{"slug":"stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1","title":"Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII","title_source":"Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII","author":"Ambrosiaster","genre":"commentary","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T08:00:13Z","cost_usd":0.087921},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-csel","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0022a/stoa001/stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":576,"english_words":146668,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":543057,"commentary_units":52,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":10,"ambiguities":15,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin CSEL","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0022a/stoa001/stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0022a.stoa001.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":576,"translated":576,"commentary_passages":9,"commentary_units":52,"english_words":146668,"source_letters":543054,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: commentary in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 576 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"7 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"3 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1; John 1:14; John 1:29."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-csel — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":576},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Liber Quaestionum [Sancti Augustini] Ueteris et Noui Testamenti Quaestiones Numero CXXVII\n\nI. QVID EST DEUS?\n\nDeus hoc est quod nulla attingit opinio. plus est enim quam quicquid dici poterit aut cogitari. sed dicamus aliquid, quod licet impar sit, tamen ex aliqua conueniat ratione his quae de deo digna uidentur. nam una quaeque natura pro capacitate sui suspicatur de deo, ut quantum natura distat a natura, tantum distet sententia a sententia quid deus sit. quia enim super omnia est, necesse est ut omnium mentes excedat. homines enim, quantum possunt aciem mentis extendere, aspiciunt quid deus sit opinione, non definitione; angeli autem qui superiores hominibus sunt, quia plus aliquid de deo sentiunt, non est dubium; archangeli uero eo ipso amplius; cherubin autem et seraphin, quae potentiae iuxta deum esse dicuntur, maiora de deo sentiunt, non tamen conprehendunt penitus quid deus sit, quia nemo nouit patrem nisi filius, nec filium quis nisi pater.","english":"The Book of Questions [of Saint Augustine] of the Old and New Testaments, One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Questions\n\nI. WHAT IS GOD?\n\nGod is that which no opinion touches. For He is more than anything that can be said or thought. But let us say something, which, although it is unequal, yet agrees in some measure with reason concerning those things which seem worthy of God. For each nature, according to its own capacity, forms an opinion about God, so that as nature differs from nature, so much does opinion differ from opinion as to what God is. Because He is above all things, it is necessary that He exceed the minds of all. For men, as far as they can extend the keenness of their mind, perceive what God is by opinion, not by definition; but angels, who are superior to men, because they perceive something more about God, there is no doubt; archangels, by that very fact, perceive more; but cherubim and seraphim, which are said to be powers near to God, perceive greater things about God, yet they do not fully comprehend what God is, because no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Liber Quaestionum [Sancti Augustini] Ueteris et Noui Testamenti Quaestiones Numero CXXVII","severity":"info","text":"The title brackets 'Sancti Augustini' as a later insertion, reflecting the work's pseudonymous attribution to Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"opinio","severity":"info","text":"'Opinio' here denotes a provisional, non-definitive perception of God, contrasted with 'definitio' and full comprehension.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cherubin autem et seraphin","severity":"info","text":"Cherubim and seraphim are angelic orders in Christian angelology, here described as 'potentiae iuxta deum' (powers near God), reflecting late antique hierarchical cosmology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo nouit patrem nisi filius, nec filium quis nisi pater","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the mutual knowledge of Father and Son in Trinitarian theology, possibly alluding to Matthew 11:27 or John 10:15, though not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII — Ambrosiaster","severity":"info","text":"The work is traditionally attributed to Ambrosiaster (4th cent.), a commentator known for his anti-Arian stance, though the ascription to Augustine is spurious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Deus hoc est quod nulla attingit opinio","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'attingit' could mean 'reaches' or 'touches'; the translation 'touches' is adopted, but 'reaches' is also possible, affecting the sense of God's transcendence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'attingit opinio' is ambiguous between 'reaches' and 'touches'; the reading 'touches' is taken to emphasize God's inaccessibility to human opinion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Igitur est deus, sicut hominibus uidetur, spiritus natura simplex, lux inaccessibilis, inuisibilis, inaestimabilis, infinitus, perfectus, nullius egens, aeternus, inmortalis omni modo, a quo omnia initium consecuta sunt; uenerandus, diligendus, metuendus, extra quem nihil est, immo in quo sunt omnia quaequae sunt sursum, deorsum, summa et ima; omnipotens, omnitenens, uere in omnibus diues, quia nihil est quod non eius sit; bonus, iustus, misericors: bonus, quia fecit existere quae non erant; iustus, quia quae fecit, ut proficerent, proprio libertatis arbitrio dimissa sunt — quia non tam perfecta sunt ut labi non possint, semina his legis inesse decreuit naturaliter addens auxilium manifestatae legis, ut auctoritas eius profectus esset hominibus —; misericors uero, quia peccantibus non facile reddit, sed sustinet ut conuersis ignoscat. est et seuerus, ut terrore quae ab eo bene condita sunt conseruentur, ne neglegentia pareret uitae praecipitium, et, ne quod mirabilius est praetermittam, tanta est eius clementia, ut contumelias passus ab his quos fecit sufferat et prior uocet eos ad pacem. numquid non maioris uirtutis hoc est, quam condidisse creaturam? in quo si permaneret, nimia bonitas eius obesset creaturae. unde aliquando diligi, aliquando timeri se uult, ne aberrantes ab eo depereant.","english":"Therefore God is, as it seems to men, a spirit of simple nature, inaccessible light, invisible, inestimable, infinite, perfect, lacking nothing, eternal, immortal in every way, from whom all things have received their beginning; venerable, lovable, fearsome, outside of whom nothing exists, but rather in whom are all things that are above, below, highest and lowest; omnipotent, all-holding, truly rich in all things, because there is nothing that is not His; good, just, merciful: good, because He caused to exist what did not exist; just, because what He made, that they might advance, were released to their own free will—since they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that seeds of law should be inherent in them, naturally adding the aid of revealed law, so that its authority might be for the benefit of men—; merciful, indeed, because He does not readily punish those who sin, but waits so that He may forgive those who turn back. He is also severe, so that by terror what was well established by Him may be preserved, lest negligence produce a precipice of life, and, lest I pass over what is more remarkable, so great is His clemency that, having suffered insults from those whom He made, He endures and calls them first to peace. Is this not a mark of greater virtue than having created the creature? In which, if He persisted, His excessive goodness would harm the creature. Hence He wishes to be loved at times, at times feared, lest those straying from Him perish utterly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a continuous definition of God, structured as a series of predicates (spiritus natura simplex, lux inaccessibilis, etc.) followed by a triadic exposition of God's goodness, justice, and mercy, each with a rationale.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"spiritus natura simplex","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'spiritus natura simplex' describes God as a spirit of simple nature, reflecting a theological commitment to divine simplicity, a key concept in Latin patristic thought.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'a quo omnia initium consecuta sunt' echoes the creation language of Genesis 1:1, while 'bonus, iustus, misericors' recalls the attributes of God in Exodus 34:6-7 and Psalm 86:5.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The discussion of free will and the 'seeds of law' reflects the Pelagian controversy of the early 5th century, where the author (Ambrosiaster) argues for a natural law supplemented by revealed law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The description of God as 'lux inaccessibilis, inuisibilis' parallels the apophatic tradition in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, though the author here balances it with positive attributes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage was influential in medieval scholasticism, particularly in discussions of divine attributes and theodicy, as seen in Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'sicut hominibus uidetur' may indicate a concession to human perception or a rhetorical modesty; the reading taken is that it qualifies the entire definition as provisional.","The term 'semina his legis' is ambiguous: it could refer to innate moral principles or to the seeds of the Mosaic law; the reading taken is the former, as natural law."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"hinc est unde, ne patientia eius non utique ad damnum ipsius, sed ad nostrum omnino contemnenda putaretur, ait: tacui; numquid semper tacebo?\n\nItaque deus bonus omnia quae fecit bona sunt. unde ergo malum? nihil est malum nisi praeuaricatio boni, dum inconcessa praesumuntur aut concessa inordinate fiunt, ut alibi mandatum alibi fiat: quando quod in uxore concessum est fit in meretrice; et quod deo offerendum erat offertur diabolo; et cum quia non tollit suum, sed alienum; et cum praeuaricatorem occidi liceat, occiditur innocens. nulla igitur natura probatur malum. uoluntas autem est accidens naturae concepta ex causis, quae male mouetur, dum excedit modum, ut illa gerat quae naturae suae non sunt. causae autem praeuaricationis oriuntur ex sensibus, quando aliquid male uidemus aut audimus. quem errorem haec res facit, quia homo non est deus, qui solus errare non potest.","english":"Hence it is that, lest His patience be thought to be to His own detriment, but rather entirely to be disregarded to ours, He says: \"I have kept silent; shall I always be silent?\"\n\nTherefore, God is good; all things He made are good. Whence, then, does evil come? Nothing is evil except the transgression of good, when things not granted are presumed or granted things are done in a disordered manner, so that what is commanded in one place is done in another: when what is permitted in a wife is done with a prostitute; and what was to be offered to God is offered to the devil; and when one takes not his own but another's; and when it is lawful to kill a transgressor, an innocent person is killed. No nature, therefore, is proven to be evil. But will is an accident of nature, conceived from causes, which is moved badly when it exceeds the measure, so that it does those things which are not of its nature. The causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something badly. This error is caused by the fact that man is not God, who alone cannot err.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Natura ergo hominum proprio arbitrio remissa est, ut possit facere quod uult, ut si bonum naturae suae exercitatio melioret, honoris sit, si autem infirmet uigorem suum, contumelia dignus habeatur huius modi. facit enim quod contra se sit. non est minimum quod concessum est homini, ut cum recta sequitur, gaudeat in sese per id, quod opere suo uidet se meliorem, aut certe sibi inputet, qui cum potuit, non dedit operam ut melioraret se bonis. si autem homo potestatis suae non esset, subiectus fuerat necessitati, ut neque boni operis haberet gloriam neque mali poenam, sed fuisset unus ex pecoribus.\n\nQuoniam ergo ad utrumque facti sumus possibiles, ut per neglegentiam delinquamus, si quod bene audire et uidere debemus, male, id est extra naturam audiamus et rationem, per uigilantiam autem naturae bonum custodiamus, et cauti esse semper non possumus, quia, sicut dixi, ad utrumque facti sumus possibiles, si peccamus, non iam condemnamur, nisi iterum delinquamus, iam quasi perditores. qui enim semel peccauerit, reparare se debet ne denuo peccet, ne par sit ei qui se uicerat, ut iterum si non peccet, iam superior habeatur, quia semel elisus bis triumphauit. haec iustitia est ut, quia conluctatio in mundo est, qui propensior est in non peccando coronetur.","english":"Human nature, therefore, is released to its own judgment, so that it can do what it wishes, so that if the exercise of its nature improves the good, it is a matter of honor, but if it weakens its own strength, a person of this sort is considered worthy of disgrace. For he does what is against himself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man, so that when he follows what is right, he rejoices in himself through the fact that he sees himself improved by his own work, or certainly blames himself, since he could have, but did not apply himself to improve himself with good things. But if man were not of his own power, he would have been subject to necessity, so that he would have neither the glory of good work nor the penalty of evil, but would have been one of the cattle.\n\nSince, therefore, we have been made capable of both, so that through negligence we may transgress, if we hear and see what we ought to hear and see well, badly, that is, contrary to nature and reason, but through vigilance we preserve the good of nature, and we cannot always be cautious, because, as I have said, we have been made capable of both, if we sin, we are not yet condemned, unless we transgress again, then as if we were destroyers. For he who has sinned once ought to repair himself so that he does not sin again, lest he be equal to him who had overcome him, so that if he does not sin again, he is considered superior, because having been cast down once, he has triumphed twice. This is justice, that, because there is a struggle in the world, he who is more inclined not to sin is crowned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Nihil ergo in dei opere malum ac, si a quibusdam mala quaedam dicantur, ut uenenum, ut tenebrae — quia enim corpora nostra uim ueneni ferre non possunt, malum dicatur, quasi ferant ignem aut aquam —, et ferrum uel plumbum. quia multum ab auro distat, malum dicetur. ad comparationem enim lucis tenebras condemnant, cum sciant pro loco suo necessarias, sicut plumbum aut testam. nam utique requiem dant post laborem.\n\nIgitur omnis qui conluctatur in mundo sic eniti debet, ne in re aspera uictus abscedat et fiat reus, uix aut tarde se reparans, et forte inter haec proueniat exitus, et exeat hinc cum peccato. qui enim omni uirtute renititur, si elisus forte fuerit, quasi uir cadit, nec suscenset ei quis, sed hortatu quodam animum eius reparat. uidit enim eum propositum habuisse uincendi et sperat talem posse proficere ad uictoriam, quem non sine fatigatione sui hostis elisit. qui enim facile uincitur non habet animum resistendi nec uincitur, sed consentit. hic acerbius peccat, huius modi uix ad ueniam admittendus est, qui uotum habet delinquendi. qui enim id meditatur ne peccet, etiam si peccauerit, non aspere peccat. diligentibus enim aliquando minora peccata subrepunt. quanto enim minora sunt, tanto magis subtiliora, et dum contemnuntur, non uitantur. maiora enim longe apparent, ac per hoc qui in maioribus peccat, uoluntatis eius est crimen.","english":"Nothing, therefore, is evil in the work of God, and if certain things are called evil by some, such as poison, such as darkness—for because our bodies cannot bear the force of poison, it is called evil, just as they bear fire or water—and iron or lead. Because it is far removed from gold, it will be called evil. For they condemn darkness in comparison to light, although they know it is necessary in its own place, just as lead or earthenware. For it certainly gives rest after labor.\n\nTherefore, everyone who struggles in the world ought to strive in such a way that he does not depart defeated in a harsh matter and become guilty, recovering with difficulty or slowly, and perhaps death may come in the midst of these things, and he may depart from here with sin. For he who resists with all his strength, if he happens to be thrown down, falls like a man, and no one is angry with him, but with a certain encouragement restores his spirit. For he saw that he had the intention of conquering, and he hopes that such a one, whom his enemy threw down not without his own exhaustion, can advance to victory. For he who is easily conquered does not have the spirit of resistance and is not conquered, but consents. This one sins more harshly; such a one is scarcely to be admitted to pardon, who has a desire to sin. For he who meditates on not sinning, even if he has sinned, does not sin harshly. For to those who are diligent, lesser sins sometimes creep in. For the smaller they are, the more subtle they are, and while they are despised, they are not avoided. For greater sins appear from afar, and on this account, he who sins in greater matters, the crime is of his will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Sane quoniam superius peccata ex sensibus ortum capere diximus, dum contra legis imperium uel rationem aliquid aspicimus aut audimus, id est si solem uidentes adorandum eum putemus propter pulchritudinem eius, tunc male uidemus, quia ad iniuriam pertinet creatoris communis, ut quod illi soli debitum est deputetur creaturae, quippe cum ab eo prohibitum sit per legem. aut cum corpora bene conposita et decora uidemus aut, aliquid proximi si concupiscamus, aliter ea aspicimus, quam mandat lex, tunc fit peccatum quod uocatur malum. sed forte dicatur: nihil formonsum debuit fieri, ne nos peccaremus', ut tutela nostra ex aliorum deformitate constaret, nec ferrum esset, ne de eo fierent homicidia, neque lucerna in usu esset, ne fures lumine eius ad effringendum uterentur, ut quod magnopere omnibus utile est deesset propter quorundam uaniloquia, cum constet semper nos omnia aspicere et non tamen semper concupiscere, quia non illorum uitium, sed nostrum est cum sumus neglegentes. quod constat ex interuallo creari, quia non sumus quod deus est. sic autem male audimus, si audientes idola deos esse consentiamus, ant si turpia cantantibus aurem commodemus. tunc autem bene audimus, si audientes de deo quod unus sit oblectemur. si quis autem contra legem aliquid audiens adsentiat, peccat: hoc erit male audire.","english":"Rightly, since we said above that sins take their origin from the senses, when, contrary to the command of the law or reason, we look at or hear something—that is, if, seeing the sun, we think it should be worshipped because of its beauty, then we see badly, because it pertains to the injury of the common creator that what is owed to him alone is attributed to a creature, especially since it has been forbidden by law. Or when we see well-formed and beautiful bodies, or if we covet something of our neighbor's, and we look at them otherwise than the law commands, then a sin occurs which is called evil. But perhaps it will be said: 'Nothing beautiful should have been made, lest we sin,' so that our safety would depend on the ugliness of others; nor should iron exist, lest homicides be committed with it; nor should a lamp be in use, lest thieves use its light for breaking in; so that what is greatly useful to all would be absent because of the idle talk of some, although it is established that we always look at everything and yet do not always covet, because it is not their fault, but ours when we are negligent. This is evident from the fact that it is created at intervals, because we are not what God is. But we hear badly if, hearing that idols are gods, we consent, or if we lend an ear to those singing shameful things. But we hear well if, hearing about God, that he is one, we are delighted. If anyone, hearing something contrary to the law, gives assent, he sins: this will be hearing badly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"II. CUR DEUS MUNDUM FECERIT.\n\nFecit, quia est opifex; aut negetur, si non est. sed esse ipsa opera manifestant. fecit ergo ut esset quod ante non erat, quia sine dubio melius est esse, quam non esse. sed dicitur: inane fuit aliquid ubi faceret, aut quid prius erat ubi fecit?' hoc uas electionis paucis absoluit. ait enim cum de deo esset sermo: in ipso uiuimus et mouemur et sumus, hoc est omnia esse in deo, quia ubique est et ante omnia solus, aeternus, inuisibilis omni creaturae.\n\nEt ne mysterium praetermisisse uideamur aut potius ignorasse cur mundus factus sit, dicimus diaboli apostasiam multos angelos, id est spiritales potentias, secum in praeuaricatione traxisse, dum uult sibi regnum impia praesumptione defendere. quod profeta Eseias significat dicens: quo modo cecidit de caelo Lucifer, qui mane oriebatur? id est (qui ceteris lucidior apparebat'. erat enim quasi princeps multorum, inter quos clarior erat, quorum societate ad impium descendit certamen. uidens enim infra se multas spiritales potentias, quippe cum in paradiso dei praestantior esset cognitione mysterii caelestis, ipsa elatione inflatus uoluit dici deus, hac scilicet ratione, qua etiam in praesenti uita exemplum eius quosdam imitatos uidemus, qui contemplatione adgregati circa se militis extolliti satellitibus in hac re fomitem conspirationis praebentibus imperium sibi uindicare uoluerunt.","english":"II. WHY GOD MADE THE WORLD.\n\nHe made it because He is a craftsman; or let it be denied, if He is not. But the works themselves manifest that He is. He made it, therefore, so that there would be something that did not exist before, because without doubt it is better to be than not to be. But it is said: \"Was there something empty where He could make it, or what was there before where He made it?\" The vessel of election settles this in few words. For he says, when the discourse was about God: \"In Him we live and move and have our being,\" that is, all things are in God, because He is everywhere and alone before all things, eternal, invisible to every creature.\n\nAnd lest we seem to have omitted the mystery, or rather to have been ignorant of why the world was made, we say that the apostasy of the devil drew many angels, that is, spiritual powers, with him into transgression, while he wishes to claim a kingdom for himself by impious presumption. The prophet Isaiah signifies this, saying: \"How did Lucifer, who rose in the morning, fall from heaven?\" that is, 'who appeared brighter than the rest.' For he was like a prince over many, among whom he was more brilliant, and by whose company he descended into impious combat. For seeing many spiritual powers beneath him, since in the paradise of God he was more eminent in knowledge of the heavenly mystery, he was inflated by that very elation and wished to be called God, by this reasoning, namely, that we also see in the present life some imitators of his example, who, by contemplation of the soldiers gathered around them, puffed up by their retinue, who provide fuel for conspiracy in this matter, have wished to claim dominion for themselves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Hinc est unde deus, ut eius praesumptionem non potestate, sed ratione destrueret, materiam condidit, quae esset rerum confusio, ex qua faceret mundum. distincta enim, quae simul confusa erant, hunc praestiterunt quem uidemus ornatum. discretis enim ab inuicem substantiis facta conpaginatione mundus uocatur, quia una quaeque res ab altera segregata ad mundum apparuit, ut hic homo positus, creatus ex supernis et inferis, id est ex caelestibus et terrenis, unius dei dominum non tantum uoce, sed et imagine, qua unus ab uno deo factus est, ex quo ceteri orirentur, ostenderet. ideo enim unus unum fecit, ut doceret ab uno esse omnia ac per hoc unum esse deum, ut superior creatura ad confusionem suam in homine disceret, qui e terra conditus est, ueritatem.\n\nEx eo diabolus inimicus exstitit hominis; peruidit enim quia ad accusationem eius factus est homo. unde subtilitate sua id egit, ut in eadem illum praeuaricatione, in quam ipse ruit, induceret, ut accusatorem suum participem suae damnationis efficeret. ex transgressione enim deitatem illi spopondit, ad quam ipse dum adfectatur deiectus est. et quia omnis natura a crimine libera est, ex accidenti sunt nomina — ante enim res, postea significatio — ac per hoc satanas) et diabolus) ex actu eius conposita sunt nomina, ut sit non naturae eius, sed uoluntatis significatio.","english":"This, then, is why God created matter, which was a confusion of things, from which He would make the world, so that He might destroy the presumption of the devil not by power but by reason. For the distinct things, which had been confused together, produced this ornament which we see. For when the substances were separated from one another and a joining was made, it is called \"world,\" because each thing, separated from another, appeared to the world, so that man, placed here, created from the higher and the lower, that is, from the celestial and the earthly, might show the one God as Lord not only by voice but also by image, in which he was made one by the one God, from whom the rest would arise. For this reason He made one from one, so that He might teach that all things are from one and, through this, that God is one, so that the superior creature might learn, to its own confusion, the truth in man, who was established from the earth.\n\nFrom this, the devil became an enemy of man; for he saw that man was made for his accusation. Hence, by his own subtlety, he brought it about that he led him into the same transgression into which he himself had fallen, so that he might make his accuser a sharer in his own damnation. For through transgression, he promised him divinity, to which he himself, while aspiring to it, was cast down. And because every nature is free from crime, names are from accidents—for the thing comes first, then the signification—and through this, \"Satan\" and \"devil\" are names composed from his action, so that they signify not his nature, but his will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Itaque ut propositum dei, quod in causa creati hominis decreuit, maneret et factum diaboli, per quod hominem circumuenit, ad cumulum reatus eius proficeret, Christus de sacris sedibus ad terras uenire dignatus est, ut et hominem a transgressionis sententia liberaret et diaboli futuram perditionem, ne quis factum eius imitaretur, ostenderet. propterea dixit Iohannes apostolus: ideo uenit filius dei, ut solueret opera diaboli. qui si natura malus esset. poenam illi promittere aut dementis erat aut iniqui. quia enim arguat eum, quem uidet non aliter aliquid facere, quam natura eius admittit? si igni potest suscenseri, quia urit, aut aquae quia infrigidat, cum non utique uoluntate hoc faciat, sed natura? unde et diabolus, si natura malus esset, uoluntatem non haberet. nec enim posset discernere, sed uno adque eodem modo omnibus se quasi caecus inmergeret.","english":"Therefore, so that God’s plan, which He had decreed in the matter of the creation of man, might remain, and the deed of the devil, by which he ensnared man, might contribute to the increase of his guilt, Christ deigned to come from the sacred abodes to the earth, both to free man from the sentence of transgression and to show the future perdition of the devil, lest anyone imitate his deed. For this reason the apostle John said: the Son of God came to undo the works of the devil. If he were evil by nature, to promise him punishment would be either the act of a madman or of an unjust person. For why would one reproach him whom he sees doing nothing otherwise than what his nature permits? If one can be angry with fire because it burns, or with water because it cools, when it does this not by will, but by nature? Hence also the devil, if he were evil by nature, would not have will. For he would not be able to discern, but would plunge himself into everything in one and the same way, as if blind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Porro autem iudicio quodam hoc agit; nam uoluntatem suam facientibus parcit, a quibusdam neutericis dissimulat, ad dei auxilium confugere uolentibus offendicula et inpedimenta opponit, seruis dei insidias tendit et promptioribus circa eius obsequia magis infestus est. unde manifestum est uoluntatem eius esse in crimine. quam ob rem Petrus apostolus ait: sobrii estote et uigilate, quia aduersarius uester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem deuoret. gentiles non quaerit, Iudaeos non quaerit, malae uitae et conuersationis non quaerit, sed quaerit dei seruos et Christi, quos sibi scit inimicos, quia factum et praesumptionem eius condemnant.\n\nDenique lege data plus exarsit inuidia aduersus eos qui sub lege erant, sciens legis documenta unum deum tradere et bonam conuersationem hominibus. igitur si haec naturaliter putatur facere, reus constitui non potest, quia hoe facit, quod naturae suae est et potest, et non facit quod non potest, quia naturae suae non est itaque neque laudandus neque condemnandus est. laudandus non est, quia obsunt quae agit; condemnandus autem non est, quia non uoluntate haec facit, sed inpulsu naturae.","english":"Moreover, he does this by a kind of judgment; for he spares those who do his will, he feigns ignorance of some neutrals, he places obstacles and impediments before those who wish to flee to God’s help, he lays snares for the servants of God, and he is more hostile to those who are more zealous in his service. Hence it is clear that his will is in crime. For this reason the apostle Peter says: “Be sober and watchful, because your adversary the devil prowls like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” He does not seek Gentiles, he does not seek Jews, he does not seek those of evil life and conduct, but he seeks the servants of God and of Christ, whom he knows to be his enemies, because they condemn his deed and presumption.\n\nFinally, after the law was given, his envy burned more fiercely against those who were under the law, knowing that the teachings of the law hand down one God and good conduct to men. Therefore, if he is thought to do this naturally, he cannot be held guilty, because he does what is of his nature and what he can, and he does not do what he cannot, because it is not of his nature. Thus he is neither to be praised nor condemned. He is not to be praised, because what he does is harmful; but he is not to be condemned, because he does this not by will but by the impulse of nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sobrii estote et uigilate, quia aduersarius uester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem deuoret","severity":"info","text":"The author attributes to Peter a paraphrase of 1 Peter 5:8, though the Vulgate reads 'vigilate' and 'circuibat'. The lion simile is not biblical but patristic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"neutericis","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'neutericis' (neuters) likely refers to those who are neither openly for God nor for the devil, a rare term in this corpus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gentiles non quaerit, Iudaeos non quaerit","severity":"info","text":"The devil's selective targeting of Christians reflects early Christian apologetic and ascetic polemic, contrasting with Jewish and pagan communities.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Denique lege data plus exarsit inuidia","severity":"info","text":"This sentence introduces a second stage in the devil's hostility, after the giving of the Law, marking a chronological progression in the argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hoe facit","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'hoe facit' is likely a scribal error for 'hoc facit'; the sense is clear but the form is non-standard.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"non uoluntate haec facit, sed inpulsu naturae","severity":"info","text":"This argument that the devil acts by nature, not will, anticipates later medieval debates on demonic agency and moral responsibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'neutericis' is ambiguous; it may refer to fence-sitters or a specific group. The reading taken is 'those neutral in the spiritual conflict'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"nam aliquos scimus subito dementes factos ferro fuste lapidibus morsibus multis nocuisse, quosdam et occidisse; captos autem industria et iudiciis oblatos minime reos factos, eo quod non uoluntate, sed inpellente ui nescio qua haec gesserint nescientes, quo modo enim reus constituitur, qui nescit quid fecerit? ita et diabolus si bonum nescit, quare damnandus censetur, qui non facit quod nescit? immo, si posset fieri, laudandus erat, quia facit quod nouit.\n\nNos autem iure rei constituimur, quia aliud facimus quam scimus debere nos facere. sed quia per omnem scripturam reum diabolum constitui uidemus et propterea gehennam illi paratam legimus, legibus illum damnandum scimus, quia cum sciret et posset facere bonum, fecit malum. nec enim deus qui iustus est damnaret eum, quia bonum non fecerat, quod nescierat, aut quia malum fecerat, quod scierat. manifestatum itaque puto nullam naturam debere dici malum, quia omne malum, sicut claruit, ex uoluntate fit, quae per sensus accidit naturae.","english":"For we know that some people suddenly made insane have harmed many with iron, clubs, stones, and bites, and have even killed some; but when they are captured by effort and brought to trial, they are not held guilty, because they did these things not by will but driven by some unknown force, not knowing what they did. For how can someone be held guilty who does not know what he did? So too, if the devil does not know the good, why is he judged worthy of condemnation, since he does not do what he does not know? On the contrary, if it were possible, he would deserve praise, because he does what he knows.\n\nWe, however, are rightly held guilty, because we do something other than what we know we ought to do. But since we see the devil held guilty throughout all scripture, and we read that hell is prepared for him, we know that he is to be condemned by the laws, because, although he knew and was able to do good, he did evil. For God, who is just, would not condemn him because he had not done the good which he did not know, or because he had done the evil which he knew. Therefore, I think it has been made clear that no nature should be called evil, because all evil, as has become evident, arises from will, which occurs to nature through the senses.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"III. QVID OPUS ERAT PER MOVSEN, ET NON ANTE, EXORDIUM MUNDI ET ORDINEM CREATURAE EXPONERE?\n\nPrius describi non debuit, quia adhuc ex hac causa error tantus non erat in hominibus. adubi autem creuit error generi humano, ita ut etiam filii Israhel contra hanc expositionem in Aegypto tradi audirent a philosophis Aegyptiorum, a quibus etiam Moyses fuerat instructus omnem peritiam Aegyptiacam, quae Saclam quendam mundum istum adserit per malos angelos condidisse, hunc quoque principem mundi uideri, id est satanan — quam sententiam Marcion secutus ruit in mortem. nam et Manichei ab eodem Sacla hominem dicunt factum, non mundum istum, stultiores ceteris; cum enim constet mundum hominis causa fabricatum, illi a deo dicunt mundum factum, licet de alieno, hominem uero ab aduersario creatum, ut in domo alterius alter posuerit dominum —, oportuit ergo Moysen, ut errorem istum proderet et auferret, manifestare mundi et hominis fabricati deum esse auctorem. accepta enim auctoritate per signa et prodigia, quae fecit, docuit sine dubio id uerum esse, quod testibus signis tradebat. quis enim non crederet ei, cuius tanta signa in rebus gestis existerent? denique hinc est unde qui contra disciplinam hanc sentiunt errare noscuntur, quia nudis uerbis adsertiones suas allegare nituntur.","english":"III. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR MOSES, AND NOT BEFORE HIM, TO SET FORTH THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION?\n\nIt ought not to have been described earlier, because as yet there was not so great an error among men on this account. But when error grew among the human race, so that even the children of Israel in Egypt heard from the philosophers of the Egyptians—by whom also Moses had been instructed in all Egyptian learning—that a certain Saclas asserted that this world was founded by evil angels, and that this one also seemed to be the prince of the world, that is, Satan—which opinion Marcion followed and rushed into death. For the Manichaeans also say that man was made by the same Saclas, not this world, being more foolish than the rest; for since it is established that the world was made for the sake of man, they say that the world was made by God, albeit from another's material, but that man was created by the adversary, so that in another's house another placed a master—, therefore it was necessary for Moses, in order to expose and remove this error, to reveal that God is the author of the world and of man made. For having received authority through the signs and wonders which he performed, he taught without doubt that what he handed down with signs as witnesses was true. For who would not believe him, in whose deeds such great signs existed? Finally, this is why those who think contrary to this discipline are known to err, because they try to allege their assertions with bare words.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Saclam","severity":"info","text":"Saclas (or Saklas) is a figure in Gnostic and Manichaean cosmology, often identified with the demiurge or the chief of the evil angels who created the material world. The name appears in texts such as the Apocryphon of John and the Manichaean Kephalaia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Marcion","severity":"info","text":"Marcion (c. 85–160) was a Christian theologian who taught a sharp distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, and rejected the Old Testament. The author here links Marcion's views to the error of Saclas, though historically Marcion's system was distinct from Gnostic cosmogonies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Manichei","severity":"info","text":"The Manichaeans, followers of Mani (216–274), held a dualistic cosmology in which the material world was created by a mixture of light and darkness. The author's claim that they said man was made by Saclas while the world was made by God reflects a polemical simplification of Manichaean teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"per signa et prodigia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'signs and wonders' (signa et prodigia) echoes biblical language for the miracles of Moses, especially the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7–12) and the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14). The author argues that these miracles authenticate Moses' teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III. QVID OPUS ERAT...","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the third question in the series, following a pattern of quaestiones that address theological problems. The question form ('Why was it necessary...') introduces a defense of the Mosaic account against Gnostic and Manichaean alternatives.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Saclam quendam","severity":"caution","text":"The name 'Saclam' is a Latin transliteration of a Greek or Coptic name; the spelling varies in manuscripts. The author's claim that Moses was instructed by Egyptian philosophers is a legendary tradition not supported by the biblical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Saclas' is not fully specified; the author conflates him with the prince of the world (Satan) and with the Manichaean creator of man. The historical relationship between Marcion and Saclas is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Itaque ut nihil deo coaeternum doceret, ordinem ipsum creatarum rerum exponit, ut dum minora prius facta memorat, postea autem maiora, nihil horum infectum habeatur, quia quae. tempore minora sunt uirtute maiora sunt, ut si illa praescribere de tempore se putent, ipsa infirmitate qua poste rioribus subiecta sunt reuincantur, aut si haec de uirtute praesumendo primatus sibi uindicent, posteritate ipsa humilentur, ut nihil horum non initio subiectum uideatur. ante quidem caelum factum et terra; deinde lux, quae in officio dies est; post firmamentum, quod appellatum est caelum, et congregationes aquarum quas appellauit maria, ut appareret terra in qua posset habitari. terram autem quam post caelum factam dicit, non terram solam uult intellegi, sed materiam significauit, id est omnia inferna, quae in mundi omnem speciem profecerunt. caelum autem non hoc carnale, sed illud supernum, quod spiritale est, in principio factum contendit, ut cum caelum dicit primum factum, deinde terram, in caelo omnia inuisibilia et in terra omnia uisibilia a deo creata signaret. totius enim naturae summa et ima conprehendit, ut quicquid medium est procul dubio factum credatur. luminaria uero, quae ad gubernandum mundum instituit, quarta die adserit facta, ut quanto magna sunt uirtute, tanto inferiora sint tempore. hominem autem sexto die constituit, ut in domum factam habitatorem induceret.","english":"Therefore, to teach that nothing is coeternal with God, he sets forth the very order of created things, so that while he records that the lesser were made first, but afterwards the greater, none of these is to be considered uncreated, because those which are lesser in time are greater in power, so that if they [the lesser] should presume to claim priority in time, they are refuted by the very weakness by which they are subject to later things, or if these [the greater] should claim primacy for themselves by presuming on their power, they are humbled by their posteriority, so that none of these appears not subject to a beginning. First, indeed, heaven and earth were made; then light, which in its function is day; afterwards the firmament, which was called heaven, and the gatherings of waters which he called seas, so that the earth might appear in which it could be inhabited. But the earth which he says was made after heaven, he does not intend to be understood as earth alone, but he signified matter, that is, all the lower things, which advanced into every form of the world. But he contends that heaven—not this corporeal heaven, but that higher one, which is spiritual—was made in the beginning, so that when he says heaven was made first, then earth, he would signify that in heaven all invisible things and in earth all visible things were created by God. For he comprehends the highest and lowest of all nature, so that whatever is in between is undoubtedly believed to have been made. But the luminaries, which he instituted for governing the world, he asserts were made on the fourth day, so that however great they are in power, they are so much inferior in time. But he established man on the sixth day, so that he might bring the inhabitant into the house that had been made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"nihil deo coaeternum","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a chiastic refutation of coeternity: lesser things are refuted by weakness, greater things by posteriority, so that all are subject to a beginning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"caelum ... spiritale","severity":"info","text":"The author distinguishes a spiritual heaven (caelum supernum) from the corporeal firmament, interpreting Genesis 1:1 as referring to the former, a common patristic exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Genesis 1:1–31","severity":"info","text":"The passage systematically follows the hexaemeral order: heaven and earth (day 1), light (day 1), firmament and seas (day 2), luminaries (day 4), man (day 6).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"coaeternum","severity":"info","text":"The refutation of coeternity targets Gnostic or Manichaean ideas that matter or principles existed alongside God, a concern in 4th-century Latin anti-heretical polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"materiam significauit","severity":"info","text":"The identification of 'earth' with matter (materia) echoes Stoic and Platonic cosmology, later influential in medieval hexaemeral commentaries.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"postea autem maiora","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'postea autem maiora' where the sense requires 'postea autem maiora facta'; the ellipsis is clear but the syntax is compressed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'postea autem maiora' lacks an explicit verb; the reading assumes 'facta sunt'.","The distinction between 'caelum' (spiritual) and 'firmamentum' (corporeal) is asserted but not fully argued."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Hinc est unde quod quibusdam displicet dictum est: et uidit deus lucem quia bona est. ut, quia omnia a malo facta dicebantur et bona credi non poterant, Moyses ut bona quae facta sunt probaret, ipsi deo placita quae fecit ostendit, ut cui displicerent reum faceret. nam quo modo posset nescire lucem qui dixit: fiat lux et facta est lux? aliquis facit quod nescit? facta autem lux conplacuit ei qui se fecit. quis opifex in opere suo non laetetur? si dictum est: uidit deus lucem quia bona est, et de non sunt qui dicant 'mala est\\\\ quid, si sine testimonio esset relictum?\n\nIgitur descripta mundi fabrica et primi hominis origine traducem tenuit generis Seth, qui redditus est pro Abel, et per ordinem uenit ad Abraham patrem Iudaeorum, ut ostenderet Abraham huic deo credidisse, qui opifex mundi est, et ipsum legem dedisse, in qua futurus Christus promissus est, qui liberaret genus hominum de dominio diaboli. ex his rationabilis probatur fides nostra; testimonium enim huic dat origo descripta, quia ab initio genus est Christianorum. ex Seth enim filio Adae uenitur ad Enoch, ab Enoch ad Noe, ex Noe ad Abraham, ab Abraham descenditur ad Dauid, a Dauid ex Maria de spiritu sancto nascitur Christus. priores ergo omnes quotquot fidem habuerunt unius dei, quam saluator praedicauit, iure Christiani dicendi sunt; ab initio enim saluator uenturus promissus est.","english":"This is the reason why it was said, which displeases some: \"And God saw the light, that it was good.\" For because all things were said to be made by evil and could not be believed to be good, Moses, in order to prove that the things which were made are good, showed that what he made was pleasing to God himself, so that he would hold anyone to whom they were displeasing guilty. For how could he who said, \"Let there be light, and light was made,\" be ignorant of light? Does anyone make what he does not know? But the light, once made, pleased him who made it. What craftsman does not rejoice in his own work? If it was said, \"God saw the light, that it was good,\" and there are those who say, \"It is evil,\" what if it had been left without testimony?\n\nTherefore, after describing the construction of the world and the origin of the first man, he held to the line of the race of Seth, who was given in place of Abel, and came in order to Abraham, the father of the Jews, to show that Abraham believed in this God, who is the maker of the world, and that he himself gave the law, in which the future Christ was promised, who would free the human race from the dominion of the devil. From these things our faith is proved reasonable; for the described origin gives testimony to this, because the race of Christians is from the beginning. For from Seth, the son of Adam, one comes to Enoch, from Enoch to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham one descends to David, from David, through Mary, Christ is born from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all those before who had faith in the one God, which the Savior preached, are rightly called Christians; for from the beginning the Savior was promised to come.