcised him; but some say it was because, having been sent for the liberation of his kinsfolk, he was taking his wife as a companion of the journey, whom it was necessary to see that he was inducing [to accompany him] because he wished to persuade his father-in-law that he would not neglect his wife, nor would he prefer another to her; wherefore he was compelled to take her along, but in no way out of contempt for the divine command. Immediately, therefore, having taken the occasion of the angel, he commanded her to return to her own kin; and that this is true, history teaches, for after the exodus from Egypt, when they had crossed the Red Sea and had arrived at Mount Sinai, the father-in-law arrived to him with the woman and the two children. Therefore, the angel, aiming at something else, showed a naked sword; for since the great Moses feared Pharaoh, as he showed in many areas—at one time saying, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, king of Egypt?" C and at another, "Choose another able man whom you will send," and again, "I am slow of speech and of slow tongue"—the angel threatened him with punishment, driving out fear with fear, the greater with the lesser, saying as it were, through the unsheathed
A sword, "If you fear Pharaoh, you ought to fear me much more, who can also inflict the blow upon you invisibly."
QUESTION CCLXIV
Why He commanded those fleeing to observe the feast of the Pasch.He desired that the memory of their salvation be kept forever; therefore, when establishing the law, He said: "If your son asks you, saying: 'What is the Pasch?' you shall say: 'On this day the Lord God brought our fathers out of Egypt,'" and so forth. For this reason, He commands those who observe these feasts to be girded with the raiment of a journey: "Let your loins be girded," and so forth. Now, as for the word "Pasch," Philo interpreted it as "sacrifices for a crossing"; Josephus, as "transgression"; Symmachus, as "transgressions"; Theodotion, as "Phasek"—making use of the Hebrew word itself—whereby is signified that the destroyer refrained from the firstborn of the Hebrews. For B they had been commanded to take a bunch of hyssop and, having dipped it in the blood of the slaughtered sheep, to smear the doorposts and the lintel, that when the destroyer stood ready to strike the firstborn of the Egyptians, seeing the blood, he might pass over the houses of the Hebrews—not because the incorporeal nature had need of such signs, but because, through the symbol, they themselves had to learn of God's providence, and we, who sacrifice the spotless Lamb, had to know that this was preconfigured in these types. He does not command them to take lambs from the sheep only, but also kids from the goats; not that they should sacrifice both at the same time, but that he who has a sheep should sacrifice the lamb, but he who does not have one should sacrifice the kid. On the tenth day of the first month, He enjoins them to procure the victims so that they might be prepared before the feast, and on the fourteenth day, toward evening, they were to be sacrificed—because the Lord was also handed over to the Jews in the evening. They had to eat the sacrifice with wild lettuce, in remembrance of the most bitter life in Egypt. The unleavened bread C signifies not only the haste of the journey and the spontaneous nature of the meal, but also that it was fitting for the Jews to carry with them no trace of Egyptian customs. For thus did the Lord interpret it, saying: "Beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees." He also commanded those who were not sufficient for the sacrifice of a lamb to take their neighbors and to sacrifice the Pasch together, teaching them brotherly love and mercy toward the poor. For this reason, they were also ordered to burn the remainder of the meat, thereby compelling them to invite the needy to the communion of the feast.
All these things are enigmas of our own mysteries. For we, too, anoint with the blood of our own Lamb not only the lintel, but also both the doorposts; figuratively speaking, by purifying and sanctifying the tongue and the lips
A; and as regards the meaning, by purifying and sanctifying the intellect for the lintel, and the spirit and the appetites for the two doorposts. It is also fitting for us to eat it neither raw nor boiled in water, but roasted by fire; for we do not look only to the surface, but we search into the mind, nor do we introduce human reasonings into divine words. Isaias also rebuked some for this, as if they had mixed wine with water; but we use only the divine fire, that is, the grace of the all-holy Spirit. And we understand the command not to leave any of the meat until the next day as follows: that the future life has no need of symbols; for we shall see the things themselves in that reality. Those who understand the divine Oracles poorly and attempt to refer them to their own impiety break the bones of the lamb. The fact that it was commanded not to take [a sacrifice] only from sheep, but also from goats, again proclaims the divine love towards men; for Christ endured the saving passion not only for the righteous, but also for sinners. For the Law commanded that a goat be offered for a sinner. And of those who partake of the divine mysteries, some partake as of a lamb, having attained perfect virtue; others as of a goat, blotting out the stains of their sins through repentance. Thus, too, our Lord nourished the multitude not only with wheat bread, but also with barley bread; and He commanded us B to have our loins girded, our feet shod, and our lamps burning, as servants awaiting their master. And so, just as the Hebrews, when ordered to depart from Egypt and being led into the land of Chanaan, kept this custom, so do we who are departing from this life into another.
Question 264
For this reason, the divine Paul also exhorts us, crying out: “Purge out the old leaven,” and continuing: “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” From of old God had pre-announced the salvation of the Gentiles, for He commanded that proselytes should also partake of the Pascha. For He called the proselyte a native-born C and granted him equality of rights. “For he shall be,” He says, “as one born in the land.” And the words, “In one house shall it be eaten,” the faithful observe by partaking of the divine mysteries only within the Church, and by abhorring the assemblies of heretics. However, the Lord legislated that the firstborn of both sheep and cattle should be offered, reminding them of the preservation of their own firstborn; for He Himself had no need of sacrifices, but was acting for their benefit. The Law itself shows this: “And when your son asks you, What is this?” and so forth, down to the words, “Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every male that opens the womb, and all the firstborn of my sons I will redeem. And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as a fixed object before your eyes. For with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt.” Therefore D each of these things is not of their own
A necessity for God, but occurred for the benefit of the people.
QUESTION CCLXV
How should one understand these words of the Apostle: “All were baptized into Moses,” and the rest, down to “And the rock was Christ”?
Old things were a figure of the new, the law was a shadow, but grace is, in a way, the body. Since, therefore, the Egyptians were pursuing the Hebrews, and the Hebrews, having crossed the Red Sea, were delivered from the bitter servitude of the Egyptians, the sea holds the figure of the font, the cloud [the figure] of the Spirit, Moses of Christ the Savior, the rod of the cross, Pharaoh of the devil, the Egyptians of the demons, the manna of divine food, and the water from the rock of the saving blood. For just as they, after having crossed the Red Sea, enjoyed unusual food and a miraculous spring, so we, after being saved through baptism, become participants in the divine mysteries.
QUESTION CCLXVI
How is it just that children should be punished for their fathers?
The threats of God are greater than the punishments; for He says: “Every uncircumcised male who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day shall be utterly destroyed.” Yet we can see some who were circumcised perishing in the desert in various ways, while others who were uncircumcised, instead of being punished, attained the things promised to their ancestors (for it was Joshua who circumcised these at Gilgal). Again, He threatened utter destruction to houses possessing leaven, but did not bring it to pass. Furthermore, He terrifies those who love their children with threats, saying: “Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” That it is impious, however, to believe this word literally, God Himself teaches by demonstrating the contrary; for He says: “The children shall not be put to death for the fathers, nor the fathers for the children, but each shall die for his own sin.” And through Ezekiel: “What is this parable among you of those saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the sons' teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall no longer be among you; but the teeth of those who have eaten the sour grape shall be set on edge; for all souls are mine.” And the things that follow have this same meaning. But I think that the threat rather reveals the divine love toward men; for it is proposed D "to those who hate me," that is, to those who...
are stubborn in their sins, [I am] patient with the fathers; I am patient with the children. But if the descendants and offspring should emulate the wickedness of their ancestors, then I shall bring about the punishment. "For I execute mercy," he says, "unto thousands and ten thousands of them that love me." One might also find the history in agreement; for in the fifth generation the sons of Israel went up out of Egypt; but they did not pay the penalty for those who had enslaved themselves to the gods of the Egyptians in Egypt, neither they, nor their fathers, nor their grandfathers; but they, having emulated the impiety of those [ancestors], were punished, since after such great beneficence and infinite miracles they had not spit out wickedness; but their children, having loved the Savior God, enjoyed the ancestral promise. And we see the veracity of the promise made to the fathers; for the nations have obtained the blessing through the seed of Abraham; since, therefore, they were about to worship the calf, he threatens punishment beforehand. A
QUESTION CCLXVII
What is an "informed" fetus?Some say that when the body is formed in the womb, then the fetus is endowed with a soul; for God first formed the body of Adam, and then breathed into it the soul. Therefore, the lawgiver commands that if a pregnant woman should have a miscarriage in a fight, if the fetus comes out "informed," that is, formed, the one who caused it is to be called a murderer and is to undergo the penalty for murder; but if not, he is to be acquitted of murder, for it was not a soulful [being] that was aborted, but he shall pay a certain fine. B
QUESTION CCLXVIII
For what reason did [God] command the tabernacle to be made? CGod himself has declared the reason. "And you shall make for me," he says, "a sanctuary, and I will appear among you; and you shall make it according to all that I show you on the mountain, the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of its vessels." Since he had given the law on Mount Sinai, and it was likely that some would suppose that the Divinity is circumscribed, he commanded a tabernacle to be made, making his own manifestation from there, [and] he instructs the people in piety. For just as he commanded a temple to be made for those who had received what was promised, and commanded the divine liturgies to be celebrated in it, so that by doing this unceremoniously they might not fall into the delusion of the demons, so he commanded that a tabernacle be made for those crossing the desert, [one] that they could move, and he commanded that it lead when they set out, so that they might not seek gods again, [those] which would go before them. D
A Furthermore, the tabernacle possessed a representation of creation. For just as God, having created heaven and earth, placed the firmament in the midst, separating by it the things above from the things below, so too, having ordered the tabernacle to be one, he commanded that the curtain be arranged in the middle, in the likeness of the firmament, and by it the ark was divided. And the part near the door he called the Holy Place, but that which was inside the curtain, the Holy of Holies; and as David says: "The heaven of heaven is the Lord's, but the earth he has given to the children of men" (Ps. CXVII, 16), so too the part outside the curtain was accessible to the priests, but the things inside were untouchable and inaccessible; for the law was that the high priest alone should enter once a year. B There also were the images of the Cherubim, holding the likeness of the incorporeal powers. In the midst of these was the ark, containing the tablets of the law, the urn filled with manna, and the rod of Aaron that had sprouted. Above it lay the mercy seat, being overshadowed by the wings of the Cherubim. In this spot, the God of all made his own manifestation. For since the divine nature is neither corporeal nor figured, and it is impossible to construct an image of such a substance, he commanded that the symbols of his greatest gifts be placed within. For the tablets declared the legislation; the rod, the priesthood; the manna, the nourishment in the desert; and the mercy seat was a symbol of prophecy, for from there predictions were made. These things which had been placed within the curtain represented the heavenly things, and for this reason that part was called the Holy of Holies. The blessed Paul bears witness to this, saying: "For Christ has not entered into holy places made with hands, which are patterns of the true, but into heaven itself" (Heb. IX, 24). Things that were on this side of the curtain represented earthly things. Here, on the southern side, was a lampstand consisting of seven branches, and upon the lampstand were seven lamps, which represented the seven days of the week. On the northern side was a golden table upon which, at God’s command, twelve loaves were ordered to be placed, and golden vials full of incense and salt. Between the lampstand and the table stood an altar of gold. This arrangement represented the fruits which the earth provides to man. C D Now the bronze altar to which victims were brought stood outside, in front of the tabernacle; whence it is clear that these were superfluous and displeasing to God; for this reason he allowed them to be performed because of the infirmity of the Jews, but only outside the tabernacle, as if they were unnecessary to those inside. But we perform our solemn rites inside, offering to God incense, the flame of the lamps, and the mystical sacrifice of the table. The length of the tabernacle was thirty cubits, and the width ten; and it is easy to learn this, for the southern side had twenty boards, and the northern the same number. Other interpreters called the boards pillars. And since each board
A measured a cubit and a half, the twenty boards amounted to thirty cubits. Similarly, the part facing the west had six boards of the same measurement, and two corners. Of the twelve cubits resulting from these, ten filled the interior part, while the other two received the joints of the sides. From the oriental side, however, He ordered the door to be made, so that the sun itself as it rises, by an “oscillation,” so to speak, might embrace the vestibule, immediately sending in its rays, and so that those who were to worship the one God, turned toward the tabernacle, might have the sun behind them, and might worship not it, but its Creator. The tabernacle resembled a lattice-fence, having boards joined to one another on all sides. They also had silver bases and similarly silver capitals, and these were covered with gold on the outside and on the inside. B It had a ceiling made of various fabrics and embroidered with different colors: for one part was purple, another rose-colored or scarlet, another resembled a hyacinth; and the fine linen had a white color. These were symbols of the four elements. The hyacinth color resembles the air; the rose or scarlet color resembles fire; the purple signifies the sea, for it nourishes the shellfish from which such a beautiful color is produced; the fine linen represents the earth, from which it grows. There were also skins with hair attached placed over these, as well as various leathers, so as to also ward off the rain.
Moreover, God assigned to the priests a most varied vestment, which by its diversity of form would amaze the people and teach the priests themselves C how they ought to adorn and decorate their soul. He calls the inner tunic an under-garment, and the outer one the tunic; and He commanded this tunic to be hyacinthine. It was called a "talaris" (robe reaching to the feet) as it extended to the very tips of the feet. He attached to this golden bells and pomegranates so that, when the priest entered into the inner sanctuary and palace of the tabernacle, and heard the sound produced by these things, he might perform the liturgy with reverence, arriving at a memory of Him who had commanded these things. For this reason the robe also carried the color of the air, and it was hyacinthine so that the priest, looking upon it, might keep his mind raised on high. A tiara rested upon his head, imitating the heavens; and a band covered the forehead, which the Seventy called a mitre. In the middle of this stood a golden plate on which was inscribed D the ineffable name of God, which the Hebrews call the tetragrammaton. Through this archetype, He was teaching the people reverence, as is apparent from these words: “Thou shalt engrave,” He says, “the holy thing of the Lord” (Exod. XXVIII, 17).
God also commanded that the high priest be clothed in a vestment which the Seventy called the superhumeral, but which in the Books of Kings we find called the Ephod, designated by the Hebrew word. This garment had on each shoulder two precious stones having the names of the tribes inscribed upon them. On the breast was what is called the breastplate, a covering of the mind; to this also twelve stones were fitted, with various
colors glistening. By these, when war was engaged, either victory or defeat was signified. This the history of the Books of Kings teaches; for when the enemies had marched against Israel, Saul did not dare to deploy his battle line until he had seen the signs of victory. Wherefore the God of all says: "And you shall place the breastplate of judgment upon the breast of Aaron, and you shall join it to the ephod." And he adds: "And you shall place within it the manifestation and the truth." By "manifestation" he called the signs from thence, and by "truth," the veracity of those signs. B I think it should be noted that, because the men of that time were coarser and unable to grasp intelligible things, our all-wise Master provided them with help through bodily symbols; but for us, the breastplate interprets the contemplation of spiritual things, the ephod the perfection of virtue, while the neat joining of the breastplate and the ephod teaches us figuratively the harmony of faith and active virtue. That the ephod is put on first, and then the breastplate is joined to it, signifies that right conduct is the foundation of the virtues.
QUESTION CCLXIX
[Coisl. CCLXXXVII, Taur. CCLXXVI.] *On account of what reason did Moses shatter the tablets?* (Edited by Mai, op. cit., p. 134, q. 278) — Exod. XXXII, 19.Because he judged the people unworthy of the legislation. For since the tablets had the form of a bridal contract, and the bride had turned aside to adultery before entering the bridal chamber, it was very reasonably that he tore up the bridal contract. C It is to be noted that God, having been rendered placable by prayers at that time, postponed the punishment, saying: "But on the day of vengeance I will visit this sin of theirs." This is similar to the words of the Apostle: "Do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness," and so forth. Yet the lawgiver, having learned that the God of all no longer wished to be with the Jews, but was going to appoint an angel over them, asked to know who the one to be appointed was, and besought him not to give them a fellow-servant as a leader, but that He himself should guide them. When he obtained this, intoxicated by love, he coveted things that exceed man and desired to see the invisible nature. But he learned that this is impossible; however, the things pertaining to the divine providence and operation—for this is how D the "back parts" of God must be understood—it is possible for those according to Moses to behold, yet not even for them simply, but for those placed by God himself in the rock. This signifies the firmness and unshakableness of faith; and through the cleft of the rock, it signifies the eye of faith beholding things inaccessible and invisible to the sensible eyes.
QUESTION CCLXX. How is it to be understood that there is leprosy in garments?