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"unde in Apocalypsi ait: a agnu s qui occisus est a constitutione mundi. itaque semper Christianismus. hi enim omnes. quos supra dixi. a primo homine creato in mundo per quos tradux tenditur ad saluatorem, huius dei fidem habuerunt, de quo Christus locutus est dicens: haec est autem uita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum et uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. potest dici e contra: (si ante Christianismus, quae notitia per Christum?' hunc intellegentiae profectum aduentus contulit Christi, quia praedicati unius dei ostendit mysterium et quid cui personae conpetat demonstrauit et ad explendam legis iustitiam addidit quae reseruata erant.\n\nIIII. QVARE LEGEM NON IN PRIMORDIO DEDIT?\n\nPrimum lex formata in litteris dari non debuit, quia in natura ipsa inserta quodam modo est et creatoris notitia ex traduce non latebat. nam quis nesciat, quid bonae uitae conueniat, aut ignoret, quia quod sibi fieri non uult alii minime debeat fieri? adubi autem naturalis lex euanuit pressa consuetudine delinquendi, tunc oportuit manifestari, ut in Iudaeis omnes audirent, non quod penitus oblitterata esset, sed maxima eius auctoritate carebant: idolatriae studebatur; timor dei in terris non erat; fornicatio operabatur; circa rem proximi auidi erant concupiscentia. data ergo lex est, ut et quae sciebantur auctoritatem haberent et quae latere coeperant manifestarentar.","english":"Hence in the Apocalypse it says: \"the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.\" Thus Christianity has always existed. For all those whom I have mentioned above, from the first man created in the world, through whom the line is drawn to the Savior, had faith in this God, of whom Christ spoke, saying: \"This, however, is eternal life, that they may know you alone and the true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent.\" It may be objected: \"If Christianity existed before, what knowledge did Christ bring?\" This advancement of understanding the coming of Christ conferred, because it revealed the mystery of the one God who was preached and demonstrated what pertains to which person, and added to the fulfillment of the justice of the law what had been reserved.\n\nIV. WHY WAS THE LAW NOT GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING?\n\nFirst, the law formed in letters ought not to have been given, because it is in a certain way implanted in nature itself, and knowledge of the creator from the lineage was not hidden. For who does not know what befits a good life, or is ignorant that what one does not wish done to oneself should least of all be done to another? But when natural law faded, oppressed by the habit of sinning, then it was necessary for it to be made manifest, so that all might hear through the Jews, not because it had been completely obliterated, but because they lacked its greatest authority: they were devoted to idolatry; fear of God was not on earth; fornication was practiced; they were greedy for their neighbor's property through lust. Therefore the law was given, so that what was known might have authority and what had begun to lie hidden might be made manifest.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"nam inuenimus ante Moysen non solum non latuisse, sed et uindicata esse peccata. quam ob rem et iusti fuisse repperiuntur multi; scientes enim deum uindicem timebant peccare. quod cum coepisset neglegi, legem naturalem reuelari oportuit, ut scirent cuncti aperta ratione dominum requisiturum actus humanos. quamuis per diluuium uindicatum legatur et in Sodomam et Gomorram, sed haec uetustatis obliuio texerat, unde per Moysen terroris causa ad disciplinam corrigendam et fidem in deum reformandam commemorata sunt. quare et apostolus: iustis, ait, lex non est posita, sed iniustis, idola colentibus, fornicatoribus, et talia.\n\nNunc uideamus an conueniat his, qui dei iudicium audientes rident futurum, si proderit an oberit, si ueritate munitur an caret ratione. lex quidem data est mundo, sed uidemus illam circa multos cessare: non ergo iustum uidetur. ut quid hic peccantes per potentiam securi sunt, alii leges inludunt, pauperes deprimuntur, iustis accusatio conponitur, bene agentes obprobrio sunt, pii indigent, mali florent, iniqui et corruptores in honore sunt, auari et raptores locupletantur, iudex uenalis est?","english":"For we find that before Moses, sins were not only not hidden, but were also avenged. For this reason, many are found to have been righteous; for, knowing that God was an avenger, they feared to sin. When this began to be neglected, it was necessary for the natural law to be revealed, so that all might know by clear reasoning that the Lord would examine human actions. Although it is recorded that vengeance was taken through the flood and upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the forgetfulness of antiquity had covered these things over; hence they were recalled through Moses for the sake of terror, to correct discipline and to restore faith in God. For this reason the Apostle says: \"The law was not given to the just, but to the unjust,\" to idolaters, fornicators, and the like.\n\nNow let us see whether it is fitting for those who, hearing of God's judgment, laugh at the future—whether it will benefit or harm, whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. The law was indeed given to the world, but we see that it is inoperative in many cases; therefore it does not seem just. Why are those who sin here secure through power, while others mock the laws, the poor are oppressed, accusations are fabricated against the just, those who do good are held in reproach, the pious are in need, the wicked flourish, the iniquitous and corrupt are held in honor, the avaricious and plunderers grow rich, and the judge is venal?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"iustis, ait, lex non est posita, sed iniustis","severity":"info","text":"The apostle cited is Paul; the paraphrase echoes Romans 5:20 or Galatians 3:19, though not verbatim. The author adapts Paul's contrast between law and faith to argue that law targets the unjust.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"per diluuium uindicatum legatur et in Sodomam et Gomorram","severity":"info","text":"The flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are biblical examples of divine punishment (Genesis 6–9; 19). The author treats them as historical precedents for God's vengeance before the Mosaic law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"legem naturalem","severity":"info","text":"The 'natural law' here refers to a pre-Mosaic moral order known by reason, distinct from the written Torah. This concept is central to the author's argument that divine justice predates and transcends positive law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunc uideamus an conueniat","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition from historical argument to a rhetorical question about the justice of God's judgment in a corrupt world. It introduces a new section that challenges the reader to consider the apparent failure of law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"iudex uenalis est","severity":"info","text":"The catalogue of social injustices (corrupt judges, oppression of the poor) reflects a common topos in late antique Christian moral critique, echoing themes in the Prophets and Wisdom literature, and anticipates medieval complaints about venality.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'iustis, ait, lex non est posita' is a loose citation; the exact Pauline source is not identified. The author may be conflating several passages.","The transition from the historical examples to the contemporary critique is abrupt; the logical connection between divine vengeance in the past and the present injustice is implied but not fully argued."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"nonne iniquum uidetur si conditor rerum non haec requirat, ut qui hic iniuste pressi sunt releuentur, et qui bene uiuendo indiguerunt remunerentur, et qui propter iustitiam obprobrio erant honorentur; illi autem qui per potentiam leges contempserunt aut tergiuersatione inluserunt iniquitatem sectantes, sic gloriosi in his, ut ipsi iustitiae insultare uiderentur, ut humiliati et confusi tormentis subiciantur in conspectu eorum, in quorum malis et despectatione gaudebant, ut et ipsi de poena illorum laeti deo gratias referant, apud quem solum personarum acceptio cessat?\n\nV. UT QVID ABEL SACRIFICIUM ACCEPTATUM EST ET CAIN REFUTATUM?\n\nEx uerbis hoc ipsius lectionis potest colligi, quia non est litterarum arte uelata historia. nam Abel prudentem et deuotum in eo ipso sermo indicat scripturae, Cain uero neglegentem et inprouidum ac per hoc minus deuotum. Abel ergo de placitis potiora elegit, quae deo offerret creatori, ut de his utique quae creauerat praecipua illi offerret, per quod et dicationem suam et meritum eius probaret, ut et propriam reuerentiam et deum auctorem ostenderet. hoc Cain uelut rusticus praesentire nequiuit. totum enim animum terrae inserens mentis oculos ad caelum leuare non potuit, ut quid creatori dignum esset aspiceret; qualiacumque enim deo obtulit munera.","english":"Does it not seem unjust if the founder of things does not require these things, so that those who were unjustly oppressed here are relieved, and those who lived well but were in need are rewarded, and those who were held in disgrace because of justice are honored; but those who, through power, despised the laws or, through chicanery, mocked them, pursuing iniquity, and were so glorious in these things that they seemed to insult justice itself, are subjected, humiliated and confounded, to torments in the sight of those in whose evils and contempt they rejoiced, so that they themselves, joyful at the punishment of those, may give thanks to God, with whom alone the acceptance of persons ceases?\n\nV. WHY WAS ABEL'S SACRIFICE ACCEPTED AND CAIN'S REJECTED?\n\nFrom the words of this reading itself it can be gathered, because it is not a history veiled by the art of letters. For the speech of scripture indicates Abel as prudent and devout in that very thing, but Cain as negligent and improvident and, because of this, less devout. Abel therefore chose the better of the acceptable things, which he would offer to God the creator, so that he might offer to him the foremost of those things which he had created, thereby proving both his own dedication and his merit, and showing both his own reverence and God as the author. This Cain, like a rustic, was unable to foresee. For, fixing his whole mind on the earth, he could not lift the eyes of his mind to heaven, to see what was worthy for the creator; for he offered whatever gifts to God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Quae causa etiam in Iudaeis obliquae mentis deprehenditur. saepe enim reprehensi sunt, cum munera sua inprouide dei altari offerrent, quae nec hominibus digna uiderentur dicente domino: caecas et luscas offertis mihi; non haec suscipiam de manibus uestris. offers ea praeposito aut duci tuo, si acceperit ea, cum constet apud omnes personae sublimi maxima. debere offerri munera. ideoque Cain munera refutata sunt dicente ei deo: quid contristatus es et ut quid concidit uultus tuus? nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non diuidas, peccasti? quiesce. apud te conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis eius.\n\nVides ergo quia diuisio incurrit peccatum. dum non aestimat quid deo dignum esset, potiora reseruauit suis usibus. itaque non quia obtulit reprehensus est, sed quia indigna obtulit, nec ex eo damnatus est, sed factum emendare commonitus. ad te, enim ait, conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis eius, hoc est 'me non accipiente ad tuum dominium conuersum est munus a te oblatum', ut de cetero sciret quid faceret. hinc inuidia exarsit ut occideret fratrem, ut ab iniusto occideretur, qui iustitiam primus ostenderat, et exemplum malum daretur hominibus. sic enim aemulatione zeli caecatus est ut non solum gratias non ageret — eo quod reus factus non fuerat, sed et didicerat quo modo hoc emendaret —, uerum etiam adderet aliud grauius, per quod damnari mereretur.","english":"This cause is also detected in the Jews of perverse mind. For they were often rebuked, when they offered their gifts unadvisedly at God's altar, gifts which would not even seem worthy to men, with the Lord saying: \"You offer blind and one-eyed animals to me; I will not accept these from your hands.\" You offer them to your governor or your leader; if he accepts them, when it is established among all that the most excellent gifts ought to be offered to a person of high rank. And therefore Cain's gifts were rejected, with God saying to him: \"Why are you sad, and why has your face fallen? Have you not sinned, if you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly? Be still. Its return is with you, and you will be its master.\"\n\nYou see, therefore, that division incurs sin. While he did not consider what was worthy of God, he reserved the better things for his own use. And so he was not rebuked because he offered, but because he offered unworthy things; nor was he condemned on that account, but was warned to correct the deed. \"For to you,\" it says, \"its return is with you, and you will be its master,\" that is, 'since I do not accept it, the gift offered by you has reverted to your own dominion,' so that he might know for the future what he should do. From this, envy blazed up so that he killed his brother, so that he who had first shown justice might be killed by an unjust man, and an evil example might be given to men. For he was so blinded by the rivalry of zeal that he not only gave no thanks—because he had not been made guilty, but had also learned how to correct this—but also added another, more serious offense, through which he deserved to be condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Talis est causa inprouidi ac parricidae Cain, qualis et illius nequam serui, cui cum ignotum esset a domino, ingratus effectus exiens suffocabat conseruum suum, ut et de praeterito ignoto sibi facinore et de impietate in conseruum admissa inexcusabilis damnaretur. et tamen ad praesens damnatus non est Cain, sed confusus et reus sub terrore dimissus est super terram, ut, si paeni- . teret, ignosceretur ei. denique timens ne quis eum pro hoc facto occideret, ait ad deum: maior causa est mea relinqui me. si eicis me hodie a facie tua, et a facie terrae abscondam me et ero gemens et tremens super terram. et erit, omnis qui inuenerit me occidet me. territus Cain uerbis iusti iudicis dei timet despici a deo, ita ut et a conspectu hominum fugere se debere putet certus, quia qui irato deo uiuit etiam ab homine possit occidi. sed quid ei respondit dominus? non sic, inquit, hoc est (con ad hoc te remisi, cum non merearis uiuere, ut ab aliquo occidaris, sed ut gemas et tremas, quasi qui primus malum exemplum dederis super terram, dum laboribus tuis non respondit fructus ex humo'. itaque omnis qui occiderit, inquit, Cain, septem uindictas exsoluet. haec sententia ostendit iure damnandum Cain. quando enim uidit legem datam sub tali comminatione, ne quis imitaretur factum eius, plus coepit timere, sciens quid mali admiserat.","english":"Such is the case of the imprudent and fratricidal Cain, as also of that worthless slave who, when it was unknown to his master, became ungrateful and, going out, strangled his fellow slave, so that he might be condemned without excuse both for the crime previously unknown to him and for the impiety committed against his fellow slave. And yet Cain was not condemned at once, but was sent away in confusion and under threat, guilty, upon the earth, so that, if he repented, he might be forgiven. Finally, fearing that someone might kill him for this deed, he said to God: \"My case is greater: that I be left behind. If you cast me out today from your face, I will hide myself from the face of the earth and will be groaning and trembling upon the earth. And it will be that everyone who finds me will kill me.\" Terrified by the words of the just judge God, Cain fears being despised by God, so much so that he thinks he ought to flee even from the sight of men, certain that he who lives with God angry can also be killed by a man. But what did the Lord answer him? \"Not so,\" he said, \"this is (that is, I have sent you back for this, although you do not deserve to live, so that you may be killed by someone, but so that you may groan and tremble, as one who first gave a bad example upon the earth, while the fruit of your labors did not respond from the ground). Therefore, everyone who kills Cain,\" he said, \"will pay seven penalties.\" This sentence shows that Cain was to be condemned by law. For when he saw the law given under such a threat, that no one should imitate his deed, he began to fear more, knowing what evil he had committed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Septem ergo uindictas promittit, si quis ad hoc facinus adspirasset, ut uidens ex hoc opere Cain reum factum, et cum adhuc legis manifestatio non erat. sciret se septemplici poena multari si non hoc uitaret, ut legis notitia sex plagas adderet supra quam meruerat Cain, ut cum plaga Cain septem numerarentur uindictae. hoe etiam numero remunerandi sunt qui relietis omnibus dominum sequuntur et in futuro uitam aeternam habebunt, hoc est signum quod posuit deus in Cain, ne quis occideret eum omnis qui inuenisset eum. in parricida enim posita lex est, ut si quis homicidium fecisset, quia omne parricidium homicidium eat, septiens reus esset, quam fuerat Cain, ut hac seueritate ceteri territi ab hoc se facinore inhiberent.\n\nVI. SI LAMECH OCCIDIT CAIN, SICUT PUTATUR?\n\nFrustra hoc putant, qui arbitrantur quod Lamech dixerit de Cain: occidi uirum in liuore mihi et iuuenem in uulnere mihi. iam enim quinta generatione natus erat Lamech a Cain, id est de Matusalam abnepote Cain. hoc autem idcirco memorat Lamech, ut ostendat acrius adstringendum eum qui sub manifestata lege peccauerit. ac per hoc si post Cain in imitatorem eius septiens uindicatum est, quanto amplius uindicandum in eum est, quem nec factum Cain et correptio nec post eum lata sententia terruit, ut a tam impio et crudeli facinore uoluntatem auerteret!","english":"Therefore, He promises sevenfold vengeance if anyone should aspire to this crime, so that, seeing Cain made guilty by this deed, and when the revelation of the law was not yet given, he would know that he would be punished with a sevenfold penalty if he did not avoid this, so that the knowledge of the law would add six stripes beyond what Cain had merited, so that with Cain's stripe, seven vengeances would be counted. By this same number are those to be rewarded who, having abandoned everything, follow the Lord and in the future will have eternal life. This is the sign that God placed on Cain, so that no one who found him would kill him. For in the case of a parricide, a law was established, so that if anyone committed homicide—since every parricide is homicide—he would be seven times as guilty as Cain was, so that by this severity the rest, terrified, would refrain from this crime.\n\nVI. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS IS THOUGHT?\n\nThose who think that Lamech said of Cain, \"I have killed a man for a bruise to me and a young man for a wound to me,\" are mistaken in this. For Lamech was already born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Methuselah, the great-grandson of Cain. Lamech mentions this, however, in order to show that one who has sinned under a manifest law should be bound more strictly. And on this account, if after Cain sevenfold vengeance was exacted upon his imitator, how much more vengeance is to be exacted upon him whom neither the deed of Cain and the reproof, nor the sentence passed after him, terrified into turning his will away from such an impious and cruel crime!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"post Cain ergo Lamech homicidium perpetrauit, qui sine dubio iuxta ea quae supra dicta sunt septem uindictas exsoluit. et quid post Lamech ei, qui hoc secutus fuisset, futurum esset ostendit dicens:de Lamech autem septuagiens septiens quia malum opus paenitentia non subsequitur, septuaginta septem plagarum ictibus feriatur. unde et saluator etiam septuagiens septiens peccanti, conuerso tamen, remitti praecepit.\n\nSed ne putetur alius ante Lamech homicidium post Cain fecisse, quia dixit: de Cain uindicatum est, quasi iam factum. Lamech autem de se quo modo diceret quia uindicatum in eum erat, cum adhuc recens esset homicidium, quod confessus fuerat se fecisse, cum constet omne factum sententiam secum habere? quando enim alia spes non est, praeter quam quod expleto operi dignum scitur, futurum pro facto habetur. denique dictum Adae est: qua die manducaueritis, morte moriemini, et utique non statim mortui sunt, sed post longum temporis interuallum; sed quia iam spes inmortalitatis amissa erat, futura mors praesens dicta est, quia haec coepit in spe haberi. igitur Lamech iuuenem se occidisse fatetur et Cain, sicut claruit, usque ad hoc tempus peruenire non potuit aut si peruenit, quod inpossibile est, senior fuit.","english":"After Cain, therefore, Lamech committed homicide, who without doubt, according to what was said above, paid the sevenfold vengeance. And what would happen to the one who followed this after Lamech, he shows, saying: \"But concerning Lamech, seventy times seven, because evil work is not followed by repentance, let him be struck with seventy-seven blows.\" Whence also the Savior commanded that even for one sinning seventy times seven, yet if converted, it be forgiven.\n\nBut let it not be thought that another committed homicide after Cain before Lamech, because it was said: \"It was avenged concerning Cain,\" as if already done. But how would Lamech say concerning himself that it was avenged in him, when the homicide was still recent, which he had confessed to have committed, since it is established that every deed carries its sentence with it? For when there is no other hope, except that which is known to be worthy of the completed work, the future is considered as done. Finally, it was said to Adam: \"On the day you eat, you will die by death,\" and certainly they did not die immediately, but after a long interval of time; but because the hope of immortality was already lost, the future death was called present, because it began to be held in hope. Therefore, Lamech confesses that he killed a young man and Cain, as is clear, could not have reached this time, or if he did, which is impossible, he was older.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"VII. QVAE DECEM UERBA IN TABULIS DATA SUNT, AUT SINGULAE TABULAE QVOTENA UERBA HABUERUNT?\n\nDecem sententias decem uerba appellauit, quia et saluator sensum uerbum significauit dicens inter cetera ad Iudaeos: interrogo uos et ego unum uerbum; respondete mihi: baptismum Iohannis unde erat, « caelo an ex hominibus? hunc sensum uerbum appellauit. simili modo et in duabus tabulis decem uerba scripta dicuntur, qui decem sensus sunt. denique dicit: nou sint tibi dii alii praeter me — primum uerbum hoc est — et subiecit: non facies tibi ullam similitudinem, quae sunt in caelo sursum et in terra deorsum, neque in aqua quae est sub terra. deinde adiecit tertio: non sumes nomen domini dei tui in uacuo; non enim mundabit dominus, qui sumit nomen eius in uanum, hoc est non in mendacio nomen domini dei tui adsumes, ut perieres per illud\\\\ dehinc quarto loco dicit: sabbata domini dei tui seruabis et non facies in illo ullum opus seruile. haec quattuor uerba sunt de decem; ista ad dominum proprie pertinent; haec sunt in prima tabula scripta.","english":"VII. The Ten Words Given on the Tablets: How Many Words Did Each Tablet Contain?\n\nHe called the ten sentences \"ten words\" because the Savior also signified a thought by the word \"word,\" saying among other things to the Jews: \"I ask you also one word; answer me: John's baptism, whence was it, from heaven or from men?\" This thought he called a \"word.\" In like manner, on the two tablets ten words are said to be written, which are ten thoughts. Finally, he says: \"You shall have no other gods besides me\"—this is the first word—and he added: \"You shall not make for yourself any likeness, of those which are in heaven above and on earth below, nor in the water which is under the earth.\" Then he added thirdly: \"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse one who takes his name in vain,\" that is, you shall not assume the name of the Lord your God in a lie, so that you perish through it. Then fourthly he says: \"You shall keep the sabbaths of the Lord your God and shall do no servile work on it.\" These are four words of the ten; these pertain properly to the Lord; these are written on the first tablet.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uerbum","severity":"info","text":"The author equates 'uerbum' (word) with 'sensus' (thought or meaning), citing Jesus' usage in a question about John's baptism. This semantic shift is key to his interpretation of the Decalogue as ten 'sentences' or 'thoughts'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non facies tibi ullam similitudinem","severity":"info","text":"The second commandment is paraphrased from Exodus 20:4, but the author adds a gloss specifying 'those in heaven above and on earth below, nor in the water which is under the earth', reflecting a contemporary exegetical expansion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non sumes nomen domini dei tui in uacuo","severity":"info","text":"The third commandment is given as a prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain, with an added warning that the Lord will not cleanse one who does so, echoing but not directly quoting Exodus 20:7.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"prima tabula","severity":"info","text":"The author assigns the first four commandments to the first tablet, grouping them as 'pertaining to the Lord'. This reflects a traditional division of the Decalogue, though the total of ten is completed by six more on the second tablet (not listed here).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"baptismum Iohannis","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Jesus asking about John's baptism is not a direct Gospel quotation but likely alludes to a lost or apocryphal tradition, as no canonical verse matches this wording exactly. It serves to justify the author's semantic equation of 'word' with 'thought'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Jesus saying about John's baptism is unclear; it may be a paraphrase or from a non-canonical tradition.","The exact enumeration of the ten commandments varies; the author lists only four here, leaving the remaining six unspecified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Deinde in secunda tabula haec continentur: primum uerbum est: honora patrem tuum et matrem; secundum: non occides; tertium: non fornicaberis; quartum: non furaberis; quintum: non falsum testimonium dices; sextum: non concupisces quicquam proximi tui, et talia. haec in secunda tabula scripta probat apostolus Paulus dicens: honora patrem et matrem, quod est mandatum primum in promissione. quo modo esset primum, nisi in secunda tabula ab ipso coepisset? 'in promissione) autem ideo dixit, quia statim subiecit: ut sis longaeuus super terram et bene tibi sit. haec est promissio facta his qui mandata custodiunt. itaque habes et mandata distincta et numerum eorum consummatum et quae et quanta in singulis tabulis scripta sunt.\n\nVIII. UT QVID MOVSES DESCENDENS DE MONTE CUM TABULIS UULTUM SPLENDIDUM HABUIT ET INTOLERABILE?\n\nAccepta potestate in peccatoies cum honorificentia descendit de monte facie gloriosa. lex enim contra peccatores data est. Moyses ergo quia non peccauerat, gloriosus apparuit in tantum ut a peccatoribus uideri non posset. ostensum enim in eo est, quia peccatores gloriam dei non merentur aspicere. post simulacrum enim uituli fusilis et confractionem tabularum, in quibus data lex fuerat, rursus ascendens Moyses in montem cum tabulis, in quibus accepta lege cum descenderet.","english":"Then on the second tablet these are contained: the first word is: honor your father and mother; the second: you shall not kill; the third: you shall not commit fornication; the fourth: you shall not steal; the fifth: you shall not bear false witness; the sixth: you shall not covet anything of your neighbor, and such things. That these are written on the second tablet the apostle Paul proves, saying: honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment in the promise. How would it be first, unless on the second tablet it had begun from that? He said \"in the promise\" moreover because he immediately added: so that you may be long-lived upon the earth and it may be well with you. This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. Thus you have both the commandments distinguished and their number completed and which and how many are written on each tablet.\n\nVIII. WHY DID MOSES, DESCENDING FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLETS, HAVE A SPLENDID AND UNBEARABLE COUNTENANCE?\n\nHaving received authority over sinners, he descended from the mountain with honor and a glorious face. For the law was given against sinners. Moses, therefore, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious to such an extent that he could not be seen by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. After the image of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets on which the law had been given, Moses again ascended the mountain with the tablets, on which, having received the law, he descended.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"gloriosa facta est facies eius, ut non possent aspicere filii Israhel uultum eius, neque Aaron, quia et ipse peccauerat; sed interposito uelamine loquebatur ad illos, ut tam diu indigni essent gloria dei, quam diu in peccatis uerterentur.\n\nUnde dicit apostolus: cum conuersus fuerit ad dominum, auferetur uelamen, ut dono dei abluti digni fierent intendere gloriam dei. in confractione enim tabularum, quas ante acceperat, Iudaeorum populum reprobum significauit, eo quod peccatis studentes promissione dei indigni futuri erant. quod autem reiterata lex est, alter populus futurus significatus est, cui proficeret lex data in monte.\n\nVIIII. SI OMNIA DEUS BONA FECIT ET BONA UALDE, QVID EST UT DICAT AD NOE: 'DE MUNDIS ET INMUNDIS INDUC TECUM IN ARCAM,' CUM IN ABSOLUTO SIT INMUNDUM BONUM DICI NON POSSE?\n\nPer id quod multimodam rationem habent uerba, faciunt quaestiones. nam si ad causam de qua agitur referantur, nulla erit quaestio, quia per ordinem res ipsae se prodent. nam aliquando (commune dicimus quod indiuisum est, aliquando quod inmundum est; duobus enim modis appellatur (commune). denique Petrus apostolus: commune, inquit, et inmundum numquam intrauit in os meum, et apostolus Paulus: omne, inquit, quod non est ex fide peccatum est, et alibi: lex, ait, non est ex fide, et non tamen peccatum est. uides ergo, quia unus adque idem sermo non eadem semper significat.","english":"His face became glorious, so that the sons of Israel could not look upon his countenance, nor could Aaron, because he too had sinned; but he spoke to them through an interposed veil, so that they would be unworthy of the glory of God for as long as they remained entangled in sins.\n\nWhence the apostle says: when he has turned to the Lord, the veil will be removed, so that, washed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to behold the glory of God. For in the breaking of the tablets, which he had received before, he signified the reprobate people of the Jews, because, devoted to sins, they would be unworthy of God's promise. But that the law was reiterated signified that a different people would come, for whom the law given on the mountain would be beneficial.\n\nIX. IF GOD MADE ALL THINGS GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DOES HE SAY TO NOAH: 'BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK FROM THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN,' WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT THE UNCLEAN CANNOT BE CALLED GOOD?\n\nBecause words have manifold meanings, they create questions. For if they are referred to the matter at hand, there will be no question, because the things themselves reveal themselves in order. For sometimes we call 'common' what is undivided, sometimes what is unclean; for 'common' is used in two ways. Finally, the apostle Peter says: 'Common and unclean never entered my mouth,' and the apostle Paul says: 'Everything that is not from faith is sin,' and elsewhere: 'The law,' he says, 'is not from faith, and yet it is not sin.' You see, therefore, that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VIIII. SI OMNIA DEUS BONA FECIT...","severity":"info","text":"The ninth question begins here, introduced by a new Roman numeral. The passage shifts from narrative about Moses to a theological quaestio about Noah and the ark.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cum conuersus fuerit ad dominum, auferetur uelamen","severity":"info","text":"The author attributes to Paul a statement about the removal of a veil upon conversion. This is not a direct biblical quotation but a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 3:16 or a related Pauline theme.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"DE MUNDIS ET INMUNDIS INDUC TECUM IN ARCAM","severity":"info","text":"The author paraphrases God's command to Noah in Genesis 7:2-3, where clean and unclean animals are brought into the ark. The Latin 'mundis et inmundis' reflects the Vulgate wording.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"commune et inmundum numquam intrauit in os meum","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Peter as saying 'common and unclean never entered my mouth.' This is not a canonical New Testament verse but may derive from early Christian tradition or apocryphal sayings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est","severity":"info","text":"The author attributes to Paul the statement 'everything that is not from faith is sin.' This echoes Romans 14:23 or a similar Pauline idea, but is not a direct quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"commune","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'commune' is used in two senses: 'common' (undivided) and 'unclean.' The author argues that word meaning depends on context, resolving the apparent contradiction about clean and unclean animals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the Peter citation ('commune et inmundum numquam intrauit in os meum') is unclear; it may be from a non-canonical tradition.","The Pauline citation 'omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est' is a paraphrase, not a direct biblical verse."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Ideo et cum dicitur (inmundum), considerandum est qua ex causa dicatur, quia aliquando ad conparationem meliorum inmundum dicitur, aliquando ad opera sordida refertur, ut malum intellegatur. nulla igitur substantia malum, quia quae per substantiam inmunda putantur ad conparationem pulcherrimarum rerum inmunda sunt. nam et panis inmundus dicitur . et oleum et plumbum ad conparationem auri inmundum est et coruus ad pauum et, cum unius corporis membra sint, alia honesta, alia inhonesta uocantur, cum sciantur mala non esse. itaque omnia in sua natura bona sunt, quia utilia.\n\nX. CUM DEUS DICAT AD ABRAHAM DE FILIIS ISRAHEL, QVOD QVARTA PROGENIE EXITURI ESSENT DE POTESTATE AEGVPTIORUM, QVID EST UT E CONTRA LEX DICAT: 'QVINTA PROGENIE EXIERUNT FILII ISRAHEL DE TERRA AEGVPT'? UALDE UIDETUR CONTRARIUM.\n\nQuantum ad uerba pertinet, uidetur esse contrarium; si autem sensus requiratur, inuenietur esse non dispar. sic enim lex loquitur, ut a diligentibus ac sedulis possit intellegi, ut ratio ueritatis non incuriosis, sed sollicitis se reuelet. nam utique deus dixit: quarta progenie, et Moyses scripsit: quinta progenie, quamuis utrumque Moyses retulerit et fallere eum inpossibile sit, in quo tanta uirtus operata sit. ac per hoc inuestigandus est sensus, quia non otiose aliquid aut inprouide diuina loquitur scriptura. itaque duae partes sunt, quas singuli memorauerunt.","english":"Therefore, when something is called \"unclean,\" it must be considered for what reason it is so called, because sometimes it is called unclean in comparison to better things, sometimes it refers to foul deeds, so that it is understood as evil. No substance, then, is evil, because things that are considered unclean by their substance are unclean only in comparison to the most beautiful things. For bread is called unclean, and oil and lead are unclean in comparison to gold, and the raven in comparison to the peacock; and, although they are members of one body, some are called honorable, others dishonorable, though it is known that they are not evil. Thus all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful.\n\nX. WHEN GOD SAYS TO ABRAHAM CONCERNING THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT THEY WOULD DEPART FROM THE POWER OF THE EGYPTIANS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY IS IT THAT ON THE CONTRARY THE LAW SAYS: \"THE SONS OF ISRAEL DEPARTED FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT IN THE FIFTH GENERATION\"? IT SEEMS QUITE CONTRARY.\n\nAs far as the words are concerned, it seems to be contrary; but if the meaning is sought, it will be found not to be dissimilar. For the law speaks in such a way that it can be understood by the diligent and careful, so that the truth of the matter reveals itself not to the careless, but to the attentive. For indeed God said: the fourth generation, and Moses wrote: the fifth generation, although Moses reported both and it is impossible for him to deceive, in whom such great power was at work. And through this the meaning must be investigated, because divine scripture does not speak anything idly or carelessly. Thus there are two parts, which each of them recorded.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"deus enim quattuor generationes significauit, quae natae sunt in Aegypto; Moyses autem addens his unam, ex qua hae ortum acceperunt, cum intrassent in Aegyptum: quinta, inquit, generatione exierunt filii Israhel. generationem enim quae intrauit in Aegyptum, et quattuor quae illic natae sunt, simul conplexus est. nam Abraham usque ad exitum filiorum Israhel de Aegypto generationes sunt octo. ducentis enim quindecim annis a promissione facta Abrahae habitauerunt in Chanaan et ducentis quindecim in Aegypto.\n\nHi sunt anni quos conprehendit apostolus ad Galatas dicens: post quadringentos et triginta annos facta est lex. igitur hae quattuor generationes natae sunt in Chanaan, id est in Isaac una, altera in Iacob, tertia in Leui, quarta in Gedson et Caath et Merari. cum intrassent autem filii Israhel in Aegyptum, Caath genuit Ambram — haec est prima generatio facta in Aegypto —; Ambram autem genuit Aaron et Moysen et Mariam, quae est secunda facta generatio in Aegypto; et Aaron genuit Eleazer et fratres eius, quae est generatio tertia; Eleazer autem genuit Finees quarta generatione. hae sunt quattuor generationes procreatae in Aegypto. unde ait deus ad Abraham: peregrinum erit semen tuum, et seruitio oppriment eos; ego autem liberabo eos, quarta generatione exient inde. uide si non apertum est, quia non aliud significauit deus, quam quod gestum est in Aegypto.","english":"For God signified four generations, which were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding one to these, from which these took their origin, when they had entered into Egypt, says: \"In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out.\" For he included together the generation which entered into Egypt and the four which were born there. For from Abraham up to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, there are eight generations. For two hundred and fifteen years they dwelt in Canaan after the promise made to Abraham, and two hundred and fifteen years in Egypt.\n\nThese are the years which the Apostle comprehends when he says to the Galatians: \"After four hundred and thirty years the law was given.\" Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan, that is, one in Isaac, a second in Jacob, a third in Levi, a fourth in Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. But when the children of Israel had entered into Egypt, Kohath begot Amram—this is the first generation made in Egypt; Amram begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation made in Egypt; and Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation; Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations procreated in Egypt. Whence God says to Abraham: \"Your seed will be a sojourner, and they will oppress them with servitude; but I will free them; in the fourth generation they will go out from there.\" See if it is not clear, that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Moyses autem ut etiam illam generationem poneret, quae cum Iacob patre suo intrauit in Aegyptum, ex qua istae quattuor originem habent, dixit: quinta progenie exierunt filii Israhel de terra Aegypti.\n\nXI. SI UIRI IUSTI UOLUNTAS BONA EST, QVID EST UT ISAAC NON ESAU QVEM UOLUIT, SED IACOB QVEM NOLUIT BENEDIXERIT?\n\nIusti hominis, quantum ad conscientiam eius pertinet, uoluntas bona est; quantum autem ad praescientiam, inmunis est ab aduersis. deus enim solus est, qui de futuris iudicat. ac per hoc Isaac iustus, quantum ad praesentem humanitatem dignum est, maiorem filium suum benedicendum magis putabat. sed deus, qui occultorum cognitor est, minorem benedictionem mereri ostendit, ut in benedictione non hominis ostenderet esse beneficium, sed dei esse, et quia officii dignitas est, non hominis meritum, quam dei sequitur benedictio. denique dictum est a deo in Numeris ad Moysen et Aaron sacerdotes: uos autem ponite nomen meum super filios Israhel; ego dominus benedicam eos, ut gratiam traditio per ministerium ordinati transfundat hominibus nec uoluntas sacerdotis obesse aut prodesse possit, sed meritum benedictionem poscentis.","english":"But Moses, in order to include also that generation which entered Egypt with his father Jacob, from which these four take their origin, said: \"In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out from the land of Egypt.\"\n\nXI. IF THE WILL OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY IS IT THAT ISAAC DID NOT BLESS ESAU, WHOM HE WISHED, BUT JACOB, WHOM HE DID NOT WISH?\n\nThe will of a righteous man, as far as his own conscience is concerned, is good; but as far as foreknowledge is concerned, it is immune from adversities. For God alone is the one who judges concerning future things. And through this, the righteous Isaac, as far as present human nature is concerned, thought that his elder son was more worthy of being blessed. But God, who is the knower of hidden things, showed that the younger son merited the blessing, so that it might be shown that the benefit in the blessing is not of man, but is of God, and that the dignity of the office, not the merit of the man, is what the blessing of God follows. Finally, it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: \"But you place my name upon the children of Israel; I, the Lord, will bless them,\" so that the tradition of grace, through the ministry of the ordained, might transfer it to men, and the will of the priest can neither hinder nor help, but the merit of the one seeking the blessing does.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Quanta autem dignitas sit ordinis sacerdotalis, hinc aduertamus. dictum est autem de nequissimo Caipha, interfectore saluatoris, inter cetera: hoc autem a semet ipso non dixit, sed cum esset princeps sacerdotum anni illius, profetauit. per quod ostenditur spiritum gratiarum non personam sequi aut digni aut indigni, sed ordinationem traditionis, ut quamuis aliquis boni meriti sit, non tamen possit benedicere, nisi fuerit ordinatus, ut officium ministerii exhibeat. dei autem est effectum tribuere benedictionis.\n\nXII. QVARE ABRAHAM FIDEI SUAE SIGNUM CIRCUMCISIONEM ACCEPIT?\n\nSi uelis aduertere, non incongruum uidebis quod putas diuersum esse a ratione. credens enim filium se habiturum, in quo omnes gentes benedicerentur et a quo sanctimonium exortandum erat, illa in parte signum accepit, per quam generatio fit filiorum et cessat, ut sanctior sit. sed si aliquibus deformatio uidetur, animaduertant Abraham in eo gauisum et filios eius hoc testimonio fuisse gloriosos. nam Achior utique unus ex principibus gentilium uidens tantam uirtutem esse in deo Abrahae, ut Olofernem ducem exercitus Assyriorum, cuius potentiam tota terra tremebat, proprio gladio manu feminae decollaret, sponte se circumcidit, arbitratus ex eo ipso dignitatem sibi quaesitam. nonne prae se fert, si quis pro nomine Christi oculum aut aliquod membrum amiserit?","english":"But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, let us note from this. It was said, moreover, about the most wicked Caiaphas, the slayer of the Savior, among other things: \"This, however, he did not say of his own accord, but because he was high priest of that year, he prophesied.\" By this it is shown that the spirit of graces does not follow the person, whether worthy or unworthy, but the ordination of tradition, so that even if someone is of good merit, he cannot bless unless he has been ordained, to perform the office of ministry. It is God's, however, to grant the effect of the blessing.\n\nXII. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH?\n\nIf you are willing to pay attention, you will see that what you think is inconsistent with reason is not incongruous. For believing that he would have a son, in whom all nations would be blessed and from whom sanctity was to arise, he received the sign in that part through which the generation of sons occurs and ceases, so that it might be more holy. But if it seems a disfigurement to some, let them note that Abraham rejoiced in it and that his sons were glorious through this testimony. For Achior, indeed, one of the princes of the Gentiles, seeing such great virtue in the God of Abraham that Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army, whose power the whole earth trembled at, was beheaded by his own sword at the hand of a woman, circumcised himself voluntarily, thinking that he had thereby gained dignity for himself. Does it not speak well of a man if he has lost an eye or some limb for the sake of Christ's name?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"nonne partem ipsam humanis uultibus ingerit, ut appareat gloriosus? pro fide enim aliquid ad tempus amittere lucrum est facere.\n\nIta et Abraham fidei suae signum accipiens non deformatus est, sed melioratus. spiritaliter uero hoc significauit, quia nebula carnis circumcidi haberet a cordibus hominum per fidem Christi, quia carnalis error obstabat caliginem praestans humanis cordibus, ne cognoscerent creatorem. Abraham autem, quia promissus est ex semine eius futurus Christus, qui hanc caliginem abstergeret, ideo circumcisus est, quia filium credidit se habiturum, qui errorem hunc amputaret. iam uide, si non congrue illa in parte uel tale signum accepit.\n\nXIII. SI IUDICIUM DEI IUSTUM EST, QVARE INFANTES IN SODOMIS SIMUL CUM PARENTIBUS CREMATI SUNT?\n\nUt nimis impium facinus Sodomitarum possit aduerti, peccatum eorum peruenit usque ad necem filiorum ipsorum, ne de origine illorum signum aliquod remaneret. nonne prouisum est in illis, ne diu uiuentes exempla sequerentur patrum? a gehenna enim liberi sunt in aliena causa occisi. parentes enim tam pro se quam pro his rei sunt, quia, ut illorum opera oblitterarentur, omnis progenies ipsorum erasa est. nam si bonis parentum laeti sunt filii et quod commendentur praerogatiua eorum, sic et de morte, quae pro malis illorum infertur, queri non possunt, ut, quem ad modum participes in lucro sunt, sint et in damno.","english":"Does it not thrust that very part before human eyes, so that he might appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the sake of faith is to make a profit.\n\nThus also Abraham, receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured but improved. Spiritually, however, this signified that the cloud of the flesh was to be cut away from the hearts of men through faith in Christ, because carnal error stood in the way, casting a fog over human hearts, so that they would not recognize the Creator. Abraham, moreover, because from his seed Christ was promised to come, who would wipe away this fog, was therefore circumcised, because he believed he would have a son who would cut away this error. Now see if that sign in that part was not fittingly received.\n\nXIII. IF THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IS JUST, WHY WERE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS?\n\nSo that the excessively impious crime of the Sodomites might be recognized, their sin reached even to the slaughter of their own children, lest any sign of their origin remain. Was it not provided for in them, that they should not, living long, follow the examples of their fathers? For they are free from hell, having been killed in another's cause. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, in order that the works of those parents might be obliterated, their entire offspring was wiped out. For if children are gladdened by the good deeds of their parents and are commended by their prerogative, so also concerning death, which is inflicted for the parents' evils, they cannot complain, so that, just as they are participants in profit, so they are also in loss.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"similiter et in Aegypto pro noxiis patrum plexi sunt filii, sed ut ad emendationem eorum proficeret, ut quia ex aliis causis dominum credere et uenerari, qui in Moyse erat, noluerunt, hac plaga territi confiterentur cum satisfactione, ne grauius hunc iratum sentirent.\n\nHaec ergo mors filiorum crimen est patrum. quoquo enim modo filii debitum spiritum reddiderunt, futuri accusatores parentum, quia perfidiam suam nec sanguine filiorum uincere potuerunt, non ergo in futurum, sed ad praesens tempus mala parentum filios inuenerunt. nec qualecumque beneficium est gloriosum non esse, nec tamen reum? nam si quidam cum precibus enituntur in postremis positi ad fidem ueri accedere, ut, si non coronam, uel ueniam mereantur, quo modo poterunt hinc aliqui queri, cum quibus ita actum est, ut neque esset unde ignosci sibi precarentur, neque sublimes haberentur qui minime laborauerant? confers nunc unius momenti cruciatum ad multi temporis poenam; arbitrare etiam multos laborare et, quia perseuerare non possunt, non solum effectum laboris amittere, sed et poena multari; adde etiam, quia difficile de malis nati et inter nequissimos educati uel conuersati mentem suam temperant ad disciplinam dei sequendam: uide ergo, si non magis bene actum est cum filiis perditorum.","english":"Similarly in Egypt, the sons were punished for the crimes of their fathers, but so that it might serve for their correction, because they refused from other causes to believe in and venerate the Lord, who was in Moses, terrified by this plague they would confess with satisfaction, lest they feel him more grievously angered.\n\nTherefore, this death of the sons is the crime of the fathers. For in whatever way the sons rendered up their due spirit, they would be future accusers of their parents, because they could not overcome their own faithlessness even by the blood of their sons. Thus, the evils of the parents found out the sons not for the future, but for the present time. And is it not some kind of benefit to be not glorious, yet not guilty? For if some, with prayers, strive when placed in their last moments to approach the true faith, so that, if not a crown, they may at least merit pardon, how can some here complain, with whom it has been so dealt that there was neither anything from which they could beg pardon for themselves, nor were those who had labored least held in high esteem? Compare now a single moment's torment to a punishment of long duration; consider also that many labor and, because they cannot persevere, not only lose the effect of their labor but are also punished; add also that it is difficult for those born from evil and raised or living among the most wicked to temper their mind to follow the discipline of God: see, therefore, if it was not more well done with the sons of the lost.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"XIIII. QVID EST UT DEUS, QVI IUSTUS PRAEDICATUR, PECCATA PATRUM FILIIS. SE REDDERE PROMISERIT IN TERTIAM ET QVARTAM PROGENIEM?\n\nNihil iniuste dominum facere aut dicere qui dubitat insanus est. itaque si uerba domini non subprimantur, sed omnia quae ad eandem quaestionem pertinent, proponantur, lucebit quod obscurum uidetur et pium aestimabitur quod minime iustum putatur. qui enim uerba subprimit quaestionis aut inperitus est aut tergiuersator, qui calumniae magis studet quam doctrinae. porro autem repromisit quidem deus reddere se peccata patrum filiis, sed qui oderint eum, hoc est qui in paternis malis uersati seruiunt idolis, sicut et patres illorum. iste enim inimicus dei est, qui honorem nominis eius uindicat creaturae. sicut enim iustorum filii et ipsi iusti nobilitant in se genus iustitiae, dum et patrum et sua iustitia sublimantur, ita et nequissimorum et ipsi filii nequissimi crementum faciunt malitiae, quia et malorum filii sunt et nequitiam illorum exemplarunt ad perditionem multorum.","english":"XIIII. Why is it that God, who is proclaimed just, promised to repay the sins of fathers to their sons in the third and fourth generation?\n\nAnyone who doubts that the Lord does or says nothing unjust is insane. Therefore, if the words of the Lord are not suppressed, but everything pertaining to the same question is set forth, what seems obscure will shine forth, and what is thought to be utterly unjust will be judged pious. For whoever suppresses the words of a question is either inexperienced or a tergiversator, who is more devoted to calumny than to teaching. Moreover, God indeed promised to repay the sins of fathers to their sons, but to those who hate him, that is, those who, persisting in their fathers' evils, serve idols, just as their fathers did. For such a one is an enemy of God, who claims the honor of his name for a creature. For just as the sons of the just, themselves also just, ennoble the race of justice in themselves, being exalted by both their fathers' and their own justice, so also the sons of the most wicked, themselves also most wicked, increase malice, because they are both sons of evil men and have emulated their wickedness to the destruction of many.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Cum terrore ergo locutus uidetur deus, sed uerum est, et hoc habet ratio. quis enim malum et mali hominis filium non duplici genere exsecretur, quo modo bonum et boni filium duplici merito censet honorandum? idcirco autem in tertiam et quartam progeniem reddere se promisit, ut si post patrem malum filius non sequatur perfidiam patris, nepos autem aui in malis imitator existens sciat se non inmunem futurum a seueritate sententiae, aut si et nepos forte non aui, sed patris secutus uestigia testamentum diligat dei, non ignoret pronepos ad se usque peruenire sententiam, si aemulus sit proaui perfidiae.\n\nHac legis manifestatione deterreri uoluit deus impios patres, ut agnoscentes quantum mali pareret sectatio idolatriae uel adfectu filiorum reuocarentur ad reuerentiam creatoris, aut filii timentes, ne incurrerent peccata patrum, dei legi obtemperarent.","english":"Therefore, God seems to have spoken with terror, but it is true, and this has reason. For who does not abhor the son of an evil and wicked man with a twofold kind of loathing, just as the son of a good and upright man is deemed worthy of honor with a twofold merit? Moreover, He promised to exact punishment in the third and fourth generation, so that if after a wicked father the son does not follow the father’s treachery, but the grandson, being an imitator of the grandfather in evil deeds, knows that he will not be immune from the severity of the sentence; or if the grandson, perhaps not following the grandfather’s but the father’s footsteps, loves God’s covenant, the great-grandson should not be unaware that the sentence reaches even to him, if he is an emulator of the great-grandfather’s treachery.\n\nBy this manifestation of the law, God wished to deter impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry would produce, they might be recalled to reverence for the Creator either by affection for their sons, or so that sons, fearing lest they incur the sins of their fathers, might obey God’s law.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"illi autem adtendentes ad nequitiam aliter hoc interpretari coeperunt dicentes: patres manducauerunt uuam acerbam et dentes filiorum stupuerunt, ut securi de inpunitate, eo quod filiis ipsorum redderentur peccata, illi tamen neque spiritus neque carnis haberent pietatem — hinc dicitur eis, non (morietur filius pro patre' neque 'pater pro filio', sed: anima quae peccat ipsa morietur — et addiscerent non inpune sibi futurum, sed sic reddi peccata patrum filiis, ut, quia impietatem parentum secuti mala, quae oblitteranda erant, exemplauerunt, acerbius puniantur.\n\nPostquam ostendit deus quid mali pariat idolatria, addidit statim quae bona diligentes se sequantur dicens: et faciens misericordiam in milia milium his, qui diligunt me et custodiunt praecepta mea, ut bonum patris non usque ad pronepotem, sed usque in milia milium reddat. ut puta, si quis ex semine Dauid diligat dominum, quem constat utique porro ante mille annos fuisse, huic additur misericordia dei, ut in necessitate duabus suffragantibus causis misericordiam accipere mereatur, quia et ipse dei cultor est et ex eius semine est, qui amauerit deum. et in hoc clementia dei laudabilis est, ut odio habentibus se usque in tertiam et quartam reddat progeniem et non in milia milium, ut si in quintam progeniem tractum fuerit malum, inde iterum caput habere incipiat, ut ex eo numeretur usque ad tertiam et quartam progeniem.","english":"But they, attending to wickedness, began to interpret this differently, saying: \"The fathers ate sour grapes, and the teeth of the sons were set on edge,\" so that, secure in impunity because the sins were being repaid to their sons, they nevertheless had piety neither of spirit nor of flesh. Hence it is said to them: \"Not 'the son will die for the father' nor 'the father for the son,' but: the soul that sins, that one will die.\" And they were to learn that it would not be without consequence for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid to the sons in such a way that, because they followed the impiety of their parents, they made manifest evils that ought to have been obliterated, and are punished more harshly.\n\nAfter God showed what evil idolatry produces, he immediately added what good follows those who love him, saying: \"And doing mercy for thousands upon thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments,\" so that the good of the father is repaid not only to the great-grandson, but for thousands upon thousands. For example, if someone from the seed of David loves the Lord—who, it is established, lived more than a thousand years ago—mercy is added to him from God, so that in need, with two supporting causes, he may deserve to receive mercy: because he himself is a worshiper of God and because he is from the seed of one who loved God. And in this, the mercy of God is praiseworthy, so that he repays those who hate him up to the third and fourth generation, but not for thousands upon thousands; so that if evil is drawn out to the fifth generation, it begins again from there to have a head, and from that point is counted up to the third and fourth generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Sed dicet quis: 'auctori magis amplius reddendum iustum uidetur, quam imitatori.' in auctorem congrua datur uindicta, filiis autem quod plus dicit reddi, poena est patrum. et si quaeras, accessu legis peccatores plus fiunt rei, sicut et Lamech et post Lamech. quibusdam tamen uidetur sic reddita esse peccata patrum in filios, dum in captiuitatem ducti sunt causa patrum et fuerunt ibi usque ad quartam generationem. quod si uerum est, non solum odio habentibus se deus reddidit peccata patrum, sed et diligentibus nomen suum, quia et Danihel abductus est et tres pueri et Baruch et Ezechihel et Hesdra illic natus est. liquido ergo apparet illud conuenire propositae quaestioni, quod supra diximus.\n\nXV. CUM IUSTUM PRAEDICET LEX ET HIC UERE IUSTUS SIT, QVI PLENAM HABET IUSTITIAM, CONTRA SOLOMON: 'NOLI,' AIT, 'ESSE IUSTUS MULTUM.'\n\nNimia iustitia incurrit peccatum, temperata uero iustitia facit perfectos. non enim sine malitia est qui multum est iustus, quia peccantibus ad singula si respondeas, non deerit ubi pecces. denique dei temperata iustitia est. peccantibus enim aliquando ignoscit, aliquando irascitur, aliquando reddit non quantum digni sunt; suffert enim eos, ut sint qui proficiant. lex enim, quia se ipsam mollire non potest, a nobis mitiganda est, ut possit prodesse sub se agentibus. hic ergo iustus non est multum, qui dei imitator est.","english":"But someone will say: 'It seems more just to render more to the author than to the imitator.' A fitting punishment is given to the author; to the sons, however, what is said to be rendered more is the penalty of the fathers. And if you inquire, by the approach of the law sinners become more guilty, as also Lamech and after Lamech. To some, nevertheless, it seems that the sins of the fathers were thus repaid to the sons, when they were led into captivity because of the fathers and were there up to the fourth generation. If this is true, God repaid the sins of the fathers not only to those who hated him, but also to those who loved his name, because Daniel was led away, and the three youths, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. Therefore it clearly appears that what we said above is fitting for the proposed question.\n\nXV. SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS WHAT IS JUST, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO HAS FULL JUSTICE, AGAINST SOLOMON: 'DO NOT,' HE SAYS, 'BE EXCESSIVELY JUST.'\n\nExcessive justice incurs sin, but tempered justice makes perfect ones. For he who is excessively just is not without malice, because if you respond to sinners in every single matter, there will be no lack of occasions where you sin. Finally, God's justice is tempered. For he sometimes forgives sinners, sometimes becomes angry, sometimes renders not as much as they deserve; for he endures them, so that there may be those who advance. For the law, because it cannot soften itself, must be mitigated by us, so that it can benefit those acting under it. Therefore, he who is an imitator of God is not excessively just.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"XVI. QVARE ANGELUS, QVI IN UIA OCCIDERE UOLEBAT MOVSEN, CIRCUMCISIONE INFANTIS PACATUS EST?\n\nQuod sine consilio Moyses fecerat apparentia comminantis angeli emendauit. denique uidens, quod per neglegentiam fuerat praetermissum, cessauit ab ira. idcirco ergo sic infestum angelum in se uidit Moyses et paratum ad uindictam, quia uiri sublimis culpa graue peccatum est. quanto enim persona eius suspicabilis est, tanto magis leue delictum eius acerbissimum est peccatum. pergebat itaque ad filios Israhel missus a deo Abra- I hae et signum iustitiae Abrahae non ferebat, in quo gloriari sciebat Iudaeos, ut aut ipse sollicitator diceretur aut non ab eodem deo missus, qui Abraham elegerat. in Madia enim habitans filios suos minime circumcidit, quos aut ducere secum ad Aegyptum non debuit, qui ceteros ibat inde educere, aut certe circumcisos adsumere, propter quae supra diximus.","english":"XVI. Why was the angel, who wished to kill Moses on the road, appeased by the circumcision of an infant?\n\nWhat Moses had done without counsel, the threatening appearance of the angel corrected. Finally, seeing that it had been omitted through negligence, he ceased from his anger. Therefore, Moses saw the angel so hostile toward himself and ready for vengeance because the fault of a man of high station is a grave sin. For the more eminent a person is, the more his light offense becomes a most grievous sin. So he was proceeding to the sons of Israel, sent by God to Abraham, and he did not bear the sign of Abraham’s righteousness, in which he knew the Jews gloried, so that either he himself would be called a seducer or he was not sent by the same God who had chosen Abraham. For while dwelling in Midian, he did not circumcise his sons, whom he either ought not to have taken with him to Egypt, since he was going to lead others out from there, or certainly ought to have taken them circumcised, for the reasons we have stated above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Seffora ergo uxor Moysi, quod conpendio loquitur scriptura, non ignorans qua causa uiro suo infestus angelus uidebatur, accipiens circumcidit filium suum, et recessit angelus. ea enim ratione mitigata est ira, qua fuerat et accensa. nam aliquanta conpendio loquitur scriptura, quae subintellegi uult ex proposita ratione, sicut et illud, quod saluator dicit inter cetera ad Iudaeos: quare et uos praeteritis mandatum dei, ut traditionem uestram statuatis? nam dixit deus: 'honora patrem et matrem' et: (qui male dixerit patri aut matri, morte moriatur*. uos autem dicitis: 'quicumque dixerit patri aut matri: \"omne munus quodcumque fuerit ex me, tibi proderit\", et non honorauit patrem aut matrem suam). sine dubio per conpendium hoc dixit saluator, ut subintellegatur sacerdotes Iudaeorum, dum auaritiae studerent, dei legem spreuisse; impia enim conspiratione consilium dederunt filiis, ut male dicentes patrem aut matrem quodcumque offerrent quasi donum deo, per quod data sententia in maledicos solueretur, unde securi facti filii contra dei praeceptum contemnebant parentes. ita et Moyses, cum infestum sibi uideret angelum, intellegens causam quid fieri deberet ostendit uxori, ut recederet ab eo angelus, qui eum quaerebat occidere. hoc subintellegitur in hac causa, sicut et illud quod supra diximus in sacerdotes.","english":"Seffora, therefore, the wife of Moses—for the Scripture speaks concisely—not being ignorant of the reason why the angel seemed hostile to her husband, took and circumcised her son, and the angel departed. For the anger was mitigated by the same reasoning by which it had also been kindled. For the Scripture speaks with some conciseness, wishing certain things to be understood from the reasoning presented, just as also that saying of the Savior among other things to the Jews: \"Why do you also pass over the commandment of God, to establish your own tradition?\" For God said: 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Whoever has spoken evil against father or mother shall die by death.' But you say: 'Whoever has said to father or mother: \"Every gift whatsoever that comes from me will benefit you,\" and has not honored his father or his mother.' Without doubt the Savior said this concisely, so that it might be understood that the priests of the Jews, while they pursued avarice, had spurned the law of God; for by an impious conspiracy they gave counsel to sons, that those speaking evil against father or mother should offer whatever as if a gift to God, through which the sentence pronounced against the evil-speakers would be dissolved, whence the sons, made secure, contemned their parents contrary to God's precept. So also Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed what ought to be done to his wife, so that the angel who sought to kill him would depart from him. This is understood in this case, just as also that which we said above concerning the priests.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"XVII. QVID EST UT MALEDICTOS DICAT QVI NON RELIQVERINT SEMEN IN ISRAHEL, PER ESEIAM AUTEM NIHIL OBESSE DICAT SPADONIBUS, QVIA GENERARE NON POSSUNT?\n\nQuoniam aliter quam datum erat intellegi coeperat, idcirco Eseias profeta ostendit postea quo sensu dictum esset. cum enim hoc ex causa offensi dei sententiae loco positum esset, quia deserentes deum in eo percutiebantur, ne ducentes uxores semen relinquerent, sic hoc arripuit error humanus, ut putarent reos esse apud deum, si qui aut uxores nollent aut accipientes, ut adsolet, generare non possent, quasi nihil aliud quam semen quaereret deus, sicut arguuntur per Malachiam profetam. Eseias ergo, ut consolaretur eos quos mala intellegentia contristauerat, docuit nihil obesse, si quis aut non posset habere filios aut nollet, dum modo dei legem seruaret. maledictum enim illis conpetebat, qui cum possent ac uellent, diuino obstante iudicio steriles erant, ne fructum haberent creationis dei, quem spernebant, ut cum uiderent aut generare se non posse aut genitos minime possidere, cognoscerent indignantis dei iram esse et conuersi satis facerent.","english":"XVII. Why does it say that those who have not left seed in Israel are cursed, but through Isaiah it says that eunuchs suffer no harm because they cannot beget?\n\nBecause it had begun to be understood otherwise than as it was given, therefore the prophet Isaiah later showed in what sense it had been said. For when this had been set in place as a sentence on account of the offense of God—because those who were deserting God were struck in this, that they, taking wives, left no seed—human error seized upon this so that they thought those were guilty before God who either did not want wives or, taking them, as often happens, could not beget, as if God sought nothing other than seed, as they are reproached through the prophet Malachi. Isaiah, therefore, to console those whom a bad understanding had saddened, taught that it does no harm if someone either could not have children or did not wish to, so long as he kept the law of God. For the curse applied to those who, though they could and would, were sterile by the opposing judgment of God, so that they would have no fruit of God’s creation, which they were spurning, so that when they saw that they could not beget or that those begotten they could not possess, they would recognize that it was the anger of an indignant God and, converted, would make amends.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Nam et sancti uiri, cum cupidi essent filiorum et non id obtinerent, aestimabant peccata obstare et dolebant ignorantes dei esse prouidentiam, cui seruabantur. denique ad dei procurationem et Anna concepit et peperit Samuhelem et Helisabeth Iohannem et uxor Manoe Sampson. spiritalis tamen intellegentia in hac causa ista est, ut maledicti habeantur qui non reliquerint semen, quod uideat dominum, id est (qui non inbuerit aut filium aut seruum aut proximum, qui dei timorem doceat super terram'.\n\nXVIII. QVARE SAUL PECCANS PETIT ORARI PRO SE, UT IGNOSCERETUR EI, ET INPETRARE NON POTUIT, DAUID AUTEM PECCANS POSTULAUIT ET UENIAM CONSECUTUS EST?\n\nDei iudicium retractari non conuenit; nam humana inbecillitas adque inperitia dei se debet iudicio erudire, in quo non sapit, ut ex sententia dei intellegat ueritatem et nihil aliud fieri debuisse, quam quod uidet fecisse dominum, quem scit acceptorem personarum non esse. si enim Dauid precem suscepit et Saul refutauit, nihil aduersum sentiendum est dominum fecisse. sciens enim qua mente locutus uterque est, eius petitionem accepit, quem uidit tribulato corde ueniam postulare; illum autem despexit, quia animum eius paenitentiae non tetigerat dolor, quia deus cordis auditor est magis quam uocis. hinc dictum est:homo uidet in facie, deus autem in corde.","english":"For holy men, when they were desirous of children and did not obtain them, used to think that sins were an obstacle and grieved, not knowing that it was God's providence for which they were being preserved. Finally, through God's care Anna conceived and bore Samuel, and Elizabeth bore John, and the wife of Manoah bore Samson. The spiritual understanding in this matter, however, is this: that those who have not left seed that sees the Lord are to be considered accursed—that is, those who have not instructed either a son or a servant or a neighbor to teach the fear of God upon the earth.\n\nXVIII. Why did Saul, when sinning, ask to be prayed for so that he might be forgiven, and was unable to obtain it, whereas David, when sinning, asked and obtained pardon?\n\nIt is not fitting to reconsider God's judgment; for human weakness and inexperience ought to be instructed by God's judgment in that which it does not understand, so that from God's decision it may perceive the truth and that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees the Lord did, whom it knows is not a respecter of persons. For if he accepted David's prayer and rejected Saul's, one must not think that the Lord did anything contrary. For knowing with what mind each spoke, he accepted the petition of the one whom he saw asking for pardon with a troubled heart; but he despised the other, because his heart had not been touched by the pain of penitence, since God is more a hearer of the heart than of the voice. Hence it is said: man sees the face, but God sees the heart.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"ideo et fallimur, quia simulatio in uerbis et uultu circumuenit nos; in corde enim quid sit, uidere non possumus.\n\nQuam ob rem dei iudicium sequi nos oportet, qui secundum cor, in quo unius cuiusque sententia est, examinat singulos. hoc etiam inuenimus et saluatorem fecisse. scribam enim se offerentem non suscepit, sedentem autem Leui ad teloneum ciebat, quia uerba scribae non secutum est cor, Leui autem tacens hoc in corde habebat, quod scriba in uerbis. Iesus autem, qui iuxta quod scriptum est sciebat quid esset in homine, Leui elegit. praeterea Dauid non alium pro se uoluit humiliari sicut Saul, sed ipse supplex tribulato corde ueniam precabatur.\n\nXVIIII. QVAERENDUM SI ADAM FACTUS CORPUS INMORTALE HABUIT AN MORTALE.\n\nDeus hominem fecit, qui quam diu non peccaret inmortalitate uigeret, ut ipse sibi auctor esset aut ad uitam aut ad mortem, ut custodiens se a peccato labore suo gauderet esse se inmortalem, neglegens uero factus ipse sibi inputaret, quia coeperat esse mortalis. quam diu enim in creatoris lege durauit, dignus fuit edere de arbore uitae, ut mori non posset. nec enim corpus tale erat, quod dissolui inpossibile uideretur, sed gustus arboris uitae corruptionem corporis inhibebat. denique etiam post peccatum potuit insolubilis manere, si modo permissum esset illi edere de arbore uitae. nam quo modo inmortale corpus habebat, quod cibo sustentabatur?","english":"We are also deceived because pretense in words and countenance entraps us; for we cannot see what lies in the heart.\n\nTherefore we ought to follow God’s judgment, who examines each one according to the heart, in which each person’s intention resides. We find that the Savior also did this. For he did not accept the scribe who offered himself, but called Levi, who was sitting at the tax booth, because the scribe’s words were not followed by his heart, whereas Levi, though silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in his words. But Jesus, who, according to what is written, knew what was in a man, chose Levi. Moreover, David did not wish another to humble himself in his place, as Saul did, but he himself, suppliant, with a troubled heart, begged for pardon.\n\nXIX. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED WHETHER ADAM HAD A MORTAL OR AN IMMORTAL BODY WHEN HE WAS MADE.\n\nGod made man so that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish with immortality, so that he himself would be the author either of life or of death, so that, by guarding himself from sin, he would rejoice through his own effort that he was immortal, but if he became negligent, he would blame himself, because he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he persisted in the creator’s law, he was worthy to eat from the tree of life, so that he could not die. For his body was not of such a kind that it seemed impossible to dissolve, but the taste of the tree of life prevented the corruption of the body. Finally, even after the sin, he could have remained indissoluble, if only it had been permitted for him to eat from the tree of life. For how could he have had an immortal body, which was sustained by food?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"inmortalis enim non eget esca nec potu. cibus enim uires praestabat, uitae autem arbor medicinae modo corruptionem omnem prohibebat. sic enim homini erat quasi inexpugnabilis murus.\n\nXX. QVID EST QVOD DICIT: 'PANEM ANGELORUM MANDUCAVIT HOMO', CUM ANGELI NON EGEANT CIBO, QVIPPE CUM SINT NATURA SIMPLICES ET POTENTIA SPIRITALI UIGENTES?\n\nPanem quem angelorum appellat manna est. manna autem interpretatur quid est hoc?' uidentes autem filii Israhel quasi semen coriandri cadere super terram candidum dixerunt ad inuicem: quid est hoc? quod in Hebrea lingua dicitur (manni?' hic ergo panis aut cibus non mundi lege creatus est conmixtione elementorum, sed desuper uenit spiritali ratione prouisus. nec quidem in supernis haberetur, quia corporibus alendis ad momentum dei uirtute creatus est. ideo autem angelorum panis dictus est, quia ea uirtute creatus est, qua angelica natura subsistit et uiuit. sine deo enim nulli uita est. per id quod ergo de caelo uenisse dicitur, angelorum dictus est panis. ut enim quanta et qualia beneficia dei circa hominem sunt memoraret, sic locutus est, ut cognoscentes se deo gratias referant, qui tanta cura seruos suos gubernat, ut haec eis in carne adhuc positis, si necesse fuerit, exhibeat, per quae uiuunt angeli.","english":"For the immortal does not need food nor drink. For food provided strength, but the tree of life, after the manner of a remedy, prevented all corruption. Thus it was for man as an impregnable wall.\n\nXX. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN IT SAYS: 'MAN ATE THE BREAD OF ANGELS,' SINCE ANGELS DO NOT NEED FOOD, ESPECIALLY AS THEY ARE OF A SIMPLE NATURE AND FLOURISH BY SPIRITUAL POWER?\n\nThe bread which it calls the bread of angels is manna. Now manna is interpreted as 'what is this?' For the children of Israel, seeing something like coriander seed falling white upon the ground, said to one another: 'What is this?' which in the Hebrew language is called 'manni?' This bread or food, therefore, was not created by the law of the world through a mixture of elements, but came from above, provided by a spiritual principle. Nor indeed would it be found in the heavens, because it was created by the power of God for a moment to nourish bodies. It is called the bread of angels, however, because it was created by that same power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives. For without God, there is no life for anyone. Therefore, because it is said to have come from heaven, it was called the bread of angels. For in order to recall how great and what kind of benefits of God surround man, he spoke thus, so that, recognizing this, they might give thanks to God, who governs his servants with such care that He provides for them, while they are still in the flesh, if necessary, those things by which angels live.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Dixit apostolus inter cetera: petra autem erat Christus, ut, quia Christi uirtute aqua fluxit de petra, petra appellatus sit Christus. simili modo et, quia manna potestate eius uenit de caelo, manna, id est panis, Christus dicatur, quod tunc factum eius rei, quae nunc in ecclesia offertur, figura fuisse existimetur, ut Christiani populi, quos in angelos significauit scriptura, panem manducauerint homines, id est Iudaei. et quia maior gratia est nunc, quam fuit in profetis, et libertas data per Christum, quia ubi spiritus domini ibi libertas, ad conparationem temporum et gratiarum Christiani angeli dicti sunt, quorum pane, qui est Christus, satiati sunt Iudaei, quos homines dixit. horum magis Christus est, quibus et reuelatus est et qui hoc nomine uocari censentur. duplici ergo genere potest intellegi supra dicta quaestio, ut et panis angelorum caelestium dici possit et Christianorum secundum ea quae dicta sunt.","english":"The apostle said among other things: \"But the rock was Christ,\" so that, because water flowed from the rock by the power of Christ, Christ was called \"rock.\" In a similar way, because manna came from heaven by his power, manna—that is, bread—is said to be Christ, on the grounds that what happened then is considered to have been a figure of that which is now offered in the church, so that the Christian people, whom Scripture signified as \"angels,\" ate the bread of men, that is, of the Jews. And because the grace is now greater than it was in the prophets, and freedom was given through Christ—for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom—in comparison with the times and the graces, Christians are called \"angels,\" by whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews, whom he called \"men,\" were filled. Christ belongs more to these, to whom he was both revealed and who are deemed to be called by this name. Therefore, the above-mentioned question can be understood in a twofold manner, so that it can be said both that the bread of the celestial angels and that of Christians, according to what has been said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"XXI. QVID SIT AD IMAGINEM ET SIMILITUDINEM DEI FECISSE HOMINEM, ET AN MULIER IMAGO DEI SIT.\n\nHoc est ad imaginem dei factum esse hominem, quia unus unum fecit, ut sicut ab uno deo sunt omnia, ita et ab uno homine omne genus humanum. similitudo autem haec est, ut quem ad modum de patre est filius, sic et de uiro mulier, ut unius principii auctoritas conseruetur. sed filius ineffabiliter inconprehensibiliter natus est de deo patre, mulier autem corporaliter, sicut legimus, facta de uiro est, ut per eam natiuitas oreretur. filius uero dei ideo natus est, ut per ipsum fieret creatura. in eo ergo dissimile est; nam et de deo deus natus est, de uiro autem femina, quia illic simplicitas est et non potuit nisi de simplici simplex nasci, spiritus de spiritu, deus de deo. igitur uir imago dei est. sic etenim scriptum est: et fecit deus hominem, ad imaginem dei fecit eum. unde et apostolus: uir quidem, inquit, non debet uelare caput, cum sit imago et gloria dei; 'mulier autem,) inquit, 'uelet caput! quare? quia non est imago dei. unde denuo dicit apostolus: mulieri autem docere non permittitur neque dominari in uirum.","english":"XXI. WHAT IT MEANS THAT MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, AND WHETHER WOMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.\n\nThis is what it means for man to have been made in the image of God: that the one made the one, so that just as all things come from the one God, so too the whole human race comes from the one man. The likeness, however, is this: that just as the Son is from the Father, so too is woman from man, so that the authority of a single origin is preserved. But the Son was born from God the Father in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, whereas woman was made from man in a bodily way, as we read, so that through her birth might arise. The Son of God, however, was born so that through him creation might come into being. In this, therefore, there is unlikeness; for God was born from God, but female from male, because there simplicity exists, and from the simple only the simple could be born: spirit from spirit, God from God. Therefore, man is the image of God. For thus it is written: \"And God made man; he made him in the image of God.\" Whence also the apostle says: \"A man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but a woman,\" he says, \"let her cover her head.\" Why? Because she is not the image of God. Whence the apostle says further: \"A woman is not permitted to teach nor to have authority over a man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"XXII. QVID EST UT DICAT SOLOMON: 'IUSTIFICA ANIMAM TUAM ANTE OBITUM TUUM', ET IN PSALMO: 'NON IUSTIFICABITUR,' AIT, 'IN CONSPECTU DEI OMNIS HOMO UIUENS'?\n\nHic iustificat animam suam ante mortem, qui spe futurae uitae consequitur fidem, ne moriatur impius. sed Solomon de eo dicit, qui sub lege uiuit et non conuertitur iuste. huiusmodi ergo, si corrigat animum ut iustitiae uias ambulet, iustificat animam suam ante mortem. Solomon enim propter iudicium futurum consilium dedit, ne quis indiligens circa se in peccatis moriatur; Dauid uero de perfectione iustitiae locutus est, quia nemo iustificabitur apud dominum, dignus promissione sit, nisi fuerit mortuus cum iustitia. quam diu enim uiuit, adhuc futurorum meritum non habet plenum. unde dicit saluator: qui perseuerauerit usque ad finem, hic saluus erit.\n\nXXIII. AN EX TRADUCE SINT ANIMAE SICUT CORPORA.","english":"XXII. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY: \"JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH,\" AND IN THE PSALM: \"NO LIVING MAN,\" IT SAYS, \"WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD\"?\n\nHere, one who obtains faith in hope of a future life, so as not to die impious, justifies his soul before death. But Solomon speaks of one who lives under the law and does not turn to righteousness. Such a one, therefore, if he corrects his mind so that he walks the paths of justice, justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave counsel on account of the future judgment, lest anyone die in sins through negligence concerning himself; David, however, spoke about the perfection of justice, because no one will be justified before the Lord, worthy of the promise, unless he has died with justice. For as long as he lives, he does not yet have full merit of future things. Whence the Savior says: he who perseveres to the end, this one will be saved.\n\nXXIII. WHETHER SOULS ARE FROM TRANSMISSION AS BODIES ARE.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Inhonestum puto, si dicantur animae cum corporibus generari, ut anima nascatur ex anima, quod nec animae ipsi conpetit. aut si certe singulae caelestes potestates factae sunt et ex ipsis ceterae natae sunt, potest et ex una Adae anima credibile uideri ceteras nasci? sed non conuenit, quia soli deo hoc possibile fuit, ut simplex generaret, nec ceteris concederetur. quod tam mysticum est in causa saluatoris, ut non solum a solis gentilibus uel ludaeis, uerum etiam ab ipsis, qui Christianos se dicunt, incredibile putetur; et Fotiniani enim et Arriani hanc fidem spernunt.\n\nNam si eo tempore, quo seminatur corpus, et anima generatur ex anima, de Adam costam sublatam legimus, non tamen animam natam ex anima; sed si costa secum habuit animam, iam non nata est, sed detracta in partem. sed nec hoc scriptum est. profeta enim Zacharias inter cetera: qui plasmas, inquit, animam hominis in eum. nec Eseias ab his dissentiens ait: sic dicit dominus deus qui fecit te et finxit te in utero. si ergo in utero fingitur, iam formato corpori tribuitur. cum enim omnia membra implet corporis, figurata dicitur in corpore et sicut aqua, cum sit sine effigie, missa tamen in uas figurata uidetur, ita et anima, cum sit natura incorporea et simplex, quasi formatur in corpus singula membra uiuificans.","english":"I consider it dishonorable if souls are said to be generated together with bodies, so that a soul is born from a soul—which does not even befit the soul itself. Or if, certainly, individual celestial powers were made and from them the rest were born, can it seem credible that from the one soul of Adam the rest are born? But this is not fitting, because this was possible for God alone, that the simple might generate, and it was not granted to others. This is so mysterious in the case of the Savior that it is considered unbelievable not only by pagans or Jews, but even by those who call themselves Christians; for both the Photinians and the Arians reject this faith.\n\nFor if at the time when the body is sown, the soul is also generated from a soul, we read that a rib was taken from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul; but if the rib had a soul with it, then it was not born, but drawn off into a part. But neither is this written. For the prophet Zechariah, among other things, says: \"Who molds,\" he says, \"the soul of a man in him.\" Nor does Isaiah disagree with these, saying: \"Thus says the Lord God who made you and formed you in the womb.\" If, therefore, it is formed in the womb, it is granted to the already formed body. For when it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be figured in the body, and just as water, though without shape, when poured into a vessel appears shaped, so also the soul, though incorporeal and simple in nature, is as if formed in the body, giving life to each member.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Inhonestum puto","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a first-person ethical judgment ('I consider it dishonorable'), marking a shift from the preceding question-and-answer format to a direct theological argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"simplex generaret","severity":"info","text":"'Simplex generaret' (the simple might generate) refers to the generation of a single, indivisible being from another single being, a power the author reserves for God alone, contrasting with human or angelic reproduction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Fotiniani et Arriani","severity":"info","text":"The Photinians and Arians are fourth-century groups denying the full divinity of Christ; the author invokes them to show that even heretical Christians reject the idea of soul-generation from soul, which he links to Christological mystery.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Zacharias ... Eseias","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Zechariah (unidentified verse) and Isaiah (possibly Isa 44:2 or 45:12) to support the view that the soul is formed in the womb by God, not generated from a parent's soul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut aqua ... in uas figurata","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of water taking the shape of a vessel is a common patristic image for the soul's relation to the body, found also in Tertullian and Augustine, though here used to argue for the soul's pre-existence as formless.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec hoc scriptum est","severity":"caution","text":"The author admits that the Bible does not explicitly state that the rib taken from Adam lacked a soul, leaving a gap in the argument; the claim rests on inference from prophetic texts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'simplex generaret' could be read as 'the simple one might generate' (referring to God) or 'the simple might generate' (referring to a simple being); the translation adopts the latter, but the former is possible.","The citation of Zechariah is not identified; it may be a loose paraphrase or a lost variant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"quod quidem Moyses manifestius tradidit dicens: si quis percusserit mulierem in utero habentem et abortierit, si formatum fuerit, det animam pro anima; si autem informatum fuerit, multetur pecunia, ut probaret non esse animam ante formam. itaque si iam formato corpori datur, non in conceptu corporis nascitur cum semine deriuata. nam si cum semine et anima existit ex anima, multae animae cottidie pereunt, cum semen fluxu quodam non proficit natiuitati.\n\nSed si propius respiciamus, uidebimus quid sequi debeamus. contemplemur facturam Adae; in Adam enim exemplum datum est, ut ex eo intellegatur, quia iam formatum corpus accepit animam. nam potuerat animam limo terrae admiscere et sic formare corpus. sed ratione informabatur, quia primum oportebat domum conpaginari et sic habitatorem induci. anima certe, quia spiritus est, in sicco habitare non potest; ideo in sanguine fertur. cum ergo corporis liniamenta conpacta non fuerint, ubi erit anima? aut foris uagatur, quam diu inmittatur, cum ratio tradat sic dari eam ut animet corpus, non ut otiosa uagetur? sed ex quo detur, dicant qui aliud putant; ex mare an ex femina? si ex femina, non conuenit, quia aliud in exemplo est. proponunt enim ex uiro cum costa datam et animam, quod multis rationibus infirmari docuimus.","english":"Moses indeed taught this more clearly, saying: if anyone strikes a woman who is pregnant and she miscarries, if the fetus is formed, he shall give a life for a life; but if it is unformed, he shall be fined with money, so that it might be proven that the soul does not exist before the form. Therefore, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born with the seed, derived from a soul, at the moment of conception. For if the soul arises from a soul together with the seed, many souls perish daily, when the seed, by some flux, does not result in birth.\n\nBut if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us contemplate the making of Adam; for in Adam an example was given, so that from it we might understand that the already formed body received a soul. For it had been possible to mix the soul with the clay of the earth and thus form the body. But it was informed by reason, because first the house had to be put together and then the inhabitant brought in. The soul, certainly, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in a dry place; therefore it is carried in the blood. Therefore, when the body's features have not been compacted, where will the soul be? Or does it wander outside, until it is sent in, when reason teaches that it is given in such a way that it animates the body, not that it wanders idly? But from whom it is given, let those who think otherwise say: from the male or from the female? If from the female, it is not fitting, because the example is otherwise. For they propose that from the man, together with the rib, a soul was given, which we have shown to be weakened by many arguments.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"unde forte uideatur dari ex femina maxime propter saluatorem, quem scimus sine conplexu carnis de sancto spiritu natum ex femina. quod si arbitrantur, plus dant feminis; auctoritatem enim uiri inmutant in feminam. cum enim tam corporis quam animae originem ex uiro dicunt, conuertunt se, ut id, quod potius est, ex muliere dicant, id est animam, quod uero minus, ex masculo, id est corpus, cum manifestum sit ordinem exempli a deo traditi inmutari non posse.\n\nXXIIII. QVID EST UT, CUM UIR ET MULIER UNA SINT CARO, UIR IMAGO DEI SIT, NON ET FEMINA?\n\nUnius substantiae quidem sunt uir et mulier, et in anima et in carne, sed gradu maior est uir, quia ex eo est femina, sicut dicit apostolus: caput mulieris uir. causa enim maiorem feeit uirum, non substantia. nam et in uno corpore maiora membra sunt et minora non natura, sed ordine.\n\nXXV. UT QVID IOSEPH POST PROFETIAM ADIURAT FILIOS ISRAHEL UT, CUM A DEO LIBERARENTUR, CINERES EIUS DE AEGVPTO TRANSFERRENT?","english":"Hence it may seem that [the origin of the soul] is given from the female especially on account of the Savior, whom we know was born from a woman without carnal union, from the Holy Spirit. But if they think this, they give more to women; for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. For when they say that both the origin of the body and of the soul come from the man, they turn around and claim that what is more important—that is, the soul—comes from the woman, while what is lesser—that is, the body—comes from the male, although it is manifest that the order of the example handed down by God cannot be changed.\n\nXXIV. WHY IS IT THAT, ALTHOUGH MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT NOT THE WOMAN?\n\nMan and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh, but the man is greater in rank, because the woman comes from him, as the apostle says: the man is the head of the woman. For the cause made the man greater, not the substance. For even in one body there are greater and lesser members, not by nature, but by order.\n\nXXV. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER THE PROPHECY, ADJURE THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT, WHEN THEY WERE FREED BY GOD, THEY SHOULD TRANSFER HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Non otiose istud mandasse Ioseph filiis Israhel in absoluto est. qui enim profetare potuit, non inprouide locutus esse credendus est. cum enim esset in dei creatoris deuotione propensior, sciens autem ab Aegyptiis se coli causa administrationis, qua in magna egestate Aegyptum gubernauit, post exitum suum errorem petit auferri certus uanitatem uulgi mortuos magis ut deos uenerari quam uiuos, ne ei deferretur debitus honor creatori. hic ergo ostendit se liberum fuisse uana superstitione Aegyptiorum, quando, ne ad dei iniuriam proficeret, cineres suos transferri mandauit. quod quidem et apostolos inuenimus secutos. Paulus enim et Barnabas, cum sacrificari sibi uelle uidissent, scientes exosum hoc deo sciderunt uestimenta sua dicentes: quid facitis? et nos homines sumus uobis similes, et sic conpescuerunt turbas.\n\nXXVI. REQVIRENDUM DE HELISEO AN ID, QVOD DURE PETISSE AB HELIA DICTUS EST, CONSECUTUS SIT.","english":"It was not without purpose that Joseph commanded this to the sons of Israel, as is clear. For he who was able to prophesy is not to be believed to have spoken without foresight. For since he was more inclined to devotion toward the Creator God, knowing that he was worshipped by the Egyptians because of the administration by which he governed Egypt in great need, after his departure he sought to remove the error, certain that the vanity of the common people venerates the dead as gods more than the living, lest the honor due to the Creator be transferred to him. Thus he showed himself to have been free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when, lest it redound to the injury of God, he ordered his ashes to be transferred. And indeed we find that the apostles followed this example. For Paul and Barnabas, when they saw that they wished to sacrifice to them, knowing that this was hateful to God, tore their garments, saying: \"What are you doing? We are men like you,\" and thus they restrained the crowds.\n\n26. IT MUST BE INQUIRED CONCERNING ELISHA WHETHER HE OBTAINED THAT WHICH HE IS SAID TO HAVE ASKED RUDELY FROM ELIJAH.