AMany such disciplines did God bring upon them. Immediately, therefore, concerning leprous houses, He says: "When you have entered the land of the Canaanites which I give to you for a possession, if there be a plague of leprosy in the houses," and the rest. By these things, He teaches that the wounds were divinely sent, sometimes brought upon garments, and sometimes upon houses. These things declared the ineffable love of God toward men; for when men were sinning, He brought the wounds upon their garments and houses, offering through these things healing to those who possessed them. The house of Israel is like to the leprous house, from which, as if they were certain leprous stones, those who sinned were very often plucked away—sometimes by the Assyrians, sometimes by the Babylonians, at other times by the Macedonians; but when the leprosy had become fixed in a certain house, the Lawgiver commanded that it should be utterly torn down.
QUESTION CCLXXI. What do the two birds offered for the man being purified signify?
They contain the type of the saving passion. For just as of these, the one is sacrificed, while the other, being dipped in the blood of the slaughtered one, was released; so for the leprous human race, the Master Christ was crucified, the flesh receiving death, while the Divinity appropriated the suffering of the human nature. And just as the blood of the slaughtered bird, being mixed with pure water and sprinkled with the cedar wood, hyssop, and twisted scarlet, renders the leper who is being purified bright and clean, so he who believes in the Savior Christ and is cleansed by the water of the holy Spirit casts off the stains of his sins. The cedar wood is a symbol of the impassible Divinity—for the wood is incorruptible; the scarlet that is twisted, of the human nature composed of soul and body; the hyssop, of the warmth and fragrance of the holy Spirit. Through these, those who are baptized are relieved of the leprosy of the soul. And the cup of oil is significant of the spiritual balsam. The oil smeared upon the right ear, and upon the right hand, and upon the right foot, signifies that the hearing is to be set apart for right doctrines, while the hand and the foot are directed toward right actions; furthermore, what is placed upon the head signifies the consecration of the mind. However, he who remains leprous is cast out of the Church.
QUESTION CCLXXII
A Cur non licuerit Judaeis edulia animalia immolare nisi coram tabernaculo?God was not unaware that the Jews were impious and prone to offering sacrifices to demons. Therefore, He commanded that anyone wishing to sacrifice a calf, a sheep, or a goat must bring it to the door of the tabernacle, and then, after its blood had been poured out, carry the meat home with him. He ordered that anyone who acted otherwise should be held guilty of homicide, saying: "He shall be guilty of blood, as if he had shed blood" (Lev. xvii, 4), and so forth. That the law has this purpose is taught by what follows: "For the priest shall burn the fat," it says, "as an odor of sweetness to the B Lord, and they shall no longer sacrifice their victims to idols, with which they have committed fornication" (Lev. xvii, 6). This is the law that prevails among the Jews; for the priest sacrifices the edible animals, but forbade that blood should become food for these reasons: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for the blood shall make atonement for the soul by his life. Therefore I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood" (Lev. xvii, 11). Just as you, He says, have an immortal soul, so the irrational animal has a body in place of a soul. For this reason, God commands that this be offered in place of your soul. If, therefore, you eat blood, you are feeding on a soul, for it fulfills the role of a rational soul; for which reason he calls the eating of it homicide. For the same reason, He forbids the eating of animals that have died of themselves, since the blood has not been separated from the body.
QUESTION CCLXXIII
C Sancti Joannis Climaci locus ex capite de quiete et patientia, "Medium praeteriens in mediis perveni," et: "Potum sitienti dabat," usque ad verba: "Dicere prorsus nequeo."1. The petition of a holy and industrious elder, requesting an explanation regarding the contemplative question of an inspired and contemplative elder; even though, for those who are wise in the active life, speech is not always wont to be the teacher, but rather action and imitation reveal the doctrine by themselves. It is therefore the task of our elder, the ancient elder, to unravel the enigmas by means of the institution of actions; for when you have the things themselves in deed, the action leads and guides to their knowledge regarding questions which speech is unable to resolve. Since, however, he wishes to add to the other virtues the perfection of humility even here, and from those in whom the practice of virtues does not exist, this practical man D demands that the secrets of practical doctrines be explained and revealed to him: not to us, but to his own and
A by the strength and request of that person, we proceed to the solution of the problems.
2. That ancient and good old man indicates in these words the advancements, whether one wishes to call them orders or degrees or something else, within the present steps: a full indifference toward the things of this life, with which life itself also perishes, a persistent and untiring prayer, and, thirdly, an inviolable operation of the heart; from which it is established that prayer occupies the middle place between these two extremes. Therefore, he who has not acquired such indifference cannot pursue the other two. But what follows from this? He, then, who occupies himself with the middle state, that is, with prayer, has come to exist in the midst of goods, even if he has not yet ascended to the extreme of goods.
B 3. Yet he was giving drink to one who was thirsting, even while at a distance, through the fulfillment, the delight, and the vision of that luminous spectacle; nevertheless, I was not enjoying the whole spectacle, but after this I was again in those things in which I had been before. What, then, was before the visible form in the things we see? Not even the things we see could teach us, as sight is accustomed frequently to be an interpreter of the things that are seen; for it was not from those spectacles that are natural and familiar to us, but it was grace that gave some things to be seen, while rendering others superior to the grasps of the eyes; for not even the author himself of this hidden delight and of our contemplation permitted or allowed us to draw a clear knowledge of it. But I, out of C fondness and love of learning, asked nonetheless where now the author of our salvation and of those noble spectacles might be. And the response said: in his own [place] indeed, but not where he was arranging the vision; for those were things of kindness and condescension, whereas the others were indicating eternity and immutability, in that he did not depart from his own nature. Then, when he raised me to a nature superior to every vision and contemplation, I was still inquiring in doubt: If these things are so, what is the right-hand station and the seat [of the throne], and the names for material relations and dispositions? For where have these things a place to be spoken of, among which many of the things that are observed are not vision, but an outlining of the imagination? The listener to these doubts, D rebuking, as is likely, my meddlesome objection and not allowing me to enjoy the solution of the question, said that the questioning could not be grasped by hearing, and that it has its own proper time for revelation. I, however, still contending, was beseeching him to draw the time together for me and not to deprive me of the noble longing. He, however, alleviating the pain and sadness as he could, was saying that the time was not yet present; for not yet does the fire that kindles incorruptibility burn among us.
4. Therefore, having announced this vision, that good and god-loving and ancient old man does not boast magnificently, nor does he exalt himself because he has seen such things, but rather he attributes ignorance to himself, saying: I do not know if I beheld these things with the earthly body, or if the soul by itself, A
departed toward the better and left the body behind for a short time, separated from its bond and mingling with her.
QUESTION CCLXXIV. Why did God command the people to be numbered?
In order to show the truth of His own promise; for when making promises to Abraham, He said: "Multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the sea shore." He showed the truth of the promise; for whereas seventy-five thousand had gone down into Egypt, six hundred and three thousand five hundred men were numbered who were able to go to war, excluding those [of] premature and immature age, and the female sex, and the tribe of Levi. God teaches this power of His when He says: "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him."QUESTION CCLXXV. For what reason was barley flour brought for a woman accused of adultery?
The Lord Himself explained, saying: "Because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, a sacrifice of memorial, bringing [iniquity] to remembrance." Whence He commanded that it should have neither oil nor frankincense; for it is deprived of both fragrance and the light of righteousness. He legislated that this should take place, knowing their murderous intent; for in order that they might not kill their wives out of slight suspicion, He wished the suspect to be brought to Him who clearly knows even all hidden things. "The priest shall bring her," He says, "and set her before the Lord, and the priest shall take holy B water, living, before the Lord," and the rest. He commanded all these things to be done by the suspected woman so that, struck with fear, if she had sinned, she might confess and receive the remission of sin through repentance. For this reason He commands her to be brought to the Lord with head uncovered, teaching that "all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him." That He commanded these things to be done in order to terrify her, what follows bears witness: "And the priest shall adjure her, and shall say unto the woman: If a stranger has not lain with thee, and if thou hast not polluted thyself by leaving thy husband's bed, thou shalt be innocent from this bitter water. But if thou hast turned aside from thy husband," and the rest, "The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell." The woman was commanded to C assent to these prayers and to answer: Amen, amen. The commandwas also given that the curse be blotted out with water, and that the woman drink the water. But first the oblation was to be brought, that is, the barley flour. Then he A teaches that if she is innocent, she will be kept whole; but if she is guilty and hides it, she shall learn by experience what the power of the curse is, with her belly bursting and her thigh rotting away. For from where the sin arises, thence comes the punishment. The adjuration is to be understood in this way: when someone suffers terrible and incurable evils, some are wont to say, while swearing: May I not suffer what such-a-one has suffered.
QUESTION CCLXXVI.
Why are punishments immediately exacted from sinners? BThe law had a supreme authority: it was necessary, therefore, once the transgression of the law had been punished, to teach the others wisdom. For fear is appropriate for those who are subject to authority. Yet punishment was conjoined with love; for those who repented enjoyed love. Immediately, therefore, when fire was sent in and a great part of the army was consumed, then, as all ran to prayers, the legislator asked for the remission of the sin; and he was kindly heard by God. That the punishments were sent upon the Jews of necessity, the following things demonstrate. For the end of the prior punishment had scarcely come when they recalled Egypt and those who were in Egypt. Not without reason, therefore, does the historian compare the divine munificence with the ungrateful spirit of the Jews; in those things which he narrated concerning the manna, saying that it served not only in the place of bread, but also of meat. For they ground this in a mill and beat it in a mortar, and cooked it in a pot, and made cakes from it. C The Lord God rebukes them as they lament grievously, and the prophet himself bears it with displeasure, crying out: "Why hast thou afflicted thy servant? And why do I not find grace before thee? And why hast thou laid the burden of all this people upon me? Have I conceived all this multitude? Or have I begotten them?" and the rest. By these words he indicates how simple and childlike they were; he compared to a sucking child those who can do nothing else but demand milk with cries. But since the words of Moses, as he was indignant, were with great vehemence—for the following parts carry this meaning—he was admonished by the Lord God that this people was not governed by human power, but by the grace of God; for He says: "Gather unto me seventy men," and then after a little: "And I will take of the spirit that is upon thee, and will put it D upon them; and I shall assist thee in the burden of this people, and thou shalt not bear them thyself alone." By these words the legislator learned that he had received sufficient power for the governance of the people. Wherefore it had been said: "I will take of the spirit that is in thee," not because God stood in need of external power, but He spoke thus so that He might teach Moses that the grace granted [to him was sufficient].
For that He gave it also to the seventy did not diminish his grace, as the facts bear witness; for he continued to perform the same duties and miracles as he did before. We see the same thing occurring today: for many who are baptized by one priest, or ordained by a high priest, and receive the divine gift, neither diminish the grace of the one who imparts it, nor fail to receive the perfect gift themselves. Indeed, the Master bore witness to the discernment of His servant, for He said to him, "Choose those whom you know." A
QUESTION CCLXXVII. Why did God command that the censers of the seditious be made a covering for the altar?
B To confute those who acted rashly against the priesthood, and to confirm those appointed to perform holy rites; for this is why He added, "As a memorial to the children of Israel," and so on. For this reason, He commanded that Aaron’s rod, which had budded, be placed in the ark, and again He legislated that the priests perform the holy rites, and the Levites assist them, without however approaching the altar or the holy vessels. Next, He teaches what things should be given to the priests as a gift; for He commanded them to eat the offered first fruits of grain, wine, oil, and bread, and all other offerings. He later decreed: "For the firstborn of unclean animals, the price shall be five silver shekels, by the weight of the sanctuary; the shekel has twenty obols." C And for clean firstborn animals, He ordered that their blood be poured out at the base of the altar and their fat be offered, but that they themselves should receive the meat, just as they receive the consecrated breast and the right shoulder from the other sacrifices. He called the covenant a "covenant of salt," because, according to the divine Apostle, "Those who serve the altar have their share with the altar." It is also said by some: after He prescribed that salt be sprinkled upon the victims, He then declared that both the priests and the Levites would possess all the tithes of Israel, and tithes of D profit from sheep, oxen, trade, and any other gain. He likewise commanded the Levites to offer tithes from their tithes to the priests. He orders the priests to be made sharers in these things in all places, and to eat the set-aside portions of the sacrifices within the temple. He also calls the tithes "a reward for the service by which they serve the people"; for, He says, while you are building, or trading, or living at home, they are diligently serving My ministry on behalf of all of you. He also says this: "Because it is a reward for the ministry which you perform in the tabernacle of testimony."
AD AMPHILOCHIUM QUESTIO CCLXXVII-CCLXXX.
QUESTION CCLXXVIII. Why was God once angry with Moses and Aaron when he brought water out from the rock?
(Num. 20:12)Since they were disheartened by the death of their sister, the people threatened them due to the shortage of water. Being highly vexed at their perverse disposition, they used ambiguous words when they brought forth the water. For it is written: “Hear me, you rebels and unbelievers, can we bring water for you out of this rock?” B And God said to this: “Because you did not believe me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” David also says of this: “And Moses was vexed because of them,” and so forth. For he, being angry with them, uttered the word ambiguously, and it was a hesitation not of the soul, but of the tongue; and scripture added: “And he acted rashly with his lips.” It is to be known, however, that God, intending something else, pronounced this judgment.
QUESTION CCLXXIX. Why was one commanded to call upon heaven and earth as witnesses?
(Deut. 4:26; 32:1)Not because these are animate and endowed with reason, but because they encompass all created things. The prophet Isaiah did this as well, saying: “Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth,” and so forth. And Jeremiah: “The heaven was astonished at this, and the earth shuddered exceedingly, says the Lord.” For since the lawgiver had called them to be witnesses to the threats, they are deservedly said, after the transgression of the laws, to shudder and be astonished. For in this way Jacob and Laban called the heaven “a heap of witness,” and the patriarch Abraham and Abimelech, the king of the Gerarites, “a well of the oath,” because there they had made covenants with an oath.
QUESTION CCLXXX. How is this word to be understood: “Rejoice, O nations, with his people, and let all the angels of God strengthen him”?
(Deut. 32:43)A countless multitude, both from the Jews and—especially—from the other peoples of the earth, believed in the Lord Christ, to whom those Jews who had believed brought the teaching. For the divine apostles were from the Jews. The prophet, therefore, foretelling these things, said: “Rejoice, O nations, with his people,”—that is, the nations from among the peoples who have believed,—“and let all the angels of God strengthen them,” namely, those who have believed in Him. For when the Savior was born to us, the choir of angels [cont.]
A sang of His divine love for mankind, crying out: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, among men with whom He is pleased.” Moreover, Gabriel the archangel had foretold those immaculate and virgin birth-pangs; and in the struggle against the devil, the hosts of angels were present—for it is said, “Behold, angels approached and were ministering to Him.” And after the resurrection, angels sat by the tomb, announcing to the women and to the apostles the resurrection of the Lord after His ascent into heaven; an angel also indicated to Cornelius the great Peter, and an angel led Peter out of prison. The divine Paul himself said to those sailing with him: “For there stood by me this night an angel of the God to whom I belong,” and there are many such instances.
Having spoken thus concerning those who have believed, the prophet now foretells the punishments of the unbelievers and the causes for which they will be punished; for he said: “Because the blood of His sons has been spilled, He will take vengeance, and He will render justice to His enemies, and He will repay those who hate Him, and the Lord will cleanse the land of His people.” He calls the saints whom the murderers slaughtered the “sons of God.” For, to pass over the slaughters of the prophets and the saving passion of the Lord, they stoned the glorious victor Stephen, and they killed the great James with a club, and many others besides; and they pillaged the houses of those who believed in the Lord, as the divine Paul often testifies, writing to the Thessalonians: “For you became imitators of the saints who are in Jerusalem, because you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the B Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets themselves, and have persecuted us, and they do not please God, and are contrary to all men.” C This is what the Lord also reproached them for in the parable of the vineyard: that some of the servants they beat, some they killed, and some they stoned; for this reason He scattered them throughout the whole world.