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Cupidus sanctus Heliseus faciendarum uirtutum inlectus exemplo magistri accepta facultate poscendi quodcumque uoluisset auarus ad bonum dupliciter spiritum sibi inesse. quam in magistro erat, postulauit cui homo dei Helias ait: dure petisti. auiditate enim non considerauit discipulum non esse super magistrum. Helias tamen sciens illum non ambitione praesentis gloriae hoc postulasse respondit: tamen si uideris me absumi abs te, erit tibi sic. sensus hic ponderandus est. subindignatus autem cum dixisset: dure petisti, subiecit: si me uideris tamen absumi, erit tibi sic. ne, quia negasse illi uisus fuerat, ostendit sic illi futurum sicut dignum erat, non sicut ipse postulauerat? multa enim subintellegi uult scriptura, ut collectus sensus ex uerbis non sit rationi religionis aduersus. nam utique dura petitio etiam meritum debebat amittere; sed quia cupidus boni sic postulauit, deus qui scit, quid uni cuique dandum sit doni, priuari illum non passus est meritis suis.","english":"The holy Elisha, desirous of performing miracles, was enticed by the example of his master. Having received the ability to ask for whatever he wished, greedy for the good, he requested that a double portion of the spirit be in him, which was in his master. The man of God, Elijah, said to him: \"You have asked a hard thing.\" For in his eagerness he did not consider that a disciple should not be above his master. Elijah, however, knowing that he had not asked this out of ambition for present glory, replied: \"Nevertheless, if you see me being taken up from you, it will be so for you.\" This meaning is to be weighed. But after he had said, somewhat indignantly, \"You have asked a hard thing,\" he added: \"Nevertheless, if you see me being taken up, it will be so for you.\" Lest he should seem to have denied him, he showed that it would be so for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked? For Scripture often wishes much to be understood, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be contrary to the reason of religion. For indeed a hard petition ought even to have lost its merit; but because he who was greedy for the good asked thus, God, who knows what gift is to be given to each one, did not allow him to be deprived of his merits.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Uideamus itaque si Heliae meritum admitteret, ut Heliseus duplum donum eius mereretur accipere. dictum namque est ab spiritu sancto per Zachariam, cuius meriti futurus esset Iohannes: ueniet, inquit, in spiritu et uirtute Heliae — parem ergo Iohannem Heliae ostendit — et dominus dicit: nemo maior in natis mulierum profeta lohanne baptista. non dixit 'omnium maior est', sed nemo illo maior est', hoc est 'aequalem habet, maiorem non habet'. Helias ergo par illi. est, nullo utique minor; quo modo Heliseus maior illo est, cum Iohannes, quo nemo maior est, par Heliae sit? nam ueniens ad aquarum transitum non accepit honorem ab eis, ut potuisset transire, nisi nominasset deum Heliae, ut per hoc dura petitio correpta uideretur, dum non nisi nomine Heliae auditus est, ne id quod dure petierat accepisse putaretur, quasi non sufficeret pro temporis merito dispensatio spiritus concessa Heliae.","english":"Let us see, then, whether the merit of Elijah would allow that Elisha deserved to receive a double portion of his gift. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah what merit John would have: “He will come,” he says, “in the spirit and power of Elijah”—thus he shows John to be equal to Elijah—and the Lord says: “No one greater among those born of women than John the Baptist.” He did not say “he is greater than all,” but “no one is greater than him,” that is, “he has an equal, he has no one greater.” Therefore Elijah is equal to him, certainly inferior to no one; how then is Elisha greater than him, when John, than whom no one is greater, is equal to Elijah? For when he came to the crossing of the waters, he did not receive honor from them so that he could cross, unless he had named the God of Elijah, so that by this the harsh request might seem to have been rebuked, since he was heard only by the name of Elijah, lest he be thought to have received what he had harshly asked, as if the dispensation of the spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of the time.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"XXVII. AN PITHONISSA SAMUHEL EXCITAUERIT ET IPSE AB EA UISUS SIT ET LOCUTUS SIT AD SAUL, QVAE HISTORIA REFERT IN LIBRO REGNORUM.\n\nIndignum facinus aestimo, si secundum uerba historiae commodetur adsensus. qui enim fieri poterat, ut arte magica adtraheretur uir et natiuitate sanctus et uitae operibus iustus? aut, si non adtractus est, consensit? quod utrumque de uiro iusto credere aduersum est. si enim inuitus adductus est, nullum suffragium habet iustitia; si uoluntarius autem, amisit meritum spiritalis, quod positus in carne quaesiuerat quod ualde absurdum est, quia hinc qui iustus recedit permanet iustus. porro autem hoc est praestigium satanae, quo ut plurimos fallat, etiam bonos in potestate se habere confingit. quod apostolus inter cetera ait: ipse satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis. ut enim errorem faceret, in quo gloriatur, in habitu uiri iusti et nomine se subornauit, ut nihil proficere spem, quam praedicabant, dei cultoribus mentiretur, quando hinc exeuntes iustos finxit in sua esse potestate.","english":"XXVII. WHETHER THE WITCH OF ENDOR RAISED SAMUEL, AND WHETHER HE WAS SEEN BY HER AND SPOKE TO SAUL, AS THE STORY RELATES IN THE BOOK OF KINGS.\n\nI consider it an unworthy deed, if assent is given according to the words of the history. For how could it happen that a man, holy by birth and just by the works of his life, would be drawn by magic art? Or, if he was not drawn, did he consent? Both of these things are contrary to believing about a just man. For if he was brought unwillingly, justice has no support; if, however, willingly, he lost the merit of his spiritual life, which he had sought while placed in the flesh, which is very absurd, because he who departs from here just remains just. Moreover, this is a trick of Satan, by which, to deceive as many as possible, he pretends that even good men are in his power. As the Apostle says among other things: \"Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.\" For, to create error, in which he glories, he disguised himself in the appearance and name of a just man, so that he might falsely claim that the hope which the worshipers of God proclaimed was of no avail, when he pretended that just men departing from here were in his power.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Sed hoc quosdam fallit, quod de morte Saul et filii eius non sit mentitus, quasi magnum sit diabolo ante diem occasum corporis praeuidere, cum signa quaedam soleant apparere morituris, quippe a quibus dei protectio amota uidetur. quanto magis diabolus, quem angelica maiestate sublimem profetica oracula fuisse testantur, de cuius magnitudine apostolus ait: an ignoratis altitudinem satanae? quid mirum ergo si inminentem prope mortem potuit praeuidere, cum hoc sit unde fallit et se in dei potestate uult adorari? nam tanta hebetudine demens effectus est Saul, ut ad pithonissam confugeret. deprauatus enim causa peccati ad haec se contulit quae damnauerat.\n\nSed si quis propter historiam et ea quae uerbis expressa sunt putet non praetermittenda, ne ratio historiae inanis sit, recte faciet quidem, si tamen minime istud ad ueri rapiat rationem, sed ad uisum et intellectum Saul. neque enim reprobus factus poterat bonum intellectum habere. historicus enim mentem Saul et habitum Samuhelis descripsit ea quae dicta et uisa sunt exprimens, praetermittens si uera an falsa sint. quid enim ait? audiens in quo habitu esset excitatus: intellexit, inquit, hunc esse Samuhel. quid intellexerit rettulit et, quia non bene intellexit, contra scripturam alium adorauit quam dominum et putans Samuhelem adorauit diabolum, ut fructum fallaciae suae haberet satanas. hoc enim nititur, ut adoretur quasi deus.","english":"But this deceives some, because he did not lie about the death of Saul and his son, as if it were a great thing for the devil to foresee the fall of the body before the day, when certain signs are accustomed to appear to those about to die, especially those from whom the protection of God seems to be removed. How much more so the devil, whom the prophetic oracles testify was exalted by angelic majesty, concerning whose greatness the apostle says: \"Do you not know the depth of Satan?\" What wonder, then, if he could foresee imminent death near at hand, since this is the means by which he deceives and wishes to be worshipped as being in the power of God? For Saul was rendered so dull-witted that he fled to the witch. Corrupted, indeed, by the cause of sin, he betook himself to those things which he had condemned.\n\nBut if anyone, on account of the history and those things which are expressed in words, thinks they should not be passed over, lest the rationale of the history be empty, he will indeed do rightly, provided that he does not at all draw this into the reason of truth, but to the sight and understanding of Saul. For, having been made reprobate, he could not have a good understanding. For the historian described the mind of Saul and the appearance of Samuel, expressing those things which were said and seen, passing over whether they are true or false. For what does he say? Hearing in what attire he was roused: \"He understood,\" he says, \"that this was Samuel.\" He reported what he understood, and because he did not understand rightly, he worshipped another contrary to Scripture than the Lord, and, thinking it was Samuel, he worshipped the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deception. For this is what he strives for, that he be worshipped as if a god.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"si enim uere Samuhel illi apparuisset, non utique uir iustus permisisset se adorari, qui praedicauerat dominum solum esse adorandum. et quo modo homo dei, qui cum Abraham in refrigerio erat, dicebat ad uirum pestilentiae dignum ardore gehennae: 'cras mecum eris'?\n\nHis duobus titulis subtilitatem fallaciae suae prodidit inprouidus satanas, quia et adorari se permisit sub habitu et nomine Samuhelis contra legem et uirum peccatis pressum, cum magna distantia peccatorum et iustorum sit, cum Samuhele iustissimo futurum mentitus est. uerum potest uideri si de Samuhelis nomine taceatur, quia Saul cum diabolo futurus erat. ad eum enim transmigrauit, quem adorauit. semper ergo diabolus sub uelamine latens prodit se, dum ea confingit quae horreant personis, per quas fallere nititur.\n\nXXVIII. QVID CONTRADICENDUM HIS SIT, QVI MUNDUM ISTUM EX AETERNO NATURALITER MOUERI INQVIUNT NEQVE INITIO NEQVE ABOLITIONI OBNOXIUM.","english":"For if truly Samuel had appeared to him, a just man would certainly not have allowed himself to be worshipped, he who had preached that the Lord alone is to be worshipped. And how could a man of God, who was in the resting place with Abraham, say to a man worthy of the fire of Gehenna: 'Tomorrow you will be with me'?\n\nBy these two points the imprudent Satan betrayed the subtlety of his deception, because he allowed himself to be worshipped under the appearance and name of Samuel, contrary to the law and to the man weighed down by sins, since there is a great distance between sinners and the just, and he falsely claimed that the future would be with the most just Samuel. It can indeed seem so, if the name of Samuel is kept silent, because Saul was destined to be with the devil. For he passed over to the one whom he worshipped. Therefore the devil, always hiding under a veil, betrays himself when he fabricates things that are abhorrent to the persons through whom he tries to deceive.\n\nXXVIII. WHAT IS TO BE OBJECTED TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD IS FROM ETERNITY NATURALLY MOVED, AND IS SUBJECT NEITHER TO A BEGINNING NOR TO ABOLITION.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Mundum ex aeterno constare et nulli debere subiectionem inprobabile et inpossibile est, quem uidemus tanta diuersitate exstare corporeum, cum nihil diuinum et aeternum possit esse nisi simplex, in quo nulla diuersitas uideatur, sed sit unitas. nam et uices ipsas temporum non seruat, ut non solum in temporibus uarius sit et contrariis constet substantiis, sed et in ipsis uicibus temporum, cum res aeterna diuersitatem abhorreat et nec tactu nec uisu capienda, utpote incorporalis. hic autem passioni obnoxius est, quia et aqua repugnat igni et ignis, si amplius fuerit, superat aquam et. terra, cum sit natura arida et frigida, patitur incendium quasi res corporalis. itaque inconueniens est mundum aeternum dicere, quem cum uidemus passioni subiectum et per singula senectute deficere, credimus et finiri.\n\nQuid censet de homine, qui mundum aeternum putat? certe homo coepit in mundo: sine homine ergo cui proficiebat annua fecunditas mundi? aut sine aliqua prouidentia generabat? et quo modo aeternus corruptibilia et mortalia generabat, cum de aeterno debeat aeternum existere? et quod uisibile est et sentitur et tangitur qua audacia uocatur aeternum? et quod uicibus temporum ministratur, ita ut ipsa tempora aliquando non seruent officia sua, quo modo appellatur aeternum ? aeternitas enim non corrumpitur, non inmutatur.","english":"That the world exists from eternity and owes subjection to no one is both improbable and impossible. For we see that it exists as a corporeal thing with such great diversity, whereas nothing divine and eternal can exist except that which is simple, in which no diversity is seen, but there is unity. For it does not even preserve the very changes of the seasons, so that it is not only variable in its times and composed of contrary substances, but also in the very changes of the seasons, since an eternal thing abhors diversity and is not to be grasped either by touch or by sight, as it is incorporeal. But this world is subject to passion, because water opposes fire, and fire, if it is stronger, overcomes water, and earth, though it is by nature dry and cold, suffers burning as a corporeal thing. Therefore it is unfitting to call the world eternal, which we see subject to passion and, in its individual parts, failing with age, and we believe it also comes to an end.\n\nWhat does one think of a man who considers the world eternal? Certainly man had a beginning in the world: for whom, then, did the annual fertility of the world profit, if there was no man? Or did it produce without any providence? And how could an eternal thing generate corruptible and mortal things, since from an eternal thing an eternal thing ought to arise? And that which is visible and is perceived and touched—by what audacity is it called eternal? And that which is administered by the changes of the seasons, so that the seasons themselves sometimes do not keep their offices—how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, is not changed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"XXVIIII. QVARE OCTAVO DIE CIRCUMCIDI MANDATUM EST? .\n\nOctauo die a natiuitate idcirco praeceptum est circumcidi, quia iuxta numerum et curricula dierum septem ipse rursum primus inuenitur quasi post sabbatum, ut iam non octauus habeatur, sed primus. quia enim salus futura per Christum in primo die erat praedestinata, qui dominicus ideo dicitur, quia in eo resurrexit dominus, qui est post sabbatum, propterea salutis huius figura in circumcisione data est, ut quasi renouatio futura in circumcisionis lege dinosceretur. etquia per fidem saluari haberent homines, quae primo die resurrectione domini firmata est, figura huius rei in circumcisione primo die data est, quae etiam esset signum fidei Abrahae. integra ergo causa est, quia signum praeteritae fidei primo die significatae figura fuit futurae fidei primo die constabilitae.\n\nXXX. IN PROUERBIIS: 'IUSTUS,' AIT, 'SUI ACCUSATOR EST IN PRIMORDIO SERMONIS': QVO MODO IUSTUS, SI PECCATOR?","english":"XXIX. Why Was It Commanded to Circumcise on the Eighth Day?\n\nIt was commanded to circumcise on the eighth day from birth because, according to the number and cycles of days, the seventh day itself is again found to be the first, as it were after the Sabbath, so that it is no longer considered the eighth but the first. For since future salvation through Christ was predestined on the first day, which is called the Lord’s day because on it the Lord rose, which is after the Sabbath, for this reason the figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that the future renewal might be recognized in the law of circumcision. And because men were to be saved through faith, which was confirmed on the first day by the resurrection of the Lord, the figure of this matter was given in circumcision on the first day, which was also to be a sign of Abraham’s faith. Therefore the cause is complete, because the sign of past faith signified on the first day was a figure of future faith established on the first day.\n\nXXX. In Proverbs: “The just man,” it says, “is his own accuser at the beginning of speech”: How is he just, if he is a sinner?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Omnis ueritas iustitia est. qui enim confitetur quod est, iustus est — ueritatem enim loquitur —, peccatores autem uindicantes sua delicta iustificari non possunt. unde huius modi digne iustus dicitur, quia pronuntians peccatum suum remitti utique sibi postulat misericordiam dei inplorans. scit enim dictum in lege: confitere peccata tua, ut iustificeris. quid est autem in primordio sermonis confiteri, nisi non coactum fateri, sed uoluntarium? quis enim, etiam timens deum, sine peccato est, cum et in cogitatione admisceantur delicta et aliquotiens peccemus inuiti? potest tamen et de eo dici uel sentiri, quia catechumenus dicitur, ut accedens ad fidem iustificetur. cum enim petit inmutari se, sine dubio peccatorem se confitetur, ut iustificetur.\n\nXXXI. AN CUM MULIERE NATURA SERPENS LOCUTUS SIT, AN ACTU DICTUS SERPENS DIABOLUS SEDUXERIT EAM.","english":"All truth is justice. For he who confesses what is, is just—for he speaks the truth—but sinners defending their own offenses cannot be justified. Hence a person of this kind is deservedly called just, because in declaring his sin he asks that it be remitted to him, imploring the mercy of God. For he knows it is said in the law: Confess your sins, that you may be justified. But what is it to confess at the beginning of speech, if not to admit not under compulsion, but voluntarily? For who, even fearing God, is without sin, since offenses are mingled even in thought and we sometimes sin unwillingly? Yet it can also be said or understood of him that he is called a catechumen, so that approaching the faith he may be justified. For when he asks to be changed, without doubt he confesses himself a sinner, that he may be justified.\n\nXXXI. Whether the Serpent Spoke with the Woman by Nature, or Whether the Serpent Called the Devil Actually Seduced Her.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Quantum ad historiam pertinet, serpens natura dictus est, qui sapientior esset ceteris bestiis, quas fecerat dominus deus super terram. denique et sententiam deus in serpentem dedit. nam quid mirum si diabolus sapientior erit bestiis, de quo dicit apostolus inter cetera: an ignoratis altitudinem satanae? usque adeo autem natura serpens fuit, ut diceretur illi: supra pectus et uentrem tuum repes et terram edes omnibus diebus uitae tuae. haec longe sunt a conditione satanae, quia neque corporeus est neque mortalis. et si propius aspiciatur, uidebitur sententia data nihil obfuisse serpenti, sed in eo, in quo factus est, iussus est permanere. quia enim minister factus est satanae ad hominem subiugandum, cui omnia deus subiecerat, idcirco deus in ea subiectione, qua omnia homini subiecit, repressit elationem serpentis, quia coeperat minister esse superbiae. uidebatur enim homo factus sub serpente, per quem accepto consilio legem datam contemsit. quoniam autem serpentes prudentes sunt, confirmat in euangelio dominus dicens: estote astuti ut serpentes.","english":"As far as history is concerned, the serpent was said by nature to be the one who was wiser than the other beasts which the Lord God had made upon the earth. Indeed, God also passed sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder is it that the devil would be wiser than the beasts, concerning whom the apostle says among other things: \"Do you not know the depth of Satan?\" Moreover, the serpent was so much a creature of nature that it was said to it: \"You shall crawl on your breast and belly and eat earth all the days of your life.\" These things are far removed from the condition of Satan, because he is neither corporeal nor mortal. And if one looks more closely, it will appear that the sentence given did no harm to the serpent, but it was ordered to remain in that state in which it was made. For because it was made a minister of Satan for subjugating man, to whom God had subjected all things, therefore God, in that subjection by which He subjected all things to man, checked the pride of the serpent, because it had begun to be a minister of pride. For man seemed to be made subject to the serpent, through whose counsel he had accepted and despised the law given. Moreover, because serpents are prudent, the Lord confirms this in the Gospel, saying: \"Be as shrewd as serpents.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Igitur quia claruit uere serpentem locutum esse cum Eua, illud superest ut discernatur, an potuerit tam prudens esse et astutus, ut dolo falleret eam. si enim ceteris bestiis prudentior erat, non tamen hominibus, quippe cum nullum animal rationabile sit nisi homo. itaque serpentem subtilitatem istam conposuisse inpossibile est. quamuis enim prudens dicatur, sed non ultra naturam suam; nec enim deliberat aut excogitat aut consilium capit. idcirco diabolum esse, qui per serpentem mulierem circumuenit, dubium non est. admiscens enim se serpenti egit per illum quasi per organum, ut nec mulier occulti diaboli intellegeret dolum sciens prudentem esse serpentem. ac per hoc corporaliter data sententia spiritaliter cecidit in satanan, quia sententia reum tenet. non enim ab homine data sententia est, ut innocentem forte perimeret per errorem aut maliuolentiam, sed a deo, qui falli utique non potest, ut sententia eius non illum teneat, qui reus est. quia enim, cum sit inuisibilis satanae, dolum corporaliter egit, corporalis uidetur data sententia, ut illum spiritaliter teneat, cuius factum elicuit dari sententiam. nam proiectus de sacratissimis caelorum sedibus inpudentissimus satanas in terram uolutatur gemens semper.","english":"Therefore, since it is clear that the serpent truly spoke with Eve, it remains to be determined whether it could have been so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by guile. For if it was more prudent than the other beasts, it was not, however, more so than humans, especially since no animal is rational except man. And so it is impossible that the serpent devised this subtlety. For although it is called prudent, it is not beyond its own nature; for it does not deliberate or think out or take counsel. For this reason, there is no doubt that it was the devil who, through the serpent, circumvented the woman. For by mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman, knowing the serpent to be prudent, would not understand the hidden devil's guile. And through this, the sentence given corporally fell spiritually upon Satan, because the sentence holds the guilty one. For the sentence was not given by a man, who might by error or malice destroy an innocent person, but by God, who certainly cannot be deceived, so that His sentence does not hold the one who is not guilty. For since, although Satan is invisible, he acted the guile corporally, the sentence given appears corporal, so that it holds spiritually the one whose deed elicited the giving of the sentence. For the most shameless Satan, cast out from the most sacred seats of the heavens, rolls on the earth, always groaning.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Sed forte dicatur: et qua, putas, lingua serpens locutus est ad mulierem?' serpentis utique ore. si enim hodie de non sunt, qui latratus canum intellegant et luporum ululatum et uarritum elephantorum et cantum pullorum, quare non magis rudis adhuc mulier scire potuit et intellegere sibilum serpentum, cum multos sciamus auium uoces discernere? nam et constat diabolum eius lingua uti, cuius corpus intrauerit; nec aliter falleret mulierem. ac per hoc serpentis ore locutus est per serpentem.\n\nXXXII. LEGIMUS APUD SOLOMONEM: 'DIUES ET PAUPER OBUIAUERUNT; FECIT AUTEM AMBOS DEUS': QVO MODO ERGO TERSONARUM ACCEPTIO NON EST APUD DEUM'?\n\nLonge absit a fidelium mentibus haec impietatis adsertio. nam scriptura, ne pauperem contemnendum doceret et diuitem honorificandum, ostendit amborum opificem esse deum, non utique in paupertate et diuitiis, sed in id quod sunt. si enim facultatibus ab inuicem discrepant, non tamen naturae substantia. nec enim quia occasiones prouentus quosdam faciunt in mundo aut prosperos in diuitiis aut infaustos in paupertate, idcirco despiciendi sunt quos non deus humiliauit, aut suspiciendi quibus ueritas non dedit testimonium. contemnendi plane sunt, sed corruptores morum et sacrilegi in legem dei, honorandi uero diligentes deum et disciplinae cultores.","english":"But perhaps it will be said: 'And in what tongue, do you think, did the serpent speak to the woman?' By the serpent's mouth, of course. For if today there are those who understand the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the trumpeting of elephants, and the crowing of cocks, why could not the still inexperienced woman have known and understood the hissing of serpents, when we know that many discern the voices of birds? For it is also established that the devil uses the tongue of whatever body he has entered; nor could he otherwise have deceived the woman. And through this, he spoke by the serpent's mouth, through the serpent.\n\nXXXII. WE READ IN SOLOMON: 'A RICH MAN AND A POOR MAN MET; BUT GOD MADE BOTH': HOW THEN IS THERE NO FAVORITISM OF PERSONS WITH GOD?\n\nFar be it from the minds of the faithful this assertion of impiety. For Scripture, lest it teach that the poor man is to be despised and the rich man honored, shows that God is the maker of both, not indeed in respect of poverty and riches, but in respect of what they are. For if they differ from each other in their resources, they do not differ in the substance of their nature. For not because the chances of fortune make some in the world either prosperous in riches or unfortunate in poverty, are those whom God has not humiliated to be despised, or those to whom truth has not given testimony to be esteemed. Those are plainly to be despised who are corrupters of morals and sacrilegious against the law of God; those are to be honored who love God and are cultivators of discipline.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Hi enim diuites apud deum habentur, qui bonae conuersationis sunt, et quanto in mundo contemptibiles sunt, tanto magis honorificentiores in caelo. nam qui beneficium temporis habent in ampliandis facultatibus, si se cognoscant et dei intellegant uoluntatem, - quia terram omnibus dedit et solem suum cunctis oriri iubet et pluuias indiscretas effundit, iniquitas autem temporis aut fortuitae occasiones aut indigentia quibusdam abnegat quae deus omnibus dedit — ipsi ministrent eis, ut perspicientes dei uoluntatem non solum in mundo, sed et in caelo diuites sint, ne pauci temporis diuitiae excludant aeternas, illi uero quos paupertatis causa despiciendos putant, si futurum dei iudicium contemplantur, illic semper diuites erunt, ubi diuites saeculi egebunt paenitentes se pauperes non fuisse.'\n\nXXXIII. SOLOMON: 'ANNI,' INQVIT, 'IMPIORUM MINUENTUR.' CUM UIDEAMUS IMPIOS ALIQVANTOS LONGAEUOS.","english":"For the rich in God’s sight are those who are of good conduct, and the more contemptible they are in the world, the more honored they are in heaven. For those who have the benefit of time to increase their wealth, if they come to know themselves and understand God’s will—because God gave the earth to all and commands His sun to rise for all and pours forth rains without distinction, while the iniquity of the times or chance occurrences or need denies to some what God gave to all—let them minister to these, so that, perceiving God’s will, they may be rich not only in the world but also in heaven, lest the riches of a brief time exclude eternal ones. But those whom they think should be despised because of poverty, if they contemplate God’s future judgment, will be rich there forever, where the rich of this world will be in need, repenting that they were not poor.\n\nXXXIII. Solomon: “The years,” he says, “of the impious will be shortened.” Although we see that some impious are long-lived.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Dignum erat quidem omnes impios non solum citius hac luce carere, uerum etiam nec unius momenti temporis uita frui, qui conditoris sui inmemores uitae totius auctoritatem inputant creaturae. sed scriptura hos impios loquitur, qui, cum sub dei lege agerent, propensiores in idolis erant. peiores enim sunt ceteris impiis; scientes enim dominum et contemnentes eum obtemperant seruis. et quia de his dictum est probat apostolus dicens: scimus autem quoniam quaecumque lex loquitur his qui in lege sunt loquitur. gentiles autem non habentur in numero uiuorum.\n\nXXXIIII. APUD SOLOMONEM: 'DEUS,' INQVIT, 'MORTEM NON FECIT', ET ALIO LOCO: 'BONA ET MALA, UITA ET MORS, PAUPERTAS ET HONESTAS A DEO SUNT'.\n\nNulli dubium est bona omnia a deo esse, mala autem quae dixit nobis mala sunt, dum uindicatur de nobis. poena enim quamuis iuste inferatur, patienti tamen mala uidetur. nam et per profetam ad peccatores loquitur deus dicens: faciam uobis mala, id est 'poenis uos agam'. uita autem et mors sic a deo est, quia legem dedit, quae seruantibus se uitam promittit, contemptoribus uero mortem, sed illam quae secunda dicitur. dum enim unum quemque adiudicat quid mereatur, ab ipso est siue absolutio ad uitam siue reatus ad mortem. non ergo inuentor mortis est, sed iudex, quia mortis auctor peccatum est. quo modo ergo deus poterat facere mortem, qui nescit peccare?","english":"It was indeed fitting that all the impious should not only be deprived of this light more quickly, but also not enjoy life even for a single moment, they who, unmindful of their creator, attribute the authority of their entire life to the creature. But Scripture speaks of those impious who, though they acted under the law of God, were more inclined toward idols. For they are worse than other impious persons; for, knowing the Lord and despising him, they obey his servants. And that this was said concerning them, the apostle proves, saying: \"But we know that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law.\" For gentiles are not counted among the living.\n\nXXXIV. IN SOLOMON: 'GOD,' HE SAYS, 'DID NOT MAKE DEATH,' AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: 'GOOD AND EVIL, LIFE AND DEATH, POVERTY AND HONOR ARE FROM GOD.'\n\nThere is no doubt that all good things are from God; but the evils which he spoke of are evils to us, when vengeance is taken upon us. For punishment, although justly inflicted, nevertheless seems evil to the one suffering it. For also through the prophet, God speaks to sinners, saying: \"I will do evils to you,\" that is, 'I will afflict you with punishments.' Life and death, moreover, are from God in this way, because he gave a law which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who despise it—that death which is called the second. For when he judges what each one deserves, it is from him whether it be absolution to life or guilt to death. Therefore, he is not the inventor of death, but the judge, because the author of death is sin. How, then, could God make death, who does not know how to sin?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"sed cum peccatis retribuit, ab ipso dicta est esse mors, cum non ex ipso sit, sed ex hoc qui peccauit.\n\nEadem ratione paupertas et diuitiae a deo sunt. quidam enim habentes timorem dei luxuriam spernunt, uitam prodigam fugiunt, ab egeno uel paupere - oculum non auertunt: huius modi crementum faciunt bonorum. scriptum est enim in Prouerbiis: paupertatem et ignobilitatem aufert disciplina. at hi autem qui timorem dei non habent, solutius uiuentes et egenum despicientes, sicut scriptum est, in inopia erunt, non solum neclegentes et inprouidi circa se, uerum etiam contemptores datae legis. hoc modo facit deus pauperes et diuites, quia, dum offensio legis parit egestatem, a deo fieri dicitur auctore legis et, cum aliqui terrore disciplinam legis custodiunt, a deo auctore legis diuites fiunt.\n\nXXXV. QVA RATIONE DAUID SAUL, POSTQVAM DEUS AB EO RECESSIT, CHRISTUM DOMINI UOCAT ET DEFERT EI?","english":"But when it is in retribution for sins, death is said to be from him, although it is not from him, but from the one who sinned.\n\nBy the same reasoning, poverty and wealth are from God. For some, having fear of God, spurn luxury, flee from a prodigal life, and do not avert their eyes from the needy or the poor: such persons increase their goods. For it is written in Proverbs: \"Discipline removes poverty and ignobility.\" But those, however, who do not have fear of God, living more dissolutely and despising the needy, as it is written, will be in need, not only being negligent and improvident concerning themselves, but also despisers of the given law. In this way God makes the poor and the rich, because, while the offense against the law begets poverty, it is said to be done by God as the author of the law, and when some, through fear, observe the discipline of the law, they become rich by God as the author of the law.\n\n35. FOR WHAT REASON DOES DAVID, AFTER GOD DEPARTED FROM HIM, CALL SAUL CHRIST OF THE LORD AND DEFER TO HIM?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Non nescius Dauid diuinam esse traditionem in officio ordinis regalis idcirco Saul in eadem adhuc traditione positum honorificat, ne deo iniuriam facere uideretur, qui his ordinibus honorem decreuit. dei enim imaginem habet rex, sicut et episcopus Christi. quam diu ergo in ea traditione est, honorandus est, si non propter se, uel propter ordinem. unde apostolus: omnibus, inquit, potestatibus sublimioribus subditi estote. non est enim potestas nisi a deo; quae enim sunt, a deo ordinatae sunt. hinc est unde gentilem, in potestate tamen positum, honorificamus, licet ipse indignus sit, qui dei ordinem tenens gratias agit diabolo. potestas enim exigit, quia meretur honorem. nam ideo Pharaoni futurae famis somnium reuelatum est et Nabuchodonosor aliis secum adstantibus solus filium dei uidit in camino ignis non utique merito suo, qui in idolo se adorari uoluit, sed merito ordinis regalis..","english":"David was not unaware that the royal office was a divine tradition; therefore, while Saul was still placed in that same tradition, he honored him, lest he seem to do injury to God, who decreed honor for these orders. For a king bears the image of God, just as a bishop bears the image of Christ. Therefore, as long as he is in that tradition, he is to be honored—if not for his own sake, then at least for the sake of the order. Hence the apostle says: \"Be subject to all higher authorities.\" For there is no power except from God; those that exist are ordained by God. This is why we honor a pagan, even if he is unworthy, when he is placed in authority, though he, holding God's order, gives thanks to the devil. For authority demands honor because it deserves it. For this reason, a dream of a future famine was revealed to Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar alone, among those standing with him, saw the Son of God in the fiery furnace—not, of course, by his own merit, since he wished to be worshipped in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"XXXVI. SI 'ANIMA QVAE PECCAT IPSA MORIETUE', QVID EST UT ACHAB FILIUS CHARMI PECCAUERIT ET XXXVI UIRI OCCISI SUNT IN CAUSA EIUS?\n\nAlio sensu scriptura locuta est quam propositum est. non enim de hac morte quae communis utique omnibus est dixit, sed de illa quae appellatur secunda. haec enim peccatores suscipit, illis autem qui in pugna mortui sunt non peccatum Achar redditum est, sed obfuit illis, ne protectione diuina adiuti inualescerent hostibus. nec enim causa Achar infirmati sunt, sed dei auxilio minime muniti, ut, dum fortiter facere nequeunt, occiderentur. nam pauci fuerunt contra multos, unde et superati noscuntur. nulla ergo iniustitia in uoluntate dei est. in potestate enim habet, si adiutare uult, ut si adfuerit, misericors sit, si noluerit, iustus; nec enim talibus debitor est, ut teneatur obnoxius. hinc est enim quod Iesu Naue contristatus scidit uestimenta sua intellegens non sine causa dominum auxilium suum subtraxisse.","english":"XXXVI. If “the soul that sins will itself die,” why is it that Achar, son of Charmi, sinned and thirty-six men were killed in his case?\n\nThe scripture spoke in a different sense than what was proposed. For it did not speak of this death which is common to all, but of that which is called the second death. This death receives sinners; but for those who died in battle, Achar’s sin was not repaid to them, but it harmed them in that they were not aided by divine protection to prevail against the enemy. For they were not weakened because of Achar, but they were not fortified by God’s help, so that, while they could not act bravely, they were killed. For they were few against many, and thus they are known to have been overcome. Therefore there is no injustice in God’s will. For it is in his power, if he wishes to help, that if he is present, he is merciful; if he is unwilling, he is just; for he is not a debtor to such persons, so as to be held obligated. Hence it is that Joshua, son of Nun, grieved and tore his garments, understanding that the Lord had withdrawn his help not without cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"XXXVII. QVID EST UT MISSA MORS IN IACOB UENERIT IN ISRAHEL, CUM IACOB IPSE DICTUS SIT ISRAHEL?\n\nUnius populi duo nomina posuit, ut ex nominibus merita eorum possint intellegi. nam utique qui Israhel cognominatus est prius Iacob dicebatur. conluctans enim cum saluatore intellexit deum esse, quem in specie corporis uidebat, ideoque appellatus est (homo uidens deum'. populum ergo, quem Iacob nuncupat, hoc loco et in hac causa carnalem significat, quo modo nomina quae natis a parentibus inponuntur. sed hi, id est Iudaei, propter mala opera non Israhelitae dicti sunt, quia uaccis et lucis sacrificabant in Samaria studio et imperio Hieroboam regis. ille autem populus, qui in Hierosolymis in templo domini hostias offerebant per sacerdotes dei, Israhel appellatus est. Samaria ergo propter impietatem suam tradita est captiuitati et morti, Hierusalem autem reseruata est, propter quod habuerit reges diligentes deum. adubi autem et ipsa Hierusalem impietatem secuta est Samariae, sententia illam conprehendit data in Samariam.","english":"XXXVII. Why is it that the death sent against Jacob came upon Israel, when Jacob himself is called Israel?\n\nHe has given two names to one people, so that their merits might be understood from the names. For indeed, he who is surnamed Israel was previously called Jacob. For while wrestling with the Savior, he understood that the one he saw in bodily form was God, and therefore he was called 'the man who sees God.' Therefore, the people whom he calls Jacob in this passage and in this context signifies the carnal, in the way that names are imposed on children by their parents. But these, that is, the Jews, were not called Israelites because of their evil deeds, since they sacrificed to cows and lights in Samaria by the zeal and command of King Jeroboam. But that people who offered sacrifices in the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem through the priests of God were called Israel. Therefore, Samaria, on account of its impiety, was handed over to captivity and death, but Jerusalem was preserved because it had kings who loved God. However, when Jerusalem itself followed the impiety of Samaria, the sentence given against Samaria overtook it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Ideo ergo dictum est: misit deus mortem in Iacob — id est in populum Samariae, qui carnaliter conuersatus est. sicut supra diximus — et uenit in Israhel, hoc est in populum Hierusalem, quia idolatriam secuta est imitata Samariam. ut simili modo abduceretur in captiuitatem a Nabuchodonossor, sicut et Samaria a Salmanassar rege Assyriorum. hoc est aperte: sententia data malis inuenit et bonos, dum desierunt esse iusti. missa enim mors in Iacob, sicut supra ostensum est, peruenit in Israhel non praetermittens Samariam; sed dum causa, qua missa est in Samariam, inuenta est et in Hierusalem, missa illuc uenit etiam in eum locum, in quo eadem reserat. quia nindicta causam sequitur, non discernens personam.\n\nXXXVIII. SI EQVUS ET MULUS NON HABENT INTELLECTUM, QVANTO MAGIS TERRA RES SINE SENSU? QVID EST ERGO UT DICATUR TERRA BENEDICERE DEUM?","english":"Therefore it was said: God sent death against Jacob—that is, against the people of Samaria, who lived carnally, as we said above—and it came upon Israel, that is, upon the people of Jerusalem, because they followed idolatry, imitating Samaria, so that they too might be led away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, just as Samaria was by Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians. This is clear: a sentence given against the wicked finds even the good, when they have ceased to be righteous. For death was sent against Jacob, as was shown above, and it reached Israel, not passing over Samaria; but because the cause for which it was sent against Samaria was also found in Jerusalem, it came there and also arrived at that place where the same thing was present. For vengeance follows the cause, not distinguishing the person.\n\nXXXVIII. If a horse and a mule do not have understanding, how much more is the earth a thing without sense? What then does it mean that the earth is said to bless God?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Non est sic intellegendum ut sonant uerba. opus est enim. quod licet mutum sit. clamare dicitur laudem creatoris; hortatur enim aspicientes se benedicere opificem, sicut et omne uas bene conpositum laudat artificem, quippe cum legatur in Psalmis: numquid confitebitur tibi, ait, puluis aut adnuntiabit ueritatem tuam? in omni ergo insensata substantia non uoluntas, quae utique nulla est, sed opera benedicunt auctorem. si autem spiritaliter uis hoc accipere, terram hominem significatum intellege secundum dictum profetae — memento, enim ait, domine, quoniam terra sumus -, quem opera creaturae in laudem conditoris sui prorumpere exhortatur.\n\nXXXVIIII. QVID EST QVOD LEGITUR IN SOLOMONE: 'SPES EST'. INQVIT, 'IN TENEBRIS; MELIOR EST CANIS LEONE MORTUO'?\n\nTenebrae gentilitatem et ignorantiam significant. spem ergo in gentili esse quam in apostata, uult intellegi per id quod subiecit dicens: melior est canis leone mortuo, quia sicut leo omnibus feris fortior est, ita et Christianitas omnibus sectis. si quis ergo ab hac destiterit, amittit salutem, ita ut deterior gentili sit. potest enim fieri ut credat gentilis et adquirat salutem, quam perdidit apostata. ac, si non credat, peior est apostata. quia deterius est amisisse salutem, quam non habuisse. 'canem' autem 'gentilem' significatum saluator ostendit dicens: non licet accipere panem filiorum et mittere canibus.","english":"It is not to be understood as the words sound. For a work, although it is mute, is said to proclaim the praise of the creator; for it urges those who look upon it to bless the maker, just as every well-made vessel praises the craftsman, especially since it is read in the Psalms: \"Will dust confess you,\" it says, \"or announce your truth?\" Therefore, in every insensate substance, it is not the will, which certainly is none, but the works that bless the author. But if you wish to take this spiritually, understand that the earth signifies man according to the saying of the prophet—\"Remember, Lord,\" he says, \"that we are earth\"—whom the works of creation urge to break forth into praise of their creator.\n\nXXXIX. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF WHAT IS READ IN SOLOMON: \"THERE IS HOPE,\" HE SAYS, \"IN DARKNESS; A DOG IS BETTER THAN A DEAD LION\"?\n\nDarkness signifies gentility and ignorance. He wishes it to be understood that there is hope in a gentile than in an apostate, through what he subjoins saying: a dog is better than a dead lion, because just as a lion is stronger than all wild beasts, so is Christianity stronger than all sects. Therefore, if anyone has withdrawn from it, he loses salvation, so that he is worse than a gentile. For it can happen that a gentile believes and acquires salvation, which the apostate has lost. And, if he does not believe, the apostate is worse. Because it is worse to have lost salvation than never to have had it. Moreover, the Savior showed that \"dog\" signifies \"gentile\" by saying: It is not permitted to take the bread of the children and throw it to the dogs.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"XL. QVID EST QVOD DICIT PROFETA: 'LAETARE STERILIS. QVAE NON PARIS, ABRUMPE ET EXCLAMA, QVAE NON PARTURIS, QVIA MULTI FILII DESERTAE MAGIS QVAM EIUS QVAE HABET UIRUM'?\n\nQuoniam filii Hierusalem terrenae apostatarunt a deo, non potest huic gaudium adscribi, sed maeror. ad obprobrium ergo huius Hierusalem profeta illam superiorem Hierusalem laetari debere dicit, quam apostolus matrem nostram appellat, quia sine gemitu et doloribus multo plures filios habet, quam haec quae cum lacrimis generat carnaliter — Iudaeos utique —, illa autem Christianos per fidem spiritaliter, quam ideo desertam dicit, quia ipsa est uita, quam deseruit Adam primus et secutus est mortem. cum regenerantur ergo homines, reuertuntur ad eam, quam deseruerant, uitam. haec uita Christus est, quia ipse dixit: ego sum uita. est et deus pater uita, quia ait dominus: sicut habet pater uitam, ita dedit filio uitam. sine dubio et spiritus sanctus uita est dicente domino: qui. de Meo, inquit, accipiet. de uita itaque qui accepit, uita est tres ergo sunt una uita. haec est uita, per cuius fidem regeneramur. ipsa est mater nostra, sicut et in Genesi legimus: quia ipsa est, inquit, — id est uita — mater omnium uiuorum. qui sunt qui uiuunt, nisi qui credunt?","english":"XL. What does the prophet mean by saying: 'Rejoice, barren woman. You who do not give birth, break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor, because the deserted woman has many more sons than she who has a husband'?\n\nBecause the sons of the earthly Jerusalem have apostatized from God, joy cannot be ascribed to her, but rather grief. Therefore, to the reproach of this Jerusalem, the prophet says that the higher Jerusalem—which the apostle calls our mother—ought to rejoice, because without groaning and pains she has far more sons than this one who gives birth with tears carnally (namely, the Jews), whereas that one gives birth to Christians through faith spiritually. He calls her deserted because she is the life which the first Adam deserted and followed death. When men are regenerated, therefore, they return to the life which they had deserted. This life is Christ, because he himself said: I am the life. And God the Father is life, because the Lord says: just as the Father has life, so he gave life to the Son. Without doubt the Holy Spirit also is life, as the Lord says: he who will receive from Me, he says, from life. Therefore he who receives from life is life. Thus the three are one life. This is the life through whose faith we are regenerated. She is our mother, just as we read in Genesis: because she herself, it says—that is, life—is the mother of all the living. Who are those who live, if not those who believe?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"XLI. AN SPIRITUS, QVI SUPER AQVAS FEREBATUR, SANCTUS SPIRITUS INTELLEGATUR, QVIA DICTUM EST: 'SPIRITUS DEI FEREBATUR SUPER AQVAM'.\n\nSi ideo a quibusdam sanctus spiritus putatur, quia dei sphitus esse legitur, inualida et inanis adsertio est. non solum enim ordo hoc non patitur et ratio abnuet, sed et uerba ipsa infirma probantur ad causam istam adstruendam. nam his uerbis frequenter aliud inuenimus significatum in lege; inter cetera enim ait dominus deus: non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro. et in subiectis: sed deleam, inquit, omnia ab homine usque ad pecus, propterea quia diluuium facturus erat super terram. numquid hic spiritus sanctus potest intellegi? nonne de animabus locutus est? nam non solum nostrae animae spiritus dicuntur, sed et pecorum. sic enim scriptum est: et mortua est omnis caro in aqua, in qua erat spiritus uitae et in Ezechiel profeta sic dictum est, dum de reformatione hominum pro-, mittit dicens deus: haec dicit dominus ossibus istis: extendam super uos cutem et dabo in uobis spiritum meum, et uiuetis. numquid de sancto spiritu locutus est et non de anima?","english":"XLI. Whether the Spirit that was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, because it was said: 'The Spirit of God was borne over the water.'\n\nIf the Holy Spirit is thought by some to be present because it is read as the spirit of God, this assertion is weak and empty. For not only does the order not permit this, and reason reject it, but the very words themselves are shown to be insufficient to establish this case. For we frequently find these words signifying something else in the Law; among other things, the Lord God says: My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh. And in the following: But I will destroy, he says, everything from man to beast, because he was about to make a flood upon the earth. Can the Holy Spirit be understood here? Did he not speak of souls? For not only are our souls called spirits, but also those of beasts. For it is written thus: And every flesh died in the water, in which there was the spirit of life. And in the prophet Ezekiel it is said thus, while he promises concerning the reformation of men, God says: Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and I will put my spirit in you, and you will live. Did he speak of the Holy Spirit and not of the soul?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Omnia quidem caelestia spiritus sunt, sed differunt ab inuicem, et deus spiritus est, sed longe aliter. omnis itaque spiritus dei est; non tamen deus est, nisi spiritus qui de ipso est, cuius significatio haec est ut 'sanctus' dicatur. nam et homines filii dei uocantur et Christus dicitur filius dei; sed interuallum est, quia hic uerus est, illi adoptiui. sic et inter spiritum dei diuersitas est. spiritus enim sanctus de deo est, consubstantiuus ei; reliqui uero spiritus dei esse dicuntur, sed creatura sunt. sed nec ordinis est ut spiritus sanctus ferri super aquas intellegatur, cum super aquas spiritalem creaturam esse tradat ratio, et quae super se habeat potiorem alteram creaturam, quia creatura a creatura differt claritate. quicquid enim prope sedem dei acceditur, clariora sunt ministeria. unde dicit Raphahel angelus inter cetera: ego sum, inquit, unus ex septem angelis sanctis, qui adstamus et conuersamur ante maiestatem dei.","english":"All heavenly beings are indeed spirits, but they differ from one another, and God is a spirit, but in a far different way. Every spirit, therefore, is of God; yet it is not God, except the spirit which is from him, whose signification is such that it is called 'holy.' For men are also called sons of God, and Christ is called Son of God; but there is a difference, because he is the true Son, they are adopted. So also there is a diversity among the spirit of God. For the Holy Spirit is from God, consubstantial with him; the remaining spirits are said to be of God, but they are a creature. But it is not even fitting that the Holy Spirit be understood to have been borne over the waters, since reason teaches that what is borne over the waters is a spiritual creature, and one which has above itself another, more powerful creature, because one creature differs from another in glory. For whatever approaches nearer to the throne of God, the ministries are more glorious. Whence the angel Raphael says among other things: 'I am,' he says, 'one of the seven holy angels who stand and move about before the majesty of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"XLII. CUR ANGELUS MISSUS LOQVI AD MOVSEN IN IGNE ET RUBO APPARUIT IN MONTE?\n\nDeus excelsus est; dignum ergo fuit ut in alto appareret, in loco qui uicinus est caelo. et quia ignis semper superiora adpetit sursum crescendo ad caelum, in eo debuit caelorum dominus adparere, qui de humo ad superna contendit. in rubo uero causa fecit ut appareret delictorum. quia enim peccatorum causa legem descenderat dare, spinae autem in peccatis significantur — quia sustinui, inquit, ut faceret uuam, fecit autem spinas-et lex non statim uindicare uenerat, sed prius ostendere, ideo ignis rubum non conbussit, id est data lex non fecit reos de praeterito peccatores. nam quia et peccata non sunt de natura, sed ex accidenti, rubi, id est spinarum materia non habet radicem spinis armatam. ratione ergo factum est, ut ita dominus appareret Moysi.\n\nXLIII. CUM SCIAMUS ABRAHAM PROHIBITUM A DEO NE FILIUM SUUM IMMOLARET, QVARE IEPTHAE, CUM FILIAM SUAM LIBARET, NON EST PROHIBITUS, SED HUMANO SANGUINE DEO UOTUM EXSOLUIT?","english":"XLII. Why did the angel sent to speak to Moses appear in fire and a bush on the mountain?\n\nGod is most high; therefore it was fitting that he appear in a high place, in a location near the sky. And because fire always seeks higher places, rising upward toward heaven, the Lord of the heavens ought to appear in that which strives from the ground toward the heights. As for the bush, the reason for appearing in it was on account of sins. For because the law had come down to be given on account of sinners—and thorns signify sins—since, he says, I endured that it might produce a grape, but it produced thorns—and the law had not come to punish immediately, but first to show, therefore the fire did not consume the bush, that is, the given law did not make sinners guilty for the past. For because sins are not from nature, but from accident, the material of the bush, that is, of the thorns, does not have a root armed with thorns. Therefore it was done reasonably that the Lord appeared thus to Moses.\n\nXLIII. Since we know that Abraham was forbidden by God to sacrifice his son, why was Jephthah not forbidden when he offered his daughter, but rather paid a vow to God with human blood?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Multum interuallum est inter causam Abrahae et Iepthae. primum quidem Abraham legitime natus est, Iepthae uero spurius; erat enim filius meretricis. deinde Abraham conuersationis optimae, Iepthae autem princeps latronum. Abraham uir iustus et in temptatione probatus; in Iepthae enim nullum iustitiae testimonium.\n\nAbrahae itaque praeceptum est, ut filium suum deo offerret et ut ostenderet hominibus quantum deo crederet Abraham, qui nec filium suum iubente eo dubitauit occidere. qui enim contra mundi spem nasci eum potuit facere de sterili et anicula, non fuit ambiguum quod contra mundi rationem posset eum resuscitare a mortuis. hoc facto cumulatus est iustitia Abraham. ostendit enim deus, quia non sanguinem pueri poposcerat, sed ut famulus suus Abraham hoc facto auctior fieret. diligentes enim se aliquid pati uult, ut iuste illos promouere uideatur","english":"There is a great difference between the case of Abraham and that of Jephthah. First, Abraham was born legitimately, but Jephthah was a bastard, for he was the son of a harlot. Next, Abraham was of the best character, but Jephthah was a leader of bandits. Abraham was a just man and proven in trial; in Jephthah, however, there is no testimony of justice.\n\nThus it was commanded to Abraham that he offer his son to God, and that he show men how much he trusted God, who, when God commanded, did not hesitate to kill even his own son. For He who was able to make him be born from a barren and aged woman, contrary to the world's hope, it was not doubtful that He could, contrary to the world's reason, raise him from the dead. By this deed Abraham was heaped with righteousness. For God showed that He had not demanded the boy's blood, but that His servant Abraham might become greater through this deed. For He who loves His own wishes them to suffer something, so that He may seem justly to advance them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Nam Iepthae homo facinerosus et inprouidus stulta deuotione munus deo promisit dicens: quicquid mihi redeunti a caede occurrerit ante ostia domus meae, hoc offeram deo. numquid coactus deuouit aut numquid intellexit quo modo deberet uotum facere? quid enim si canis illi aut asinus occurrisset, quod deus offerri prohibuit. aut si filius alienus, aut si uxor, ut in dolore alieno: exultans redderet uotum? idcirco inprouidae mepii quod in alienam perniciem deuouerat, in illum ipsum iudicio diuino retortum est. et usque adeo insensatus fuit Iepthae, ut nec postea stulte se deuouisse cognosceret, ut error eius, qui ab ipso coeperat, per ipsum et emendaretur. intellegere enim debuit deum non tali sacrificio delectari et rogare pro stultitia sua et aliud offerre quod contra legem non esset. sed fidelem se praestitit fatuus parricidam, cum constet fidem stultam non solum minime prodesse, sed obesse. in casu itaque filiae suae ipse mactatus est, unde et deus a tali sacrificio dissimulauit. si enim hoc prohibuisset, aliud offerre sibi illum uoluisse uideretur, cum sciret ut indignum non debere illum offerre. filia autem eius lucrum fecit, quia innocens in malis patris mortua poena caruit inferi, quod diu forte uiuendo adipisci nequisset.","english":"Jephthah was a wicked and reckless man who, with foolish devotion, promised a gift to God, saying: \"Whatever meets me returning from the slaughter before the doors of my house, I will offer that to God.\" Was he compelled to vow, or did he understand how he ought to make a vow? For what if a dog or an ass had met him, which God has forbidden to be offered? Or if another man's son, or if his wife, so that in another's grief he would exultantly fulfill his vow? Therefore, because of his reckless impiety, what he had vowed to the destruction of another was turned back upon him by divine judgment. And Jephthah was so senseless that not even afterward did he recognize that he had vowed foolishly, so that his error, which had begun with him, might be corrected by him. For he ought to have understood that God does not delight in such a sacrifice, and to have begged forgiveness for his folly and offered something else which was not against the law. But the fool showed himself faithful as a murderer, when it is established that foolish faith not only does not profit, but harms. Therefore, in the case of his daughter, he himself was sacrificed, and for this reason God dissembled from such a sacrifice. For if He had forbidden this, He would have seemed to wish that Jephthah offer something else to Him, when He knew that Jephthah ought not to offer something unworthy. But his daughter gained, because, innocent, she died in her father's evils and escaped the punishment of the underworld, which perhaps she could not have attained by living long.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Ut autem triumphus uictoriae Iepthae prosequeretur, non meritum eius fecit neque populi; nec enim legitur supplices illos fuisse deo, ut daret eis defensorem. aut numquid ipsum Iepthae deus misit aut adlocutus est? sed quia allofili deos suos laudabant, quasi qui subiectos illis facerent filios Israhel, uituperantes deum Abrahae, idcirco propter honorem nominis sui deus uindicauit in allofilos, si non propter istos, uel propter meritum Abrahae et suum culmen. aut numquid, quia spiritus domini insiluit in Sampson meretricantem, dignus dicetur, cum hoc factum intellegatur ad allofilorum perniciem?\n\nXLIIII. ADUERSUS IUDAEOS.\n\nScriptum est in Eseia profeta: domus mea domus orationis uocabitur omnibus gentibus. sed forte dicant . Iudaei: 'domus dei, id est synagoga, omnibus patet.' nec renitimur, ita tamen ut, sicut semper, circumcisi applicentur ad legem. lex enim eorum est qui iussi sunt more Abrahae circumcidi. nihil ergo nouum hoc exemplo profetae poterit uideri, quia ex quacumque gente quis ueniens non est prohibitus adiungere se legi ab exordio Iudaismi. nihil nouum a profeta dictum poterit aestimari; immo snperflue. si semper admissi sunt seruire gentiles deo Abrahae nec aliquando prohibiti inueniuntur. et uerum est, quia subicientes se legi numquam non suscepti probantur.","english":"But that the triumph of Jephthah’s victory might be celebrated, neither his own merit nor that of the people brought it about; for it is not read that they were suppliants to God, that he might give them a defender. Or did God himself send Jephthah or speak to him? But because the Philistines were praising their own gods, as if they would make the children of Israel subject to them, reviling the God of Abraham, for that reason, for the honor of his own name, God took vengeance on the Philistines, if not for the sake of these people, then at least for the sake of Abraham’s merit and his own majesty. Or will Samson, because the spirit of the Lord leaped upon him while he was whoring, be called worthy, when this deed is understood to have been for the destruction of the Philistines?\n\nXLIIII. AGAINST THE JEWS.\n\nIt is written in the prophet Isaiah: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” But perhaps the Jews may say: “The house of God, that is, the synagogue, lies open to all.” Nor do we gainsay this, yet in such a way that, as always, those who are circumcised are bound to the law. For the law is for those who were commanded to be circumcised after the manner of Abraham. Therefore nothing new can seem to be in this example of the prophet, because anyone coming from any nation was not forbidden to join himself to the law from the beginning of Judaism. Nothing new can be thought to have been said by the prophet; indeed, it is superfluous. For if Gentiles were always admitted to serve the God of Abraham and are never found to have been prohibited at any time. And it is true, because those submitting themselves to the law are proved never to have been unwelcome.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"si igitur haec ita sunt, superflue uidetur admonuisse profeta, quod semel traditum custoditum est semper.\n\nEt aliquis tam hebes poterit inueniri. qui dicat tantum profetam rem superfluam et inanem locutum? nescio cui hoc tutum sit uel audire et non prohibere. nam cum Iudaicus utique populus propter peccata, quae in dominum delinquebant ab idolis suffragia requirentes, a profetis saepe correpti paenitentiae iter ingredi nollent, ut reuerterentur ad deum, ad exprobrationem illorum domum suam deus aperturum se omnibus gentibus ad orandum significauit, ut abdicatis Iudaeis alios in loco illorum positurum se ostenderet. nam si semper admissae sunt gentes ad legem, sicut supra dictum est, quo modo hoc profeta dicebat futurum, nisi quia aliud significauit quam praeceptum erat prius? non enim posset dicere de re quae cottidie fiebat. quia futura erat. unde manifestum est istud ad necem proficere Iudaeorum. quibus ostendit profeta, quod alii his amotis uocandi essent ad recepturum donum gratiae dei, quod promissum fuerat ludaeis.","english":"If, therefore, these things are so, the prophet seems to have admonished superfluously, since what was once handed down has always been kept.\n\nAnd can anyone so dull be found who would say that such a great prophet spoke something superfluous and empty? I know not for whom it is safe either to hear this and not to forbid it. For since the Jewish people, on account of the sins they committed against the Lord by seeking help from idols, were often rebuked by the prophets but were unwilling to enter upon the path of penance so as to return to God, God signified, to their reproach, that He would open His house to all nations for prayer, showing that He would place others in their stead, the Jews having been cast off. For if the nations were always admitted to the Law, as was said above, how would the prophet have said this as something future, unless he meant something other than what had previously been commanded? For he could not speak of a thing that happened daily as if it were to come. Hence it is clear that this works to the destruction of the Jews, to whom the prophet shows that others, once these were removed, were to be called to receive the gift of God’s grace, which had been promised to the Jews.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Quid sit autem promissum, Eseias profeta docet dicens: ueniet ex Sion qui eripiet et auertat impietatem ab Iacob; et hoc illis a me testamentum. igitur hoc testamentum abolitio peccatorum est. hoc est enim testamentum nouum. quod promissum est per Hieremiam dicentem: ecce uenient dies. dicit dominus. et consummabo domui Israhel et domui Iuda testamentum nouum, non secundum testamentum quod disposui patribus illorum in die. qua adprehendi manum illorum, ut educerem illos de terra Aegypti, quia ipsi non permanserunt in testamento meo. et ego neglexi eos, dicit dominus. haec est praeuaricatio illorum: quando simulacrum uituli fecerunt, tunc testamentum corruperunt. unde et tabulae in quibus data lex fuerat, sub monte confractae sunt ex eo quod grauia praecepta meruerunt accipere.\n\nSed quia clemens et misericors deus est, promisit per profetas mutare se legem, ut aliud testamentum daret, quod differret ab eo quod dederat prius. ut non solum quod graue erat mutaretur, sed et illa quae in figura data erant, id est sabbatum et circumcisio, ut, quia diu pressi erant, per omnia releuati supplices deo gratias agerent. et quia in praeuaricatione paterna durantes animos ab idolis auertere noluerunt, gentes cum residuis, qui fidem seruauerunt, testamento frui, quod futurum dixerat.","english":"Now what was promised, the prophet Isaiah teaches, saying: \"He will come from Zion who will rescue and turn away impiety from Jacob; and this is a testament to me from them.\" Therefore, this testament is the abolition of sins. For this is the new testament, which was promised through Jeremiah, saying: \"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will complete for the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new testament, not according to the testament which I arranged for their fathers on the day when I took their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my testament. And I neglected them, says the Lord.\" This is their transgression: when they made the image of the calf, then they corrupted the testament. Hence, the tablets on which the law had been given were broken at the mountain, because they deserved to receive heavy precepts.\n\nBut because God is clement and merciful, He promised through the prophets to change the law, so that He would give another testament, which would differ from the one He had given before. So that not only what was burdensome would be changed, but also those things which had been given in figure, that is, the sabbath and circumcision, so that, because they had been oppressed for a long time, being relieved in all things, they would give thanks to God as suppliants. And because, persisting in paternal transgression, they were unwilling to turn their minds away from idols, the nations, together with the remnant who kept faith, would enjoy the testament which He had said would be in the future.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"contestatur, ut duplici modo grauati excruciarentur perfidi Iudaei; et ad tempus enim grauati sunt praeceptis et in futurum congruas poenas exsoluent, quia neque in ueteri neque in nouo testamento fideles inuenti sunt.\n\nNouum ergo testamentum dare se dixit, ut cessaret uetus, quod datum erat patribus. ac per hoc qui in hoc testamento seruit deo, neque sabbatum neque neumenias neque circumcisionem custodit nec escarum discretiones, sed tantum dei habet timorem in fide, quia non ex lege iustificatur. sed ex fide dicente Abacuc profeta: quia iustus ex fide mea uiuet, ut non utique iam multis utatur praeceptis ad deum promerendum, sed paucis, Eseia iterum de hoc sensu eadem dicente; ait enim: si fuerit numerus filiorum Israhel tamquam harena maris, reliqui eorum salui fient. uerbum enim consummans et breuians in aequitatem. quia uerbum breuiatum faciet deus in uniuerso orbe. reliquis, qui in fide promissionis perseuerauerunt ceteris diffidentibus, breuiatum legis uerbum ostendit, hoc est nouum testamentum quod promisit. quod non aliter testamentum diceretur. nisi simili modo etiam hoc sanguinis testimonio firmaretur. sicut et testamentum uetus, ut nomen unum utriusque. sed in ueteri multa, in nouo autem pauca sint praecepta. sicut promisit, ut, quia Abraham patrem multarum gentium futurum dixerat, eodem modo iustificarentur filii.","english":"He testifies, so that the faithless Jews were burdened in a twofold manner and tormented; for they were burdened for a time with precepts and in the future will pay fitting penalties, because they were found faithful in neither the Old nor the New Testament.\n\nTherefore, he said that he would give a New Testament, so that the Old, which had been given to the fathers, would cease. And through this, whoever serves God in this testament keeps neither the Sabbath nor the new moons nor circumcision nor distinctions of foods, but has only the fear of God in faith, because he is not justified by the law, but by faith, as the prophet Habakkuk says: \"For the just man will live by my faith,\" so that he no longer uses many precepts to merit God, but few, with Isaiah again saying the same about this sense; for he says: \"If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, the remnant of them will be saved.\" For the word that completes and shortens into equity. Because God will make the shortened word throughout the whole world. To the remnant, who persevered in the faith of the promise while the others distrusted, he shows the shortened word of the law, that is, the New Testament which he promised. Which would not be called a testament otherwise, unless it were also confirmed by the testimony of blood in a similar manner, just as the Old Testament, so that the name of each is one. But in the Old there are many precepts, in the New, however, few, as he promised, so that, because he had said that Abraham would be the father of many nations, the sons would be justified in the same way.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"sicut fuerat iustificatus et pater, ut cessantibus quae post fidem Abrahae coeperant suscipientes fidem, per quam iustificatus est idem Abraham, filii essent Abrahae, sicut dictum est a domino. quod quidem nec mirum nec inauditum est, ut sine cura sabbati et circumcisione et reliquis huius modi mandatis iustificentur homines.\n\nNec enim per hoc placuit deo Enoch, ut transferretur, neque Noe haec seruando in diluuio solus inuentus est iustus neque ipse Abraham, postquam circumcisus est, iustificatus est: credidit, enim inquit, Abraham deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. tunc circumcisus est, ut signum esset in eo, quia credidit, cum senior esset, filium se habiturum. non ergo circumcisio commendat Abraham, sed fides. ideoque credentibus sufficit fides ad iustificationem, ut filii sint Abrahae in fide, non in circumcisione, quia his non est opus circumcisione. non enim hoc creditur, quod credidit Abraham. Iudaei autem idcirco iussi sunt circumcidi, ut fidei Abrahae signum haberent, non suae fidei, sed ut filii eius secundum carnem scirentur: si autem credant, erunt filii eius et in iustificationem.","english":"just as the father had been justified, so that, with those things which had begun after Abraham’s faith ceasing, those receiving the faith through which the same Abraham was justified would be sons of Abraham, as was said by the Lord. This is indeed neither strange nor unheard of, that men are justified without concern for the Sabbath, circumcision, and other commandments of this kind.\n\nFor Enoch did not please God by this means, so that he was translated; nor did Noah, by observing these things, alone prove to be just in the flood; nor was Abraham himself justified after he was circumcised. For it says: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Then he was circumcised, so that it might be a sign in him that he believed, since he was older, that he would have a son. Therefore, circumcision does not commend Abraham, but faith does. And so for believers, faith suffices for justification, so that they are sons of Abraham in faith, not in circumcision, because they have no need of circumcision. For it is not believed that Abraham believed what they believe. The Jews, however, were ordered to be circumcised so that they might have the sign of Abraham’s faith—not of their own faith, but so that they might be known as his sons according to the flesh. But if they believe, they will be his sons also in justification.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Quid enim prodest dici filium potentis eum qui inpotens sit. . nisi quia magis obest? dedecus est enim dignitosi filium esse sine honore. nam in tantum circumcisio carnis nullius meriti est, ut uindicaturum se dicat deus per Hieremiam profetam in omnes circumcisos praeputia, si non fuerint circumcisi corde. illis autem non indignatur, qui circumcisi corde praeputiati sunt carne, quia nemo sine cordis circumcisione placuit deo. quicumque ergo circumcisi sunt carne, genus significant Abrahae iuxta carnem; nam qui circumcisi sunt corde, genus significant dei secundum fidem, quia circumcisi omni mundano errore deum profitentur parentem. quid ergo prodest carnis circumcisio, quando, si fides defuerit in Iudaeo, ad meritum Abrahae peruenire non poterit? aut quid obest praeputium, cum nemo, nisi qui aemulus fuerit fidei Abrahae. peruenit ad iustitiam eius?","english":"For what benefit is there in calling someone the son of a powerful man when he is powerless, except that it is more of a detriment? For it is a disgrace for the son of a man of high rank to be without honor. For circumcision of the flesh is of so little merit that God declares through the prophet Jeremiah that He will take vengeance on all those who are circumcised in the foreskin if they are not circumcised in heart. But He is not angry with those who, circumcised in heart, are uncircumcised in the flesh, because no one has pleased God without circumcision of the heart. Therefore, all who are circumcised in the flesh signify the race of Abraham according to the flesh; but those who are circumcised in heart signify the race of God according to faith, because, circumcised from all worldly error, they profess God as their parent. What benefit, then, does circumcision of the flesh provide, when, if faith is lacking in a Jew, he will not be able to attain to the merit of Abraham? Or what harm does the foreskin cause, since no one, unless he has been an emulator of the faith of Abraham, attains to his righteousness?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Superflue igitur gloriantur de carnis circumcisione, cum uideant illam apud deum meritum non habere. et si, sicut est ostensum, melius est fidem habere quam circumcisionem. meliores sunt gentes Iudaeis, quia isti fidem habent, Iudaei circumcisionem. et quos, putas, magis agnoscat filios Abraham: qui iuxta carnem similes illi sunt, aut qui in fide? sed Abrahae fides testimonium perhibet, ac per hoc non in carne, sed in fide gloriatur. ideoque istos in filios suscipit, quos uidet imitatores esse gloriae suae. quo modo enim illos potest filios appellare, quibus uidet abhorrere unde placuit deo et iustificatus est? non ergo filios hos, sed inimicos poterit iudicare. inuidi enim eius uidentur spernentes fidem, per quam glorificatus est.\n\nNec mirum si Iudaei diffidentes deprehendantur minime suscipientes nouum testamentum, cum sciamus illos nec in ueteri fuisse fideles. semper enim contra deum rebelles et contumeliosi fuerunt, unde talia praecepta acceperunt, per quae ceruices illorum, quae inflexibiles erant, premerentur. numquam enim bona de deo sperare uoluerunt, cuius tanta beneficia et uirtutes tam mirandas agnouerant.","english":"Therefore, they boast superfluously about circumcision of the flesh, since they see that it has no merit before God. And if, as has been shown, it is better to have faith than circumcision, then the Gentiles are better than the Jews, because the former have faith, the Jews circumcision. And whom, do you think, does Abraham more readily acknowledge as sons: those who are like him in the flesh, or those who are like him in faith? But Abraham’s faith bears witness, and for this reason he glories not in the flesh, but in faith. Therefore, he adopts as sons those whom he sees are imitators of his glory. For how can he call those sons whom he sees abhorring that by which he pleased God and was justified? Therefore, he will be able to judge these not as sons, but as enemies. For they seem to be envious of him, spurning the faith through which he was glorified.\n\nNor is it surprising if the Jews are found to be distrustful, scarcely accepting the New Testament, since we know that they were not even faithful in the Old. For they were always rebellious and insolent toward God, and for this reason they received such commandments, by which their necks, which were unbending, would be pressed down. For they never wished to hope for good things from God, although they had acknowledged such great benefits and so wondrous deeds of his.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"hinc est unde inter cetera dicit Ezechihel profeta: leuaui manum meam inter eos in deserto, ut dispergerentur inter gentes et disseminarentur in regionibus, eo quod iustificationes meas non fecerunt et praecepta mea reppulerunt; et in subiectis: et ego dedi illis praecepta non bona et iustificationes, in quibus non uiuent in eis. ostendit qua causa data sint illis praecepta tanta et tam aspera, ut, quia ingrati tantis bonis exstiterunt dictante iustitia. praeceptis seuerioribus premerentur. idcirco enim non bona* ea dixit, cum iusta sint, quia non illis ad iustificationem proficiebant, sed ad exitum, et poena, licet digne inlata, patienti tamen bona non est. post haec tamen, quia pius est deus. nouum testamentum daturum se promisit, in quo adbreuiatio facta legis iustificaret credentes, sicut iustificatus est Abraham, ut cessantibus neumeniis et sabbato et circumcisione et ceteris praeceptis — non quae naturalis legis sunt, id est homicidium. adulterium et talia — ita iustificarentur, sicut et Abraham. renouata enim fide Abrahae omnia uoluit cessare, ut tale tempus esset, quale fuerat quando credidit Abraham.","english":"This is the reason why, among other things, the prophet Ezekiel says: \"I raised my hand among them in the desert, so that they would be scattered among the Gentiles and dispersed throughout the regions, because they did not perform my ordinances and rejected my precepts.\" And in the following: \"And I gave them precepts that are not good and ordinances in which they will not live.\" He shows for what cause such great and harsh precepts were given to them: because, since they were ungrateful for such great goods, by the dictate of justice they would be oppressed by stricter precepts. For he called them \"not good,\" although they are just, because they did not profit them for justification, but for destruction; and punishment, although deservedly inflicted, is nevertheless not good for the one who suffers it. After this, however, because God is merciful, he promised that he would give a new testament, in which an abridgment of the law would justify believers, just as Abraham was justified, so that with the cessation of the new moons, the Sabbath, circumcision, and the other precepts—not those which are of natural law, that is, murder, adultery, and the like—they would be justified just as Abraham was. For, with the faith of Abraham renewed, he wished everything to cease, so that the time would be as it had been when Abraham believed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Sed forte dicantIudaei: csi ea, quae a Moyse data sunt, cessare dicta sunt per adbreuiationem legis, numquid circumcisio a Moyse data est ut cesset? ac per hoc signum patris nostri habemus, quia sumus filii Abrahae, quod propter testimonium generis cessare non debet'. tempore quidem suo seruanda fuit circumcisio, id est, antequam nouum testamentum daretur. quod promissum erat. adubi autem dei gratia praestante onera legis cessare iussa sunt, quid opus est circumcidi? idcirco autem noua lex data est, id est spiritalis, ut cessarent carnalia et suscipientes eam signum eius acciperent, ut, sicut in ueteri Abrahae signum habuerunt, ex quo coepit testamentum uetus. ita et in nouo signum habeant saluatoris, qui noui testamenti constitutor est. quem ad modum enim ex Habraham Hebrei dicti sunt, sic et ex Christo Christiani dicuntur. quicumque ergo adhuc Hebrei dicuntur, nouum testamentum quod promisit deus non receperunt beneficium et misericordiam dei in irritum deducentes, qui populum suum iam hominis nomine nolens censeri sub filii sui nomine constituere illos dignatus est.","english":"But perhaps the Jews will say: \"If those things which were given through Moses are said to cease by the abbreviation of the law, was not circumcision given through Moses so that it would cease? And through this sign we have our father, because we are sons of Abraham, which ought not to cease on account of the testimony of lineage.\" Circumcision was indeed to be observed in its own time, that is, before the new testament was given, which had been promised. But when, by the grace of God, the burdens of the law were ordered to cease, what need is there to be circumcised? For this reason, moreover, a new law was given, that is, a spiritual one, so that carnal things would cease and those receiving it would receive its sign, just as in the old they had the sign of Abraham, from which the old testament began. So also in the new they have the sign of the Savior, who is the founder of the new testament. For just as from Abraham they were called Hebrews, so also from Christ they are called Christians. Therefore, whoever are still called Hebrews have not received the new testament which God promised, thereby nullifying the benefit and mercy of God, who, not willing that his people be designated by the name of a man, deigned to establish them under the name of his Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Qua igitur audacia dicunt Iudaei non nostra nos lege uti, sed sua, cum dicat Dauid: confitebor tibi in gentibus et iterum: epulamini, gentes, cum populo eius? et ad Hieremiam profetam dicit dominus: prius quam te formarem in utero, noui te; et ante quam exires de uulua, sanctificaui te et profetam in gentibus posui te. Iudaismus certe proprias habet significationes; aut enim populus iste in Iacob significatur aut in Samaria aut in Hierusalem aut in Iuda aut in Israhel. de gentibus autem apertum est quia aliter illos significat, quam sunt Iudaei.\n\nNoster ergo profeta est Hieremias. quamuis enim in omnibus profetis gentes participes doni sui ostenderit deus, ad Hieremiam tamen specialiter dicit, quia nobis illum dedit profetam. hic enim nouum testamentum futurum significauit. quod plus gentibus proficeret quam Iudaeis, quod nunc declaratum uidetur. cum enim in uniuersa terra noui testamenti sit praedicatio, tam raro et difficile Iudaeus fidelis inuenitur, ut omnes ecclesiae noui testamenti gentium nominentur, sicut dictum erat in Osee profeta: uocabo non plebem meam plebem meam et non dilectam dilectam. repulsis ergo Iudaeis conuocat gentes ea misericordiae gratia. qua dignatus est uocare et Abraham. nec enim Abraham non uocatus cognouit dominum. itaque qui dignatus est Abraham, idem ipse dignatus et gentes.","english":"With what audacity, then, do the Jews say that we do not use our own law but theirs, when David says: \"I will confess to you among the Gentiles,\" and again: \"Feast, O Gentiles, with his people\"? And to the prophet Jeremiah the Lord says: \"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you and placed you as a prophet among the Gentiles.\" Judaism certainly has its own designations; for either this people is signified in Jacob, or in Samaria, or in Jerusalem, or in Judah, or in Israel. But concerning the Gentiles, it is clear that it signifies them differently than it does the Jews.\n\nTherefore, Jeremiah is our prophet. For although in all the prophets God showed the Gentiles to be participants in his gift, he speaks specifically to Jeremiah, because he gave him to us as a prophet. For he signified that the New Testament would come, which would benefit the Gentiles more than the Jews, as now seems to have been declared. For since the preaching of the New Testament is throughout the whole world, a faithful Jew is found so rarely and with difficulty that all the churches of the New Testament are named after the Gentiles, as was said in the prophet Hosea: \"I will call my people not my people, and the not-beloved beloved.\" Therefore, with the Jews rejected, he summons the Gentiles by that grace of mercy with which he deigned to call Abraham as well. For not even Abraham, unless called, knew the Lord. Thus, the one who deigned to call Abraham is the same one who has deigned to call the Gentiles.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Cur ergo dicunt: 'nostra est lex,' cum manifestum sit , donum dei omnium esse uolentium? cesset itaque ista usurpationis temeritas, quia gratia dei communis est omnibus. quo namque pudore negant Christum nostrum in lege promissum, cum uideant omnia signa in eo, quae lex futura praedixit? quia et secundum Abrahae promissionem omnes gentes iustificantur in eum credentes et secundum Eseiae profetiam de uirgine natus est in Bethleem ex tribu Iuda. sicut fuit promissum, ex semine Dauid et, iuxta quod Hieremias profetauit, nouum testamentum, quod deus futurum promiserat, praedicauit et post omnia signa uirtutum ostensa humiliauit se ł secundum dicta profetarum et omnia, quae praedicta sunt, passus tertia die resurrexit, quem ad modum scriptum est in profeta.\n\nEt si tempus promissionis requirant, sicut Danihelo profetae ostensum est, inuenient inpletum tempore quo natus et passus est Christus, quia a tempore primi anni Darii regis Persarum usque ad natiuitatem et passionem domini et excidium Hierusalem, quod factum est per Uespasianum imperii Romani principem, inpletae sunt ebdomadae LXX, qui sunt anni CCCCXC. qui conputus per regna et per successores imperii manifestus est, quo modo etiam a Tertulliano conputatum inuenitur in Iibro, quem scripsit aduersus Iudaeos, quod ne ad iniuriam eius proficeret, quia recte conputauit, praetermisimus.","english":"Why, then, do they say, \"The law is ours,\" when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all who desire it? Let this audacity of usurpation cease, therefore, because the grace of God is common to all. For with what shame do they deny that our Christ was promised in the law, when they see all the signs in him which the law foretold would come? For both according to the promise to Abraham, all nations are justified in believing in him, and according to the prophecy of Isaiah, he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem from the tribe of Judah. As was promised, from the seed of David, and, in accordance with what Jeremiah prophesied, he proclaimed the new testament, which God had promised would come, and after all the signs of his miracles were shown, he humbled himself according to the sayings of the prophets, and suffered all that was foretold, and on the third day he rose again, as it is written in the prophet.\n\nAnd if they seek the time of the promise, as was shown to the prophet Daniel, they will find it fulfilled at the time when Christ was born and suffered, because from the time of the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, up to the birth and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was carried out under Vespasian, prince of the Roman Empire, the seventy weeks were completed, which are 490 years. This computation through the kingdoms and through the successors of the empire is manifest, as it is also found computed by Tertullian in the book he wrote against the Jews; and so that it might not work to his discredit, because he computed correctly, we have omitted it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Et quis ambigat de hoc numero, cum trecenti circiter anni nunc super hunc numerum inueniantur? inpudentis ergo.) est post tantum superadditum numerum aduentui saluatoris dicere: non uenit'; sub apostolis enim aut tempore ipso, quo agebat dominus inter homines, se poterat occultare malitia contradicens ueritati, ut, cum omnia signa promissi Christi uideret in saluatorem, de tempore tamen ambigere se diceret, ut perfidiam suam celaret. post autem, cum super promissum numerum supercrescere multi anni coeperunt, quae inpudentia est negare uenisse, quod etiam et signis et temporibus adinpletum scitur! nam quando aliquid plenum est et non superabundat, potest contentiosus aliquis dicere non esse plenum; nam si superabundet, clauditur os contentioso.\n\nIta et Iudaei tempore saluatoris potuerunt dicere, licet per fallaciam, non bene conputatum a Darii tempore usque ad dominum Christum, ut ipse dicatur esse qui promissus est. fallimur enim in annis et mensibus et diebus imperatorum et ad liquidum non collegimus. adubi autem creuerunt tempora super numerum praescriptum annorum promissi Christi, nulla potest praetendi excusatio, ut non ipse esse Christus dicatur, qui uenit, nisi, quod absit. mentitus dicatur esse qui promisit. quando enim tempus promissionis emensum est et negatur uenisse qui promissus est, quid aliud quam mendacii arguitur qui promisit?","english":"And who can doubt this number, when nearly three hundred years are now found to have passed beyond this number? It is, therefore, shameless to say, after so great an additional number of years since the advent of the Savior, 'He has not come'; for under the apostles, or even at the very time when the Lord was living among men, malice could conceal itself by contradicting the truth, so that, although it saw all the signs of the promised Christ in the Savior, it could still claim to be uncertain about the time, in order to hide its own perfidy. But afterwards, when many years began to accumulate beyond the promised number, what shamelessness it is to deny that He has come, who is known to have been fulfilled both by signs and by times! For when something is full and does not overflow, some contentious person can say that it is not full; but if it overflows, the mouth of the contentious is shut.\n\nThus also the Jews at the time of the Savior could say, albeit deceitfully, that the calculation from the time of Darius up to the Lord Christ was not properly made, so that He might be said to be the one who was promised. 'For we are mistaken in the years and months and days of the emperors, and we have not gathered them precisely.' But when the times have grown beyond the prescribed number of years of the promised Christ, no excuse can be put forward so that He who came is not said to be the Christ, unless—which God forbid—the one who promised is said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has been completed and it is denied that the one who was promised has come, what else is it but to accuse the one who promised of falsehood?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"sed ueracem esse qui promisit signa omnia docent, quae praedicta sunt et reperta in Christo noscuntur. Iudae autem, dum emendare erubescunt, non cogitant futurum iudicium. nihil enim peius est, quam si neget quis uerum esse. quod intellegit non esse mendacium.\n\nXLV. DE IMAGINE.\n\nFaciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. hoc quibusdam ex alia parte lectionis intellegendum esse uidetur, ex hac uidelicet, in qua legimus dixisse deum: uenite, descendamus et confundamus linguas eorum, quia, quantum in superficie uidetur, simile est: unius enim uox est plurali numero loquentis, sed discrepat sensu, quia et dissimilis ratio est. illic enim de creando homine dicit, quem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam deus uult creari. illud autem quod dicit: uenite, descendamus et confundamus linguas eorum, ad hoc pertinet, ne se intellegerent homines; unde ad angelos potest uideri locutus deus, quasi imperator ad exercitum. communiter enim dixit, quia facturus erat per illos, utpote creator illorum, ac per hoc: confundamus, inquit, linguas eorum. nam cum dicit: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, non potest dici angelis locutus, quia non potest dici una esse imago dei et angelorum, sicut imperatoris et comitum, quia quorum imago una est, non potest dissimilis esse dignitas uel natura.","english":"But the one who made the promise is truthful, as all the signs teach, which were foretold and are known to have been found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they are ashamed to correct themselves, do not consider the future judgment. For nothing is worse than if someone denies what is true, which he understands is not a lie.\n\nXLV. ON THE IMAGE.\n\n\"Let us make,\" he says, \"man in our image and likeness.\" This seems to some to be understood from another part of the reading, namely from this, in which we read that God said: \"Come, let us go down and confound their languages,\" because, as it appears on the surface, it is similar: for it is the voice of one speaking in the plural number, but the sense differs, because the reasoning is also dissimilar. For there it speaks of creating man, whom God wishes to be created in his image and likeness. But that which says: \"Come, let us go down and confound their languages,\" pertains to this, that men might not understand each other; whence God can be seen to have spoken to angels, as a commander to an army. For he spoke collectively, because he was going to act through them, as their creator, and thus he says: \"Let us confound their languages.\" For when he says: \"Let us make man in our image and likeness,\" it cannot be said that he spoke to angels, because it cannot be said that the image of God and of angels is one, as that of an emperor and his counts, because where the image is one, the dignity or nature cannot be dissimilar.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"denique adiecit: et fecit, inquit, deus hominem; ad imaginem dei fecit eum, ut deus dixerit et deus fecerit, non alter deus aut differens, sed idem deus.\n\nQuod enim unus ad unum dixit, non aliam naturam significauit, sed personam. cum enim deus unus sit, tres tamen personae sunt; et ideo unus est deus, quia, siue in filio siue in sancto spiritu, dei unius substantia est, quia non potest non hoc esse, quod de ipso est, quod ipse est. dei ergo patris persona est dicentis: faciamus; filii uero facientis hominem ad imaginem dei: siue ad patris siue ad suam, nihil interest, quia utriusque una imago est. fecit ergo filius per spiritum sanctum. sicut enim pater per filium dicitur facere, ita et filius per sanctum spiritum ipso dicente: quia ego in spiritu dei eicio daemonia. igitur una trium imago est, quia, siue pater siue filius siue sanctus spiritus, unus est deus. ac per hoc unus factus est homo ad unius dei imaginem. in eo autem imago dei est homo, ut, sicut unus est deus in caelis, ex quo omnia subsistunt spiritalia, ita unus esset in terris homo, ex quo ceteri haberent carnalem originem.","english":"Finally, he added: \"And God made man,\" it says; \"He made him in the image of God,\" so that God spoke and God made, not a different God or a distinct one, but the same God.\n\nFor when one spoke to one, it signified not a different nature, but a person. For although God is one, there are nevertheless three persons; and therefore God is one, because, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, the substance of the one God is present, since what is from him cannot fail to be what he himself is. Thus, the person of God the Father is the one saying, \"Let us make\"; the Son, however, is the one making man in the image of God: whether in the image of the Father or in his own makes no difference, because the image of both is one. Therefore, the Son made through the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is said to act through the Son, so too the Son acts through the Holy Spirit, as he himself says: \"For I cast out demons in the Spirit of God.\" Thus, the image of the three is one, because, whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, there is one God. And by this, one man was made in the image of the one God. In this, man is the image of God, so that, just as there is one God in the heavens, from whom all spiritual things subsist, so there would be one man on earth, from whom others would have their carnal origin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Aliquibus tamen uidetur, quia in dominatione imago dei factus est homo, quia dixit: et dominetur piscium maris et uolatilium caeli et totius terrae, cum non solum uiro, sed et mulieri ista cernantur subiecta, quam constat dei imaginem non habere. quod quidem duplici modo caret ratione; per hoc enim neque ad filium dixisse deus adseritur: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, sed ad dominationes caelestes, quas apostolus memorat, si imaginem dei homo in dominatione habet, et mulieri datur, ut et ipsa imago dei sit, quod absurdum est. quo modo enim potest de muliere dici, quia imago dei est, quam constat dominio uiri subiectam et nullam auctoritatem habere? nec docere enim potest nec testis esse neque fidem dicere nec iudicare: quanto magis imperare!\n\nXLVI. DE SAMUHELE.\n\nSunt quidam inter nos, qui partim negotiis saecularibus occupati, partim minus studiosi circa sacras scripturas, errorem patiuntur putantes Samuhelem sacerdotem fuisse, id est, ex Aaron habere originem, ex cuius progenie constituit dominus deus nasci, non fieri sacerdotes. nec alicui praeter filios eius concessum est, ut poneret in altare incensum. ex quibus aliqui plus errantes negant quidem Samuhelem de genere fuisse Aaron, hoc est, non illum dicunt natum sacerdotem, et nihilo minus sacerdotio illum adserunt functum. quibus prius respondendum est.","english":"Some, however, think that man was made in the image of God in respect of dominion, because it says: \"And let him rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the whole earth,\" although not only man but also woman is seen to be subject to these things, and it is established that she does not have the image of God. This indeed lacks reason in a twofold way; for by this it is asserted that God did not say to the Son: \"Let us make man in our image and likeness,\" but to the celestial dominions, which the apostle mentions, if man has the image of God in respect of dominion, and it is given to woman, so that she too is the image of God, which is absurd. For how can it be said of woman that she is the image of God, when it is established that she is subject to the dominion of man and has no authority? For she can neither teach nor be a witness nor give testimony nor judge: how much less can she command!