QUESTION CCLXXXI
*Why was Moses commanded to see the promised land from afar on account of a small fault, and forbidden to lead the people into it?*
God teaches us by these things that He requires the highest virtue from those who are endowed with exceptional virtue, while He bears patiently with other men who transgress the laws abundantly, yet He does not grant those saintly men a share in this indulgence. This is what a certain wise man also says: “The lowly are worthy of mercy, but the mighty will be mightily tested.” And the Lord says in the holy Gospels: “To whom much is given, of him much will be required.” One must understand, however, that the Lord seeks a different end by a different way. D
A For just as God does not care for, or rather does not allow, this great prophet to lead the people into the promised land, so that the Israelites might not venerate him as God, for the same reason did God, who wisely governs our affairs, hide his tomb. We ought also to know this, that Moses is a figure of the Law; for this reason the Law bears the name of Moses. For He says: “They have Moses and the prophets,” calling the Law “Moses.” You may find this in many places; for just as we call not only the men themselves, but also their books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—and one can observe almost the same thing regarding all who have left behind divine writings—so too is it possible to see the Law called by the name of Moses, and not just the man himself. Moses, therefore, is a figure of the Law, while Joshua, the son of Nun, is a figure of the Savior. B Just as Moses led the people out of Egypt, and Joshua led them into the promised land, so the Law delivers those who obey it from impiety, but the grace of the Gospels leads them into the kingdom of heaven.
QUESTION CCLXXXII
What is this: “In a short time you persuade me to become a Christian”?
That is to say, with few words, in brief discourse, with little instruction, without much labor and continuous disputation. For this reason, Paul, answering him, says: “I would to God,” and so forth; as if to say: “There is nothing more important to me than that all men should become Christians. These are my prayers before God, for I am prepared to preach the faith in Christ both in a little and in much, through labor and hardship and on the spur of the moment; for I count the hardship and labor in teaching and preaching as nothing. C But it is the same to me whether I labor or not, and whether I preach for a long time or a short time, provided I see some turning toward Christ.” By these words he simultaneously indicated the alacrity and ardor of his spirit. When, therefore, he invited Agrippa to God, he showed that if he had wished to hear more and receive more perfect instruction, he would not only have shunned nothing, but would have been so prepared and ardent that he would even resort to prayers, provided he attained his goal. “For I pray both in a little and in much not only you,” etc.
QUESTION CCLXXXIII
What does this mean: “Declared to be the Son of God with power”?
Having come to our knowledge, having been acknowledged by us, and having been manifested as the Son of God; and from where was he known? Through the prophets, through the signs and powers that were displayed, and through his sanctifying Spirit which he bestowed upon those who believe in him, through which D
he was manifested by his resurrection, I am his servant. B And even if I am a servant, I am yet the servant of this one, who by such great and momentous testimonies has been confirmed to us as the Son of God. "Through whom," he says, "we have received grace and apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith." Just as if he had said: we have other testimonies, in addition to those we have mentioned. Our very life is a witness that he is truly the Son of God. How so? By the fact that we run and hasten to nations we did not know, and they listen and accept the testimony of faith. For this is indeed a true testimony of a divine manifestation: that a man should leave behind his homeland and his family and run to a foreign land—not for any benefit or bodily gain—what do I say of gain and benefit?—but to be laboring, hungering, beaten, whipped, despised, yet nonetheless fulfilling his duties and preaching the faith. Was he hungry? But he fed others. Was he despised? But they later marveled at him. Was he struck? But they believed. Was he driven away? But they sought him out. Was he whipped? But by his handkerchiefs and aprons they were healed of their bodily wounds. Is this, then, a testimony of minor importance, or one that has any need of what was said before to convince us all that Christ is the Son of God? C
QUESTION CCLXXXIV
What this means: "And I have been prevented hitherto, in order that I might have some fruit D (81)."
These words, I believe, are transposed, and this is their sense and continuity: "Because I have often proposed to come to you, that I might have some fruit, and in you." For his arrival would have been the cause for them to bear abundant fruits of piety. "I am well aware," he says, "that faith has been sown among you, but I also desire this to become fruitful in you, so that I may be able to gather fruit. For I consider what is yours to be my own; if, therefore, I see fruit in you, I shall be as gladdened as if I myself were bearing the fruit and were adorned by it." This is how this passage should be interpreted, assuming an inversion. For then the words which follow naturally: "And I have been prevented hitherto." But if the inversion be rejected, it should be understood roughly thus: "I have been prevented hitherto, waiting until I might see the fruits of faith in you." How then shall we bear fruit? What is the utility of your coming? It is, indeed, great; for he does not say that he was awaiting all the fruit, but some fruit, so that he himself might prepare those who are eager and bring forth the fruits that are lacking. For just as it is redundant to urge on one who is already bearing excellent fruit, so it is entirely laborious and burdensome for one who is not at all useful for fruitfulness to be instructed by that of his tea—
Aching plough. For even if we are called, there is still need for our own choice and zeal; hence: “For many are called, few are chosen.”
QUESTION CCLXXXV
What is the meaning of: “For the justice of God is revealed in it”?For the justice of God, that is, the justice of God is revealed and made manifest in His Gospel. How, and in what way? It proceeds from the faith of the one approaching, taking the beginning of manifestation and revelation; yet it promotes and brings to perfection the faith of the one who has believed, genuine and unadulterated; not that which arts construct, but that which the illumination from above, bestowing it in proportion to one’s choice, provides. For this is the justice of God revealed through the Gospel, which, finding a seed of faith, prepared it to blossom into the fruit of faith. B There is, however, another way to grasp the meaning of this statement: that the justice of God is perceived and known in the believer himself; because, having received a small faith of choice from him, He provided him with the entire faith of revelation and divine knowledge, leading him from an imperfect faith to a great perfection of faith. Then, as it is written: “But the just shall live by faith”; do not think, he says, that this is new and recent. This was proclaimed long ago by the prophetic voice of Habakkuk. In what way? “But the just shall live by faith”; that is, the life of the just and zealous man. For by “just” he now refers to him who has attained every virtue. The life of such a person, therefore, is bounded and encompassed by faith; for it begins from faith according to choice, and ends and is completed in faith according to divine revelation. Wherefore, the just man always lives by faith. C But the word “shall live,” since it does not mean that he has lived and then will cease, but rather that he will continue to live even as he lived before—which is equivalent to saying, he always lives by faith. And the word “shall live” is used in place of: he will be in it forever and will be established in it, so that he does not even choose to live, nor to breathe, without it.
QUESTION CCLXXXVI
What is the meaning of that which is said by the Apostle: “Deliver him to Satan”?Because, he says, to deliver him to Satan, spoken by the divine Paul concerning the sinner in Corinth, is to expel him from the Church; for those who are expelled from the Churches, having become outside of divine care, fall under the will and D dominion of the other. And he rightly added also this: “To the destruction of the flesh,” showing that he does not do this out of cruelty or hatred, but so that, having learned by experience the difference, they may turn toward repentance; and thus...
having escaped from the power of the devil by a better choice, they may become worthy of the future salvation; whence he also added: “That the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” A
QUESTION CCLXXXVII (82)
*What is the meaning of: “Unto the end, for her who inherits”?*Three questions arise for us from this inscription: Who is the one who inherits, what is the inheritance, and when is the inheritance? The one who inherits is the Church and her fullness; the inheritance is that which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man." As to the "when," He Himself revealed it by saying, "Unto the end," which is the future age, not the present one. Why, then, does He write us down as heirs? Because God has adopted us as sons. Which ones? The worthy. And who are the worthy? Those who keep the commandments. Regarding this inheritor, Paul also said: B “I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” And John says: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom.” But here, the bridegroom, after a few days, dispels the force of love, whereas our bridegroom always loves us, and always extends his love. This John confirms by calling Him “bridegroom”—not a bridegroom who merely burns with desires, but one who wills that all should be one body and one soul, as is commanded by the law of our virtue and love. And just as a bride does everything to please her husband, so must we always be in this life such as the bride is on that day, when she sits in the bridal chamber, concerned with this one thing: how she may please her husband. C David recalls this bride, saying: “The queen stood on thy right hand,” and so on. Have you seen her garment? Do you also wish to see her footwear? Paul, the bride-leader, will show this, saying: “And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.” Do you wish to look also at the girdle, how it is consistent with truth? “Having your loins girt about with truth,” he says. Do you wish to see the feet as well? Hear the Prophet speaking: “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that preach the gospel of good things!” And this strikes me with wonder and brings me to amazement, that after the bridegroom had adorned himself in this way, he came not D to show off his own glory—lest an excess of beauty should startle her and render her distraught—but comes wrapped in a garment like the bride herself. For since she is a partaker of blood and flesh, the bridegroom does not call her up, but he himself descends to her, thus observing the bridal law which wills the bridegroom to go to the bride. This Paul shows, saying: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church.” After, therefore, he had approached the bride’s station, he...
and found her filthy, squalid, naked, and stained with blood, he washed, anointed, nourished, and clothed her in a garment the like of which could not ever be found; for he himself became a cloaking for her. And, having taken her in this way, he leads her up to heaven. The prophet is her advocate; for indeed he spoke and proclaimed many things regarding both the bridegroom and the bridal escort, and the good things that were to follow her. Therefore, he speaks to us on her behalf; and what does the heir ask? Let us hear what it says: “Give ear to my words, O Lord.” A
QUESTION CCLXXXVIII
“O Lord, rebuke me not in thy indignation, nor chastise me in thy wrath.”When you hear of indignation and wrath in God, you must suspect nothing human. For these words are of condescension, since the Divine is removed from all passions. It speaks in such a way as to lay hold of the understanding of coarser men; for even we, when we converse with barbarians, use their language; or if we speak to a child, we lisp, even though we might be ten thousand times learned. B Moreover, indignation and wrath do not necessarily manifest as a passion of those who cast them forth. For the passion that arises through these consists in two things: in the one who casts them, and in those whom these things strike and render a painful disposition. For he who is indignant or wrathful is affected in a certain way according to these; and he who has received the indignation and wrath is also affected, having undergone the passion. In both cases, then, the passion is seen. But as it is possible to see at times only the one casting forth the indignation and wrath suffering, while the one toward whom these are sent remains impassible and unchanged—having perhaps fortified his soul by philosophy, and become stronger than the wrath of the indignant and the angry—nonetheless, even if the passion C is seen in one of them, the indignation is not any the less called indignation, and the wrath, wrath. So, even if only he who receives the indignation and the wrath were to be affected with passion, and the one casting these forth were to be in no way changed or affected by any passion, they would be called—and by consistent reasoning rightly so—indignation and wrath causing passion and pain to the one who received them. And physicians also, when they cut and cauterize, do not do this in wrath, but for the purpose of correction, not being angry at those who are ill, but pitying them and ridding them of their diseases. When, therefore, you say, “Rebuke me not in D your indignation,” it means: Do not demand from me the penalty for my sins, nor proceed against those who have offended.
QUESTION CCLXXXIX
“For my bones are troubled.”By “bones” here, he signifies all strength; and by “troubled,” he signifies the blow, the punishment, and the retribution. Some say that here...
by trouble, he refers to the A fear arising from sin. This usually happens especially in the desires of licentiousness, and also in anger and in calamities; for all these things disturb the soul and the bones, and the pupils of the eyes are distorted, and the eyes do not see anything in order. But just as horses are led in disorder by a frenzied charioteer, so when reason is disturbed, everything is confused, everything becomes perverse. But whence does such a disturbance sufficiently arise? For it is worth the effort to explain this; for the soul is not disturbed by some unexpected vicissitude, as the sea is by the onset of winds; but this happens due to our own sloth. For we can ensure that the occasion of sin is not kindled by lust. For if you do not light the flame, the furnace will not burn; if you do not lay wood as fuel for the fire, if you do not search out beautiful faces, if you do not go up to the theater of iniquity, if you do not fatten the flesh with delicacies, if you do not submerge your reason in wine, the flame will not rise, the beast will not become more intractable, and the purity of the mind will not be cut through as if by wild winds. Are these things enough, you ask, to escape the flame of sin? It is not enough, but other things must also be added: continuous prayers, the company of the holy, occasional fasting, a simple manner of life, and necessary occupations; and before all else, the fear of God, the memory of the future judgment, B and the rewards which were promised to the just. By these you will be able to restrain the insane concupiscence of the soul and bridle the boisterous sea.
Question CCXC [Coisl. CCCIII. Taur. CCXCII]
“I have cried to thee, O Lord, hear me.” (In Ps. CXL, 1 [Greek CXLI]).All people everywhere, so to speak, know the words of this psalm, and they sing them throughout their whole lives, but the meaning of some of the words escapes them. This is not to be reproached lightly. For what else is it to chant the whole day long, but not even once to seek the meaning of the psalms? For it is the height of sloth and stupidity to have the psalm in use continuously from childhood to extreme old age, and to hold in memory nothing but words devoid of meaning, and to sit near a treasure that is obscured, and to carry about a sealed purse, and not even to be driven by curiosity to know what these words mean at all. Yet you cannot even say this: that some clarity lulled them into such torpor that they neglected to seek what was at hand, since the text is not obscure and is capable of arousing someone who is not sleeping deeply, C or rather even one who is sleeping.
Question CCXCI [Coisl. CCCIV. Taur. CCXCIII]
“With my voice I cried to the Lord, with my voice I made supplication to the Lord.” (In Ps. CXLI, 1 [Greek CXLII]).Here we are taught two virtues: the constancy of zeal and the orderliness of one's reasoning; in addition to these, the words of the Psalmist signify a third thing; for D
not all cry out with either their voice, or towards God, or with a voice that is their own. Yet it is necessary that all these three things come together. He who cries out against enemies will not utter the voice of a man, but that of a wild beast or a serpent. The one who is slothful, and does not listen to what he says, does not cry out to God, but speaks pointlessly and in vain. The one who does not rouse his mind, even if he shouts loudly, is once again not crying out; for a voice, as I have often said before, denotes not the intensity of the breath but the composed mind. But not so the Prophet: he brings these three things together; that he calls out, and does so to God, and with his own voice; for this reason he says a second time: "With my voice, and with my voice." A
QUESTION CCXCII. [Coisl. Taur. CIV].
What is the meaning of the words, "And Melchol praised David"?Explanation of II Kings vi, 20.
The words, "And Melchol praised David," become clear from what we have explained above; for we have interpreted "she despised him in her heart" as meaning that the woman considered it contrary to royal gravity and majesty for the king to engage in choirs and dances. It was not without reflection that the daughter of Saul considered that this very thing—for the king not to be swept away in dances—was unseemly for a king... Yet the divine desire, which he had declared so vehemently, captured by his love for David, surpassed the nature and mind of this woman; and the fervent love of David reproved her ignorance. It is noted in the holy Scriptures that she was never called by the name of a mother, and thus she made known the punishment she would incur for the reproaches brought against David. B Melchol is dismissed, she who had mocked David, and as an exacting penalty, from then on she does not bear children. She is afflicted with sterility, so that no one from the seed of Saul might succeed to the royal power, or that factions and murders might not arise through her son and the children born of other women.
QUESTION CCXCIII. [Coisl. Taur. CV].
Why did David gird himself with an ephod?In II Kings vi, 14; I Chronicles xv, 27.
It has been said that David wore an ephod, although it was not permitted for him, even if he lived piously, to wear the priestly vestment. Regarding this, some have said that since Samuel had died, and his sons were called into question for crimes, it was necessary for a priest to go before the Ark of God, and there was no one worthy of this ministry. C By necessity, therefore, the king undertook such a service, a fitting act for one who himself had brought back the Ark from the gentile nations. Wherefore he put on the ephod, which announced victory to Israel; and David attributes the victory to God. Nor was this a sign of him despising the priestly vestment, but rather of his reverence for it and of his holding it in the highest honor; for he showed, by the very fact that he fled to it, how much honor was owed to those who are truly priests, whose vestment provided the king with glory and victory and such great grace. These things are said by some; but it seems to others that King David would never have dared to clothe himself in the priestly vestment, but that it was some kind of garment proper to kings, to which the priestly vestment D
A also bore the name, and that King David wore this at that time.
QUESTION CCXCIV [Coisl. Taur. CVI].
What did Adam do in paradise? Edita a Maio (l. c. p. 149, q. 304). — Quid Adam in paradiso fecerit. Gen. II, 15.Having been placed in paradise, Adam did not lead an idle or inactive life, but he applied himself to virtue and engaged in the works of virtue. And because he was established as the guardian of virtue and of all the things of that place, he was cast out of paradise into exile. There was a tree in the middle of paradise. For what reason was it the tree of life? There is a certain similarity between this tree and the heart; for just as the heart is established in the middle of the animal’s B body, so that tree of life grew in the middle of paradise. Or, if the mystical discourse pleases you, the supreme virtue, figured by the rational tree, as if it were in the middle, flowed from the highest mountain into the whole of life. And just as life, diffused from the middle of the body, keeps all the parts of the living creature alive and unified, so it, having been sent forth as if from a fountain in the middle, irrigates and nourishes all the virtues. I would understand the tree of life, placed in the middle of paradise, as being nearby, because Christ, our life, was fixed to the cross for us in the middle of the earth. For the cross is said to be not unlike this wood which was in the middle of the earth. Regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, words were indeed spoken, but no place was assigned to it. For what reason? Because malice has no place, but is situated alongside virtue; it will be better, however, to discuss this later. C
QUESTION CCXCV [Coisl. Taur. CVII].
Why was the lamb sacrificed toward evening? Edita a Maio (l. c. p. 149, q. 305). — De sacrificio agni vespertino. Exod. XII, 6; Deuter. XVI, 6.The lamb was sacrificed toward evening because it was a figure of the true Lamb and Shepherd, Christ our God. For at the setting of the ages, the Creator also underwent a voluntary death for us. It was prescribed that the sacrifice be offered when the moon had full light. But since the Savior of our race is called not only man but also God, the lunar light serves as a figure of his divinity, and the lunar body as a figure of the assumed flesh. Furthermore, just as the moon, whenever it has attained full light, presides as a leader over D the whole world, and in the same way our Savior, having suffered death, recreated and restored all things, not undeservedly was the moon commanded by him who wisely governs all things to show full light at that time.
QUESTION CCXCVI [Coisl. Taur. CIX].
What is to be understood by these words: “I will set my bow in the clouds”? Edita a Maio (l. c. p. 150, q. 306). — Explanatio in Gen. IX, 13.The sons of the Gentiles think the bow in the clouds is a natural phenomenon, and that it receives its constitution from where the clouds and the sun are; but for divine Moses, as far as
the obvious significance of the words is concerned, this did not seem to be the case, but rather that it was coetaneous with the given covenant: "For behold," He says, "I set my bow in the clouds," as if it were being set at that moment and becoming a sign of the covenant. A Yet there is nothing absurd in conceiving that the bow, while being an initial manifestation, was assumed by the Divine for the confirmation of the covenant with Noah; as if one were to say that as long as this shall exist and nature shall perform its own work, there will be no flood; just as one might say: "As long as the moon shall not be taken away, and as long as the sun, coursing through the heavenly sphere, illuminates earthly things." Which is to say: "As long as nature preserves its own order and does not turn toward dissolution, until then the human race shall go unpunished by a flood." The king of Syria sent to Elisha to inquire about his life, although he served not God but idols, B because the fame of the prophet was widely heralded everywhere, and the disease pressing upon the king made it necessary to inquire as to what outcome it would have.
QUESTION CCXCVII
Since Noah was righteous, why does he fall into drunkenness, and yet not pay the penalty?Since Noah was righteous, he falls into drunkenness and pays no penalty, because he did not succumb to drunkenness through intemperance, and there was no law yet established which forbade drinking wine to excess; moreover, he fell into drunkenness through ignorance of the usage rather than through excessive drinking. For wine mixed with water does not fill the brain or darken the ruling faculty C with the same turbulent fumes. But the pure draught of it, bringing up hotter and harsher vapors, produces the passion even from a small drink, especially in those who are unaccustomed to it. Nevertheless, the divine Paul, before us, makes the argument on his behalf, saying: "Sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom. v, 13). Therefore, in that ancient way of life, you may very often see wonderful men who, through inexperience, suffered such things, from which, however, no punishment followed for them. But now, since both the law and the knowledge of things to be done are manifest among us, it is reasonable that those who have transgressed the laws should meet the punishment for their transgression. D
QUESTION CCXCVIII
From what place in Scripture is it clear that Adam was deceived by the devil?Regarding what you have asked, as to from where in Scripture it is possible to obtain that Adam was deceived by the devil, while this is considered by all pious people to be so, Scripture, however, describes Eve as having been deceived only through the serpent, and through her Adam...
A presents a clearer solution to the question. For the Lord himself taught us in the Gospels, saying: "He was a murderer from the beginning." For he does not, as it seemed to some, refer to Cain, but directs this accusation against Satan himself. For the serpent, which is called the instrument of the devil, raises no doubt, since it cannot be considered the primary author and leader of the seduction. But the evil demon made the deception to Eve through the serpent, and not through another animal, because that animal was pleasant to the woman, for, by its singular nature, it could most easily mimic any other creature. And since, moreover, the devil saw this animal instructed with a certain natural sagacity, it seemed to him most suited, by whose ministry he would use to perpetrate the fraud; especially since that animal then indeed had a tongue suitable for uttering words. Meanwhile, it is also due to an ineffable providence that the serpent was able to form articulate sounds. For since the good Creator perceived the counsel of the evil demon, and knew that if he did not have the serpent as the instrument of his fraud, he would use men themselves for their mutual deception, he allowed the serpent to emit a human voice, lest the destruction of men should be born from men themselves, and the origin of evil should proceed from them. For if they themselves had appeared as the authors of the persuasion to sin, the same thing would have happened to them as happened to the serpent, in such a way that, without the institution of a trial of the cause, they would have heard the condemnatory sentence, after the example of the serpent. But the faculty of human speech is permitted to the serpent, lest man should be seen to have been the author of evil. For God is accustomed to act in such a way that, by the very things through which the adversary contrives his base arts, by those same things he overthrows and disturbs his most wicked designs. B
QUESTION CCXCIX [Coisl. Taur., CXVI]. What does this mean: "Lord, my heart is not exalted."
The words, "Lord, my heart is not exalted, nor are my eyes haughty, neither have I walked in great things, nor in wonderful things above me," C may perhaps be applied to David himself. For when he had obtained the kingdom, and had set up many trophies over his enemies, and before that had been made king from being a shepherd, and had obtained greater things than he had hoped, and when he had openly exercised wrath against Nabal, contemplating the death he would bring upon his son, and having experienced many things from Joab and Shimei, and other things of that kind, he appears worthy of greater admiration, in that, being tempted with so many and such things, his powers were not broken, nor, although he had obtained things greater than his expectations, did he swell with pride, nor exalt his mind, nor boast himself more than was fitting. For he referred everything to the supreme power of God, who is omnipotent and rules all things, never forgetful of this word: "But I am a worm, and no man, the reproach of men and the people ab- D
- A jected." If anyone were to interpret these words differently, and refer them to this man who is subject to humility, and say that these things were written and published by one who bore a contrite and humbled heart, he also would not be departing from the right path. For humility, as can be gathered from many places, is a great ornament to David. This opinion has also seemed to some to regard human nature in general. For this nature, they say, on account of the weakness of the flesh and the passions that are born and revolve within the body, B cannot at any time be raised or lifted up above itself, but is, as it were, dragged down by its own weight; and being burdened now by this, now by that, and never standing pure from that which troubles and oppresses it, nor even being able to contemplate the greatest thoughts concerning itself, but acting rightly, it considers itself earth and ashes, and unworthy of ascending above the human state; so that, by not partaking of the tree through a desire for divinity, it might not be brought down again from that order which is proper and fitting for it. And from this it lifts up the soul and feeds it the sweet food of those thoughts which cannot be nourished together with the body; for indeed the expression, "as one who is weaned towards his mother," C...
He who refers the interpretation to our Lord Jesus Christ, and holds that His life is a prophecy and a glory describing a trophy for those who return praise to God, would not even then be counted in a secondary place among those who have rightly thought about this saying. For just as the words, "They dug my hands and my feet," were spoken by David but were fulfilled in Christ, so too with the statement, "They set me in the lowest pit, and they parted my garments among them," and ten thousand other things. Paul, perceiving this, exhorts us to take captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ. For Christ our God, who exists above every height and every D excellence, was not exalted, nor was He caught up; or rather, to use the apostolic word: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and humbled Himself even unto death." And He Himself, at the time of the passion, said, "I could ask my Father, and he would provide me more than twelve legions of angels," but, as I think, the height, magnitude, and sense of wonder in Christ were neither present nor surmised. Nor did He Himself seek how to excel others. For what would be more wonderful or greater than the divine nature that is placed above all magnitude and majesty? Furthermore, Christ did not even, as a man, contend or associate with those who, if you look to earthly and corporeal things, are surrounded by great pride. Nay, rather, He composed Himself entirely in humility and modesty. Wherefore the prophet says: "Rejoice, O daughter of Sion; and the cause is the joy, "For He is meek and..."
TO AMPHILOCHIUS QUESTION CCXCIX
And the expression, "weaned from the milk," B might be harmonized with what has been said, in that He brought back the soul which He had assumed to its ancient and primordial dignity; for this would be what is meant by, "As the weaned child upon his mother." But if one wishes to understand that, having fulfilled His sojourn among men in a manner worthy of God and fitting for man, He returned again to the paternal bosom from which He had not departed, this man also would be stating what is reasonable; for having run back thither and having received the judgment over all, He justified all in Himself, which is also indicated by the words: "Thou shalt restore my soul."
QUESTION CCC
Why did God appear to Moses in a bush and not in some other plant?For many reasons; but before we examine for what cause He appeared, it is advantageous to say that this symbol signifies three things. Either that, just as the bush was enveloped in fire, yet was not consumed, so also Israel, though abandoned to dangers, punishments, and the flame of misery which those who held them captive kindled against them, was preserved by the right hand of God alone from perishing and being reduced to ashes; or that God the Word, the light of the Father and the immaterial fire of the Divinity, shining in the earthly and material womb of the Virgin, preserved her who had received Him unconsumed and unharmed. C If you prefer, the very fire of the Divinity, having consorted with human nature, will cleanse and consecrate it, but it will not burn it nor destroy it. But these things are prefigured by the mystery of the bush, and it is the bush, and no other plant, that is subjected to the fire. Perhaps because no other fruit-bearing plant grew in the desert; or also, so that we might learn that the fire of the Divinity, when it embraced human nature—which casts out its sins like thorns—inflamed it, but did not consume it; but it burned up and destroyed the thorns surrounding it. Or if some other interpretation pleases you, in that bush there appear the majority of the nations, gripped by discarded opinions about God, and, as it were, obsessed by atheism, carrying with them the seeds of sins, and a decayed veneration of God, which ought to have been kindled by the advent and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and cleansed from that thorny and ungrateful error, and to have received the rays of divine fire. D "He himself," as it is said, "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." And so that the figure might be more manifest and clearer, they record that the bush burned, yet was not consumed. For the bush, creeping and thorny, if you look at its nature, is weak; if at its form, it is spread out over the ground. All these things place certain commonalities between the bush and the nations. Furthermore, there is almost nothing more lowly than this plant, which, even if it grows, never rises up, but always creeps on the ground: whereas fire, since it has a certain lightness, tends most of all things perceived by the senses toward high and lofty things. By which it is signified that this is established above all others.
A And the nature of the Godhead—for Scripture very often calls God fire—did not disdain to descend to the most humble nature of men, which is compounded of mire and earth. Rightly, therefore, a plant was taken as a specimen appropriate to such a nature. Also, observe this: since there was in the nation of the Hebrews a proclivity toward idolatry, inasmuch as they had been mixed for no few years with the customs of the Egyptians, in order that no opportunity for polytheism might arise for them in such a thing, the miracle is shown forth in a base, humble, and unsuitable form for the production of idols; so that they might not, being struck with wonder at what was seen, either register the very form of God as God and worship it, or carve out images and likenesses from it and worship the works of their own hands as their gods. For they who with such great loss made the calf, and worshiped as God the form of the bull's head, in which they had seen no manifestation of God at all, what would they not have dared if some timely and cultivated herb, bearing an harmless flame, had appeared to them, especially when they had heard the lawgiver saying: «God spoke to Moses from the bush.» B
QUESTION CCCI
What then, when God has torn apart and divided the people of the Hebrews, relegating some to Samaria, while leaving others in Judea—for it is written that the Lord said to Solomon: «Tearing, I will tear thy kingdom»—consequently, since He Himself does the tearing, why do we subject those who are subject to this division from God to censures and reproaches? For if God is doing the tearing, who could join them? And if He decrees the division, who is to be cleared? CWhat therefore holds you in suspense, if I well remember, is of such a sort. Know, however, that it is necessary, not only in the present doubt, but in all other matters offering similar circumstances, not to consider that the vindictive decrees of God, which precede the event, are the cause of the event; for if anyone, foreseeing something that is to happen, proclaims it, neither by us humans, nor certainly by God, will the cause of the event be considered to be him. Therefore, such things are spoken in the divine Scripture so that we might not be induced to refer the punishments inflicted for our sins to any other power and authority; for the divine sentence, checking this opinion, foretells those things which are about to happen to us on account of our sins, and this, in the first place, is the cause why the imputation of these things is referred to the Divine. But the second [reason] is that, while He is powerful enough to restrain our inclination toward worse things, He does not constrain it, nor does He draw us toward the opposite. Similar to this is also that: «Making peace and creating evils.» And: «I know that Pharaoh will not listen to you: on account of which I will harden his heart.» For, it says he will be hardened, not because he himself
will transform the heart of Pharaoh into hardness, but because, as he is leaning and bent toward it, He does not restrain him, so that He might not take away the free will of human nature; and although the Egyptian has set out of his own will, He will neither alter nor move him toward what is involuntary; for this is what it means: I will harden. This expression might also imply another turn of events, for "I will harden" is in place of "I will bring hard things upon him who is hard and inflexible in his judgment, and things worthy of the cruelty of his character."
B Thus, therefore, as we have said, God, foreseeing that they would depart of their own impulse and own will from Rehoboam, and would follow the slave and apostate Jeroboam, and that the nation would be divided into two parts—God, having anticipated the knowledge of this, as of all other things, foretells what is to come and says: "I will rend your kingdom," on account of the two causes mentioned above. For if, with God always speaking in this way and referring all things to Himself, they nevertheless did not cease to run toward other gods, and to worship Astarte (who is called Artemis among the Greeks), and Chemosh, and the flies, attributing the providence and duration of their own life to them, to what lengths of audacity would they not have come, if they had been given from the reading of the holy Scriptures some opportunity to think that there is someone else who establishes the punishments, and that from some other source the burden of evils comes upon them? You may see also in the temptation of the righteous Job, that God permits the temptations and establishes certain limits for the tempter; for example, "This is given to you to tempt, but do not stretch out your hand against him." For all things hang from the almighty right hand, sometimes indeed helping and cooperating, and sometimes permitting and not preventing.
C A similar reading, in some way, seems to be this: «And the anger of the Lord added to be aroused against Israel; and He stirred up David against them, saying, Number Israel.» For He incites David to number Israel, because the anger and vengeance of the righteous Judge were owed to Israel for the sins they had committed; and there is no other who urges David, but the One who was angry with Israel and who was about to bring the punishment upon them. For we know that we are guilty of sin, and the divine Scriptures also bear witness that the divine will is the author of the tribulations that come upon us for our sins. For it is that of a righteous Judge to establish a punishment according to the gravity of the offense; for those who have sinned are the cause of the anger; but the anger brought punishment upon them, taking as an intermediary David—in whom they had also offended because he himself had sinned against God—for he did number them, although He condemned him more quickly than the others; for it says: «David's heart struck him because he numbered the people.» What sin, then, was the people deemed worthy to pay the penalty for at that time? Is it not evident that it was for the insurrection against David their king, when, having rejected the legitimate and just authority, in favor of that D
who had lifted up tyrannous hands against his father and king, and who had respected neither nature nor the dignity of the royal office; they rose up and rebelled together. From this, murder indeed flowed A properly against one another, and every law of nature was trampled underfoot, with children often wielding swords against their fathers, and the most beloved son falling by a father's hand—for such are the evils of civil strife. Therefore, because of this mutual slaughter, it was just that Israel should suffer punishment. And since it was necessary for him to be goaded to penalty, the incitement of David to number the people is set down as a kind of preliminary cause for that punishment.
For that the numbering of the people by the king was not truly among those things that were heinous, even though it is cited here as the cause of the punishment, is clearly demonstrated by the census which was later carried out by the same David—upon which no evil occurred, and which was neither subjected to an accusation of wickedness nor involved any penalty. This numbering took place toward the end of the king’s life, when the number of the Levites was also calculated. Scripture itself provides notice of this, for it B places the words: “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” before the words, “He incited David,” thereby guiding and as it were stirring the listener to discern that it was not because of the numbering of the people that the anger of God was inflamed, but because of the rebellion, tyranny, and bloodthirstiness that had occurred among them. Since the anger is mentioned prior to the numbering, it is clear that it was not brought about by the numbering. It was indeed David himself who was incited, and no one else, because it was due to his own transgression that the insurrection of Absalom occurred. For, as it says, “Because you have committed murder and adultery, you shall be subjected to others, but also your wives shall be taken C by your neighbor before your eyes,” which indeed Absalom also perpetrated. Therefore, he who had sinned is moved, so that, coming to the awareness of his own fault, he might cry out, “I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but what has this people done?” And from this confession and repentance, the breaking (of the people) is checked; when this ceases, salvation comes to the race. Or rather, to speak from above, the people owed the penalty; therefore the anger of God was added to be kindled against them. The anger moved David to number the people; once they were numbered, the plague struck. As the plague continued, David came to a realization of his error; from that consciousness, he moved to repentance, and repentance moves the grace and mercy of God from above; these things put an end to the destruction. So it was that the evil came down upon the people as if from a single head—him who had sinned—and the suffering was likewise D allayed through his repentance.