\n\nXLVI. CONCERNING SAMUEL.\n\nThere are some among us who, partly occupied with secular affairs, partly less diligent concerning the sacred scriptures, suffer error, thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God established that priests should be born, not made. And it was granted to no one except his sons to place incense on the altar. Among these, some, erring more, deny indeed that Samuel was of the lineage of Aaron, that is, they do not say that he was born a priest, and nevertheless they assert that he performed the priesthood. To these a response must first be given.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"peius est enim negare Samuhelem natum fuisse sacerdotem et tamen adserere functum illum esse sacerdotio, quam dicere sacerdotem illum fuisse ex filiis Aaron. hic enim ignorantia est, illic stultitia. cum enim didicerint, qui illum putant natum sacerdotem, ex filiis Aaron non esse, manifestum habebunt non illum fuisse sacerdotem ignari, quia non licuit agere alicui sacerdotium, nisi ei qui esset ex semine Aaron. conpertum enim habent; manifestum est enim, quia Chore, cum non esset ex filiis Aaron et uoluisset super altare inponere incensum, hiatu terrae absumptus est cum sociis suis. et Ozias rex, cum non utique esset ex semine Aaron, sed ex tribu Iuda, et praesumpsisset agere sacerdotium, stans ante altare percussus lepra in fronte est et sic exspirauit.\n\nIlli autem, qui dicunt Samuhelem non natum esse sacerdotem et nihilo minus egisse illum adserunt sacerdotium. satis stultum est quod dicunt. et stulto suadere quod bonum est, laboris est maximi. quanta enim hebetudine ducuntur, ut sole apparente super terram dicant quia nox est! cum enim legant et non uno loco legant hoc a deo esse decretum, ut nemo auderet sacerdotium agere praeter Aaron et filios eius. obstinata mente contendunt sacerdotem fuisse Samuhelem. non enim intellegunt, quia si natus sacerdos non est Samuhel et sacerdotium egit, praesumptor dicitur, quia hoc deus statuit. ut nascerentur, non fierent sacerdotes.","english":"For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet to assert that he performed the priestly office, than to say that he was a priest from the sons of Aaron. For in the latter case there is ignorance, in the former, stupidity. For when those who think he was born a priest learn that he is not from the sons of Aaron, they will clearly understand that he was not a priest, being ignorant of the fact that it was not lawful for anyone to perform the priesthood unless he was from the seed of Aaron. For they have it on record; it is evident, because Korah, when he was not from the sons of Aaron and wished to place incense on the altar, was swallowed up by a chasm in the earth with his associates. And King Uzziah, who was certainly not from the seed of Aaron but from the tribe of Judah, and presumed to perform the priesthood, while standing before the altar was struck with leprosy on his forehead and thus died.\n\nThose, however, who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nevertheless assert that he performed the priesthood—what they say is quite foolish. And to persuade a fool of what is good is a very great labor. For with how great dullness are they led, that when the sun is shining upon the earth, they say it is night! For when they read, and read not in one place, that this was decreed by God, that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, with obstinate mind they contend that Samuel was a priest. For they do not understand that if Samuel was not born a priest and performed the priesthood, he is called a usurper, because God established that priests should be born, not made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"et de Samuhele hoc sentire puto tutum non esse. quo modo enim posset fieri, ut uir laudabilis et dei testimonio commendatus hoc ageret, quod inconcessum sciebat? cuius etiam praesumptionis uindictam pro certo habebat semel et iterum factam. nec enim dei iudicio poterat ad hoc adspirare, quem inmutabilem sciebat; a quo, si forte hoc audisset, temptari se potius credidisset sciendo deum nullo modo sententiam suam posse, rescindere. posset enim magis sub dei apparentia et nomine id agi secum credere, ut circumueniretur a parte aduersa, quam iudicium suum deum posse mutare.\n\nDenique cum Balaam prohibitus esset a deo, ne iret ad Balac. et postea iterum requisisset, an iret, indignatus ei deus exemplo asinae corripuit eum, quia prohibentem angelum uidens asina coeptum iter implere nolebat. Balaam uero prohibente deo, ne iret, iterum interrogans, an ire illum uellet, sic de deo quasi de homine iudicauit, qui per id, quod inpraescius est, uarius et mutabilis est. sed Balaam nullo diuino testimonio commendatur — erat enim ariolus —, Samuhel aų.tem uir deo carus et iudiciorum eius sciens fixam esse sententiam, quo modo aliud fieri debere crederet. quam sciebat a deo esse constitutum?","english":"And concerning Samuel, I think it is not safe to hold this opinion. For how could it happen that a praiseworthy man, commended by the testimony of God, would do what he knew was not permitted? He also knew for certain that vengeance for such presumption had been exacted once and again. Nor could he aspire to this by God’s judgment, whom he knew to be immutable; from whom, if by chance he had heard this, he would rather have believed himself to be tempted, knowing that God could in no way rescind his own sentence. For he could more readily believe that this was being done with him under the appearance and name of God, so that he might be ensnared by the opposing side, than that God could change his judgment.\n\nFinally, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterwards asked again whether he should go, God, angered at him, rebuked him with the example of a donkey, because the donkey, seeing the angel forbidding it, refused to complete the journey it had begun. But Balaam, with God forbidding him to go, and asking again whether he wished him to go, judged God as if he were a man, who, because he is not prescient, is fickle and changeable. But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony—for he was a soothsayer—whereas Samuel was a man dear to God and knowing that the sentence of his judgments was fixed; how could he believe that something else should be done, which he knew had been established by God?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"'Sed Heli', inquiunt, (mortuo et filiis eius sacerdotibus Samuhel coepit agere sacerdotium': quod nec lectio docet nec ratio ammittit. hoc enim dicentes nullum putant tunc fuisse, qui ageret sacerdotium, ut his tribus mortuis, nisi Samuhel populi munera obtulisset, sacerdotium agi desisset; quae adseueratio dei est inimica. his enim deus inprouidus iudicatur; quasi nescius enim id statuit, quod permanere non possit. ut quid enim nulli alii quam filiis Aaron sacerdotium agere usque in saeculum statuit, hoc est usque ad tempora aduentus Christi. st hoc deficere sciebat? si autem nescit — quod absit! — iuprouidus fuit; et ideo potest, ut Samuhel fuerit illis deficientibus sacerdos. si autem prouidus et praescius deus est, permansit quod statuit; et si permansit quod statuit, Sfł.muhel non egit sacerdotium, quia de non erant sacerdotes. in ueteri lege nasci decreuit deus sacerdotes, in noua uero fieri dominus iussit sacerdotes.","english":"But Heli,' they say, 'having died, and his sons the priests, Samuel began to exercise the priesthood': which neither the reading teaches nor reason admits. For in saying this, they think that there was then no one who exercised the priesthood, so that with these three dead, unless Samuel had offered the people's gifts, the priesthood would have ceased; which assertion is hostile to God. For by this, God is judged improvident; as if unknowing, He established something that could not endure. For why did He decree that no one other than the sons of Aaron should exercise the priesthood forever, that is, until the times of the coming of Christ? Did He know that this would fail? But if He does not know—which is unthinkable!—He was improvident; and therefore it is possible that Samuel was priest when those failed. But if God is provident and prescient, what He established has endured; and if what He established has endured, Samuel did not exercise the priesthood, because they were not priests. In the old law, God decreed that priests be born; in the new, however, the Lord commanded that priests be made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Eligant nunc unum e duobus: aut natum probent Samuhelem sacerdotem aut factum. sed consentiunt non illum natum esse sacerdotem, quia sciunt illum non esse ex filiis Aaron. si ergo natus non est sacerdos Samuhel, factus autem non legitur nec probatur, quia nec statuerat deus fieri sacerdotes. in absoluto est Samuhelem minime sacerdotem fuisse.\n\nSed contradictores clausis oculis: (si sacerdos', inquiunt. 'non fuit, uicem tamen egit sacerdotis, quoniam legitur deo sacrificium obtulisse! quis audeat negare quod scriptum probatur? obtulit enim deo sacrificium Samuhel, sed non inde uicem sacerdotis egisse cognoscitur. ipse enim semper dicitur offerre, cuius oblationes sunt, quas super altare inponit sacerdos. et Saul obtulit hoc utique genere, id est per sacerdotem, sicut et nunc offertur, et Dauid obtulit et Solomon obtulit et ceteri similiter obtulerunt. numquid omnes uicem sacerdotis egerunt? quamuis enim proprio sacerdos fungatur officio. ille tamen offerre dicitur, cuius nomine agit sacerdos; ipsi enim inputatur. cuius munera offeruntur. et qui non fuit sacerdos, quo modo uicem agere poterat sacerdotis? numquid diaconus potest uicem agere sacerdotis? praefectus etenim potest agere uicem praefecti et praetor praetoris, non tamen priuatus potest agere uicem potestatis alicuius: quanto magis sacerdotis uicem agere non potest, qui non est sacerdos!","english":"Let them now choose one of two: either let them prove that Samuel was born a priest or that he was made one. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know he was not from the sons of Aaron. If, therefore, Samuel was not born a priest, and he is not read nor proved to have been made one, because God had not then established that priests be made, it is certain that Samuel was by no means a priest.\n\nBut the contradictors, with eyes closed, say: 'If he was not a priest, he nevertheless acted in the place of a priest, since it is read that he offered a sacrifice to God.' Who would dare deny what is proved by Scripture? For Samuel did offer a sacrifice to God, but it is not thereby known that he acted in the place of a priest. For the one whose offerings they are, which the priest places upon the altar, is always said to offer. And Saul offered in this manner, that is, through a priest, just as is now offered; and David offered, and Solomon offered, and others similarly offered. Did all of them act in the place of a priest? For although the priest performs his own office, yet the one in whose name the priest acts is said to offer; it is attributed to him, whose gifts are offered. And how could one who was not a priest act in the place of a priest? Can a deacon act in the place of a priest? For a prefect can act in the place of a prefect, and a praetor in the place of a praetor, but a private person cannot act in the place of any authority; how much less can one who is not a priest act in the place of a priest!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"Quo enim consilio ad hoc adspirare audet, quod sibi scit non licere? nam si sacerdos alicubi desit, potest alterius loci sacerdos rogatus uenire et uicem eius agere, non tamen profeta, quamuis sanctae uitae sit, agere potest quod sibi scit minime esse concessum. aliud est enim bene uiuere et aliud potestatem alicuius officii accipere. sicut enim, qui sacerdos est, non ex eo uitam suam commendatam putare debet, ita et, qui sanctae conuersationis et uitae est, non iam ex eo sibi sacerdotium uindicare debebit. quamuis enim bonum sit sacerdotium, tamen malum erit ei, cui concessum non est et praesumit. nam si respiciamus quod scriptum est de sancto Samuhele, uidebimus quale testimonium det ei scriptura dicens: et innotuit. inquit, omni populo, quoniam fidelis est Samuhel in profetam domino; et in psalmo: fiant, inquit. Moyses et Aaron in sacerdotes eius et Samuhel inter eos qui inuocant nomen eius. quis non aduertat ex hac distinctione diuisas esse personas dignitatum causa, ut Moyses et Aaron sacerdotalem dignitatem adepti noscantur, Samuhel uero inter profetas deo dignus exstitisse habeatur, qui precibus deum inuocabant ad protegendum populum suum, sicut legitur? in tantum autem sacerdotes minime defuisse probantur. ut reuocata arca baiulis Leuitis uiri Bethsamys obtulerint deo sacrificia absente Samuhele.","english":"For with what plan does he dare to aspire to what he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is absent somewhere, a priest from another place can be asked to come and act in his stead; yet a prophet, even if he is of holy life, cannot do what he knows is by no means granted to him. For it is one thing to live well, and another to receive the authority of some office. For just as one who is a priest should not think that his life is commended on that account, so too one who is of holy conduct and life should not on that account claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is good, it will be evil for him to whom it is not granted and who presumes to take it. For if we consider what is written about the holy Samuel, we will see what testimony the Scripture gives to him, saying: \"And it became known,\" it says, \"to all the people, that Samuel is faithful as a prophet to the Lord\"; and in the Psalm: \"Let,\" it says, \"Moses and Aaron be his priests, and Samuel among those who call upon his name.\" Who does not notice from this distinction that the persons are separated by reason of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are known to have attained the priestly dignity, while Samuel is held to have been worthy among the prophets before God, who by prayers invoked God to protect his people, as is read? And to such an extent are the priests shown not to have been lacking, that when the ark was brought back by the Levite bearers, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in the absence of Samuel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"rege autem facto Saul Achimas erat pronepos Heli sacerdotis, qui portabat efut.\n\n'Sed hinc\\\\ inquiunt, 'uidetur sacerdos fuisse Samuhel. quia uestitus erat efut.' quasi non hodie diaconi dalmaticis induantur, sicut episcopus. efut autem etiam Dauid legimus fuisse indutum, et duplicem efut. Samuhel autem adhuc puerulus. succinctus erat efut: numquid puerulus deo potuit populi munera offerre? uides ergo, quia efut unum quidem nomen est, sed non unam rem semper significat. sacerdotes enim portabant, non uestiebantur efut; reges uero et Leuita Samuhel induebantur efut. aliquando ergo uestis, aliquando quasi armariolum, quod portabant sacerdotes ad interrogandum dominum, significatur efut.\n\nQuantum apparet, probatum est Samuhelem non sacerdotem, sed profetam fuisse. nunc his respondemus, qui ignorantes quia Samuhel non est de filiis Aaron sacerdotis, aestimant illum sacerdotem fuisse; nec enim fas erat, ut de origine Aaron descendens sacerdos non esset. quos primum uolo cognoscere quia, si sacerdos erat Samuhel, sine dubio et Helcana pater eius sacerdos fuit. congruum quoque fuerat et filios eius sacerdotes fuisse, quos, quia sacerdotes non erant, iudices illos constituit filiis Israhel, sicuti et idem ipse erat Samuhel. sic enim legimus: quia iudicauit filios Israhel.","english":"But when Saul was made king, Achimas was the great-grandson of Eli the priest, who wore the ephod.\n\n'But from this,' they say, 'Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed in an ephod.' As if deacons today do not wear dalmatics, just as the bishop does. Moreover, we read that David also was clothed in an ephod, and a double ephod. But Samuel, while still a little boy, was girded with an ephod: could a little boy offer the people's gifts to God? You see, therefore, that 'ephod' is one name, but it does not always signify one thing. For priests carried the ephod, they were not clothed in it; but kings and the Levite Samuel were clothed in an ephod. Sometimes, therefore, 'ephod' signifies a garment, sometimes a kind of small chest, which priests carried to consult the Lord.\n\nAs far as can be seen, it has been proven that Samuel was not a priest, but a prophet. Now we answer those who, not knowing that Samuel is not from the sons of Aaron the priest, think that he was a priest; for it was not lawful that one descending from the origin of Aaron should not be a priest. First, I want them to know that, if Samuel was a priest, without doubt his father Elkanah was also a priest. It would also have been fitting that his sons were priests, whom, because they were not priests, he appointed judges for the sons of Israel, just as Samuel himself was. For we read thus: that he judged the sons of Israel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"Helcana autem pater Samuhelis, propter quod sacerdos non erat: ascendebat, inquit, ex diebus in dies de ciuitate sua Armathen adorare et sacrificare deo omnipotenti sabaoth. et ibi erat Heli et duo filii eius, t)fni et Finees sacerdotes domini.\n\nQuid tam apertum, quia ueniebat Helcana offerre munera sua ante dominum per sacerdotes tempore conpetenti, secundum quod statuerat Moyses, ut tribus temporibus anni offerrent munera et decimas suas, ubi fuisset arca domini et sacerdotes, quippe cum et duas uxores habuerit tempore uno, quod inlicitum est sacerdotibus? erat enim Helcana ex Leuitis, sicut generationum ordo se continet in libro Paralipomenon. adhuc enim Leuitae non erant habentes ordinem constitutum ministerii circa sacerdotes et arcam domini. Dauid enim in regno suo disposuit uices sacerdotibus et Leuitis, ut a uiginti annis et supra, in lege. autem a uiginti quinque annis et supra, inciperent exhibere seruitia dominicis caerimoniis, ut essent ex filiis Aaron, id est de Finees et Ithamar traduce, classes sacerdotum uiginti 'quattuor, quae uices suas agerent certis temporibus. Leuitae autem constituti sunt, qui essent tabernaculi ianitores et qui baiuli arcae domini et qui. excubias obseruarent et qui uasorum essent custodes et qui promiscuas susciperent oblationes.","english":"Helcana, however, the father of Samuel, because he was not a priest: he went up, it says, from day to day from his city Armathem to adore and sacrifice to the almighty God Sabaoth. And there were Heli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord.\n\nWhat is so clear, that Helcana came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the appointed time, according to what Moses had established, that three times a year they should offer their gifts and tithes where the ark of the Lord and the priests were, especially since he also had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests? For Helcana was from the Levites, as the order of generations is contained in the book of Paralipomenon. For at that time the Levites did not yet have an established order of ministry around the priests and the ark of the Lord. For David in his kingdom arranged the courses for the priests and Levites, so that from twenty years and above, in the law, however, from twenty-five years and above, they would begin to perform services for the Lord's ceremonies, so that from the sons of Aaron, that is, from the lineage of Phinehas and Ithamar, there would be twenty-four courses of priests, which would perform their duties at fixed times. The Levites, moreover, were appointed, who would be doorkeepers of the tabernacle and who would be bearers of the ark of the Lord and who would keep watch and who would be guardians of the vessels and who would receive the miscellaneous offerings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"et uiginti quattuor classes institutae sunt cantantium et citharizantium et musicorum ceterorum, ita ut etiam hi, id est omnes Leuitae, haberent temporum uices, quia necesse erat eos et otium habere, ut et domorum suarum agerent curam.\n\nEt non solum haec proficiunt ad causam supra dictam, 'quoniam Samuhel non fuit de filiis Aaron, sed et illud quod dicit mater eius ad dominum: quia si mihi, inquit, dederis filium, commodo eum domino omnibus diebus uitae suae. non hoc diceret, si esset natus sacerdos — oportebat enim illum seruire altari —, sed quia Leuita erat et adhuc lex Leuitis non erat posita, sed unus quisque pro uoluntate sua agebat, ita ut oberrantes inlicita praesumerent. Ionatham enim filius filii Moysi, cum inter Leuitas deputatus esset, sacerdotium agere praesumpsit tribui Dan. ac per hoc legimus in libro Iudicum, quia unus quisque, inquit, placita sibi faciebat, eo quod non esset rex in Israhel. idcirco uouit Anna dicens: commodo eum domino, ne cum ceteris oberraret.","english":"And twenty-four classes of singers and citharists and other musicians were established, so that even these, that is, all the Levites, had turns of times, because it was necessary for them also to have leisure, so that they might attend to the care of their own homes.\n\nAnd not only do these things serve the aforementioned case, 'because Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron, but also that which his mother says to the Lord: \"Because if you give me a son,\" she says, \"I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life.\" She would not say this if he had been born a priest—for it was necessary for him to serve the altar—but because he was a Levite and the law for Levites had not yet been established, but each one acted according to his own will, so that those who went astray presumed unlawful things. For Jonathan, the son of the son of Moses, although he was counted among the Levites, presumed to perform the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And through this we read in the Book of Judges, because \"each one,\" it says, \"did what was pleasing to himself,\" because there was no king in Israel. Therefore Anna made a vow, saying: \"I will dedicate him to the Lord,\" lest he go astray with the others.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Et ut plenius quaestio discuti possit, etiam illud tractemus, quod dictum est de Helcana, quia ueniebat ei diebus in dies offerre munera sua et decimas. quo modo decimas offerebat, qui nihil possidebat? Leuitae enim non acceperunt agros, quia de decimis, quae a plebe dabantur, uictum quaerebant. sed potest fieri et sic datur intellegi. quia potuit habere possessionem uxoris suae aut emptam, quia de aliis tribubus accipiebant uxores non solum hi, sed et ceteri, ita ut et sacerdotes acciperent sibi de aliis tribubus uxores. nam Ioadae sacerdos magnus uxorem duxit de tribu Iuda filiam regis Ioram.\n\nXLVII. DE ESEIAE LECTIONE PROFETAE: 'ET ADPREHENDERUNT SEPTEM MULIERES UNUM HOMINEM DICENTES: PANEM NOSTRUM MANDUCABIMUS ET UESTIMENTIS NOSTRIS OPERIEMUR, UERUM TAMEN INUOCETUR SUPER NOS NOMEN TUUM. AUFERS OBPROBRIUM NOSTRUM.'\n\nIn absoluto est septem mulieres septem ecclesias esse significatas; quamuis enim una sit, sed septiformis dicitur, ut corpus unum septemplici numero constet membrorum. non solum enim nos, sed et superni caelestes ecclesiae membra sunt, cuius caput Christus est. siue igitur una siue septem dicantur ecclesiae, non discrepat. una enim dicitur, quia unum habet caput, quod est Christus; septem autem ideo, quia, sicut membra diuersa sunt, ita et potentiae spiritales. inter quas et nos deputamur, diuersae sunt uirtutes, propter quod et egere dicuntur.","english":"And so that the question may be more fully examined, let us also treat that which is said about Elkanah, that he came day after day to offer his gifts and tithes. How was he offering tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, because they sought their livelihood from the tithes which were given by the people. But it can happen and is thus given to be understood, that he could have had the possession of his wife or purchased it, because not only these but also the others took wives from other tribes, so that even the priests took wives for themselves from other tribes. For Joiada the high priest married a wife from the tribe of Judah, the daughter of King Jehoram.\n\nXLVII. ON THE READING OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH: 'AND SEVEN WOMEN SEIZED ONE MAN, SAYING: WE WILL EAT OUR BREAD AND BE COVERED BY OUR GARMENTS, NEVERTHELESS LET YOUR NAME BE INVOKED OVER US. TAKE AWAY OUR REPROACH.'\n\nIt is clear that the seven women signify seven churches; for although it is one, it is called sevenfold, as one body consists of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we, but also the heavenly beings above are members of the church, whose head is Christ. Therefore, whether the churches are called one or seven, it does not disagree. For it is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; but seven, because, just as the members are diverse, so also are the spiritual powers. Among which we also are counted, the virtues are diverse, on account of which they are said to be in need.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"idcirco enim diuersae sunt, ut non omnia singulae possint, sed simul omnes corpus sint Christi, quia ipse est caput corporis ecclesiae, ex quo totum corpus subsistit, id est ex quo omnia in caelis et in terra habent originem.\n\nIn hac ergo quae in terris est ecclesia omnium ecclesiarum facta est mentio, quia, cum huic sacramentum creatoris praedicatur, etiam caelestibus huius modi intimatur doctrina. inferioribus enim . cum insinuatur, necesse est ut audiant et superni. unde apostolus: mihi. inquit, minimo omnium sanctorum data est haec gratia inter gentes euangelizare inconprehensibiles diuitias Christi et inluminare omnes, quae sit dispositio mysterii absconditi a saeculis in deo, qui uniuersa creauit, et innotescere principibus et potestatibus in caelestibus per ecclesiam multiformis sapientiae dei. per hanc ergo ecclesiam superni docentur, quia ueritas, ait, de terra orta est. ut enim mentio superiorum fiat, hic septem ecclesiae nuncupantur in una plebe, quas septem ecclesias supplices profeta inducit saluatori facto homini. intellexerunt enim ad hoc natum esse Christum, ut auferret obprobrium, primum quidem sub lege sua agentium, deinde ceterorum. habebant autem in memoria scriptum esse: ueniet ex Sion qui eripiat et auertat impietatem ab Iacob.","english":"For this reason they are diverse, so that not all things can be done by each individually, but all together they are the body of Christ, because He Himself is the head of the body of the Church, from which the whole body subsists, that is, from which all things in heaven and on earth have their origin.\n\nIn this Church, therefore, which is on earth, mention is made of all churches, because when the sacrament of the Creator is proclaimed to this one, such teaching is also made known to the heavenly ones. For when it is insinuated to the lower ones, it is necessary that the higher ones also hear. Hence the Apostle says: \"To me,\" he says, \"the least of all the saints, this grace has been given to evangelize among the Gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Christ and to illuminate all, what is the arrangement of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, who created the universe, and to make it known to the princes and powers in the heavens through the Church of the manifold wisdom of God.\" Through this Church, therefore, the higher ones are taught, because truth, it says, has arisen from the earth. For so that mention of the higher ones may be made, here seven churches are named in one people, which seven churches a suppliant prophet introduces to the Savior made man. For they understood that Christ was born for this purpose: to remove the reproach, first indeed of those acting under His own law, then of the rest. Moreover, they had in memory that it was written: \"He will come from Zion who will rescue and turn away impiety from Jacob.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Hae ergo septem ecclesiae adprehenderunt hominem unum, id est natum Christum, dicentes: panem nostrum manducabimus et uestimentis nostris operiemur. uerum tamen inuocetur nomen tuum super nos, aufer obprobrium nostrum. quid est hoc quod precautur si enim pane proprio utuntur et uestimentis suis induuntur, id est, et uiuunt et nudae non sunt, quid eis deest? si enim panis ad uitam significatur et uestitus ad dei deuotionem — quia qui sine deo est, nudus dicitur; unde apostolus: qui in Christo, ait, baptizati estis, Christum induistis et iterum: si expoliati, inquit, non nudi inueniamur —, quid est quod poscunt ut auferatur ab eis obprobrium, nisi quia hic populus signatur in septem ecclesiarum numero, qui sub lege agens Christum expectabat promissum ad abolenda peccata? ideo dicunt: panem nostrum manducabimus — hoc est, uerbis legis, quae unum tradunt deum, pascemur, quia non in pane tantum uiuit homo sed in omni uerbo dei — et uestimentis nostris operiemur, id est, creatoris nostri nomine censemur, quia hoc unus quisque indutus dicitur, quod et est et profitetur.","english":"Therefore these seven churches have taken hold of one man, that is, the Christ who was born, saying: we will eat our bread and we will be covered with our garments; yet let your name be invoked over us; take away our reproach. What is this that they pray for? For if they use their own bread and are clothed with their own garments, that is, they both live and are not naked, what do they lack? For if bread signifies life, and clothing signifies devotion to God—because he who is without God is said to be naked; whence the apostle says: you who are baptized in Christ, you have put on Christ, and again: if we are stripped, he says, let us not be found naked—what is it that they ask for, that reproach be taken away from them, unless it is that this people is signified by the number of the seven churches, who, living under the Law, were awaiting the promised Christ for the abolition of sins? Therefore they say: we will eat our bread—that is, we will be nourished by the words of the Law, which teach one God, because man lives not by bread alone but by every word of God—and we will be covered with our garments, that is, we are counted under the name of our creator, because each one is said to be clothed with that which he both is and professes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"Denique senatores uel officiales ex uestibus intelleguntur quid sint. sed quia haec satis non faciunt ad deum pi'omerendum, hoc etiam statuit, ut per sacramentum cognitionis unius dei heres esset homo regni caelomm. per fidem enim peccatis ablutus et a morte secunda, quae ex sententia data in Adam homines apud inferos detinebat, alienus nullo detinente pergit in paradisum dei patris, in quo dixit dominus latroni, quod secum esset futurus. quamuis enim populus supra dictus, qui in septem ecclesias significatus est, sub dei lege esset et deuotione a mundi ipsius origine, indigebat tamen purificatione tam proprii quam paterni delicti, quia omnes, inquit, peccauerunt et egent gloria dei. idcirco orant supra memoratae ecclesiae, ut auferatur obprobrium earum inuocatione nominis Christi, quia qui signum eius habent, quo uicit mortem, ab inimico teneri non possunt. et non solum istae ecclesiae Christi nomen super se inuocari precantur, sed et supernae spiritales in caelestibus degentes. quamquam enim spiritales sint et caelestes potentiae, obprobrio tamen subiacent, si a creatore suo fuerint alienae, et nec membra erunt corporis, quae caput suum non cognoscentes oberrant.","english":"Finally, senators or officials are understood by their garments to be what they are. But because these things are not sufficient to appease God, He also established this: that through the sacrament of the knowledge of the one God, a man would be an heir of the kingdom of heaven. For through faith, washed of sins and separated from the second death—which, by the sentence given in Adam, detained men among the dead—he proceeds, with no one detaining him, into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord said to the thief that he would be with him. For although the people mentioned above, who are signified in the seven churches, were under God’s law and devotion from the very origin of the world, they still needed purification from both their own and their ancestral transgression, because, it says, all have sinned and stand in need of the glory of God. Therefore the aforementioned churches pray that their reproach be removed by the invocation of the name of Christ, because those who bear His sign, by which He conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only do these churches beg that the name of Christ be invoked over them, but also the higher spiritual beings dwelling in the heavens. For although they are spiritual and celestial powers, they are still subject to reproach if they are alienated from their Creator, and they will not be members of the body, wandering without recognizing their own head.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"Et quia aliud non est quam explanauimus, in subiectis profeta testatur dicens: in illa autem die inluminabit deus in consilio super terram et adiecit: quoniam abluet dominus, inquit, sordes filiorum et filiarum et sanguinem purgabit de medio eorum. quid tam euidens, quia in illo die, id est quo promissum dei impletum est et fidei sacramentum declaratum est hominibus, inluminati sunt, ut per creatoris cognitionem purificati, qui rei fuerant mortis, fierent aeternae uitae heredes? promiscue igitur profeta locutus est, ut omnes dono dei indigere significaret, ut. siue peccatores siue iusti, dei misericordiam expectasse noscerentur, peccatores propter delicta propria, ut de faucibus mortis eriperentur, iusti uero paterno absoluti peccato deleta sententia data in Adam, per quam cuncti tenebantur a morte, libertate accepta in dei regnum intrarent, iam non serui, sed filii dei.","english":"And because it is nothing other than what we have explained, the prophet bears witness in the following words, saying: \"On that day God will illuminate in counsel upon the earth,\" and he added: \"For the Lord will wash away, he says, the filth of sons and daughters and will purge blood from their midst.\" What is so evident, that on that day—that is, the day on which the promise of God was fulfilled and the sacrament of faith was declared to men—they were illuminated, so that through the knowledge of the Creator, those who had been liable to death were purified and became heirs of eternal life? The prophet therefore spoke indiscriminately, to signify that all stand in need of the gift of God, so that both sinners and the righteous were known to have awaited the mercy of God: sinners on account of their own offenses, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death; the righteous, however, absolved from the ancestral sin, the sentence given in Adam having been annulled—by which all were held bound by death—having received freedom, they might enter into the kingdom of God, no longer slaves, but sons of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"QVAESTIONES NOUI TESTAMENTI. \\t\n\nXLVIII. DEUS CERTE PERFECTIO EST ET NULLIUS EGENS: QVID ERGO OPUS FUIT CHRISTO SALUATORE UT NASCERETUR DE DEO ET FILIUM HABERET DEUS PER QVEM OMNIA FACERET?\n\nCum ea quae non erant deus uoluisset existere et maiestati suae minime opus hoc condignum sciret, prius de se, cum sit natura simplex et incorporeus, filium generauit, qui nihil ab eo distaret, ut magnitudini suae congruus responderet effectus. quid enim ultra posset facere, quam ut se alterum, qui perfectus est, generaret? hoc ergo perfectum opus est, quo nihil possit uideri praestantius. cetera enim omnia minora sunt; quanto enim excellentior his omnibus Christus est, tanto magis creatio illorum inferior est generatione eius. est et aliud. deus enim. ex quo sunt omnia, uolens condere creaturam uerbum prius, quod in mysterio apud se habebat, generauit, hoc est fecit exsistere. quod uerbum idcirco filium nuncupauit, ut ostenderet de se illum exstitisse et esse sibi consubstantiuum, ut lex, qua filii de parentibus sunt, hoc credibile faceret, per quod manifestaret creaturae mysterium, quod latuit in eo ex aeterno.","english":"QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nXLVIII. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND NEEDING NOTHING: WHAT NEED WAS THERE, THEN, FOR CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN FROM GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE WOULD DO EVERYTHING?\n\nWhen God had willed that things which did not exist should come into being, and knew that this work was not at all worthy of his majesty, he first generated from himself, since he is a simple and incorporeal nature, a Son, who would differ from him in nothing, so that an effect corresponding to his greatness might result. For what more could he do than to generate another self, who is perfect? This, therefore, is a perfect work, than which nothing more excellent can be seen. For all other things are lesser; for as much as Christ is more excellent than all these, so much is the creation of those inferior to his generation. There is also another reason. For God, from whom all things are, wishing to establish creation, first generated the Word, which he held in mystery within himself, that is, he caused it to exist. He called this Word \"Son\" in order to show that it had come forth from himself and was consubstantial with him, so that the law by which sons are from parents would make this credible, through which he would reveal to creation the mystery that had lain hidden in him from eternity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"XLVIIII. CUR SALUATOR, CUM SANCTUS NATUS SIT ET CHRISTUS DOMINUS IN IPSA NATIUITATE APPELLATUS, BAPTIZATUS EST, CUM BAPTISMUM PURIFICATIONIS CAUSA SIT ET PECCATI?\n\nUerum et manifestum est saluatorem baptismo non eguisse, quia Christus non factus sed natus est dicente angelo pastoribus: ecce natus est uobis hodie saluator, qui est Christus dominus. denique sciens Iohannes sanctitatem eius prohibebat eum a baptismo, saluator uero institit fieri oportere, non utique propter peccatum, sed propter implendam iustitiam. dignum enim erat, ut ipse exemplo esset futuris filiis dei, qui per baptismum filios dei fieri docebat; et qui credentibus spiritum sanctum dari promittebat, debuit istud in semet ipso uisibiliter demonstrare, quo conperto credentes inuisibiliter accipere se spiritum sanctum in spe haberent. nam saluator utique, cum de spiritu sancto nascitur, purificatum corpus habuit. unctio enim carni eius spiritaliter in utero data est; spiritus enim sanctus purificauit quod de Maria uirgine in corpus saluatoris profecit. et haec est unctio carnis corporis saluatoris, quare et natus 'Christus' est appellatus. quod enim per olei unctionem praestabat deus ministerio profetarum his, qui in reges unguebantur, hoc praestitit. spiritus sanctus homini Christo addita expiatione, quia anteriores christi solam potestatem imperii accipiebant per unctionem.","english":"XLIX. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR, THOUGH BORN HOLY AND CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, BAPTIZED, WHEN BAPTISM IS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN?\n\nIt is true and evident that the Savior had no need of baptism, because Christ was not made but born, as the angel said to the shepherds: \"Behold, a savior has been born to you today, who is Christ the Lord.\" Indeed, John, knowing his holiness, was forbidding him from baptism, but the Savior insisted that it must be done, not on account of sin, but for the fulfillment of righteousness. For it was fitting that he himself should be an example for future sons of God, whom he was teaching to become sons of God through baptism; and he who was promising that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers ought to demonstrate this visibly in himself, so that, having learned of this, believers might have hope that they would invisibly receive the Holy Spirit. For the Savior, when he is born from the Holy Spirit, certainly had a purified body. For an anointing was given spiritually to his flesh in the womb; for the Holy Spirit purified that which advanced from the Virgin Mary into the body of the Savior. And this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior's body, which is why he was called 'Christ' at birth. For what God, through the ministry of the prophets, used to bestow by means of anointing with oil upon those who were anointed as kings, this the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the man Christ, with an added expiation, because earlier christs received only the power of rule through anointing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"saluator autem et potestatem accepit homo natus et purificatus est natus. incongruum enim erat. ut dei filius in corpore peccatis subdito nasceretur.\n\nHominis ergo causam suscipiens et per regenerationem filios dei fieri docens baptizari debuit, ut in se hoc ostenderet ratum. facile enim probatum habetur et suadetur quod dicitur. si a magistro fieri uideatur. sic utique et uirtutum insignia oportuit fieri, ut iam filius dei apparens per mysterium regenerationis medellam daret corporeis passionibus, ut exemplo esset futuris fratribus, quia per regenerationem accipit unus quisque potestatem uirtutis.\n\nL. SI IDEO SALUATOR BAPTIZATUS EST, UT EXEMPLO ESSET, QVARE CIRCUMCISUS CETEROS PROHIBUIT CIRCUMCIDI?\n\nCircumcisio praeteriti temporis mandatum est, quam usque ad Christum oportuit habere auctoritatem, ut tam diu curreret, quam diu Christus nasceretur promissus Abrahae, ut de cetero cessaret circumcisio promissione impleta. in figura enim Christi Isaac promissus est. dixit enim ei deus: i n semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, quod est Christus. fides enim, quam Abraham acceperat, restaurata a Christo est, ut in semine Abrahae, quod est Christus, omnes gentes benedicerentur, sicut promissum fuerat Abrahae. circumcisio itaque signum fuit promissi filii, id est Christi, quo nato cessare oportuit signum promissionis, ita tamen ut ipse promissus adueniens signum patris acciperet.","english":"But the Savior received power as a man born and was purified by being born. For it was unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins.\n\nTherefore, taking up the cause of man and teaching that men become sons of God through regeneration, he had to be baptized, so that he might show this to be valid in himself. For what is said is easily proven and persuaded if it is seen to be done by the teacher. Thus also the insignia of virtues had to be made, so that the Son of God, already appearing, might give healing to bodily passions through the mystery of regeneration, to be an example for future brothers, because through regeneration each one receives the power of virtue.\n\nL. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY DID HE FORBID OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED, THOUGH HE HIMSELF WAS CIRCUMCISED?\n\nCircumcision is a commandment of past time, which had to have authority until Christ, so that it would run as long as Christ, promised to Abraham, was to be born, so that thereafter circumcision would cease, the promise having been fulfilled. For Isaac was promised in the figure of Christ. For God said to him: In your seed all nations will be blessed, which is Christ. For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations would be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. Therefore circumcision was a sign of the promised son, that is, of Christ, and when he was born, the sign of the promise had to cease, yet so that the promised one himself, on arriving, would receive the sign of the father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"ut sciretur is esse, qui promissus fuerat omnes gentes iustificare per fidem in circumcisione cordis. quia enim patri Abrahae carnaliter nascentis filii signaculum circumcisionis corporale fuit, ita et eorum, qui spiritaliter nascuntur, spiritale signum est circumcisio cordis, ideoque rectius post Christum non adhuc oportuit carnaliter circumcidi.\n\nLI. QVO MODO INTELLEGATUR, QVOD DICENTI MARIAE AD ANGELUM: 'ET UNDE HOC SCIAM, QVIA UIRUM NON COGNOUI?' RESPONDIT GABRIHEL ANGELUS: 'SPIRIITUS SANCTUS SUPERUENIET IN TE ET UIRTUS ALTISSIMI OBUMBRABIT TIBI.'\n\nAmbigenti Mariae de conceptu possibilitatem angelus praedicat dicens: spiritus sanctus superueniet in te, hoc est: 'ne dubites, quia uirum nescis; quod enim dixi', ait, 'quia concipies, spiritus sanctus superueniens in te operabitur, ut concipias sine uiro.' et uirtus altissimi, inquit, obumbrabit tibi. 'altissimi uirtus' sine dubio Christus est; hoc enim ad ipsius personam pertinet. superueniens ergo spiritus sanctus in uirginem sanctificauit eam opere suo efficiens corpus sanctum ex ea, in quo uirtus quae dicitur dei filius nasceretur. cuius obumbratio in uirginem haec est, ut de inmensitate diuinitatis aliquid esset in utero uirginis, quantum posset capere natura humana, quod quasi ex splendore obumbratio diceretur uirtutis dei essetque dei uirtus nec non et deus: nihil enim de deo est, quod non dicatur deus.","english":"so that it might be known that he was the one who had been promised to justify all peoples through faith in the circumcision of the heart. For just as the bodily sign of circumcision was for the patriarch Abraham the mark of a son born carnally, so also the spiritual sign of circumcision of the heart is for those who are born spiritually, and therefore rightly after Christ it was no longer necessary to be circumcised carnally.\n\nLI. HOW IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, 'AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, SINCE I HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN?' THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED: 'THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU.'\n\nTo Mary, who was uncertain about the possibility of conception, the angel proclaims the possibility, saying: the Holy Spirit will come upon you, that is, 'Do not doubt because you do not know a man; for what I have said,' he says, 'that you will conceive, the Holy Spirit coming upon you will bring it about that you conceive without a man.' And the power of the Most High, he says, will overshadow you. 'The power of the Most High' is without doubt Christ; for this pertains to his own person. Therefore the Holy Spirit, coming upon the virgin, sanctified her by his work, producing from her a holy body in which the power that is called the Son of God would be born. And this overshadowing of the virgin is such that from the immensity of the divinity something would be in the virgin's womb, as much as human nature could contain, which, as if from a splendor, would be called an overshadowing of the power of God, and would be the power of God and also God: for nothing of God is that which is not called God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"nam hoc corporeum est, ut sit in carne aliquid et caro dici non possit, ut pili et ossa et cetera.\n\nLII. SI DE SPIRITU SANCTO NATUS EST CHRISTUS, ID EST EFFECTU EIUS EX MARIA CARO FACTUS, CUR DICTUM EST: 'SAPIENTIA', QVAE UTIQVE CHRISTUS EST, 'AEDIFICAUIT SIBI DOMUM'?\n\nQuaestio ista gemina ratione debet intellegi. primum enim domus Christi ecclesia est, quam aedificauit sibi sanguine suo. deinde potest et corpus eius dici domus ipsius, sicut dicitur et templum eius. si enim propter habitationem dieitur templum dei, non absurde dicetur et domus, sicut legimus in lege. sed si effectu spiritus sancti factum est corpus, quod et domum posse dici arbitramur, quare ad personam Christi relatum est, quaeritur. factum filii factum patris est, quia utriusque una uirtus est. simili modo etiam factum spiritus sancti factum filii dei est propter naturae et uoluntatis unitatem. siue enim pater faciat siue filius siue spiritus sanctus, trinitas est quae operatur; et quicquid tres fecerint, dei unius est operatio.","english":"for this is corporeal, so that there is something in the flesh and yet cannot be called flesh, such as hair and bones and the rest.\n\nLII. IF CHRIST WAS BORN FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, BY ITS EFFECT HE WAS MADE FLESH FROM MARY, WHY WAS IT SAID: 'WISDOM', WHICH IS INDEED CHRIST, 'BUILT HERSELF A HOUSE'?\n\nThis question must be understood in a twofold manner. For first, the house of Christ is the Church, which he built for himself with his own blood. Then, his body can also be called his house, just as it is also called his temple. For if it is called the temple of God because of habitation, it will not absurdly be called a house, as we read in the Law. But if the body was made by the effect of the Holy Spirit, which we consider can also be called a house, it is asked why it was referred to the person of Christ. The deed of the Son is the deed of the Father, because the power of both is one. In a similar way, the deed of the Holy Spirit is also the deed of the Son of God because of the unity of nature and will. For whether the Father acts, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works; and whatever the three have done, it is the operation of the one God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"LIII. SI OMNIA RATIONE FACTA SUNT, QVID EST UT OCTAUO KL IANUARIAS SALUATOR NATUS DICATUR?\n\nNemo sic poterit hebetari, ut neget omnia facere deum cum ratione. ideo ergo Christus descendens de sacris sedibus ad salutem mundo tribuendam, ut etiam mundum ipsum et tempora a se instituta doceret, tum nasci homo uoluit ad deminutionem humani generis augmentandam in deum, quando ex magna deminutione lux, quae dies est, crementum incipit accipere, ut tempus natiuitatis eius rationi congruat doctrinae diuinae, quae ex umbra mortis homines coepit multiplicare ad uitam.\n\nLIIII. SI EX SEMINE DAUID CHRISTUS FILIUS DEO FACTUS EST SECUNDUM CARNEM, HOC EST, NATUS IAM FILIUS DEI EST IN UTROQVE, QVIA SANCTUS NATUS EST, QVO MODO ERGO, POSTQVAM BAPTIZATUS EST, DICTUM EI A DOMINO DEO EST: 'TU ES FILIUS MEUS, EGO HODIE GENUI TE'?\n\nChristus dei filius ex aeterno est secundum spiritum sanctitatis, iuxta carnem uero ex semine Dauid natus est filius deo, ut in utroque non factus deo filius habeatur, sed natus. illud autem quod in baptismo audit, mysterii, non sua causa est. nam hoc omnibus audit qui baptizantur. ipse autem demonstratur tantum modo, ut ex hoc appareat in homine uirtutibus deus, ceteri uero firmantur, quia ex hoc incipiunt esse filii dei, cum sanctum accipiunt spiritum.","english":"LIII. IF ALL THINGS ARE MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY?\n\nNo one can be so dull as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the sacred abodes to bestow salvation upon the world, in order also to teach that the world itself and the seasons were instituted by him, wished to be born as a man for the increase of the human race toward God at the time when, from the great diminution, the light, which is day, begins to receive increase, so that the time of his birth might correspond to the reason of divine teaching, which began to multiply men from the shadow of death toward life.\n\nLIV. IF CHRIST WAS MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO FLESH FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, THAT IS, HAVING BEEN BORN, THE SON OF GOD IS NOW IN BOTH, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY, HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD: 'YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU'?\n\nChrist the Son of God is from eternity according to the spirit of holiness, but according to flesh he was born the Son of God from the seed of David, so that in both he is held to be not made the Son of God, but born. But that which he hears at baptism is for the sake of the mystery, not for his own sake. For all who are baptized hear this. He himself, however, is only demonstrated, so that from this God appears in a man by virtues, but the others are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God, when they receive the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"quamuis enim sanctum natum sit corpus domini, non tamen sacramento regenerationis firmatus fuerat homo Christus esse filius dei, nisi spiritum sanctum accepisset, iuxta decretum renascibilitatis donum. nam et Iudaei filii dei dicti sunt in deuotione, non in sacramento quod nunc operatur, ut accepta remissione peccatorum superueniente sancto spiritu dicantur filii dei. saluator ergo et natus est secundum carnem filius dei et post in mysterio firmatus. nec enim poterat quod de sancto sanctum natum est non deo nasci, sed ut propositum mysterii impleretur, superueniente spiritu non deminutum est, sed auctum.\n\nLV. QVID CAUSAE FUIT UT ILLO TEMPORE CRUCI SE PERMITTERET DOMINUS, QVO OCTAUO KL APRILES PASCHA EGERUNT IUDAEI?\n\nOmnia propriis locis et temporibus gessit saluator. ut enim omnia se nutu patris recte condidisse doceret, tunc uoluit passione sua mundum redimere et reformare, quando eum et creauerat, id est in aequinoctio, unde mundus initium cepit et dies super noctem increscere. in regno itaque agens Romano non nisi octauo Kl Apriles pati debuit, quando aequinoctium habent Romani. tunc enim utique primum haec pars mundi inluminata est et ex eo dies coepit crementum accipere ideoque et passione saluatoris tunc a tenebris ad lucem perducta. nulla itaque uituperatio auctoris poterit uideri, quando lapsam creaturam tunc reformauit, quando et fecerat.","english":"For although the body of the Lord was born holy, yet the man Christ was not confirmed as Son of God by the sacrament of regeneration until he had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the gift of rebirth. For even the Jews are called sons of God in devotion, not in the sacrament which now operates, so that upon receiving the remission of sins, with the Holy Spirit coming upon them, they are called sons of God. Therefore the Savior was both born Son of God according to the flesh and later confirmed in the mystery. For what was born holy from the holy could not but be born of God, but so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, with the Spirit coming upon him, it was not diminished but increased.\n\nLV. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME WHEN THE JEWS CELEBRATED PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL?\n\nThe Savior did all things in their proper places and times. For to teach that he had rightly established all things by the will of his Father, he wished to redeem and reform the world by his passion at the same time when he had also created it, that is, at the equinox, whence the world began and day began to increase over night. Therefore, acting in the Roman realm, he had to suffer only on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have the equinox. For then indeed this part of the world was first illuminated, and from that time day began to increase, and therefore by the Savior's passion it was then led from darkness to light. Thus no reproach against the author can be seen, when he reformed the fallen creation at the same time when he had also made it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"nec enim reprehendi poterit rei lapsae initium creationis, cum ad id redeat instauratio. eadem enim die uoluit esse renouationis gaudium, quo fuerat et dedicationis.\n\nLVI. QVARE IN MATHEO PATER IOSEF IACOB SCRIBITURET IN LUCA HELI, UT AUT DUOS PATRES HABERE INPERITE DESCRIPTUS SIT AUT CERTE, QVI UERE PATER EIUS SIT, NESCIATUR?\n\nNon est ambiguum patrem Iosef Iacob fuisse. ordo enim a Dauid per Solomonem tramitem suum tenens recto cursu peruenit ad Iacob. cuius filius est Iosef: Heli autem filius Matthiae, qui a Dauid per Nathan. filium eiusdem Dauid, ordinem tenet usque ad tempus, quo saluator aduenit. unde singuli euangelistae a Dauid singulorum fratrum generationum ordines prosecuti quasi furcam fecerunt. ut Matheus a Dauid per Solomonem descenderet ad \"Iosef;\" Lucas uero ab Heli, qui tempore fuit saluatoris, ascendit per traducem Nathan filii Dauid et Heli et Iosef utriusque iunxit tribum ostendens unius generis esse utrumque, ut, cum Heli sociat Iosef, non - discrepare eos in generatione, sed fratres ostendat, ac per hoc non solum Iosef filium esse saluatorem, sed et Heli. ipsa enim -ratione, qua Iosef filius dicitur saluator, ipsa est et Heli filius et ceterorum omnium, qui de eadem tribu sunt. hinc est quod dicit apostolus: quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem.","english":"Nor can the beginning of a fallen thing's creation be blamed, since the restoration returns to the same point. For He wished the joy of renewal to be on the same day as that of the dedication.\n\nLVI. WHY IN MATTHEW IS JOSEPH'S FATHER WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT EITHER HE IS INEXPERIENCEDLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS?\n\nIt is not ambiguous that Jacob was the father of Joseph. For the line from David through Solomon holds its own course and proceeds straight to Jacob, whose son is Joseph. But Heli is the son of Matthias, who holds the line from David through Nathan, David's son, down to the time when the Savior came. Hence the individual evangelists, from David, followed the lines of descent of the individual brothers, as if they made a fork. So that Matthew descended from David through Solomon to Joseph; but Luke, from Heli, who was at the time of the Savior, ascends through the line of Nathan, son of David, and joins the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that each is of one family, so that when he associates Heli with Joseph, he shows that they do not differ in descent, but are brothers, and by this not only is Joseph the father of the Savior, but Heli also. For by the same reasoning by which Joseph is called the father of the Savior, Heli is also his father, and all others who are of the same tribe. Hence it is that the Apostle says: whose fathers and from whom Christ is according to the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"diuino etenim nutu permotus Lucas est, ut ab Heli per traducem Nathan ascenderet ad Dauid et per Tharam patrem eius ascenderet ad Sem filium Noe et adhuc super diluuium perueniret ad Seth filium Adae, qui redditus est pro Abel, et eadem ratione faceret filium Adae saluatorem, qua dicebatur filius esse Iosef et Heli, super Adam autem transcendens adsignaret ante omnem carnem Christum filium esse dei.\n\nIllud autem, quod quibusdam uidetur, quia Heli acceperit uxorem Iacob, quo modo lex mandauit, ut, si quis mortuus fuisset sine filiis, acciperet frater aut propinquus uxorem eius et resuscitaret semen fratris sui, et ita factum, ut Heli generasset Iosef Iacob, cuius uxorem acceperat, et per hoc iungi generationem, ut non inmerito Iosef patrem habere Heli dicatur, hoc nec probabile est et ad nullam rem proficit.\n\nIllud autem, quod supra dictum est, et [per] generationem iungit per duos fratres filios unius et Christum ostendit filium dei esse ante omnem generationem. euangelista enim cum refert dicens: et ipse Iesus erat incipiens fere annorum triginta, filius sicut putabatur Iosef. qui fuit Heli, id est, Iesus filius aestimabatur Iosef et non solum Iosef erat filius, sed et Heli.","english":"For it was by divine will that Luke was moved, so that from Heli through the line of Nathan he would ascend to David, and through Thara, his father, he would ascend to Shem, the son of Noah, and still further, beyond the flood, he would reach Seth, the son of Adam, who was given in place of Abel; and by the same reasoning he would make the Savior the son of Adam, just as he was said to be the son of Joseph and Heli; but, transcending Adam, he would designate Christ as the Son of God before all flesh.\n\nAs for what seems to some—that Heli took the wife of Jacob, as the law commanded, that if someone died without sons, his brother or a relative should take his wife and revive the seed of his brother, and that it happened thus, so that Heli fathered Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and through this the genealogy is joined, so that Joseph is not undeservedly said to have Heli as a father—this is neither probable nor does it serve any purpose.\n\nBut that which was stated above both joins the genealogy through two brothers, sons of one father, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before all generation. For the evangelist, when he reports, says: \"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, the son, as was thought, of Joseph, who was of Heli\"—that is, Jesus was considered the son of Joseph, and he was not only the son of Joseph, but also of Heli.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"non quia Iosef filium dicit Heli, sed eodem genere, quo Iosef uocabatur filius esse Iesus, ita erat etiam filius Heli, propter quod fratrum filii erant Iosef et Heli, id est Solomonis et Nathan filiorum Dauid, ut per Dauid ascendens ad Abraham et Noe et Seth et ad ipsum Adam et super Adam doceat esse Christum filium dei. cum enim dicit: qui fuit filius Seth. q.ni fuit filius Adae, qui fuit filius dei, Christum utique ita dicit Adae filium, sicut dicebatur filius Iosef. ait enim Maria ad Iesum: fili, quid fecisti nobis? etenim ego et pater tuus maesti et tristes ambulantes quaerebamus te. super Adam autem iungit Christum patri deo, ut qui horum, id est ab Adam usque ad Iosef et Heli, filius dicebatur, ante istos omnes dei uerus filius intellegeretur, ad confusionem Fotini, qui Christum non nisi ex Maria nec ante fuisse contendit. quorum enim non erat, filius dicebatur et dei, cuius uere filius erat, negabatur.","english":"not because it says that Joseph is the son of Heli, but because by the same lineage by which Jesus was called the son of Joseph, he was also the son of Heli, for the reason that Joseph and Heli were brothers’ sons, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David, so that through David, ascending to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself, and beyond Adam, it might teach that Christ is the son of God. For when it says: “who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God,” it thus calls Christ the son of Adam in the same way as he was called the son of Joseph. For Mary says to Jesus: “Son, what have you done to us? For your father and I, sorrowful and grieving, were walking about seeking you.” But above Adam it joins Christ to God the Father, so that he who was called the son of these, that is, from Adam down to Joseph and Heli, might be understood, before all these, as the true son of God, to the confusion of Photinus, who contended that Christ existed only from Mary and not before. For he was called the son of those whose son he was not, and was denied to be the son of God, whose true son he was.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"Si enim, quod inprobabile est et ad nullam rem proficit, Iosef Heli filius dicatur secundum quod supra diximus, non dixisse uidebitur de Christo, quia fuit filius dei, sed de Adam. per ordinem enim singulorum filiorum patres subiciendo uenit ad Enos, cuius patrem dicit Seth, patrem autem Seth dicit Adam, Adae uero patrem dicit deum. nescio qune utilitas sit sic adseuerare. si autem per ordinem, sicut diximus, singuli patres Christi dicantur, sicut et filius dicebatur Iosef — quia dictum est: quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem —, ipso ordine legitur filius esse Seth et filius Adae et super hos omnes adsignatur filius dei, ut ante ipsos dicatur esse, quorum filius nuncupatur.\n\nLVII. QVID EST HOC UT, CUM IN MALACHIA PROFETA SCRIPTUM SIT: 'ECCE MITTO ANGELUM MEUM ANTE FACIEM TUAM, QVI PRAEPARET UIAM TUAM', MARCUS HOC EUANGELISTA IN ESEIA PROFETA SCRTPTUM ADSERAT?","english":"If, which is improbable and serves no purpose, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli according to what we said above, it will seem to have been said not about Christ—that he was the son of God—but about Adam. For by going through the order of each son, subjoining the fathers, it comes to Enos, whose father it calls Seth, and Seth’s father it calls Adam, and Adam’s father it calls God. I do not know what usefulness there is in asserting this. But if, as we said, each of the fathers in order is called the father of Christ—just as Joseph was called his son, because it was said: whose fathers and from whom Christ according to the flesh—, by that same order he is read to be the son of Seth and the son of Adam, and above all these he is designated the son of God, so that he is said to be before them, whose son he is named.\n\nLVII. WHAT IS THIS, THAT WHEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI IT IS WRITTEN: 'Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way,' Mark the Evangelist asserts that this is written in the prophet Isaiah?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"Non potuit latere Marcum, quid scriberet; nec enim expers erat lectionis, qui ab infantia diuinis litteris imbutus exercitatus erat in lege, maxime cum apostolos sit secutus. sciens autem omnia ad auctorem referenda dicta, haec ad Eseiam reuocauit, qui sensum istum prior intimauerat dicens: uox clamantis in deserto: parate uiam domino, rectas facite semitas dei nostri. denique post uerba Malachiae statim subiecit euangelista dicens: uox clamantis in deserto, ut iungeret uerba utriusque profetae ad unum sensum pertinentia sub prioris profetae persona.\n\nLVIII. QVA RATIONE NEGAT SE IOHANNES CHRISTUM SCISSE ANTE BAPTISMUM, CUM UENIENTI EI AD BAPTISMUM DICAT: 'EGO A TE DEBEO BAPTIZARI, ET TU UENIS AD ME?' QVO MODO IGNORABAT EUM, QVEM PROHIBUIT, HUMILIANS SE EI?\n\nTanta sanctitate praeditus est etiam ab ipsis cunabulis Iohannes, ut nec falli nec fallere credatur nec dominum suum, qui eum in utero per spiritum sanctum inluminauerat, nescire. ac per hoc uerum est, quia et descendente in eum spiritu agnouit eum et, priusquam ad baptismum ueniret, non ignorauit eum. sciebat enim eum, sed an ipse esset, qui donum dei patribus repromissum ministraturus esset, nesciebat, hoc est, quod tunc se didicisse profitetur, cum uidit in eum spiritum descendisse.","english":"Mark could not have been ignorant of what he was writing; for he was not unacquainted with reading, having been steeped in divine literature from infancy and trained in the law, especially since he followed the apostles. Knowing, however, that all sayings are to be referred to their author, he recalled these to Isaiah, who had first intimated this sense, saying: \"The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.\" Finally, after the words of Malachi, the evangelist immediately subjoined, saying: \"The voice of one crying in the desert,\" so as to join the words of both prophets pertaining to one sense under the person of the earlier prophet.\n\nLVIII. ON WHAT GROUND DOES JOHN DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE COMES TO HIM FOR BAPTISM, HE SAYS: \"I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND YOU COME TO ME?\" HOW DID HE NOT KNOW HIM, WHOM HE FORBADE, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM?\n\nJohn is endowed with such great sanctity even from the cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor to be ignorant of his Lord, who had illumined him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And for this reason it is true that, because the Spirit descended upon him, he recognized him, and before he came to baptism, he did not ignore him. For he knew him, but whether he himself was the one who was to administer the gift promised to the fathers by God, he did not know; that is, what he then professes to have learned, when he saw the Spirit descend upon him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"sic enim se a deo instructum dicit Iohannes: super quem uideris, ait, spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, ipse est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. hoc etiam apostolus contestatur: dico enim, inquit. Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis pro ueritate dei ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. hoc est in quo nesciebat dominum Iohannes; quamuis enim magnificentiam eius non ignoraret, hoc tamen latuit eum, quia per ipsum fides Abrahae implenda erat.\n\nLVIIII. SI BAPTISMUM CAELESTE MVSTERIUM EST, CUR NICODEMO, CUM DE BAPTISMO DUBITANTI LOQVITUR DOMINUS: 'SI TERRESTRIA,' INQVIT, 'DIXI UOBIS ET NON CREDITIS, QVO MODO, SI DIXERO CAELESTIA, 'CREDETIS?'\n\nQui baptismum putat carnali ratione consistere, hic non est spiritalis; nec donum caeleste poterit consequi, qui se non per aquam, sed per fidem inmutari non credat. aqua enim cernitur, sed qui non uidetur spiritus operatur, ut fides in eo sit. quia sicut sordes corporeas . aqua, ita spiritus animam abluit a peccatis, ut quo modo uisibilia uisibilibus, ita et spiritalibus prosit spiritus. ac per hoc spiritalis ratio uertitur in baptismo. plus est enim ibi quod auditur quam uidetur.","english":"For thus John says he was instructed by God: \"Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him,\" he says, \"that one is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.\" The apostle also attests to this: \"For I say,\" he says, \"that Christ was a minister of circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.\" This is the matter of which John was ignorant concerning the Lord; for although he was not unaware of His majesty, yet this was hidden from him, that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.\n\nLIX. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY, WHEN NICODEMUS, DOUBTING ABOUT BAPTISM, THE LORD SAYS TO HIM: \"IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?\"\n\nHe who thinks that baptism consists in a carnal rationale is not spiritual; nor can he obtain the heavenly gift who does not believe that he is changed not through water, but through faith. For water is seen, but the Spirit, who is not seen, works so that faith may be in it. Because just as water washes away bodily filth, so the Spirit washes the soul from sins, so that just as visible things benefit visible things, so also the Spirit benefits spiritual things. And through this, a spiritual rationale is at work in baptism. For there is more there that is heard than is seen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Cum hinc ergo Nicodemus carnali constrictus ratione dubitaret, saluator, ut eum ad fidem adtraheret, exemplo usus est congruo. ut ad rem inuisibilem firmandam uisibile daret exemplum, quod solo auditu consistit, non uisu; et non negatur, et est tamen terrenum, quia mundi rem operatur. ait ergo dominus ad Nicodemum suadendo illi: spiritus ubi uult spirat. et uocem eius audis, sed nescis unde ueniat uel quo eat; sic est omnis qui renascitur ex aqua et spiritu sancto, ut quo modo uox uenientis spiritus. id est uenti, auditur quidem, non autem uidetur, sicut dictum est, sic et ratio baptismi auditur quod dicatur, non tamen quo modo per spiritum fit uidetur; auditur tamen cum quid futurum est ab eo, qui uerba insinuat, praedicatur, ut fieri credatur quod auditur, non tamen ratio facti reddatur.\n\nCum autem nec per exemplum Nicodemus duceretur ad fidem, tunc audit a saluatore: si terrestria, inquit, dixi uobis. et non creditis, quo modo, si dixero caelestia, credetis? ista uerba terrena dixit, quae ad exemplum protulit. hoc est: (si per rationem terrenam', inquit, 'exempli dati, spiritus uenti, non creditis posse fieri, quia quo modo fiat non uidetur. qui fieri poterat, ut, caelestia si darem exempla.","english":"Since Nicodemus, therefore, constrained by carnal reasoning, was doubting, the Savior, in order to draw him to faith, used a fitting example: to confirm an invisible reality, he gave a visible example, which consists only in hearing, not in sight, and is not denied, yet is earthly, because it works the world's business. So the Lord said to Nicodemus, persuading him: \"The spirit blows where it wills.\" And you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, that just as the voice of the coming spirit, that is, the wind, is heard indeed but not seen, as has been said, so the rationale of baptism is heard in that it is spoken, but how it happens through the spirit is not seen; yet it is heard when what is to come is proclaimed by the one who insinuates the words, so that what is heard is believed to happen, but the reason for the deed is not rendered.\n\nBut when not even through the example was Nicodemus led to faith, then he hears from the Savior: \"If I have spoken earthly things,\" he says, \"and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak heavenly things?\" He spoke those earthly words which he brought forth as an example. That is: \"If by earthly reasoning,\" he says, \"of the given example—the spirit of the wind—you do not believe it can happen, because how it happens is not seen, how could it be that, if I were to give heavenly examples...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"quae utique nescitis, crederetis?' potest enim homini suadi quod nescit, per id quod scit; ut puta, deus dicit de Christo, quod filius eius sit uerus, quod quo modo sit, conprehendi non potest; per id quod autem scimus secundum carnem quo modo sint filii. credimus ideo deum dixisse: 'Christus filius meus uerus est', ut de semet ipso illum esse significaret. hoc modo et saluator rem, quae nec uerbis nec animo explicari potest, per id quod sensibile est et auribus auditur, uoluit commendare, hoc est. per exemplum spiritus, qui est uentus, quem et sensibilitas capit et auris audit, sed unde ueniat nescit, factum spiritus sancti, quod capi non potest, uoluit facere credibile.\n\nSed et in Actibus Apostolorum eodem modo legitur: et factus est, inquit, subito de caelo sonus tamquam aduenientis spiritus ualidi et repleuit totam domum et cetera. ecce aperte exemplo uenti spiritum sanctum insinuat ita de caelo aduenisse et sonuisse, quem ad modum ualidus uentus super terram. nam et Hieremias uentum spiritum uocat dicens: uentus spirat in omni regione. qui propterea quod in hoc mundo est et per diuersa circumfertur loca, unde ueniat uel quo eat, nescimus. spiritus autem sanctus de caelo uenit, sicut legimus, ut credentes inluminet.","english":"You do not know, you would believe? For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know through what he does know; for example, God says of Christ that He is His true Son, and how this can be cannot be comprehended; through what we know according to the flesh, how sons are, we therefore believe that God said, 'Christ is my true Son,' so that He signified that He is from Himself. In this way also the Savior wished to commend a thing which can be explained neither by words nor by the mind, through what is sensible and heard by the ear, that is, through the example of the spirit which is wind, which both sensibility grasps and the ear hears, but whence it comes it does not know; He wished to make credible the reality of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped.\n\nBut also in the Acts of the Apostles it is read in the same way: 'And suddenly,' it says, 'a sound was made from heaven as of a strong spirit coming, and it filled the whole house,' and so on. Behold, openly by the example of wind it suggests that the Holy Spirit came from heaven and sounded, just as a strong wind does upon the earth. For Jeremiah also calls the wind 'spirit,' saying: 'The wind blows in every region.' And because it is in this world and is carried about through various places, we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. But the Holy Spirit came from heaven, as we read, to enlighten the believers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Quo modo ergo quibusdam uidetur de spiritu sancto saluatorem dixisse: spiritus ubi uult spirat et uocem eius audis, sed nescis, unde ueniat uel quo eat. cum constet exempli causa locutum haec saluatorem? denique subiecit: sic est, inquit, omnis qui renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto. quid tam apertum, quia spiritum uentum significauit? sed ideo putant non uentum significatum, quia ait: ubi uult spirat, quasi non omnis creatura e lege sibi posita arbitrio remissa sit proprio. et nos enim imus et facimus, quod uolumus, agentes sub lege. quare et rationem praestabimus aut possibile putatur et nec stultum uidetur, ut effectum uolens sancti spiritus insinuare illum ipsum daret exemplum. igitur omni genere quaestionem solutam arbitror.\n\nLX. SI 'LEX ET PROFETAE USQVE AD IOHANNEM', QVO MODO SALUATOR AD SACERDOTES MITTIT OFFERRI MUNERA PRO EMUNDATIONE LEPRAE?","english":"Therefore, how is it that some think the Savior said of the Holy Spirit: \"The spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes,\" when it is established that the Savior spoke these words by way of example? Finally, he added: \"Thus it is,\" he says, \"with everyone who has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit.\" What could be clearer than that he signified the wind by \"spirit\"? But they think that wind was not signified because he said: \"It blows where it wills,\" as if every creature were not released to its own will under the law set for it. For we too go and do what we wish, acting under the law. For this reason we will also render an account, or it is considered possible and does not seem foolish that, in order to suggest the effect of the Holy Spirit, he would give that very thing as an example. Therefore, I consider the question resolved in every way.\n\nLX. IF \"THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS UP TO JOHN,\" HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SEND OFFERINGS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PRIESTS FOR THE CLEANSING OF LEPROSY?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Hoc quidem non fuit temporis, sed ad condemnationem factum est Iudaeorum, ut, cum ueritatis culmen meliorati temporis non intellegerent ad lucrum salutis suae factum. inclinaret se ueritas ad accusationem eorum. cum enim uelut inimicum legis haberent saluatorem, quia misericordiae causa ab onere illos legis uolebat liberare, sicut praedictum erat ab Hieremia profeta — ait enim inter cetera: et dabo illistestamentum nouum, non quale dedi patribus eorum-, tunc saluator, ne inimicus, sicut putabant, appareret noua praedicans, eum, qui mundatus fuerat a lepra, ad sacerdotes misit offerre munera pro emundatione sua, sicut praeceperat Moyses. et ut ad accusationem eorum hoc proficere testaretur, in testimonium, inquit, illis, ut in iudicio haec res contra illos testis esset, qui saluatorem inimicum legis dicebant. hoc secutus est et apostolus Paulus. cum enim praedicaret iam non oportere circumcidi, ipse Timotheum circumcidit propter scandalum Iudaeorum — maluit enim rem superduam facere, quam tumultum excitari a falsis fratribus —, quod quidem errori profecit Iudaeorum. satis enim eis factum est ad horam, per quod in perpetuum errarent.","english":"This indeed was not a matter of the time, but was done for the condemnation of the Jews, so that, when they did not understand the height of truth of a better time as having been done for the gain of their salvation, the truth might turn itself to their accusation. For when they held the Savior as an enemy of the law, because for the sake of mercy he wished to free them from the burden of the law, as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah—for he says among other things: \"And I will give them a new covenant, not such as I gave to their fathers\"—then the Savior, lest he appear an enemy, as they thought, by preaching new things, sent the one who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his purification, just as Moses had commanded. And so that this might serve for their accusation, he says: \"as a testimony to them,\" so that in judgment this matter might be a witness against those who called the Savior an enemy of the law. The apostle Paul followed this. For when he preached that circumcision was no longer necessary, he himself circumcised Timothy to avoid scandal among the Jews—for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than have a tumult stirred up by false brothers—which indeed served the error of the Jews. For they were satisfied for the hour, by which they would err forever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"LXI. QVID EST UT IUDAEIS DISCIPULOS ACCUSANTIBUS, EO QVOD SABBATUM UIOLARENT. SPICAS MANIBUS CONFRICANTES ET COMEDENTES, SALUATOR EXEMPLUM DAUID PROFERRET, QVIA MANDUCAUIT PANES, QVOS NON LICEBAT EI MANDUCARE NISI SOLIS SACERDOTIBUS, PER QVOD NON UIDENTUR EXCUSARI. SED SIMUL CUM DAUID REI FIERI, QVIPPE CUM NEC SABBATIS FECERIT HOC DAUID?\n\nSaluator hypocrisin Iudaeorum multis uult exemplis arguere maiora ostendens admissa in lege et nullum ausum fuisse accusare, ut non solum semel et iterum sabbatum in lege uiolatum monstraret, uerum etiam sacerdotalem panem ipso sacerdote concedente praesumptum inlicite et, quod maius est, a sublimi auctoritate uiris. primus enim Iesus Naue diuino praecepto sabbatum non seruauit, quo facto muri Hiericho ultro ceciderunt. quantum profuit sabbatum non custodisse, sed fidem! et Machabaei, cum prius caesi fuissent. sabbatis dimicarunt et de hostibus triumpharunt et sacerdotes, ut dominicis caerimoniis inseruirent, in templo sabbatum contemnebant. Dauid autem iam unctus in regem. postquam dei uirtute interfectum armis spoliauit allofilum in itinere positus, necessitatem famis passus a sacerdote panem accepit. quem non illi licebat manducare - sed excepta necessitate non licebat; licitum autem erat, si necessitas exegisset -; denique sacerdos uidens necessitatem non negauit et Dauid a deo electus sine cunctatione accepit.","english":"LXI. WHY IS IT THAT WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF VIOLATING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING AND EATING EARS OF GRAIN WITH THEIR HANDS, THE SAVIOR CITED THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, WHO ATE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR HIM TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE, BY WHICH THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BE IMPLICATED TOGETHER WITH DAVID, ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATHS?\n\nThe Savior wishes to refute the hypocrisy of the Jews with many examples, showing greater transgressions admitted in the Law, and that no one dared to accuse them, so that he might demonstrate not only that the Sabbath was violated in the Law once and again, but also that the priestly bread was presumptuously taken unlawfully, with the priest himself granting it, and, what is more, by men of high authority. For first, Joshua, by divine command, did not observe the Sabbath; by this act, the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord. How much it profited not to have kept the Sabbath, but to have kept faith! And the Maccabees, after having been previously cut down, fought on the Sabbaths and triumphed over their enemies; and the priests, in order to serve the Lord's ceremonies, disregarded the Sabbath in the temple. David, however, already anointed king, after he had, by the power of God, despoiled the slain Philistine of his arms while on a journey, suffering the necessity of hunger, received bread from a priest. It was not lawful for him to eat it—but it was not lawful except in necessity; it was, however, permitted if necessity demanded it; finally, the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse, and David, chosen by God, accepted without hesitation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"Talis causa est et sabbati, quare et circumcidi in sabbato non prohibetur. haec enim, quae periculosa non sunt, sic seruanda mandata sunt, ut non obsit, si ex necessitate fuerint admissa, quia non ad salutem, sed ad reuerentiam mandata sunt, illud autem quod omnino non licet semper non licet nec aliqua necessitate mitigatur, ut admissum non obsit. est enim semper inlicitum quod legibus, quia criminosum est, prohibetur. superiora autem illa, quae diximus aliquando licere, talia sunt, qualia ieiunia legitima, quae in necessitate soluta non faciunt reos, si stomachi fuerit causa aut infirmitas febrium. haec igitur scientes dolosi Iudaei discipulos accusabant, quasi sabbatum uiolarent, sicut supra dictum est. saluator autem noluit illis de tempore impletae legis praeiudicare, ne plus ad insaniam prosilirent, sed de praeterito, unde sabbatum uindicandum magis putabant, calumniosos illos ostendit, et non solum in sabbati causa, sed et in sacerdotali pane confusi sunt, sicut supra ostensum est.","english":"The same reasoning applies to the Sabbath, and why circumcision is not forbidden on the Sabbath. For those things which are not dangerous are commanded to be observed in such a way that it does no harm if they are admitted out of necessity, because they were commanded not for salvation, but for reverence. However, that which is absolutely not permitted is never permitted, nor is it mitigated by any necessity so that, if admitted, it does no harm. For that which is forbidden by laws, because it is criminal, is always unlawful. But those superior things, which we said are sometimes permitted, are of such a kind as lawful fasts, which, when loosened by necessity, do not render one guilty, if it be for the sake of the stomach or the infirmity of fevers. Knowing these things, therefore, the deceitful Jews accused the disciples, as if they were violating the Sabbath, as was said above. The Savior, however, did not wish to prejudice them concerning the time of the fulfilled law, lest they leap forth more into madness, but from the past, whence they thought the Sabbath was more to be avenged, he showed them to be slanderous; and not only in the matter of the Sabbath, but also in the matter of the priestly bread they were confounded, as was shown above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"LXII. QVID EST UT OCCISIS FILIIS LIAE, QVI ERANT EX TRIBU IUDA, RACHEL FILIOS SUOS PLANGERE DICATUR? .\n\nQuantum ad historiam pertinet, Rachel filii tribus Beniamin porro olim pro maleficiis propriis, operibus scilicet Sodomitarum, et stupro, quod in concubinam uiri Leuitae gesserant, a reliquis tribubus extincti et erasi sunt. quam ob rem consolationem recipere uelle negatur sciens nullam spem eorum qui perisse noscuntur. filii autem Liae in primaeuis annis in saluatoris causa occisi sunt, unde horum causae planctum non uult adscribi, quia et innocentes occisi sunt et propter deum, a quo sine dubio mercedis gi*atia aeterna uita donati sunt. quapropter planctum Rachel filiis conpetere, qui et in praesenti et in futuro erasi sunt, illi autem carnaliter plancti spiritaliter consolati sunt; filii autem Rachel carnaliter conuersati flammis spiritalibus consumentur. idcirco autem Liae filiis occisis adimpletum planctum Rachelis euangelista testatur, quia tunc plangere filios suos coepit, quando filios sororis suae in tali causa uidit occisos, ut aeternae uitae heredes exsisterent. cui enim aliquid aduersum euenit ex felicitate alterius, infausta sua miserius luget.","english":"LXII. Why is it said that Rachel mourned her sons when the sons of Leah, who were from the tribe of Judah, were killed?\n\nAs far as the historical account is concerned, the sons of the tribe of Benjamin, that is, Rachel's sons, were long ago destroyed and wiped out by the remaining tribes because of their own crimes, namely, the works of the Sodomites and the adultery they committed with the concubine of a Levite. For this reason, she is said to refuse to receive consolation, knowing that there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were killed in their early years for the sake of the Savior; hence, she does not wish their cause to be ascribed to lamentation, because they were killed both as innocents and for the sake of God, by whom they were undoubtedly granted the grace of eternal life as a reward. Therefore, lamentation is fitting for Rachel's sons, who were wiped out both in the present and in the future; but those others were lamented in a fleshly sense but consoled spiritually. Rachel's sons, however, having lived in a fleshly manner, will be consumed by spiritual flames. Moreover, the evangelist testifies that Rachel's lamentation for her sons was fulfilled when Leah's sons were killed, because she began to mourn her own sons when she saw her sister's sons killed in such a cause that they became heirs of eternal life. For when something adverse befalls someone from the good fortune of another, he laments his own misfortune more bitterly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"LXIII. QVA RATIONE MAGI CHALDEI PER STELLAE APPARENTIAM CHRISTUM REGEM IUDAEORUM NATUM INTELLEXERUNT, CUM STELLA INDICE TEMPOBAUS REX SOLEAT DESIGNARI?\n\nHi magi Chaldei non maliuolentia astrorum cursum, sed rerum curiositate speculabantur. sicut enim datur intellegi. traditionem Balaam sequebantur, qui cum arcessitus esset a Balaac ad maledicendum populum dei, diuino nutu benedicere coepit. ex huius ergo relatione conpertum habebant futurum dei prouidentia ex Iacob qui regnaret. hic enim, quod non est occultum, profetauit dicens: orietur stella ex Iacob et cetera. istam ergo traditionem magi secuti uidentes stellam extra ordinem mundi hanc esse intellexerunt, quam Balaam futuram indicem regis Iudaeorum profetauerat, quod quidem factum contra inimicos religionis est. inde enim testimonium accepit unde solet inprobari; astrologi enim inimici sunt ueritatis.","english":"LXIII. On what basis did the Chaldean magi understand, through the appearance of a star, that Christ, the king of the Jews, had been born, when a star is usually taken as an indicator of an earthly king?\n\nThese Chaldean magi were not observing the course of the stars out of malice, but out of curiosity about things. For, as can be understood, they were following the tradition of Balaam, who, when he had been summoned by Balak to curse the people of God, began to bless them by divine will. From his account, therefore, they had learned that there would be, by God’s providence, one from Jacob who would reign. For he, which is not hidden, prophesied, saying: “A star will arise from Jacob,” and so on. Therefore, the magi, following this tradition, when they saw a star outside the order of the world, understood it to be the one which Balaam had prophesied would be the future indicator of the king of the Jews. This indeed happened against the enemies of religion. For testimony was received from the very source from which it is usually discredited; for astrologers are enemies of the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"LXIIII. QVO MODO PROBATUR POST TRES DIES ET NOCTES RESURREXISSE EX MORTUIS SALUATOREM?\n\nIn hac causa si numerum per ordinem dierum et noctium requiris, effectum intellegentiae non habebis, quia et Moyses XL diebus et XL noctibus ieiunauit et non tamen integer numerus inuenitur. quando enim per diem ascendit et per diem descendit, omnem utique numerum non impleuit, sed quia, ubi dies est, conputatur et nox et, ubi nox est, conputatur et dies, ut a parte ad totum XL dies et XL noctes dicuntur. ita est et quod dixit saluator, ut, quia tres noctes sunt, tres accipiantur et dies. est enim nox, ne nouum aut contra rationem forte uideatur, ut cum nox ex die pendeat. nam ante lucem factam, ex qua appellatus est dies, quam uesperum, quem sequitur nox, institutum minime dubitatur.\n\nQuod passio dominica a nocte sumere adseueratur initium, non absurdum est; nam sicut lux, id est dies, imago uitae est, ita nox similitudo mortis est, id est tenebrae, sicut in scripturis euidenter ostenditur, id est: filii lucis et e contra: tenebrarum.","english":"LXIV. How is it proved that the Saviour rose from the dead after three days and three nights?\n\nIn this matter, if you seek the number according to the order of days and nights, you will not attain the understanding of the effect, because Moses also fasted for forty days and forty nights, and yet the full number is not found. For when he ascended by day and descended by day, he certainly did not complete the entire number, but because, where there is day, night is also counted, and where there is night, day is also counted, so that by synecdoche forty days and forty nights are spoken of. So it is also with what the Saviour said, so that, because there are three nights, three days are also taken. For there is night, lest it seem new or perhaps contrary to reason, since night depends on day. For it is not doubted that before the light, from which day is named, was made, the evening, which night follows, was instituted.\n\nThat the Lord’s passion is affirmed to take its beginning from night is not absurd; for just as light, that is, day, is an image of life, so night is a likeness of death, that is, darkness, as is clearly shown in the Scriptures, that is: sons of light and, on the contrary, of darkness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"nec mirum si, cum ubique dies nocti et lumen tenebris, hic solum quae sunt sequentia anterioribus praeponantur, uel quod in tali causa rerum ordo confunditur et mutatur, ut antesignana mortis nox magis quam dies esse uideatur — ideo etenim a nocte initium sumitur —, qui non aliter principi tenebrarum nisi per noctem potuit subintrari, et ut aliquatenus dominus lucis, id est aeternae uitae, principi tenebrarum siue mortis subiectus esset ad tempus, quatenus et praeteritos et post futuros a morte liberaret. nam non esset mors penitus uacuata nec umquam tenebrarum caligo discussa, si dominum non uidisset. subintrante etenim tanta luce secretum mortis, in quo dominabatur, euanuit, nec penitus uinci potest, nisi qui uel per sua uel in suis capitur. recte igitur in tali negotio tantum modo nox optinet principatum, ita ut amitteret potestatem. et ut Iudaei in perpetua non credentes nocte remanerent nec auctor dies tanti sceleris, immo sacrilegii, sed nox fieret, praecedenti nocti contra rerum seriem subditur dies, sicut deus et dominus omnium rerum principi nefariae mortis, ut omnes a mortis laqueis explicaret.","english":"Nor is it surprising if, where day and night, light and darkness are everywhere, here alone what follows is placed before what precedes, or that in such a case the order of things is confused and changed, so that the night, as the standard-bearer of death, seems more than the day—for indeed the beginning is taken from the night—since the prince of darkness could be entered only through the night, and so that the lord of light, that is, of eternal life, might for a time be subject to the prince of darkness or death, in order that he might free both those past and those yet to come from death. For death would not have been utterly voided, nor the darkness of shadows ever dispersed, if it had not seen the Lord. For when such a great light entered the secret place of death, where it held sway, it vanished; nor can it be completely conquered unless one who either through his own or in his own is captured. Rightly, therefore, in such a matter only the night holds primacy, so that it might lose its power. And so that the Jews might remain in perpetual unbelieving night, and that the author of such a crime, indeed sacrilege, might not be the day, but the night, the day is placed after the preceding night, contrary to the order of things, just as God and Lord of all things was placed under the prince of abominable death, in order to free all from the snares of death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"Quod si cui adhuc forte uidetur esse contrarium, diligenter aduertat, ne incipiat illud durius aestimare, quod deus se personam induens serui, non dicam hominis, morti dederit. quid ergo hic ordinem quaeris, ubi omnia uideas esse contraria? quae est enim lux, quae fuit in tenebris, et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt, qua conprehensus est? qui enim scit se ad hoc conprehendi ut feriatur, tempus illud in mortem conputat. est et dies sequensqua auditus et cruci fixus est; est et nox quae cadit in sabbatum; est et ipsum sabbatum; est etiam uesper post sabbatum — hoc est quod Iudaeis a Moyse praeceptum est in figura, ut uespere intrarent in sabbatum —, in quo dominus resurrexit, qui conplectitur diem dominicum, quia nox non inputatur sine die neque dies sine nocte. hac ratione post tres dies et tres noctes dominus resurrexit.\n\nLXV. SI UNO ORE ET RATIONE EUANGELISTAE LOCCTI SUNT, QVO MODO FACTUM EST UT TRIBUS DICENTIBUS, ID EST MATHEO, LUCA ET IOHANNE, QVIA SEXTA HORA CRUCI FIXUS EST DOMINUS, MARCUS E DIUERSO TERTIA HORA CRUCI FIXUM DICAT SALUATOREM?","english":"If anyone still perhaps thinks this is contradictory, let him carefully consider, lest he begin to judge it too harshly, that God, putting on the person of a servant—not to say of a man—gave himself up to death. Why then do you seek order here, where you see everything is contrary? For what is the light which was in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it, by which he was comprehended? For he who knows that he is seized in order to be struck counts that time as death. There is also the following day, on which he was heard and crucified; there is also the night which falls on the Sabbath; there is also the Sabbath itself; there is also the evening after the Sabbath—this is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses in figure, that they should enter the Sabbath in the evening—in which the Lord rose, which embraces the Lord's day, because night is not counted without day nor day without night. By this reckoning, the Lord rose after three days and three nights.\n\nLXV. IF THE EVANGELISTS SPOKE WITH ONE VOICE AND REASON, HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT, WITH THREE SAYING—THAT IS, MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN—THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"Obscuris uera inuoluere non est bonum. nam tres euangelistae unum sensum habuerunt, Marcus autem rem, quae ab istis praetermissa fuerat, uoluit intimare sciens necessariam. nec enim falli posset, qui auctorum exempla secutus ea quae scripsit magna deuotione et industria didicit et nec sine sancto spiritu fuit. quid ergo ex hoc ostendere uoluit, debet absolui. contuendum itaque est, quia non a Pilato, sed a Iudaeis saluator cruci fixus est. quantum autem ad leges Romanas pertinuit, innocentem pronuntiauerunt saluatorem. ait enim Pilatus Iudaeis: ego nullam inuenio causam in eo et dicentibus eis: cruci fige eum, respondit: quid enim mali fecit? denique persistens et uolens educere eum de manibus eorum, calumniam passus est dicentibus eis: si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris. omnis enim qui se regem facit, contradicit Caesari. sic factum est ut traderet eum iudicio illorum. sententiam ergo non dedit Pilatus, sed Iudaei.","english":"It is not good to wrap truth in obscurity. For three evangelists held one meaning, but Mark wished to make known a matter which had been passed over by them, knowing it to be necessary. For he could not be deceived, who, following the example of the authors, learned what he wrote with great devotion and diligence, and was not without the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what he wished to show by this must be explained. So it is to be observed that the Savior was crucified not by Pilate, but by the Jews. As far as Roman laws were concerned, they pronounced the Savior innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews: \"I find no cause in him,\" and when they said, \"Crucify him,\" he replied, \"What evil has he done?