QUESTION CCCII
Why does God allow the inspired David to fall into sin, and into such a great one?Perhaps due to certain other secret causes; but definitely so that there might be set before us an example of repentance in this life; for if such a king, who was after the heart of God...
A, fell, he quickly stood up again and by repentance and tears sought to cleanse his error; how much more does it behoove us, who have not fallen just once, but who are constantly falling, to attempt to erase our sins with abundant tears and a contrite heart? Furthermore, this is so that some who are distinguished in their virtues, if they should slip into some human error, might not surrender themselves to despair and hopelessness, but rather look to that blessed David, who, having committed such a great transgression, found such swift healing, and might themselves be stirred to similar zeal and, having recovered from their fall and become entirely devoted to repentance, might cling to their former virtuous deeds. Perhaps God also permits David B to fall into sin so that the Jewish nation, upon hearing the great testimonies that the Holy Scripture bears about him, might not mistakenly worship him alongside God; for indeed, for the same reason, the body of Moses was stolen away, and it remains unknown to the sons of Israel to this day. And the divine Paul declares something similar about himself, saying: "Lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me" (2 Cor. XII, 6); and in fact, some of the Gentiles, once they saw the signs that he and Barnabas were performing, hastened to offer sacrifices to them as to gods.
QUESTION CCCIII [Coisl. Taur. CXVI].
Why did God call Israel His firstborn?God calls Israel His firstborn when He sent Moses to Pharaoh, to show how great an C affection and love He had for him. He spoke in some such way to Moses: "Speak to Pharaoh: As much affection as you have and maintain for your own firstborn son, consider that God has the same for the people of Israel." And so, when he did not acquiesce to the liberation and return of Israel, the plague struck against the firstborn of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. But God, since He is the maker and author of all nations, is so also the provider for all. In subsequent times, however, He was to turn and summon all nations to the same knowledge, and to render them sons and heirs of grace. But before them, He chose the Israelite nation, so that through it He might lead all the others; which the apostles also demonstrate, who indeed sprang from Israel but became the teachers and guides of all nations; for this reason, the title of "firstborn" was granted to the Israelites. This firstborn, however, did not receive the perfection of piety; therefore, he became hard and indocile, not only in Egypt but after the exodus from Egypt, in the desert. For this reason, he is not deemed D worthy of more perfect mysteries, and he is meanwhile instructed by the law of the second order. For when the Hebrew people, on account of the transgression and impiety regarding the golden calf, were not deemed worthy to receive the law written by the finger of God and inscribed on tablets not fashioned by human hands—which the law to be given to us by Christ prefigured—they received the second law, which Moses inscribed on tablets he himself had polished. For if they had [received] those that were written by God
better than any handiwork, they would perhaps have even regarded them as gods, and stirred up the divine wrath against themselves to an even greater degree. Yet, for the reason we have mentioned, the more perfect mysteries were not entrusted to those people. But in the last days, the Word of God having become man, and having adopted the nations as sons, gives to them no longer the worship aged by type and shadow, but the pure beauty of piety flourishing and vibrant in truth and reality. Consequently, since all the nations were adopted as sons, it is reasonable that the people of Israel, who were called to that adoption before them, should be called the firstborn. Consider also another point with me here: The Word of God appears having come according to the humanity from the seed of David. Through Him, however, every firstborn of Egypt, as an impious and godless offspring, was subjected to death and corruption. Since, therefore, the slayer of the Egyptian firstborn arose from Israel, He calls Israel also the firstborn. And this, indeed, the Evangelist records: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” These things, then, must be weighed as better. B
QUESTION CCCIV
[Coist. Taur. CXVIII]. How do the heavens declare the glory of God? (Edited by Mai, l.c. p. 97, 98, q. 8.) — In Ps. xviii (Greek xix), 1.The heavens, though they have no mouth, declare the glory of God, because the Creator is perceived from the magnitude and beauty of the creatures, and the wonder concerning them is referred by those who think rightly back to the Creator and transcends; so that the heavens do not proclaim the power of the Creator with words, but with deeds, and exhort those who gaze upon them with right eyes to glorify Him. If, however, you wish to exercise your mind by raising it above visible things, you will find the heavens to be the Apostles, who have announced the Gospel of Christ to the whole inhabited world, and have instructed and guided us to glorify God, who took upon Himself our nature for our sake. C But if you wish, the heavens declared the glory of our God Christ when, not having abandoned the paternal bosom, He deigned to take flesh from a Virgin, and Bethlehem and the cave held Him; for then, indeed then, the nature counted among the heavens—this the visible, and this also that which is beyond what is seen—ministered and served the miracle. The one, appointing the star as a kind of common herald and putting it forward, proclaims the glory of the Master, and as a bodyguard accompanies the hidden King; but the other, putting forward a multitude of the host, praises the Creator and sings of the miracle of the events that were taking place. And the angels could not inappropriately be called heavens, D since they have come down from above to earthly things. But if you wish also to see the sun, which grew gloomy at the Master’s Passion, and by the laying aside of its very beautiful light, announced the divinity and power of the One who suffered,
you would be close also to an expansion according to contemplation.
QUESTION CCCV A
What is the meaning of: "You have rebuked the nations, and the ungodly man has perished"? BThe words, "You have rebuked the nations, and the ungodly man has perished," clearly signify this: namely, that when the nations were rebuked and brought back from the error of their ways to enter the flock of Christ, he who called them to impiety—that is to say, the devil—perished. For the "ungodly man" can be said to be both he who acts ungodly and he who draws another into impiety. It would perhaps be more obvious to say that, when Christ remained on earth and called all Jews, Greeks, and barbarians alike to the same knowledge, and, so to speak, introduced a saving and perfect rebuke for the sins previously committed by them through baptism, whoever proved themselves teachable and sincere toward this rebuke became part of the number of those saved. But if anyone was dejected by the rebuke, and did not receive either the purification of baptism or the light of faith that proceeds from it, this person, as ungodly and worthy of destruction, shall perish. I know, however, that the same word is taken by some writers, especially among the pagan sages, to mean honor, splendor, and glory. Therefore, this passage could signify, if the words are taken in that sense, that by Christ having honored and glorified the nations, he established those who were teachable as sons and heirs of his kingdom, while those who were unworthy of the inheritance and of adoption, being ungodly, perished.
QUESTION CCCVI C
Why did the Magi from the East and Persia, and not from another region or nation, first approach the Lord at His birth? DI think this happened for several reasons. In the first place, they were fulfilling a certain prophetic oracle, which says: "Kings of the Arabs and of Saba shall bring gifts." For indeed, the Persians at that time held power over those regions. Moreover, their land produces gold and myrrh and frankincense of the highest quality. Furthermore, with the empire of the Egyptians having passed to the Assyrians, and that of the Assyrians having devolved to the Persians, and with the kings of the Persians at that time holding the primacy, it was fitting that those who were preeminent in that age should be the first to render worship by their arrival to the one and only King of the ages, who had been seen on earth, Christ our God, and to offer him gifts, acknowledging by their actions that the newborn King—even of them, who held sway over almost the entire world and had the primacy over all peoples—was Master,
A being worshipped by them and attended by a royal retinue. If, moreover, one were to suggest that because the patriarch Abraham also originated from there—for he was the first to depart from the land of the Chaldeans and proclaim the knowledge of God—they were for this reason the first among all others to set out from there to offer their worship to the Savior, this divine dispensation clearly trumpet-pealing that the same God is at work both then and now—then, indeed, in types, but now in reality and in deed—this, too, would not be far removed from sound reasoning.
Consider also this with me: The kings of the Assyrians B often sacked Jerusalem and plundered the sacred vessels in the temple of God, and sometimes they even rendered the temple itself a work of fire, along with all the other things that the history of these events narrates. But the rule of the Assyrians passed over to the Persians, and all their wealth—both what was in the form of spoils and what was in the form of taxes from subject nations—was transferred to them. God, therefore, stirs up the Persians to the worship of the King of Israel, who is Christ our God, to whom a temple was erected in Jerusalem and to whom sacrifices were offered. They run with speed and offer, in place of the dishonor brought against the sacred things of God by their forefathers, honor; in place of blasphemies, theology; in place of their other debauchery, worship; and in place of the things they had plundered, they offer gifts, as if C making apology for the audacity of their ancestors and beseeching forgiveness for them through their own deeds. They offer gold in place of the gold and sacred treasures which they had plundered; frankincense in place of the sacrifices which they had prevented; and myrrh for those who had once been slaughtered by their own hands during the siege in former times—which they could have raised up and established, carrying the myrrh as an honor to them, and perhaps also indicating their own intention: that, as far as lay in their power, they were willing to restore the temple that had been destroyed and the city of Jerusalem. For myrrh is accustomed to bind together things that are separated and torn apart. D For even if some of the plundered sacred objects were brought back under Ezra and Zerubbabel, yet these things were done in a deficient manner, since neither our Redeemer and Savior had yet arrived, nor did those who had committed the plundering offer the spoils themselves, but rather did so through others. Moreover, the first arrival of the Persians might also be a foreshadowing that the nations, before even Israel, would recognize their own Master.
And if one prefers to establish something regarding those offered gifts: that gold was offered to Christ as to the King of this universe, like a tribute and a sign of obedience; that frankincense was offered as to God; and myrrh, finally, as to one who was about to die for us: this, too, might be joined to what has been said, not without appropriateness. A
QUESTION CCCVII [Coist. Taur. CXX]
*Why does Herod command the Magi, who were coming to worship our Savior Christ: "Search diligently," he says, "concerning the child; and when you have found him, report it to me, so that I also may come and worship him?"* BAccording to the literal sense, he was doing this because he himself was King of Judea, and having heard of the birth of a King, he was perturbed and sought to kill him who appeared likely to strip him of his empire. And since he could not easily find him, he concocted wiles and deceit. That is why he says: "So that I also may come and worship him." This interpretation arises from the very words themselves. But perhaps he also, though unwilling, foretells the future: that not only would the nations, through the Persians who came first, worship Christ, but that after the worship bestowed by them, all of Judea would also worship him. If you prefer, the type can be shown in a more ready way. For Herod himself may represent those two nations, he who, born of the Gentiles, ruled over the Jews; and thus, though unwilling, and unaware of what he says, he nevertheless acts as a prophet, C sustaining the persona of the whole human race—Gentiles as well as Jews—and professing that religious worship must be rendered to God when He turns toward men. Indeed, nothing prevents us from believing he acted as a prophet. For Caiaphas, too, did not know what he was saying. For while his mind, raging, was carried toward slaughter, his lips nevertheless uttered a prophecy, saying: "It is better that one man should die than that the whole nation should perish." For if Christ our God had not died, the human race would never have been saved. Although both of them were unworthy of the prophetic gift, yet the dignity of the priesthood in the one, and that of the kingship in the other, received the fruit of some gift, provided they had not yet proceeded to the slaughter of our Lord. You may see, in like manner, other things also, uttered with an evil mind and a bloodthirsty impulse, that took on the nature of prophecies and met with their fulfillment. Such was that saying: "His blood be upon us and upon our children." For in the end the shedding of blood and the slaughter made by the sword did fall upon them. And no less that saying: "If we let him live, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy our nation and our city." For even against their will they allowed him to live; for they could not master the Treasury of Life, and the One who gives life to all. Therefore, while they revealed an evil and bloodthirsty mind, yet, frustrated in their aim, they themselves, the whole nation, the temple, and the city perished. The One, however, whom they thought to kill—having received Him as the dispenser of life and the One who gives life to the dead—the nations, and the [resurrection] from the dead [of Him]...
A religiously venerating, acknowledge Him as true God, made man for the salvation of the human race, and sincerely worship and revere Him. On the other hand, the Romans, having waged war against them, both destroyed the city and devastated the temple, and put the whole nation to the sword. You may also see the ass in the books of the Old Testament represented as both instructed and foretelling things to come. From all these things you will understand that there is nothing to prevent Herod from being considered as having spoken to the Magi in a prophetic manner.
QUESTION CCCVIII
Why did the Forerunner (John) rebuke Herod?The Precursor and Baptist John rightly rebuked Herod, who was sliding into sin. For although he was of foreign descent, being the grandson of the elder Herod, he nevertheless ruled over the Jews and governed his life by the laws and customs of the Jews, and it was not permitted for him by the laws to take in marriage Herodias, who had borne a child by his brother. B For the law, when a brother has died without children, permits association with his wife, "so that," it says, "he may raise up seed for his brother." But when seed and male offspring have been left behind, commerce with such a woman was prohibited. The Forerunner, therefore, took action against Herod, not so much regarding him as looking toward the correction of the multitude. For when things that are wickedly committed by rulers and kings are passed over without censure, the multitude of subjects is easily swept away toward imitating them. But when those [rulers] are restrained from such misdeeds, it is necessary for the subjects also to be more careful to guard themselves against them. Moreover, it comes to mind to recall from the reading of the Old Testament C that love for a brother's wife is also prohibited. Both of these considerations made the Forerunner act with so much more constancy and boldness in rebuking Herod.
QUESTION CCCIX
How is to be understood that which is said: "Among those born of women there has not arisen one greater than John the Baptist"?Regarding how it is that among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist has arisen, and how it is that the least in the kingdom of heaven is said to be greater than he, I have discussed this elsewhere. But nothing prevents me, for the sake of your request, from explaining it again, namely, that the sense of the passage is that, not having arisen in the Old Testament...
A a prophet greater than him. For he was indeed very close in time to Christ, and it is written: "The voice of one crying, Prepare the way of the Lord," proclaiming it aloud. Scripture, therefore, says that no one greater than him has arisen, but it does not compel us to think that he has ascended to a degree higher than all others. This, however—that the Forerunner is not greater than others—does not in the least prevent many others from being equal to him.
As for the other passage: "But he who is lesser is greater than he," some indeed refer it to Christ, who, although He was Lord, was yet considered at that time to be lesser in age, bodily stature, and in the judgment of the common people. But I, as I have stated my opinion on this point elsewhere, B think that the phrase "among those born of women" is contrary to this interpretation. For Christ was not born of a woman simply, but of a Virgin. Now, a virgin cannot properly be called a woman, unless one wishes to misuse the term—as indeed the divinely inspired Paul does when he says: "Born of a woman." Since, therefore, Christ was born of a Virgin, and not properly of a woman, one would rightly think that He had excluded Himself from a comparison to be instituted with John.
Others, however, contend that he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is spoken of here as one who has been made a participant in the grace of the New Covenant; the sense being this: that among those who were born under the Law, no one is greater than John; but among those who have appeared after the proclamation of grace, even the least C possesses superior qualities, in as much as he is endowed with those goods of which he (John) had not yet become a participant. For if anyone is considered the greatest in dignity and prerogative by reason of types and foreshadowings, the same, if he has regard to the things themselves, which present and show themselves in the work itself, will never find a reason why he should compare himself with him who holds even the lowest place. For although John saw Christ Himself, and administered the mystery of the sacred washing, and became a manifest witness of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world; yet he departed from this life at a time when the Law and the shadows were still lingering, and before grace had shone forth clearly and fully. For when he was detained in prison, and had already been subjected to an unmerited slaughter on account of the punishment for violated Mosaic laws, only then did our Lord, D Jesus Christ, begin to preach the kingdom of God. Therefore, no one of those who were regenerated by water and the Spirit, and held worthy of the visitation and gifts of the Paraclete, could be judged as holding a secondary place to John. Nay, even he who occupies the lowest place, in respect of him
whom he will protect, A should, I say, lead one to place him even before our most glorious Lady, the Theotokos, and the chief apostles—a notion which no understanding would permit. But the discourse concerning this, having been submitted to the diet which I have long followed, renders the present analysis difficult.
QUESTION CCCX
Why is our Lord Jesus Christ pierced by a lance during his saving passion?B Christ, our God, is pierced in his side during his saving passion; by this he has established and prefigured for us two baptisms: one of water and the other of blood. For these did not flow from the saving side by any order or sequence of nature. For the wound was inflicted after death, and after the wound the rivers gushed from the side. He receives the wound in the side and not in any other part, because from the side of Adam was the woman fashioned, and through her sin was brought upon Adam. C Christ, therefore, our God, the new Adam, is wounded in the side, as if to expiate sin through the side and to deliver Adam from the lapse that came upon him through the side, so that here also might be fulfilled that saying: "Where sin abounded" (that is, in Eve, who was made from the side of Adam), "there grace did much more abound," to wit, in the side of Christ. For sin indeed abounds in that side, because from thence the evil sprang. But grace abounds again in the Lordly side, because not only has the negation and wounding of sin occurred in it, but also the fountain of salvation and purification has gushed forth from it and remains, never being exhausted. D Thus the side becomes a healing for the side: the side pierced by the lance for the side wounded by sin.
QUESTION CCCXI
What is the meaning of: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them," and has this prayer attained its end?That saying: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them," and what follows, is not, as some might simply imagine,
A a prayer lacking in success or having failed to reach its mark. For our Lord, the most loving of men, the Savior of our race, prays that this sin not be held against those who crucified Him, first of all to set before us an example of humanity and mutual benevolence, so that we might not be carried away by anger, resentment, and curses, even against those who appear to be plotting our own death. Furthermore, He prays that this sin be not held against them, provided they desist from evil and do not continue to be carried forward to the same height of insolence and wickedness. Now, as for those who have desisted from malice, the penalty for the crime they committed has not been inflicted upon them. For many of the Jews did not only obtain forgiveness, but, having learned the truth afterward and having been guided by a zeal for piety, were revealed as children and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. But those who did not cease from their evil course, but rather heaped slaughter upon slaughter and lapsed into the utmost insanity, those truly paid the penalty they deserved. B Nevertheless, this prayer of our Savior remained valid and did not fall short of its purpose.
Indeed, I know that some assign another interpretation to this passage, arguing that those who were crucifying Christ and were present at His passion were not, in fact, Jews, but rather Romans and others originating from the nations. For the Jews had declared, "According to our law He ought to die, but it is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," and having handed Christ over to Pilate, the Roman soldiers and others from the nations were thereafter the ministers of the deeds performed against Christ. For indeed, in the betrayal of the Lord, the Jews, being subjects of the Romans and not able to carry out what they wished by themselves, did not dare to undertake His capture alone, but instead joined the cohort and some tribune to themselves. C Therefore our Lord, Jesus Christ, as the lover of the human race and one providing for His own creation, wishing to express His kindness and humanity in the form of a prayer, says: "Do not hold this sin against them;" and afterward adds: "For they do not know what they are doing." For the Roman band and the other nations did not in truth know what they were doing, nor had they been instructed in what the Law and the prophets had foretold concerning Him. Therefore, they say, He prays for the Romans and the other nations, and the fruit of this prayer appeared immediately. For you may see in the very time of the passion the centurion confessing the crucified One as the Son of God, and a little later, that admirable man Longinus, not only confessing and believing in Christ, but also undertaking the path of martyrdom for Him, and demonstrating the sincerity of his faith as one that would never be shaken; and many others among those who were present at that time,
A you will find, have been deemed worthy of the adoption of God and have not fallen from the eternal kingdom.
QUESTION CCCXII. How many Asterii have there been, and what is their reputation?
That two Asterii flourished at the same time—the one, a sub-deacon of the Arian madness, and the other, a fosterling of pious doctrines—is true. The latter, frequenting the great Julian, was trained in the monastic struggles while still a youth; later, he even presided over an ascetic monastery, of which the celebrated Acacius of Beroea was a disciple, along with many other illustrious men. The former, a lover of the Arian heresy, pursued the sophistic art from his youth and had been reared in the error of the Greeks; later, simulating Christianity, he inclined toward the party of the Arians. And the one paid the penalty in Antioch for his licentious tongue, the event being brought about by the prayer of the wonderful Julian. The other [i.e., the first Asterius] goaded the holy man into inflicting just punishment upon him. B One, therefore, is the nursling of Orthodoxy, and the other is the herald of error. But not even he who drew up the account of the martyr Euphemia has anything in common with the defender of impiety. First, because the impious one paid the penalty sooner; for he who wrote the account of the aforementioned image, as he indicates in one of his own discourses, reached a deep old age in his life. Second, the one was full of Arian fury; but the other in his own writings professes the orthodox sentiment, namely, that the Son and Word of God does not come from non-being, as that frenzied Asterius impiously stated, but he theologically affirms that He always is and always co-exists with the Father. Third, that heretical Asterius did not receive the bishopric of Amasea, but of some other city near Antioch, as a wage of his impiety from his fellow heretics. C Then, having been summoned to Antioch by those of the same view to assist in the struggle for his impiety, he ended his life miserably through the prayers of the wonderful Julian, as mentioned before. Furthermore, the one teaches the flock, labors for the sake of the virtues, and is shown to be a harbor for every God-pleasing way of life; the other is known to have possessed nothing of the sort.
QUESTION CCCXIII. Regarding Jacob and Leah.
That after a week of years Jacob took Leah as his wife instead of Rachel, D the Scripture makes clear; and that he afterwards took Rachel in exchange for another period of servitude, extending for seven years, it similarly teaches clearly. But whether, having pledged the servitude, he took her immediately, or whether he took her later after passing through the whole of it, it does not clearly declare in response; rather, it leaves the matter as ambiguous as it is based upon the words: whether, having pledged the servitude, he immediately received Rachel as his wage, or whether, after the demonstration of his labors and the completion of his promise, he joined her to himself in marriage after this. From the words between both senses.
A the mind is divided. Some arguments, however, incline one to suppose that he took the woman into his company immediately after the promise. For if he had taken her after the completion of the seven years, Jacob would appear to have spent not only twenty years in the house of Laban, as he himself says, but even more than these. For if he married Rachel after fourteen years, an altogether different period had passed, in which her sterility was put to the test, and in which she offered her handmaids to Jacob for the procreation of offspring, in which they conceived in their bosom and bore children, and after this another period in which Rachel, relieved of the reproach of sterility, gave birth to Joseph. Then, after the birth of Joseph, the Scripture declares six years during which Jacob served Laban for the agreed-upon wage of sheep. These periods B do not total only twenty years, but if you add to these times the period in which Rachel was sterile and the time in which the handmaids were giving birth, a much longer time is gathered. But what wage is allotted to Jacob for the period between the fourteen and the six years of service? Since there appears to be no span of time in which Jacob performed service without a wage. For in the first week of years, for Rachel, Leah was his wage; for the second week, Rachel; and for the other six years, he acquired sheep for himself. What, then, is the wage for the time elapsed between the fourteen and the final six years? What other wage is detected? For it would be appropriate, if Jacob had joined Rachel to himself after the fourteen years had passed, and Rachel had first been sterile and then given birth—with another period consumed—that the wage for this space also should have been known and defined. But C nowhere in the Scripture is any other wage found, and nowhere is any other time except the fourteen and the six years, even when the intermediate time is calculated, posited between them.
MONITUM
Before the question marked in our Vatican index as CCCXIII, Mai published four others, which lack their own titles and inscriptions and, by some negligence of the amanuenses, were not numbered in the index. We append these, marked with their own numbers, lest the series and numbering of the questions be disturbed, since the numbers under which they appear in Mai are confused, and two questions would have to be marked with the same number if we were to follow him in this matter. After these four questions, we shall place those seven others which the Vatican codex lacks.
QUESTION CCCXIV
DConcerning the people numbered at David’s command.
This word of the second book of Kings, "David moved 51" — you see: and in the first book of Paralipomenon thus expressed: "Satan rose up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel 52." Although these two things may seem contrary, they do not, however, in the least conflict. For indeed the anger of the Lord moved David, that is to say, it pushed and incited him to number Israel, on account of the defection of the people. But Satan, as he always...
A does in Holy Scripture, is taken to mean punishment and temptation. Thus, if God had not been angry, David would not have been moved, that is, he would not have turned his mind to numbering the people. And if he had not been moved, neither would the temptation, that is, Satan, have fallen upon Israel; for the very act of numbering is said to be the cause of the temptation, even though it is rather the defection that effects the cause. For Moses also numbered the people, and David did so again after the plague; yet neither death nor punishment descended upon any of these numberings. That the word "Satan" is taken for temptation and chastisement is clear also from other passages. For it says: "And he raised up Satan against Israel, Ader the Jew." And the apostle Paul: "There was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the angel of Satan, that he might buffet me," where the angel serves as a minister B of temptation and chastisement; that is to say, one through whom buffeting and temptations come upon me. The saying might obscurely signify either Alexander the coppersmith, from whom Paul suffered many evils, or the tyrants and false teachers of that time who rose up against him and proved to be the agents and ministers of many temptations to him.
QUESTION CCCXV. Why David was called a man after God’s own heart.
The saying, "I have found David, a man after my own heart," is not found verbatim in the Old Testament. For although it is sung in the Psalms: "I have found David my servant, with my holy oil I have anointed him," yet the phrase C differs greatly from the one mentioned. It would be closer to what the prophet Samuel said to Saul; for, reproaching him for his transgression of the legal commandments and announcing in advance the loss of his kingdom, he says to him: "Because thou dost not wish to walk in the ways of the Lord and to keep His commandments, the Lord will choose for Himself a man after His own heart, who will do all things pleasing before Him." But even if this is broader than the psalmic phrase, yet it is not in all respects entirely identical in terms to "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart." However, the divine Paul, knowing this and speaking in the Acts, fashions it in this way. D David is said to have been found a man after the heart of God because, among many commandments through which the manner of virtue is characterized, no other virtue raises us nearer to God and, as far as is permitted to human nature, lifts us to His likeness, as does returning good for evil to our enemies. For indeed the Lord’s word in the Gospels says: "Be merciful, as also your Father is merciful; for He makes His sun to rise upon the good and the evil." And again: "Do good to those who hate you, that you may become like my Father who is in the heavens." Therefore David, having attained this virtue, even if in other respects, being as he was a man
he showed himself inferior to the nature A of the divine, yet not undeservedly, even in piety and other virtues, did he excel not only Saul, but also almost everyone who followed him in age. For no one, he says, lived so rightly before the Lord as David. Therefore, foreseeing the virtue of David, the prophet says, as "The Lord will choose for Himself a man according to His own heart, and he will do all things pleasing before Him."
Nothing prevents us, when searching the inner meanings of these words in the Scriptures, from referring them not to David alone, but much more to Christ, sprung from the seed of David and Jesse, whose kingdom shall have no end. For the Holy Scripture says elsewhere B about Him: "He shall call upon Me: You are My Father; and I will establish Him as the first-born, high above the kings of the earth." God, therefore, foretelling through the Prophet that Christ, sprung from the seed of David according to His humanity—but the Word from God, God our Savior—found a man according to His own heart, as one joined to one and the same will, even if this was recognized in the compound of human nature, and in this the will and the energy are inseparable from the Father’s will. "For what the Father wills," He says, "these things the Son also wills." And a myriad of other things. And according to the strict sense of the word, He is the only one who has performed all the things pleasing to the Father; C since David, while living his life, was not entirely free from fault. This is indeed clearly perceived in the case of Uriah and the census of the people, and especially in the wrath of his fury with which he rushed upon Nabal, and in that, by not perfectly fulfilling the law, he fell under a certain curse. For he even appears not to have eaten the Passover, and to have violated not a few of the ordinances of the law, though not those of the greatest importance. Likewise, concerning the commands which he gave to his son Solomon regarding Joab and Shimei; and from these words of God: "You shall not build a house for Me, because you are a man of blood." Although these have excuses that protect David’s innocence, nevertheless, at first glance, they appear to many as obstacles to the claim that David did all things according to the heart of God.
QUESTION CCCXVI.
Why manna fell from heaven in the desert. DManna which was poured out to the Israelites in the desert in the morning, and the quail which rained down in the evening, pertain to the same figure. Manna indeed was poured out in the morning, because it was a figure of the heavenly bread, Christ our God, who as the Sun of righteousness and rising of the sun appeared to us sitting in darkness. Since, therefore, the sensible manna has a certain similarity to this Sun and dawn of righteousness, it is fittingly poured out in the morning, that it might preserve its likeness with its kindred. But the quail rained down in the evening, to provide victims for the sacrifice of the Israelites, since it foreshadowed the worship which was performed among the Jews in darkness and as it were amidst the obscure vestiges of the truth, with rich and smoky vapors.
A And quite reasonably, towards evening, the thing prefiguring the legal sacrifice was brought to the Israelites. Likewise, if anyone else should wish to take this as a foreshadowing of the faith in Christ, he would not err from what is fitting. And so too, the body of Christ, which the Savior took and gave to the disciples, saying, "Take, eat, all of you." If anyone should say that the manna was a foreshadowing, he would reasonably find it to be brought to the Israelites in the morning. For even the Catholic Church of God keeps this custom today, celebrating the holy and pure and unbloody sacrifice in the morning time, and waiting for the grace of the All-Holy Spirit.
Question CCCXVII
(Edited by Mai, l.c., p. 156, 157, n. 314. In Gen. XVII, 2 sqq.)In the word, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee," B spoken to Abraham, God shows that circumcision is the sign of his covenant. But the phrase, "between me and thee," has this power: "My covenant itself will be in the midst between us, because my promises from me will not be false." This phrase, "between me and thee," can also signify a certain extension of time, and if one wished to measure this by means of circumcision, God would be held to be saying almost this: "The covenant which I have made with thee shall be until the time when I become man. And my covenant, namely circumcision, which shall begin from thee, shall thrive until me." For after the circumcision of the Lord Christ, C the circumcision of the foreskin which took place according to the law had no more room. But as many as have been circumcised, have been circumcised even against the law; but this circumcision defined by God has its end in Christ himself.
QUESTION CCCXVIII
[Coisl. Taur. XCIII]. Why did Jesus rebuke Peter, who took his death ill? (Edited by Wolf, *Cur. Philol.*, t. V, p. 684. Galland. p. 706, n. 9).The cause of this matter is that, although he seemed to speak from a hot affection and fervent love, he nevertheless did what was pleasing to the devil by that same work. For Christ not suffering brought the greatest profit to Satan, D since he would not otherwise be dislodged from his tyranny over men. For this reason, therefore, the rebuke also says: "Go behind me, Satan, for thou dost not savor the things of God."
QUESTION CCCXIX
[Coisl. Taur. XCIV]. Of the sedition of Absalom. Unpublished. What does the sedition of Absalom against his father signify? It images the sedition of the Jews against the Savior . . .QUESTION CCCXX
[Coisl. Taur. XCV]. How does our Savior, ordering everyone to love, nevertheless, in sending his disciples to preach, command them to salute no one on the way? (Edited by Wolf, *Cur. Philol.*, t. V, p. 684. Galland. p. 706, n. 10, q. 94). It was necessary, for these things are not contrary to one another. He knew that they do not conflict with each other.for they are not permitted to have leisure for greetings and salutations, seeing they have a higher regard for the proclamation of the Gospel. Indeed, this did not hinder love, but rather increased it, since that proclamation of the disciples offered to men freedom from vices, together with the placability and salvation that is to be obtained from God. A
QUESTION CCCXXI
[Coist. Taur. XCVII]. In Deuteronony xiv, 1. — Inedita. *What does it mean to "lustrate oneself" and to "put baldness around one's head" as a folly?* To "lustrate oneself" [ϕοιβήσασθαι] he mentions in place of "do not practice divination." BQUESTION CCCXXII
[Taur. Coist. CVIII]. Concerning the raven ministering to the prophet, III Kings xvii, 6. — Inedita. *Why does the raven, although it is unclean, minister to the prophet?* The raven, although unclean, provides food for the prophet. CQUESTION CCCXXIII
[Coist. CCLXVIII. Taur. CCLLIX]. — Inedita. *If the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, does the Father not also assume flesh in the incarnation of the Son? And if the whole Deity was in the Son, how does the Father remain apart from flesh?* May [this] precede the proposed doubt . . . DQUESTION CCCXXIV
. Which is from the Taurinensis codex only (CXC). — Inedita. *Concerning the dragon the devil.* Because Scripture often calls the devil a dragon.INDICES TO THE AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS.
1. SYNOPSIS OF THE AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS, AS THEY CORRESPOND IN THE THREE CODICES. [index: entries preserved][index: entries preserved]
II. SYNOPSIS OF THE QUESTIONS EDITED BY WOLF, AS THEY ARE NOW ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN CODEX.
1. q. 74 is CLXXIV 2. q. 76 is LXXVI 3. q. 81 is CCXXXII 4. q. 86 is CCXXXVII 5. q. 87 is CCXXXIX 6. q. 88 is CCXLI 7. q. 89 is CCXXVII 8. q. 91 is CCXLIV 9. q. 93 is CCCXVIII 10. q. 94 is CCCXX 11. q. 99 is CCXLVIII 12. q. 102 is LXXIX 13. q. 111 is CLV 14. q. 119 is CLVI 15. q. 120 is CCXCVIII 16. q. 121 is CLVII 17. q. 122 is CCCVI 18. q. 123 is CLVIII 19. q. 124 is CCCVII 20. q. 141 is CCCVIII 21. q. 142 is CCCIX 22. q. 143 is CLIX 23. q. 144 is CXXIII 24. q. 145 is CXXIV 25. q. 146 is CXXV 26. q. 147 is CXXVI 27. q. 148 is CXXVII 28. q. 149 is CXXVIII 29. q. 150 is CXXXII 30. q. 154 is CXXXIII 31. q. 155 is CXXXV 32. q. 157 is CXXXVI 33. q. 158 is CLX 34. q. 185 is CLXI 35. q. 186 is CCCX 36. q. 187 is CLXII 37. q. 188 is CCCXI 38. q. 189 is CLXIII 39. q. 190 is CXIX 40. q. 191 is CXX 41. q. 192 is CLXVII 42. q. 193 is CXXI 43. q. 194 is CXXII 44. q. 196 is CLXVIII 45. q. 197 is CLXX 46. q. 199 is CLXXI
III. INDEX OF THE EPISTLES OF PHOTIUS, WHICH ARE INSERTED INTO THE AMPHILOCHIA.
Epist. 30. London Edit. is q. CLXXI Epist. 31. London Edit. is q. CLXXII Epist. 33. London Edit. is q. CLXXIII Epist. 34. London Edit. is q. CXCIII Epist. 35. London Edit. is q. CXCIV Epist. 36. London Edit. is q. CXCV
Epist. 37. London Edit. is q. CXCVI. 38. — CXCVII. 43. — CXCVIII. 50. — CXCIX. 54. — CC. 58. — CCI. 61. — CCII. 62. — CCIII. 63. — CCIV. 64. — CCV. 72. — CCVI. 74. — CCVII. 75. — CCVIII. 76. — CCIX. 77. — CCX. 102. — CCXI. 125. — CCXII. 127. — CCXIII. 129. — CCXIV. 132. — CCXV. 133. — CCXVI. 134. — CCXVII. 135. — CCXXII. 137. — CCXVIII. 138. — CCXIX. 139. — CCXX. 144. — CCXXI. 145. — LXXXI. 147. — LXXXII. 151. — LXXXIII. 152. — LXXXIV. 155. — LXXXV. 156. — LXXXVI. 157. — LXXXVII. 161. — LXXXVIII. 162. — LXXXIX. 163. — XC. 164. — XCI. 165. — XCII. 166. — XCIII. 167. — XCIV. 176. — XCV. 177. — XCVI. 178. — XCVII. 180. — XCVIII. 181. — XCIX. 182. — C. 187. — CI. 192. — CII. 196. — CIII. 203. — CIV. 205. — CV. 208. — CVI. 209. — CVII. 210. — CVIII. 211. — CIX. 213. — CX. 214. — CXI. 216. — CXII. 219. — CXIII. 228. — CXIV. 241. — CXV. 246. — CXVI. 247. — CXVII. 248. — CXVIII.
IV. INDEX OF THE NUMBERS ADDED TO THE QUESTIONS BY MAI, WHICH ARE NOW CORRECTED AND CHANGED.
Mai's q. 78 is now q. CCCI. 81. — CCCIV. 83. — CCCV. 121. — CXXXI. 132. — CCCIII. 244. — CCXLV. 246. — CCXLVII. Et sic deinceps... 256. — CCLVII. 257. — CCLVIII. 258. — CCLIX. 260. — CCLX. 270. — CCLXI. 271. — CCLXII. Et sic deinceps... 276. — CCLXVII. 277. — CCLXVIII. 278. — CCLXIX. 279. — CCLXX. 280. — CCLXXI. 282. — CCLXXII. 284. — CCLXXIV. Et sic deinceps... 290. — CCLXXX. 299. — CCLXXXIX. 300. — CCXC. 307. — CCXCVII. 308. — CCXCIX. 309. — CCC. 310. — CCCII. 311. — CCCXIV. 312. — CCCXV. 313. — CCCXVI. 314. — CCCXVII. 315. — CCCXVIII.
V.
INDEX OF AMPHILOCHIAN QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO VARIOUS EDITORS
[TABLE OF COMPARISON]
NOTE. We have omitted here the questions edited by Combefis, as they have been edited more accurately by others. The questions enclosed in parentheses are not counted as being already edited by others. Thus, 313 questions have been edited. Eleven questions remain unpublished: CXLVIII, CLXXXVII, CCXXVIII-CCXXXI, CCCXIX, CCCXXI-CCCXXIV.
VI.
INDEX OF THE MORE IMPORTANT PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE WHICH PHOTIUS EXPLAINS OR CITES IN THE AMPHILOCHIA
Genesis, chap. I, A vers. 1, q. VI, XV, LXXIX. — 2, q. XVI, CCXLIX. — 3, q. CCL. — 20, q. CCLI. — 26, q. XXXVI, CCLII, CCLIII. — 31, q. XIX. — Gen. II, 2, q. II. — II, 8, q. LI. — 15, q. CCXCIV. — Gen. II, 17, q. CCXL, c. 5. B — III, 7, q. XIV. — 13, q. XXXIV. — 16, 17, q. CCLIV. — 21, q. LXX, q. I, c. 26. — 22, q. XXIII. — IV, 7, q. LXXI, CIX, XXXIII. — 8, q. XI, CIV. — 10, q. XL, CCXL. — Gen. V, 5-24, q. CCXL, c. 4. — VI, 2, q. CCLV. — VII, 13, q. CCXCVI. — IX, 21, q. CCXCVII. — Gen. IX, 6, q. CCXL, c. 4. C — XVI, 25, q. CCLVI, CCLVII. — Gen. XVII, v. 2, q. CCCXVII. — XV, 14, q. CCLVIII. — Gen. c. XVII, v. 11, q. CV. — XXVI, 2, q. CCVII. — Gen. XXI, 31, 32, q. CCLXXIX. D
A
INDICES OF QUESTIONS
Gen. chap. XXVIII, v. 18, q. CCXXXVI. XXIX, v. 20, q. CCCXII. XXXII, v. 24, q. CCLIX. XXXVI, v. 24, q. LVIII. XLVI, v. 21, q. XXXIX. — Gen. XLVII, 31, q. CCXXXVII. XLIX, q. CCLX. Exod. chap. III, IV, q. CCC, CCLXI. v. 6, q. CCLXII. v. 21, q. XLI. v. 22, q. CCCIII. v. 24, q. CCLXIII. v. 31, q. XLII. VII, v. 1, q. LIII, v. 3, cf., q. CCCI. VIII, v. 10-19, q. XL. IX, v. 22, q. XL. XII, v. 1 seq., q. XL, XLII. XIII, v. 23, q. XXXIV. XIV, v. 6, q. CCXCV. XVI, v. 11, q. CCLXIV. XIX, v. 21, q. XLII, CCLXV. XX, v. 6 seq., 22 q. XLII, CCLXV. B XXI, v. 13, q. XLII. — Exod. XVIII, 5, q. CCLXIII. XXIII, v. 9, q. XXXIV. XXIV, v. 3, q. CCLXVI. — Exod. XX, v. 12, q. CCXL, c. 4. XXVI, v. 24, q. XXXVII. XXI, v. 15, q. CCLXVII. — Exod. XXII, 23, q. XVII. XXIV, v. 1, q. XXXII. XXVI, v. 19, q. XXXIV. XXVIII, v. 30-36, q. CCLXIII. XXXIV, v. 10, q. XVIII. XXXIV, v. 26, q. XXX. — Exod. XXXIX, 30, 31, q. CLXV. XL, v. 17-19, q. CXIII. Levit. chap. X, v. 4, q. XXXIX. XIII, v. 47, q. CCLXX. XIV, v. 13, q. CCXXXIV. XVII, v. 34, q. CCLXXII. XIX, v. 19, q. CCLXXI. XXI, v. 20, q. XXX. XXII, v. 33, 34, q. CCLXIV. XXIV, v. 16, q. XC. Num. chap. I, v. 13, q. CCLXXIV. — Num. I, 26, 27, q. CCLX. V, v. 15-55, q. CCLXXV. C XI, v. 1, q. CCLXXVI, XLII. XIV, v. 28, q. LXII. XVI, v. 6, ibid. XX, v. 22, q. XXXIII. — v. 23 seq., q. XLII. — v. 31 seq., q. XXXIII. — v. 37 seq., q. CCLXXVII. Deut. chap. II, v. 11, q. XLII. III, v. 12, q. CCLXXVIII. — Num. XXV, v. 7, q. CCXL, c. 4. IV, v. 25, q. XLII. V, v. 7, q. XLII. XIV, v. 11, q. XXXIX. — Deut. IV, v. 26, q. CCLXXIX. XV, v. 22, 23, ibid. — Deut. XIV, v. 1, q. CCCXXI. XVII, v. 21, q. XXX. XXII, v. 21, q. XXXVII. XXV, v. 6, q. XLII. XXXII, v. 8, q. LIX. — v. 6, 9, 11, q. XXX. — v. 4, ibid. — Deut. XVI, v. 16, q. XVIII. — Deut. XXXI, 16, 17, q. CXLIX, c. 9. Josue, chap. XVIII, v. 1, q. CCLXXIX. Judic. chap. XVIII, v. 8, q. XXXVI. I Reg. chap. IX, v. 43, q. CCLXXX. XV, v. 48-52, q. CCLXXXI. XVIII, v. 24, XIX, v. 47, q. CCLX. II Reg. chap. VI, v. 7, q. CCLX. — v. 4, q. CXV. — Judic. X, v. 14, q. LXXXIX, c. 4. D XXII, v. 8, q. CCXL, c. 4. — I Reg. chap. XXVIII, v. 18, q. I, c. 26. III Reg. chap. IV, v. 7 seq., q. LXXXIII. XI, v. 14, q. CCXCIII. XVIII, v. 20, q. CCXCII. XIX, v. 10, q. XXXIV. IV Reg. XXII, v. 31, q. CXV. — II Reg. VII, 13, q. CCCXV. — v. 1 seq., 11, q. CCCI. — III Reg. XVII, 6; q. CCCXXII. — v. 40, q. CCXL, c. 4. — III Reg. XXII, 20; q. I, c. 28. I Paralip. chap. XV, v. 13, q. CCXL, c. 4. — IV Reg. XX, 6; q. CXLIX, c. 8. — v. 27, q. CCXL, c. 4. — II Reg. XI, 1, q. CCCII. XVIII, v. 27, q. CII. — I Paral. XXI, 5; q. CCXXXVII, CCCXIV. Esther, chap. XV, v. 5, q. XXXIV. — II Reg. XXIV, 1, q. CCCI, CCCXIV. Job, chap. I, v. 7, q. CCXXVI. — I Paral. XXII, 8-10, q. CCCXV. — v. 18-19, q. CCXL, c. 4.
Indices to the Questions.
Job, chap. VI, 3, q. I, c. 26. — chap. III, 3, q. CLXXIV. — chap. VI, 11, q. I, c. 28. — chap. XI, 7, q. XXXIV. — chap. XXIII, 3, q. I, c. 28. — Job XXIX, 2, q. I, c. 27. — chap. XXXVIII, 30, q. XXXIV. Psal. 1-2, q. CCLXXXVIII, CCLXXXIX. — chap. VI, 1, q. CCLXXXVII. — chap. VII, 6, q. CCCV. — chap. IX, 3, q. I, c. 37. — chap. XIII, 1, q. CCCIV. — chap. XVIII, 7, q. XXXIV. — chap. XXI, 8, q. CXXIX; q. I, c. 25. — chap. XXIII, 6, q. XXXIV. — chap. XXXIV, 14, q. XLII. — chap. XLIII, 19, q. XLI. — chap. L, 6, q. LVI, CCXXXVIII. — chap. LIV, 24, q. CXLIX, c. 9, 15, q. CCXL, c. 5. — chap. LXXII, 10, q. CXLIX, c. 15. — chap. LXXVII, 34, q. XXXIII. — Ps. LXXVIII, v. 4, q. XLII. — chap. LXXXVIII, 49, q. I, c. 25. — Vers. 21, q. CCCXV. — chap. CI, 25, q. CXLIX, c. 15; CCXL, c. 5. — chap. CII, 14, 15, q. XXXIV. — chap. CIII, 21, q. CXLIX, c. 5. — chap. CVI, 29, q. I, c. 27. — chap. CVII, 43, q. XLII. — chap. CXIII, 13, q. CXI. — chap. CXXVI, 4, q. XLII. — chap. CXXX, 12, q. CCXCIX. — chap. CXXXIV, 1, q. CXI. — chap. CXLVI, 15, q. XLII. — chap. CXL, 10, q. CCXC. — chap. CXLI, 1, q. CCXCI. Proverb. chap. I, 6, q. XXXIV. — chap. IV, 31, q. CXLIX, c. 23. — chap. XI, 10, q. CXLIX, c. 9, 17. — Prov. VIII, v. 22, 30, ibid. — chap. XX, 6, (LXX), q. IX. Sapientia, chap. I, 13, q. CCXL, c. 4. — chap. VI, 7, q. CCLXXXI. — chap. VII, 26, q. XXXVI. Eccle. chap. I, 2, q. I, c. 37. — chap. III, 4, q. LXV, cap. II. — Vers. 15, q. XLIV. — chap. VI, 19, q. CXLIX, c. 7. — chap. VII, 3-5, q. LXVIII. — chap. IX, 15-18, q. LXVIII, LXIX, CXLIX, c. 8, 9. — chap. X, 4-8, q. XLIV, XLI. — chap. XI, 8-10, q. LXIII, LXIV. Eccli. chap. XI, 1, q. LXII. — chap. XXIII, 16, q. XXXIV. Isa. chap. I, 29, q. CXLIX, c. 13. — chap. V, 1, 2, q. XLII, CLXIX, CCLIX. — chap. VI, 1, q. CCLX. — chap. VIII, 8, 9, q. I, c. 28, XLI. — chap. XIV, 22, q. XXXIV. — chap. XXIX, 12, q. XXXIV. — chap. XXX, 15, q. XLII. — chap. XXXVIII, 1-3, ibid. — chap. XLII, 5, q. CXLIX, c. 9. — chap. XLV, 6, q. CXLIX, c. 5. — chap. LIII, 7, q. CCCI. — chap. LIX, 1 seq., q. I, c. 27. — chap. LX, 1 seq., q. 9, XLII. — chap. LXIII, 2, q. XXXIV. — chap. LXIV, 1-11 seq., q. I, c. 27; q. XLII. — chap. LXVI, 5, q. XLII. Jerem. chap. II, 4, q. XXXIV. — chap. IX, 12, q. CCLIX. — chap. X, 21, q. CCLX. — chap. XLIX, 1, p. 1, c. 27. Ezechiel. chap. I, 23, q. XLII. — chap. III, 13, q. CLXXV. Dan. chap. X, q. LXXXVII. Amos. chap. III, 4-7, q. CXLIX, c. 9. Mich. chap. V, 13-20, q. XXXVI. Matth. chap. I, 6, q. I, c. 23; CCXL, cap. 6. — chap. I, 8, q. XXXIV. — chap. I, 18-20, q. XXII, C. — chap. I, 22, q. XXV. — chap. I, 25, q. CLXXI. — chap. II, 1, q. CCCVI. — chap. II, 8, q. CCCVII. — chap. II, 16, q. XXVI. — chap. III, 6, q. XXIX. — chap. III, 9, q. XXXI, CCX. — chap. III, 11, q. XXXIV, CCXVI. — chap. III, 12, q. XXXII.
INDICES TO THE QUESTIONS
Matth. cap. IV, vers. 11, q. CCLXXIX. — Ibid. 19, q. XCII. — cap. V, vers. 24, q. X. — cap. V, vers. 12, 16, 17, q. XCIV, CXCIX. — cap. V, vers. 28, q. CCXX. — cap. V, vers. 38-39, q. XXXVII, XLVI, CIII, CXXXV. — cap. VI, vers. 2-4, q. XCIV. — cap. VI, vers. 17, q. CCXIV. — cap. VI, vers. 28, q. XXX. — cap. VII, vers. 6, q. CC. — cap. VIII, vers. 3, q. LX. — cap. VIII, vers. 12, q. XXXIV. — cap. IX, vers. 22, q. CCXLVIII. — cap. X, vers. 9, 10, q. I. — cap. X, vers. 16, q. XXXIV. — cap. X, vers. 29, q. XXX. — cap. XI, vers. 11, q. LXXIX, CCCIX. — cap. XI, vers. 17, q. XXXIV. — cap. XII, vers. 31, q. XLIX, CCXIII. — cap. XII, vers. 48, q. XLV, CCXV. — cap. XIII, vers. 13, q. XXXIV. — cap. XIII, vers. 14, q. XXVI. — cap. XIII, vers. 36, q. XXXIV. — cap. XIII, vers. 58, q. CCXLVIII. — cap. XIV, vers. 4, q. CCCVIII. — cap. XV, vers. 15, q. XXXIV. — cap. XVI, vers. 23, q. CCCXVIII. — cap. XVII, vers. 14, q. X. — cap. XVIII, vers. 3, q. XXXIV. — cap. XVIII, vers. 7, q. V. — cap. XVIII, vers. 22, q. I, c. 19. — cap. XIX, vers. 14-21, q. XXXIV, CXCVIII. — cap. XX, vers. 12-15, q. XXXIV. — cap. XX, vers. 22, q. CCLX. — cap. XXI, vers. 32, 33, q. XXIX, CCLXXIX. — cap. XXII, vers. 30, q. CCXLIV. — cap. XXIV, vers. 27, q. XXXIV. — cap. XXIV, vers. 36, q. CXIV. — cap. XXV, vers. 2, 6, 12, q. XXXIV. — cap. XXV, vers. 34, q. XV. — cap. XXVI, vers. 7, q. XLVIII. — cap. XXVI, vers. 13, q. LV. — cap. XXVI, vers. 32, q. CX. — Vers. 45, q. I. — cap. XXVI, vers. 67, q. CXXXIII, c. 3. — cap. XXVI, vers. 69-75, q. XCVII. — cap. XXVII, vers. 51, q. CCXII. — cap. XXVIII, vers. 19, q. XLIII, c. 1.
Marc. cap. I, vers. 4, q. XXIX. — cap. I, vers. 7, q. CCXVI. — cap. I, vers. 8, q. XXIX. — cap. III, vers. 21, q. L. — cap. III, vers. 29, q. XLIX, CCXIII. — cap. III, vers. 33, q. XLV, CCXV. — cap. IV, vers. 40, q. I, c. 27. — cap. VIII, vers. 15, 17-18, q. CCVIII. — cap. X, vers. 38, q. CCLX. — cap. XII, vers. 16, q. CCLX. — cap. XIII, vers. 32, q. CXIV. — cap. XIV, vers. 28, q. CX. — cap. XVI, vers. 9, q. CLVIII.
Luc. cap. II, vers. 8-20, q. CLV, v. 21, q. CXVIII. — cap. II, vers. 25 seq., q. CLVI. — cap. II, vers. 34 seq., q. CLVII, CLXXVI. — cap. III, vers. 2-3, q. XXIX. — cap. III, vers. 17, q. XXXII. — cap. III, vers. 8-16, q. XXIX, XXXI, CCX, CCXVI. — cap. VII, vers. 28, q. CCXXII. — cap. VII, vers. 32, q. XXXIV. — cap. VII, vers. 37, q. XLVIII. — cap. VIII, vers. 2, q. CLVIII. — cap. VIII, vers. 10, q. XXXIV, LXXVI. — cap. VIII, vers. 34, q. CCIX. — cap. IX, vers. 3, q. I. — cap. X, vers. 4, q. CCCXX, I. — cap. X, vers. 30, q. I. — cap. XII, vers. 10, q. XLIX, CCXIII. — cap. XII, vers. 33, q. CI. — cap. XII, vers. 48, q. CCLXXXI. — cap. XIII, vers. 1-7, q. CCXL, c. 5. — cap. XV, vers. 13, 17, 19, 28, q. XXXIV. — Ibid. 11, 32, q. CLXXV. — cap. XVI, vers. 1, 22, 24, q. XXXIV. — cap. XVI, vers. 29, q. CCIX. — cap. XVIII, vers. 2-5, q. XXXIV. — cap. XVIII, vers. 34, q. CCIX. — cap. XXI, vers. 14, 15, q. XXXV. — cap. XXII, vers. 36, q. I. — cap. XXII, vers. 44, q. CCXIX. — cap. XXII, vers. 55-61, q. XCVII. — cap. XXIII, vers. 34, q. I, c. 22.
INDICES TO THE QUESTIONS
John, chap. I, vers. 42-43, q. VI, XV. — chap. III, vers. 5, q. CCXII. — chap. IV, vers. 49, q. CCLXXIX. — chap. V, vers. 3-4, q. I, c. 32-33-37. — chap. VI, vers. 14, q. XXXVI, CCXL, c. 4. — Ibid. 16-17, q. CCXVII. — chap. VIII, vers. 18, q. CXIX. — chap. IX, vers. 22, q. I, c. 25. — chap. X, vers. 33, q. XXIX. — chap. XII, vers. 3, q. CLXXIV. — chap. XII, vers. 5, q. VIII, XXIX. — chap. XII, vers. 22, seq., q. LVII. — chap. XIV, vers. 21-22, q. LXXIV. — chap. XV, vers. 17, q. II. — chap. XVI, vers. 34, q. XVII, XCVIII. — chap. XVIII, vers. 7, q. I, c. 17. — chap. XVIII, vers. 12, q. XXXIV. — chap. XVIII, vers. 14, q. XCVIII, I. — chap. XIX, vers. 44, q. XLVII, CCXLI, CCXCVIII. — chap. XIX, vers. 6, q. III. — chap. XIX, vers. 39, q. XII. — chap. XX, vers. 8, q. I, c. 53. — chap. XX, vers. 35, q. XXXIV. — chap. XX, vers. 37-38, q. CLX. — chap. XX, vers. 40, q. XLI. — chap. XV, vers. 2-3, q. XCVI. — chap. XVI, vers. 4-5, q. XCIX. — chap. XVIII, vers. 10, q. CLIX. — chap. XIX, vers. 28, q. XCV. — chap. XV, vers. 13, q. CCXL, c. 4. — chap. XVI, vers. 16, q. I, c. 17. — chap. XVIII, vers. 12, q. XXXIV. — chap. XVIII, vers. 23, q. I, CXXXV. — chap. XIX, vers. 34, q. CCCX, CCLX. — chap. XIX, vers. 25, q. XXXIX. — chap. XX, vers. 17, q. CCXVIII.
Acts of the Apostles, chap. I, vers. 1, q. CXXIII, XV. — chap. I, vers. 4, q. CXXV. — chap. II, vers. 10-11, q. CXXVIII, CCLXXX. — chap. V, vers. 6, q. LXXXI. — chap. VII, vers. 38, q. XLIII. — chap. IX, vers. 1 seq., q. I, c. 19; IV, 15-18, q. XCII. — chap. X, vers. 6, q. CCCXI, I, c. 22. — chap. XII, vers. 14-16, q. XLIII, c. 10. — chap. XIII, vers. 42, q. CXCII. — chap. XIV, vers. 7, q. CCLXXIX. — chap. XVII, vers. 10, q. I, c. 20. — Ibid. 23, q. CCCXV. — chap. XXIII, vers. 10-12, q. CCCII. — chap. XXVI, vers. 23, q. CCIII. — chap. XXVII, vers. 28, q. CLI. — chap. XXIII, vers. 3, q. I, c. 20. — chap. XXVI, vers. 28, q. CCLXXXII. — chap. XXVII, vers. 23, q. CCLXXIX.
In Paul's Epistles, q. XCII, XCIII, CXVI, CVII. Romans, chap. I, vers. 1, q. CXXXVI. — chap. I, vers. 4, q. CCLXXXIII. — chap. I, vers. 13, q. XCI, CCLXXXIV. — chap. I, vers. 16, q. CLXIV. — chap. I, vers. 17, q. CCLXXXV. — chap. I, vers. 24-26-28, q. XLI. — chap. II, vers. 4-6, q. CCLXIX. — chap. III, vers. 5, q. LXVII. — chap. III, vers. 19, q. CXLIX, c. 12, q. LXXXIV. — chap. V, vers. 18, q. I, c. 27. — chap. VII, vers. 21 seq., q. CLXI. — chap. VIII, vers. 29, q. CXLIX, c. 9. — chap. VIII, vers. 3, q. CXII. — chap. IX, vers. 8, q. XLI. — chap. XI, vers. 34-35, q. I, c. 25. — chap. XII, vers. 20, q. LII, LXXIX. — chap. III, vers. 1-5, q. XCII. — chap. V, vers. 4-5, q. XCII. — chap. VIII, vers. 18, q. CCXXXIX. — chap. VIII, vers. 33-34, q. XCII. — chap. XII, vers. 14-16, q. XCII.
1 Corinthians, chap. II, vers. 9, q. VI, XV, CLI. — chap. III, vers. 2, q. XXXIV. — chap. IV, vers. 13, q. CXXXIII. — chap. V, vers. 5, q. CCLXXXVI. — chap. VII, vers. 7-8, q. CCLXIV. — chap. VII, vers. 29, q. I, c. 92. — chap. IX, vers. 9, q. XXX. — Ibid. 26, q. XCII. — chap. X, vers. 1-4, q. CCLXV. — chap. XI, vers. 11, q. VII. — chap. XI, vers. 7, q. CCLIII. — chap. XI, vers. 40, q. CVIII. — chap. XI, vers. 27, q. LXXIII. — chap. XI, vers. 30, q. CCXL, c. 5. — chap. XIV, vers. 20, q. XXXIV. — chap. XIV, vers. 22, q. CCXLVIII. — chap. XV, vers. 32-33, q. CLI.
2 Corinthians, chap. I, vers. 4, q. XLI. — Ibid. IV, 35-50, q. XXII. — chap. IV, vers. 6, q. XCIII. — Ibid. V, 13, q. XCII.
V, 17, q. CLXVII. — VI, 20, q. CCXXXII. — XI, 6, q. LXXXV. — IX, 13-14, q. XCIII. — XII, 6, q. XCII. Galat. cap. III, vers. 27, q. CXXVII. — cap. IV, vers. 4, q. CCXXVII. — cap. V, vers. 15-16, q. LIV, CXLVIII. — cap. VI, vers. 15-16, q. CLI. Coloss. cap. I, vers. 15, q. CLXII. — cap. I, vers. 24, q. CXXI, XCIII. — cap. III, vers. 22, q. XCIII. Ephes. cap. I, vers. 15-16, q. XCIII. — cap. II, 6, q. CCXLIV. — cap. II, 7, q. VII. — III, 4, 13-16, q. XCII. — cap. II, 14, q. CLI. — cap. IV, 20-22, q. XCIII. — cap. VI, 2, q. XXXIV. — cap. VI, 12, q. CXXII. Philipp. cap. I, vers. 20, q. CXX. — cap. II, 7, q. XXXVI. — cap. III, 13-14, q. XCIII. — cap. III, 20, q. XCII. II Thess. cap. II, vers. 14, q. XCIII. 1 Tim. cap. II, 1, q. CLXII. — cap. IV, 4, q. XXXII. — cap. IV, 14-15, q. LXXII. — cap. VI, 11-17, q. XCIII. II Tim. cap. IV, vers. 14, q. I, c. 29. — cap. IV, 21, q. XCII. Tit. cap. I, vers. 12, q. CLI. Hebr. cap. I, vers. 3, q. XXXVI. — cap. II, 14, q. XXXIV. — cap. II, 17, q. XXXVI. — cap. IV, 12, q. CXLIX, c. 25. — cap. IV, 15, q. XXXVI. — cap. IX, 29, q. CCLXVIII. — X, 1, q. CCXVII. — cap. XI, 4, q. I, c. 23. — cap. XII, 21, q. CCXXXVII. — cap. XII, 29, q. XXXII. Jac. cap. I, vers. 9, q. CXXXVI, c. 3. — cap. I, 13, q. I, c. 23. — cap. IV, 4, q. CLXXVIII. — cap. V, 9, q. CLXXVII. I Petr. cap. II, vers. 3-16, q. CLXXIX. — cap. III, 15, q. XXXV. — cap. V, 5, q. LXXXVI. — cap. V, 8, q. XXXIV. II Petr. cap. I, vers. 18, q. CXXXII. — cap. I, 19, q. XXXIV. — cap. II, 17, q. ibid. — cap. III, 15-16, q. XCII. I Joan. cap. II, vers. 12 sq., q. CXXXII. — cap. III, 9, q. VIII. Judae, vers. 6-9-13-15, q. XXXIV, CLI. — vers. 23, q. IV. Apoc. cap. III, 21, q. CCXLIV. — cap. VII, 5, q. XXXIV.
FATHERS AND OTHER AUTHORS WHO ARE CITED BY PHOTIUS IN THE AMPHILOCHIA, REVIEWED HERE
Apocrypha, Old Testament, of Moses, Elias, Jeremiah, Enoch, q. CLI. Apollinaris, q. I, c. 33. Aratus, q. CLI. Aristoteles, q. CXXXVII, CXXXVIII sq., LXXVII, c. 10. Aquila, q. XL, CXV, CLIV, CCLV. Asterius, q. CCCXII. Athanasius, q. CXIX, CXLIX, c. 13 (Epist. ad Joan. et Pallad., q. CXLIX, c. 5). Basilius, q. CXIX, CXLIX, c. 5 (Sermo de Julitta mart. vel sermo 2, de Euchar. c. 5; q. CXLIX, c. 6; CCXL, c. 6). Hom. I de hominis structura, q. XXXVI, not. Callimachus, q. CLI. Cyrillus Alex., q. CCXLIII. Dionysius Areop., q. CXIX. Epimenides, q. CLI. Eulogius Alex., q. CXXXII, not. Eusebius Cæsar., q. CCXXI. Gregorius Nazianzenus, q. LXX, XXXVI. — Orat. in S. Basil., q. CXLIX, c. 3. — Orat. 2 de Filio, q. LXXVIII. — Hom. II in Pascha, q. XXXVI. — Orat. in S. Lumina, q. CCXXXIII. Heracleon, q. CCXVII. Job monachus, not. ad q. CLXXXVIII, CXCI. Joannes Chrysostomus, q. CXIX, CLXI, CCXVII. Joannes Climacus, q. CCLXXIII. Joannes Damascenus, q. XXXII, LXXX. Julianus Apostata, q. CI, CIX. Lucianus, q. CLIV. Macedonius, q. I, c. 33. Maximus, q. LXXX. Menander comicus, q. CLI.PHOTII PATRIARCHÆ CP. COMMENTARIORUM IN NOVUM TESTAMENTUM QUÆ SUPERSUNT. FRAGMENTA IN MATTHÆUM.
(Ex Catena Corderii Græc. Lat. in Matth. tom. I, in-fol.)
A Cap. I. Vers. 2. *Abraham genuit Isaac.* Photius. Abraham was justified by faith. To him, now believing, God said: "I will multiply thy seed, and I will give thee the land. And in thee shall all the tribes be blessed." If, therefore, God speaks the truth, and the Jews alone are the seed of Abraham, but these have never possessed the land in its entirety, nor do they possess it now, where is the truth of the divine promise made to Abraham? But since it is impossible for God to lie, it is manifest that God called the Church of the Gentiles the seed of Abraham. And this came to pass through Christ, who was to be born from his stock. In whom the nations, believing, were called the seed of Abraham, not by the law of nature, but by grace.
B Vers. 20. *Hæc autem eo cogitante, ecce angelus Domini apparuit in somnis ei, dicens.* Photius. Joseph being in doubt and fluctuating with a various tide of thoughts concerning the pregnant Virgin, the angel appeared, resolving all his perplexity and leading him to the truth of the matter. That he was conflicted solely by suspicion is apparent from this: that, fearing to prejudge anything, he wished to put her away secretly; for if he had found her truly guilty of adultery, he would have put her away neither secretly nor openly, being a just man, but would have acted according to the prescription of the law regarding her. This was evidently the cause of Joseph’s doubting and hesitation; and he was therefore worthy that the angel should appear and wipe away all his doubt.
*Mariam conjugem tuam.* Photius. The Scripture calls the Virgin the wife of Joseph,