\" Finally, persisting and wishing to lead him out of their hands, he suffered calumny when they said, \"If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. For anyone who makes himself king contradicts Caesar.\" Thus it happened that he handed him over to their judgment. Therefore, Pilate did not give the sentence, but the Jews did.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Denique praemoniti sunt, inquit, a principibus sacerdotum, ut dicerent: cruci figatur. hanc sententiam tertia hora datam uult intellegi, in qua assiduis uocibus perdurantes, interuallo tamen horarum fere trium, quibus itum et reditum est ab Herode, cruci fixerunt saluatorem. omnis enim qui addicitur, ex eo iam mortuus conputatur, quo sententiam excipit. manifestauit igitur Marcus, quia non iudicis sententia cruci fixus saluator est. difficile est enim innocentem probare eum, qui sententia iudicis punitur. discordare ergo se passus in uerbo est, ut doceret tertia hora coeptum esse, quod sexta hora impletum est, non legibus, sed persistente maliuolentia Iudaeorum.\n\nLXVI. MARCUS EUANGELISTA DAEMONIA COGNOUISSE AIT ET PROFESSA ESSE IESUM, E CONTRA AUTEM APOSTOLUS PRINCIPES ET POTESTATES HUIUS SAECULI NEGAT COGNOUISSE DIUINITATEM DOMINI IESU. DICIT ENIM INTER CETERA MARCUS: 'SCIEBANT ENIM IPSUM ESSE'; APOSTOLUS UERO: 'QVEM NEMO', INQVIT, 'PRINCIPUM HUIUS SAECULI COGNOUIT; SI ENIM COGNOUISSENT, NUMQVAM DOMINUM MAIESTATIS CRUCI FIXISSENT.' SI DAEMONIA SCIEBANT, QVO MODO PRINCIPES IGNORABANT?","english":"Finally, they were warned, it says, by the chief priests to say: \"Let him be crucified.\" He wants this sentence to be understood as given at the third hour, in which, persisting with constant shouts, yet with an interval of nearly three hours, during which they went to Herod and returned, they crucified the Savior. For everyone who is condemned is considered dead from the moment he receives the sentence. Therefore Mark made clear that the Savior was not crucified by the judge's sentence. For it is difficult to prove innocent one who is punished by a judge's sentence. So he allowed himself to disagree in word, in order to teach that what was completed at the sixth hour was begun at the third hour, not by laws, but by the persistent malice of the Jews.\n\nLXVI. Mark the Evangelist says that the demons knew and confessed Jesus, but on the contrary the Apostle denies that the princes and powers of this age knew the divinity of the Lord Jesus. For Mark says among other things: \"For they knew that he was\"; but the Apostle: \"Whom no one,\" he says, \"of the princes of this age knew; for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty.\" If the demons knew, how did the princes not know?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"Quibusdam uidetur 'principes huius saeculi' maiores Iudaeorum significasse, quasi iuxta quod Petrus apostolus dixit: scitis enim, inquit, fratres, quia per ignorantiam gessistis hoc malum, sicut et principes uestri. ergo Iudaeorum erant principes, non tamen huius saeculi. 'principes' enim, ait, 'uestri', non saeculi, quippe cum dixerint regem se habere Caesarem, sub cuius fuerant redacti potestatem. sunt autem isti hi principes, quos alio loco significauit apostolus dicens: non est nobis conluctatio aduersus carnem et sanguinem, sed aduersus principes et potestates, aduersus huius mundi tenebrarum harum rectores. recte ergo quaeritur. si enim isti non cognouerunt Iesum, quo modo poterat fieri ut daemonia agnoscerent eum?\n\nSed aliud est quod cognouisse in Christo daemones dicit, et aliud quod huius saeculi principes negat agnouisse. nam daemonia sciebant quidem ipsum esse, sed qui per legem fuerat promissus. omnia enim signa uidebant in eo, quae dixerant futura profetae, et quod ex semine Dauid de uirgine uenturus esset redemptor Israhel: mysterium autem diuinitatis eius ignorabant, sicut et principes eorum. denique quaerit. quamuis captiose, diabolus a saluatore dicens: si tu es filius dei et cetera. uidens enim aliquando diuinam uirtutem, aliquando hominis infirmitatem ambigens quid uerum esset. torquebatur. concordant igitur scripturae secundum ea quae reuelata sunt.","english":"Some think that \"the princes of this world\" meant the leaders of the Jews, as if according to what the apostle Peter said: \"For you know, brothers, that you did this evil through ignorance, just as your princes did.\" Therefore, they were the princes of the Jews, but not of this world. For he says \"your princes,\" not \"of the world,\" since they said they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been reduced. But these are the princes whom the apostle indicated in another place, saying: \"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness.\" Therefore, the question is rightly asked. For if these did not know Jesus, how could it happen that the demons recognized him?\n\nBut it is one thing that the demons are said to have known in Christ, and another that the princes of this world are denied to have known him. For the demons indeed knew that he was the one who had been promised through the law. For they saw in him all the signs which the prophets had said would come to pass, and that the redeemer of Israel would come from the seed of David from a virgin: but they were ignorant of the mystery of his divinity, just as their princes were. Finally, the devil asks, albeit captiously, the Savior, saying: \"If you are the Son of God,\" and so on. For seeing at times divine power, at times human weakness, and doubting what was true, he was tormented. Therefore, the scriptures agree according to what has been revealed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"inpossibile est enim discordare unius spiritus uiros.\n\nLXVII. QVID EST QVOD IN CRUCE POSITUS SALCATOB AIT: 'PATER, IGNOSCE ILLIS; NON ENIM SCIUNT QVID FACIUNT'? SI NESCIUNT, QVID EST QVOD IGNOSCITUR, MAXIME CUM DICAT REX ABIMELEC AD DEUM: 'NUMQVID GENTEM IGNORANTEM PERDES?'\n\nNon omnis ignorans inmunis a poena est. ille enim ignorans potest excusari a poena, qui a quo disceret non inuenit; istis autem hoc ignosci petit, quia habentes a quo discerent operam non dederunt. huius modi non licet ignorare: accipient ergo ueniam si conuertantur.\n\nLXVIII. ORANDUM UTIQVE PRO INIMICIS DOMINUS DOCUIT: QVID EST UT CONTRA ANIMAE OCCISORUM ULCISCI SE PETANT DE DEO POSTULANTES UINDICTAM?.\n\nSic animae occisorum clamant uindicari se postulantes, sicut sanguis Abel clamauit de terra. causae ergo sunt quae clamare dicuntur, cum loqui non possint. sanguis enim effusus quid aliud quam uindicari se postulat, clamans non uoce, sed ratione? nam et opus opificem laudare dicitur per hoc ipsum quod uidentem se oblectat. non enim tam inpatientes sunt sancti, ut urgeant fieri quod sciunt tempore praefinito futurum, quod nec anticipari potest nec differri.","english":"It is impossible, indeed, for men of one spirit to disagree.\n\nLXVII. WHAT IS IT THAT, PLACED ON THE CROSS, SALCATOB SAYS: 'FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO'? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN KING ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD: 'SURELY YOU WILL NOT DESTROY AN IGNORANT PEOPLE?'\n\nNot every ignorant person is immune from punishment. For that ignorant person can be excused from punishment who found no one from whom to learn; but for these [the Lord] asks that this be forgiven because, having someone from whom they could learn, they did not apply themselves. Such persons are not permitted to be ignorant: they will therefore receive pardon if they are converted.\n\nLXVIII. THE LORD TAUGHT THAT WE OUGHT INDEED TO PRAY FOR ENEMIES: WHAT IS IT THAT THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO AVENGE THEMSELVES, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE?\n\nThe souls of the slain cry out seeking to be avenged just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth. They are, therefore, causes which are said to cry out, although they cannot speak. For shed blood, what else does it do but demand to be avenged, crying out not with a voice, but by reason? For even a work is said to praise its craftsman by the very fact that it delights the one who sees it. For the saints are not so impatient that they press for what they know will happen at a predetermined time, which can neither be anticipated nor delayed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"sed hoc dicto ostendere uoluit uindicaturum deum sanguinem sanctorum suorum, ne, quia tam patiens nunc uidetur, inultum putaretur impium bellum, quod contra sanctos geritur, ut et terrorem incutiat persequentibus dei seruos et exhortaretur pro se patientes. releuatur enim anima patientis, quando uindicari se audit a potente. prae se enim fert, si mortem suam audiat iudici displicere; tunc enim pro certo habet innocentem se esse. et deus quidem misericors et patiens est, sed moderate. expectat enim ut impii credant et peccatores emendent; si quo minus, plectentur, quia dei longam patientiam contemserunt.\n\nCuius rei exemplum etiam tempore misericordiae praedicatae ostendit, ne non patiens, sed insensibilis, et quem neque dolor alicuius neque pietas commouere uideretur. hinc est unde ait per profetam: tacui; numquid semper tacebo? et dominus: numquid non faciet, inquit, deus uindictam seruorum suorum clamantium die ac nocte? sic utique clamant, sicut supra diximus. si quis ergo Christianus ad tempus uindicet non acerbe neque cum sanguine, non peccat; melius tamen fecerit, si dimiserit iudici deo.","english":"But by this saying He wished to show that God would avenge the blood of His saints, lest, because He now seems so patient, the impious war waged against the saints be thought unavenged, so that it might both strike terror into those persecuting God’s servants and encourage those suffering for His sake. For the soul of the sufferer is relieved when it hears that it is avenged by a powerful one. For it takes it as a sign that, if it hears that its death displeases the judge, then it is certain that it is innocent. And God is indeed merciful and patient, but within measure. For He waits for the impious to believe and sinners to amend; if they do not, they will be punished, because they have scorned God’s long patience.\n\nAn example of this He also shows in the time of proclaimed mercy, lest He seem not patient, but insensible, and as one whom neither the pain of another nor pity would move. Hence it is that He says through the prophet: “I have kept silent; shall I always be silent?” And the Lord says: “Will not God, then, exact vengeance for His servants crying out day and night?” They cry out, indeed, as we have said above. Therefore, if any Christian avenges at the time, not harshly nor with bloodshed, he does not sin; yet he would have done better if he had left it to God the judge.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":130,"ref":"p130","source":"LXVIIII. SI IAM PRAEDICANTE IOHANNE AUT SALUATORE LEX CESSAUIT, QVO MODO SALUATOR AIT: 'NON UENI SOLUERE LEGEM AUT PROFETAS, SED ADIMPLERE'? SI ENIM PROHIBITA EST, QVO MODO NON SOLUTA EST, QVAE AGENDI AMISIT AUCTORITATEM?\n\nOmnia quae de Christo dicta sunt, adimpleta sunt. et ipse dominus sic adimpleuit legem et profetas, cum omnia, quaeque de se scripta sunt, fecit nec dissoluit aliquid, sed confirmauit. lex enim et profetae usque ad ipsum. profetae enim de ipso locuti sunt; ideo ultra illum quae ab his de hoc dicta sunt tendi non possunt neque post ipsum aliqui huius modi profetae repperiri potuerunt, quia neque habent de quo dicant, et de quo dicebant iam uenit. omnia etenim uoluminibus suis complexi sunt, et incarnationem et conuersationem et passionem et resurrectionem et diuinitatis manifestationem et futurum eius iudicium reuelarunt, ac per hoc cessauerunt profetae impleto opere dispensationis.","english":"LXVIIII. If the Law ceased already when John or the Saviour was preaching, how is it that the Saviour says: 'I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them'? For if it was forbidden, how was it not abolished, when it lost its authority to act?\n\nAll things that were said concerning Christ have been fulfilled. And the Lord Himself so fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, in that He did all things that were written about Him, and dissolved nothing, but confirmed it. For the Law and the Prophets extend only up to Him. For the Prophets spoke concerning Him; therefore, what was said by them about this cannot extend beyond Him, nor could any prophets of this kind be found after Him, because they have nothing about which to speak, and the one about whom they used to speak has already come. For they embraced everything in their books, and they revealed both the incarnation and the life and the passion and the resurrection and the manifestation of His divinity and His future judgment, and through this the Prophets ceased, the work of the dispensation having been fulfilled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":131,"ref":"p131","source":"Lex autem duplici modo cessauit, nec quidem tota; nam et id quod cessauit poterit manere, si seruetur condicio. aliud enim cessauit in sententia, aliud in ipsa lege. praedicante Iohanne baptismum paenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum cessauit sententia legis, quae reos tenebat peccatores, cessa. uerunt etiam onera legis, quae ad duritiam cordis Iudaici fuerant data in escis, neumeniis, mustelis. misericordia enim adueniente cessauit uindicta. sed onera legis in perpetuum cessauerunt, sententia uero his cessat et aboletur, qui permanent in benebeneficio consecuto. his autem qui redeunt ad hominem ueterem refricatur legis auctoritas, quia inmemores beneficiorum redeunt sub sententiam legis.-\n\nCircumcisio uero et sabbatum usque ad id tempus ualuit, quo nouae legis praedicaretur mandatum. sic enim data sunt, ut adueniente lege fidei cessarent. unde dicit apostolus: finis legis Christus. nam et Danihel hoc significat, cum de aduentu domini et temporibus ebdomadum profetat, quia et crisma et iudicium et sacrificium et ipsa ciuitas cessatura . erat. spiritale enim adueniente lege necesse erat cessare carnalia. tunc enim ei parte corporis seruiebatur deo, nunc ex parte animae; pridem uisibiliter, modo inuisibiliter; tunc in carne, nunc in animo, quia deo utique, qui spiritus est, in spiritu seruiendum est.","english":"The Law ceased in a twofold manner, and not even entirely; for even that which ceased can remain, if the condition is observed. For one thing ceased in its sentence, another in the Law itself. When John was preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the Law ceased, which held sinners liable; the burdens of the Law also ceased, which had been given for the hardness of the Jewish heart in matters of food, new moons, and weasels. For when mercy arrived, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the Law ceased forever; the sentence, however, ceases and is abolished for those who abide in the benefit they have received. But for those who return to the old man, the authority of the Law is revived, because, unmindful of the benefits, they come back under the sentence of the Law.\n\nCircumcision and the Sabbath, moreover, remained in force up to the time when the commandment of the new Law was preached. For they were given in such a way that they would cease when the Law of faith arrived. Hence the Apostle says: \"The end of the Law is Christ.\" For Daniel also signifies this when he prophesies concerning the coming of the Lord and the times of the weeks, because both the chrism and the judgment and the sacrifice and the city itself were to cease. For when the spiritual Law arrived, it was necessary for the carnal things to cease. For then God was served by a part of the body; now, by a part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind, because God, who is spirit, must be served in spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":132,"ref":"p132","source":"non ergo soluta lex est, quia cessauit, sed successum illi est impleto tempore. nec enim administratio eius accusatur aut iudicium, si peccatoribus indulgentia datur, cum hinc magis recte data et iusta probetur, quia quibus dominabatur, peccatores fuisse non negantur: quia iustis, inquit, lex non est posita.\n\nNon ergo quia misericordia praeferenda est, condemnanda putetur iustitia, cuius reuerentia si non esset, ipsa misericordia fructum non haberet. nisi enim hanc seruauerint post acceptam misericordiam, nihil illis proderit indulgentia. nam dixit lex: non facies tibi idolum neque adoraueris, quae in caelo sursum sunt et quae in terra deorsum, et: non peierabi.s, et: honora patrem et matrem, et: non occides, neque fornicaberis, neque furtum facies, non dices falsum testimonium, neque concupisces quicquam proximi tui. numquid haec cessasse dicenda sunt? absit. sine his enim quis poterit uel in hac uita idoneus iudicari? ac per hoc cetera cessauerunt quae supra diximus, neumeniae, sabbata, lex escarum, sacrificia, circumcisio et cetera. hinc est unde dicit apostolus inter alia: principes non sunt timori operi bono, sed malo. uis autem non timere potestatem? bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa. haec seruata bonos faciunt, non tamen perfectos. unde saluator: nisi abundauerit, inquit, iustitia uestra plus quam scribarum et Farisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum.","english":"The law is not therefore dissolved because it ceased, but it was succeeded when its time was fulfilled. For neither is its administration accused nor its judgment, if indulgence is granted to sinners, since from this it is proved to have been more rightly given and just, because those over whom it ruled are not denied to have been sinners: for, it says, the law was not established for the just.\n\nTherefore, because mercy is to be preferred, let justice not be thought to be condemned, without whose reverence mercy itself would have no fruit. For unless they observe this after receiving mercy, the indulgence will profit them nothing. For the law said: You shall not make for yourself an idol nor worship those which are in heaven above and those which are on earth below, and: You shall not commit perjury, and: Honor your father and mother, and: You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor commit theft, you shall not bear false witness, nor covet anything of your neighbor. Are these things to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without these, who could be judged fit even in this life? And through this, the other things which we mentioned above have ceased: the new moons, the sabbaths, the law of foods, the sacrifices, circumcision, and the rest. Hence it is that the apostle says among other things: Rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil one. But do you wish not to fear authority? Do good, and you will have praise from it. These things, when observed, make men good, but not yet perfect. Whence the Savior says: Unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":133,"ref":"p133","source":"addens enim istis potiora saluator non soluit utique legem, sed adimpleuit. sensus enim legis ad salutem hominis pertinet, ut puta: oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, I ut timens, ne pateretur quod alii facere prohibitus est, cohiberet se a nequitia. saluator autem superiorem in hunc sensum addens iustitiam: ego autem, inquit, dico uobis non resistere malo; sed si quis te percusserit index tram maxillam tuam, praebe illi et sinistram, ut, dum uicem non reddit malo, perfectus sit. reddere enim uicem iustum est, sed non plenum; si uero dissimulet ab iniuria, plena iustitia est et abundans. retribuere enim gaudere ad tempus est; remittere autem in futurum praestat laetitiam.\n\nSic ergo adimpleuit legem saluator, dum, quos illa iustitiam docuit, hic iustiores effecit, quod illa non potuit quam ob rem gaudium legis est, quia discipuli eius peritiores effecti sunt. destruxisset plane legem, si impune peccari docuisset. porro autem suspendit sententiam, ut hic qui male facit habeat spatium paenitendi; si quo minus, redit in illum sententia cumulata, quia non cognouit ad hoc se remissum, ut emendaret se.","english":"For by adding greater things to these, the Savior did not dissolve the law, but fulfilled it. For the meaning of the law pertains to the salvation of man, as for example: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, so that, fearing he might suffer what he was forbidden to do to another, he would restrain himself from wickedness. The Savior, however, adding a higher justice to this meaning, says: \"But I tell you, do not resist evil; but if someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him also your left,\" so that, by not returning evil for evil, he may be perfect. For returning the favor is just, but not complete; if, however, one overlooks the injury, it is full and abundant justice. For retaliation brings joy for a time; but forgiveness provides joy in the future.\n\nThus the Savior fulfilled the law, in that, while it taught justice, he made those whom it taught more just, which it could not do. For this reason it is the joy of the law, because his disciples became more skilled. He would have plainly destroyed the law if he had taught that sinning was without consequence. But he suspends the sentence, so that the one who does evil may have space for repentance; if not, the sentence returns upon him compounded, because he did not realize that he was given this reprieve in order to correct himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":134,"ref":"p134","source":"LXX. DOMINUS CERTE INIMICOS NOS DIABOLO FIERI PRAECEPIT; QVID ERGO EST UT IN EUANGELIO DICAT: 'ESTO CONSENTIENS ADUERSARIO TUO CITO'? QVIS EST ADUERSARIUS HOMINIS NISI DIABOLUS?\n\nNulli dubium est diabolum esse hominis inimicum, maxime fidelis; uehementiora enim tela sua contra dei seruos exacuit. sicut ergo iste bonorum inimicus est, ita et lex malis aduersa est. quis enim contemnenti se non aduersetur? dominus ergo peccatorem adloquitur, ut consentiat mandatis, quae illum inoboedientem condemnant, ut subiciat se uoluntati eorum et fiat ex inimico amicus, quia et contemptor legis inimicus est eius; uoluntati enim eius resistit. ideoque hortatur dominus peccatorem, ut bene agendo reconciliet sibi legem, ne in die iudicii accuset eum apud iudicem et condemnatus poenas det spretae legis. omni etenim, qui male uult agere, disciplina dominica inimica uidetur, cui nisi consenserit, mittetur in gehennam diabolo, qui uere inimicus humani generis est, praeparatam.","english":"LXX. THE LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO BECOME ENEMIES OF THE DEVIL; WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS: 'AGREE WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY'? WHO IS THE ADVERSARY OF MAN EXCEPT THE DEVIL?\n\nThere is no doubt that the devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful; for he sharpens his more violent weapons against the servants of God. Therefore, just as he is the enemy of the good, so the law is opposed to the evil. For who does not oppose one who scorns him? The Lord therefore addresses the sinner, that he may consent to the commandments, which condemn him for disobedience, that he may submit himself to their will and become from an enemy a friend, because the despiser of the law is also its enemy; for he resists its will. And so the Lord exhorts the sinner, that by acting well he may reconcile the law to himself, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the judge and, condemned, he pay the penalties for the spurned law. For to everyone who wishes to do evil, the Lord's discipline seems hostile; unless he consents to it, he will be cast into gehenna, prepared for the devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":135,"ref":"p135","source":"LXXI. IACOB APPELLATUS EST HOMO UIDENS DEUM ET MOVSES UIDIT DEUM FACIEM AD FACIEM NEC NON ET ESEIAS: 'UIDI', AIT, 'DEUM SABAOTH OCULIS MEIS': CONTRA AUTEM IOHANNES EUANGELISTA: 'DEUM', INQVIT, 'NEMO UIDIT UMQVAM'. HOC, QVANTUM UIDETUR, CONTRARIUM EST.\n\nQuantum ad fidem ueri pertinet, deum omnino nemo uidit umquam, neque patrem neque filium. quod enim uisus dicitur, ad intellegentiam refertur; uisus est enim uelut in imagine. ueluti nos, cum imperatores nesciamus, uidemus eos in figura, non in ueritate, ita et deus uisus est, ut intellegeretur deus esse qui apparebat, per rationem, non per substantiam, quia in natura sua uideri deus non potest. et ut uerius propositae quaestionis secreta pandamus, sensum euangelistae explicare nitamur. Iohannes enim occultum aliquid prodere uoluit, quod sciuit ad salutarem doctrinam pertinere. idcirco: deum, inquit, nemo uidit umquam, nisi unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris. ipse enarrauit.","english":"LXXI. Jacob was called a man seeing God, and Moses saw God face to face, and also Isaiah: 'I saw,' he says, 'God Sabaoth with my eyes.' But on the other hand, John the Evangelist says: 'No one has ever seen God.' This, as far as it appears, is contradictory.\n\nAs far as pertains to the truth of faith, no one has ever seen God at all, neither the Father nor the Son. For what is called 'sight' is referred to understanding; for he was seen as if in an image. Just as we, when we do not know emperors, see them in a likeness, not in truth, so also God was seen, so that it might be understood that the one who appeared was God, through reason, not through substance, because in his own nature God cannot be seen. And to disclose more truly the secrets of the proposed question, let us try to explain the sense of the Evangelist. For John wished to reveal something hidden, which he knew pertained to salutary doctrine. Therefore he says: No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He himself has related it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":136,"ref":"p136","source":"Animaduertamus sensum euangelistae. ut enim uerum esse, quia nemo uidit deum umquam, ostenderet, filium hoc enarrasse docet, quem falli utique inpossibile est, quia in sinu patris est. sinus autem patris quid est, nisi adfectus in caritate ueri patris per naturae unitatem in filium? quam ob rem nemo uidit deum, nisi unicus filius. hoc Iohannes apostolus filium dei audiuit dicentem inter alia: non quia patrem uidit quisquam, nisi qui est a deo, hic uidit patrem. ut ergo ad condemnationem proficeret Iudaeorum, qui Christum dei filium audire nolebant uel credere, ostendit euangelista hunc esse Christum qui patribus apparuisset in deum; illum autem qui pater est, numquam uideri nisi a filio. quando enim deum patrem negat uisum et deum apparuisse patribus profitetur, manifestare se uult dei filius, quia ipse semper in deum uisus a patribus est. hinc est unde inter cetera dicit ludaeis de patre: neque uocem eius audistis aliquando neque figuram eius uidistis. ecce non est contrarium et uisum et inuisum esse deum.","english":"Let us attend to the sense of the evangelist. For in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son related this, whom it is certainly impossible to deceive, because he is in the bosom of the Father. But what is the bosom of the Father, if not the affection in the love of the true Father through the unity of nature toward the Son? For this reason no one has seen God except the only Son. John the apostle heard the Son of God saying this among other things: not because anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God, has seen the Father here. Therefore, in order that it might serve for the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or believe that Christ is the Son of God, the evangelist shows that this is the Christ who had appeared to the patriarchs as God; but that the one who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when he denies that God the Father has been seen and yet professes that God has appeared to the patriarchs, the Son of God wishes to reveal himself, because he himself has always been seen as God by the patriarchs. Hence it is that among other things he says to the Jews about the Father: \"You have never heard his voice nor seen his form.\" Behold, it is not contradictory that God is both seen and unseen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":137,"ref":"p137","source":"LXXII. (LXXVI). IN EUANGELIO IOHANNES: 'LEX,' AIT. 'PER MOVSEN DATA EST, GRATIA AUTEM ET UERITAS PER IESUM CHRISTUM FACTA EST': ERGO ANTE NON FUIT. QVO MODO ERGO LEX A DEO DATA DICETUR. IN QVA UERITAS NON FUIT?\n\nNon sic passim praetereundum est, sed considerandum quid sit 'lex per Moysen data est.' per Moysen enim lex data manifesta habet praecepta, sed scripsit et historiam, quae et ipsa lex appellatur. et uideamus, quid in praeceptis eius non erit uerum. forte quod dicit: non occides, non fornicaberis, non furtum facies; talia sunt et cetera. nam historia eius quia ante aduentum Christi ueritas non erat, hoc manifestum est. ea enim quae sub uelamine erant, quid significarent, incertum erat. cum autem per Christum manifestatur, cuius persona sit quae dicit in Genesi: faciamus, et quae est quae facit, et quis fuerit qui in rubo aut patriarchis uisus sit, et qui in petra operatus sit, quae dedit in deserto aquas — quia petra, inquit, erat Christus -, sic fit ueritas per Christum. quando ea, quae latebant aut in dubium ueniebant, quid significarent, a Christo ostensum est. nam inter cetera dominus ait: de me scripsit Moyses. hoc prius latuit; error enim erat. putabatur enim pater deus, qui erat filius, et qui aestimabatur angelus, cognitus est esse dei filius. et promissio facta fuerat Abrahae, quae, quamdiu non reddebatur, in ambiguo erat.","english":"LXXII. (LXXVI). In the Gospel of John: “The Law,” he says, “was given through Moses; but grace and truth were accomplished through Jesus Christ.” Therefore, before that, they did not exist. How, then, will the Law be said to have been given by God, in which truth was not present?\n\nThis should not be passed over carelessly, but we must consider what it means that “the Law was given through Moses.” For the Law given through Moses has manifest precepts, but he also wrote a history, which itself is called Law. And let us see what in its precepts would not be true. Perhaps it is what it says: “You shall not kill, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal”; such are the rest as well. For its history, because before the coming of Christ truth did not exist, this is manifest. For those things which were under a veil, what they signified was uncertain. But when through Christ it is revealed who the person is who says in Genesis: “Let us make,” and who it is that makes, and who it was who appeared in the bush or to the patriarchs, and who worked in the rock which gave waters in the desert—because the rock, he says, was Christ—thus truth comes through Christ. When those things which lay hidden or came into doubt as to what they signified were shown by Christ. For among other things the Lord says: “Moses wrote about me.” This was previously hidden; for there was error. For the Father was thought to be God, who was the Son, and he who was thought to be an angel was recognized to be the Son of God. And a promise had been made to Abraham, which, as long as it was not fulfilled, was in doubt.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":138,"ref":"p138","source":"cum autem ueniente Christo reddita est, facta est ueritas, quando et quod promissum est redditum est et coepit sciri quid erat promissum. promittentis enim fides tunc uera probatur, cum exsoluit promissum.\n\nLXXIII. (LXXVII). QVID EST QVOD INTER CETERA DICIT MARCUS EUANGELISTA DE CHRISTO: 'INTRANS', INQVIT, 'IN DOMUM UOLUIT NEMINEM SCIRE ET NON POTUIT LATERE'? SI ERGO UOLUIT ET NON POTUIT, INFIRMATA UOLUNTAS EIUS UIDETUR.\n\nInpossibile prorsus est ut saluatoris uoluntas non impleatur, nec potest uelle quod scit fieri non debere; idcirco quod factum est, hoc uoluisse dicendus est. nam uoluntas eius numquam extra naturam eius est. sicut ergo natura eius in reprehensionem non cadit, nec uoluntas. nam quod propositum est, factum legitur in finibus Tyri. tunc intrauit in domum et neminem uoluit scire. nunc requiritur quo modo uel quare neminem uoluit scire. animaduertendum est enim, quia istud in finibus gestum est gentilium, quibus adhuc tempus praedicandi non erat. denique mittens discipulos suos praecepit dicens: in uiam gentium ne abieritis et ia ciuitatem Samaritanorum ne introie-ritis, sed ite potius ad oues quae perierunt domus Israhel.","english":"But when with the coming of Christ it was restored, truth was accomplished, when what was promised was delivered and it began to be known what had been promised. For the faith of the one who promises is then proven true, when he fulfills the promise.\n\nLXXIII. (LXXVII). WHY IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS OF CHRIST: 'Entering,' he says, 'into a house, he wished no one to know, and he could not be hidden'? If, therefore, he wished and could not, his will seems to be weakened.\n\nIt is utterly impossible that the Savior's will not be fulfilled, nor can he will what he knows ought not to happen; for that reason, what was done is to be said to have been willed by him. For his will is never outside his nature. Therefore, just as his nature does not fall under reproach, neither does his will. For what is set forth is read to have happened in the region of Tyre. Then he entered a house and wished no one to know. Now it is asked in what way or why he wished no one to know. For it must be noted that this was done in the region of the Gentiles, for whom the time for preaching had not yet come. Finally, sending his disciples, he commanded, saying: Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":139,"ref":"p139","source":"Idcirco noluit se prodi, quod esset in domo; requiri autem se non noluit, sed libenter accepit. quamuis enim tempus non esset praedicandi gentilibus, ultro tamen uenientes ad fidem non suscipere inuidiae erat. sic factum est, ut saluator, dum a discipulis proditus non esset, ab aliis tamen, qui eum ingredientem domum uiderant, proditus est, et coepit sciri quod esset in domo, ut intrarent ad illum qui uellent consequi beneficia. a suis ergo noluit se praedicari, quod esset in domo. requiri enim se uoluit et ita factum est. non enim latuit ab aliis demonstratus quod esset in domo. denique mulier Chananaea audiens de illo intrauit ad eum deprecans, ut expelleret daemonium a filia eius, quae nisi prius subiecisset se deo Iudaeorum, beneficium consecuta non esset. impleta igitur uoluntas saluatoris est secundum quae explanauimus: ea enim quae conpendio breuitatis studens euangelista complexus est discutientes inuenimus quod latebat.","english":"Therefore he did not wish to be betrayed as being in the house; however, he did not refuse to be sought out, but gladly accepted it. For although it was not the time for preaching to the Gentiles, nevertheless not to receive those who came to faith of their own accord would have been an act of envy. Thus it happened that the Savior, though not betrayed by his disciples, was betrayed by others who had seen him entering the house, and it began to be known that he was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain benefits might enter to him. Therefore he did not wish to be proclaimed by his own as being in the house. For he wished to be sought out, and so it happened. For he was not hidden, having been pointed out by others that he was in the house. Finally, the Canaanite woman, hearing about him, entered to him, begging that he expel the demon from her daughter; and unless she had first subjected herself to the God of the Jews, she would not have obtained the benefit. Therefore the will of the Savior was fulfilled according to what we have explained: for we, in discussing, have found that what the evangelist, striving for brevity, summarized, was hidden.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":140,"ref":"p140","source":"LXXIIII. (LXXVIII). LEGITUR IN EUANGELIO IOHANNIS. QVOD CUM NEGASSET SE SALUATOR ASCENDERE AD DIEM FESTUM, ASCENDIT. HOC INCONSTANTIS ESSE UIDETUR.\n\nSemper breuiata propositione sensum occultas. nam hoc quod in quaestionem uocas tunc factum est, quando in Galilea positus propter tumultum Iudaeorum a fratribus suis adhuc non credentibus sibi conpellebatur ascendere in Iudaeam, quia futurus erat dies festus Iudaeorum, ut seditionem pateretur. ipse autem respondit eis dicens: uos ascendite ad diem festum, quia mundus uos non odit; me autem odit, quoniam arguo opera eius. ego non ascendo ad diem festum hunc, quia tempus meum nondum impletum est. tunc fratres eius ascenderunt ad diem festum, ipse uero mansit in Galilea. post autem et ipse ascendit ad diem festum.\n\nQuid uidetur contrarium, quando non tunc ascendit quando negauit, sed ascendit postea, et ascendit non quasi ad diem festum, sed quasi ad litem? illi enim omnes laeti ascenderunt, quasi ad perfruendas delicias diei festi. certum est ergo, quia non ascendit ad diem festum. saluatoris autem ille fuit dies festus, quo passione sua redemit mundum. denique dicit: nunc clarificatus est filius hominis et deus clarificatus est in eo. hic dies festus eius est, quo uicit mortem.","english":"LXXIIII. (LXXVIII). It is read in the Gospel of John that when the Savior had denied that He would go up to the feast day, He went up. This seems to be the mark of an inconstant person.\n\nYou always conceal the sense by abbreviating the proposition. For this which you call into question happened at that time when, being in Galilee on account of the tumult of the Jews, He was being urged by His brothers, who did not yet believe in Him, to go up into Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was approaching, so that He might suffer sedition. But He Himself answered them, saying: \"You go up to the feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates me, because I reprove its works. I do not go up to this feast day, because my time is not yet fulfilled.\" Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He Himself remained in Galilee. Afterwards, however, He Himself also went up to the feast day.\n\nWhat seems contrary, when He did not go up at the time He denied, but went up later, and went up not as if to the feast day, but as if to a dispute? For they all went up joyfully, as if to enjoy the delights of the feast day. It is certain, therefore, that He did not go up to the feast day. But the Savior's feast day was that on which He redeemed the world by His passion. Finally He says: \"Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in Him.\" This is His feast day, on which He conquered death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":141,"ref":"p141","source":"LXXV. (LXXIX). SI PROPRIO ARBITRIO UIUIMUS, QVARE SALUATOR DIXIT: 'NEMO UENIT', INQVIT, 'AD ME, NISI PATER QVI MISIT ME ADTRAXERIT EUM,' ET CONSENTIENS HIS APOSTOLUS: 'NEQVE UOLENTIS', INQVIT, 'NEQVE CURRENTIS, SED MISERENTIS EST DEI', ET: 'CUIUS UULT MISERETUR ET QVEM UULT INDURAT'? QVO MODO UOLUNTATIS ARBITRIUM LIBERUM EST, QVANDO ALTERIUS NUTU AUT AD BONUM DUCITUR AUT AD MALUM?\n\nAliter causa se habet quam proposita est; non enim hic quaestionis huius sensus est quem obtendis. nam nullo genere ex his liberi arbitrii poterit causa turbari, quia si penitus sensum dictorum aduertas, scies hinc magis arbitrii liberi firmari sententiam. haec enim contra maliuolos Iudaeos prolata sunt. cum enim dolo simulationis ortae ex inuidia Iosef patrem proprium et filios eius fratres adsererent saluatoris, ne dei esse filius crederetur, tunc saluator ait: nemo uenit ad me, nisi pater qui misit me adtraxerit eum. quo modo autem adtrahebat pater ad filium, nisi per opera quae faciebat per illum? sic enim dixit: pater manens in me ipse operatur. ut opera haec adtraherent ad fidem Christi. uirtutes enim, quas faciebat saluator, ipsae suadebant deum esse patrem Christi, ut qui alium patrem habere illum diceret, non adtraheretur a deo ad Christum. ideo ergo deus operabatur per Christum, ut uerbis eius fides commodaretur, quibus dicebat se filium dei.","english":"LXXV. (LXXIX). If we live by our own free will, why did the Savior say: 'No one comes,' he says, 'to me, unless the Father who sent me has drawn him,' and the Apostle, agreeing with these words, says: 'It is not of the willing,' he says, 'nor of the running, but of the merciful God,' and: 'He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills'? How is the free choice of the will free, when by the nod of another it is either led to good or to evil?\n\nThe matter stands otherwise than it has been proposed; for the sense of this question is not what you pretend. For in no way from these things can the cause of free will be disturbed, because if you attend deeply to the sense of the sayings, you will know that from this the judgment of free will is rather confirmed. For these things were uttered against the malicious Jews. For when, from a pretense of deceit arising from envy, they asserted that Joseph was the Savior's own father and his sons his brothers, lest He be believed to be the Son of God, then the Savior said: No one comes to me, unless the Father who sent me has drawn him. But how was the Father drawing to the Son, except through the works which He performed through Him? For thus He said: The Father remaining in me Himself works. So that these works might draw to the faith of Christ. For the miracles which the Savior performed, they themselves persuaded that God was the Father of Christ, so that he who said that He had another father would not be drawn by God to Christ. Therefore God worked through Christ, so that faith might be given to His words, by which He said He was the Son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":142,"ref":"p142","source":"Haec est adtractio, non uiolentia, sed testimonium dei in Christo, cui qui credidit, adtractus dicitur ab eo ad Christum. nemo enim saluatori credit, nisi qui patrem illius proprium dicit deum. nam apostolus, non ut arbitrium pulsaret, haec fatus est quae in quaestionem redegisti, sed ut iudicium dei retractare prohiberet, haec dixit iustum praedicans deum; scit enim cuius debeat misereri. cordis autem inspector peruidet postulantis mentem, an mereatur accipere. denique dicit per profetam: plebs haec labiis me honorat, cor autem illorum longe est a me. nam simulatoris animum iustum est ut obduret. qui enim non per errorem uerum uocat falsum, sed per maliuolentiam, ut intellegens bonum fingat se nescire quia bonum est, ut conuertat illud in malum, hoc utique debet illi praestari, ut uere non intellegat bonum, ne saluetur, quod non uult. nec enim iustum est, ut inuitus saluetur, qui non per ignorantiam salutem spernit, sed per malitiam uel inuidiam. his igitur confirmatur magis liberum arbitrium quam destruitur, ut uni cuique pro uoto suo respondeatur.","english":"This is the attraction, not violence, but the testimony of God in Christ, to which whoever has believed is said to be drawn by Him to Christ. For no one believes in the Savior unless he calls that one's Father his own God. For the Apostle, not to assail free will, spoke these things which you have reduced to a question, but to forbid reconsidering God's judgment, he said this, proclaiming God just; for he knows whom he ought to pity. But the inspector of the heart sees through the mind of the petitioner, whether he deserves to receive. Finally, he says through the prophet: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' For it is just that the mind of the dissembler be hardened. For he who, not through error, calls the true false, but through malice, so that, understanding the good, he pretends not to know that it is good, in order to turn it into evil, this one ought certainly to be granted that he truly not understand the good, lest he be saved, which he does not wish. For it is not just that the unwilling be saved, who spurns salvation not through ignorance, but through malice or envy. By these things, therefore, free will is more confirmed than destroyed, so that to each one a response is given according to his own wish.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":143,"ref":"p143","source":"LXXVI. (LXXII). LEGITUR IN APOCALVPSI IOHANNIS: 'UA.DE', INQVIT, (ET ACCIPE LIBRUM DE MANU ANGELI ET DEUORA ILLUM, ET AMARICABIT UENTREM TUUM, SED IN ORE TUO ERIT DULCE TAMQVAM MEL). QVIS ISTE LIBER EST, QVI AMARUM FACIT UENTREM. CUM SIT DULCIS?\n\nOmnia diuina uolumina amara sunt, sed perfidis adque carnalibus. idolatris enim insuaue est, cum audiunt unum deum praedicari in Christo. et Fotinus simul pertimescit horrore correptus, erubescit etiam Sabellius audiens patrem patrem esse qui filius dici non possit, quia ab ipso sunt omnia; filium autem idcirco filium appellari, quia non utique ipse pater est, sed de patre, nec a quo, sed per quem sunt omnia. confutatur et . Arrius, cum legit Christum uerum esse filium dei; sine dubio enim uerus dici non posset, nisi proprie esset de deo. conuincitur et Marcion addiscens quia uerbum caro factum est, qui putat Christo carnem negandam. arguitur etiam inprobus Manicheus uidens scriptum ab euangelista, quia saluator non solum praesentia sui nuptiarum uota decorauit, uerum etiam poculis honestauit, qui nuptiarum aditus intercludit et promiscue conuenire hortatur.","english":"LXXVI. (LXXII). IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: 'Woe,' it says, (and take the book from the hand of the angel and devour it, and it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey). What is this book, which makes the stomach bitter, though it is sweet?\n\nAll the divine volumes are bitter, but to the faithless and to the carnal. For to idolaters it is unpleasant when they hear one God preached in Christ. And Photinus likewise trembles, seized with horror; Sabellius also blushes, hearing that the Father is the Father, who cannot be called the Son, because from Him are all things; but that the Son is called Son for this reason, because he is not at all the Father himself, but from the Father, and not that from which, but that through which all things are. And Arius is refuted when he reads that Christ is the true Son of God; for without doubt he could not be called true unless he were properly from God. And Marcion is convicted, learning that the Word became flesh, he who thinks that flesh should be denied to Christ. And the wicked Manichaean is also argued against, seeing it written by the evangelist that the Savior not only graced the vows of marriage with his presence, but also honored them with cups, he who blocks the approach to marriage and urges promiscuous assembly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":144,"ref":"p144","source":"Haec continentur in libro, quem accepit apostolus deuorandum. hic liber euangelium est quod CATA IOHANNEN titulatur, quod non solum male sentientibus amarum est, uerum etiam indiseiplinatis, qui nolunt corripi, ut in peius proficiant. ista reuelatio eo tempore facta est, quo apostolus Iohannes in insula erat Pathmos, relegatus a Domitiano imperatore fidei causa. tunc fuit in spiritu, ut posset uidere caelestia, et dum haec ei ostenduntur, quae futura sunt causa impietatis et stupri et ceterorum. datus est illi liber qui dulcis quidem esset in ore, sed ama rum faceret uentrem, ut ox his qui uidentur unius corporis esse homines, istis dulcis esset. qui propter quod integrae professionis sunt, in ore significati sunt — hoc enim dulce in ore est, quod uerum est —, illis autem qui heretica prauitate carnaliter uiuunt uel sentiunt, propter quod et in uentre significati sunt, amarus. accusabit enim eos in die iudicii dei. post reuelationem ergo euangelium iussus est scribere propter haec quae supra diximus. et Ezechieli profetae similiter dictum est, ut acciperet librum qui esset dulcis in ore eius, quando perfidiam populi missus est increpare.","english":"These things are contained in the book which the apostle received to devour. This book is the Gospel which is titled According to John, which is bitter not only to those who think wrongly, but also to the undisciplined, who do not wish to be corrected, so that they may progress for the worse. This revelation occurred at the time when the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished by the emperor Domitian on account of the faith. Then he was in spirit, so that he could see heavenly things, and while these things are shown to him, which are future on account of impiety and lewdness and other things. A book was given to him which would be sweet in the mouth, but would make the belly bitter, so that among those who seem to be of one body, men, it would be sweet to these. For those who are of sound profession are signified in the mouth—for that which is true is sweet in the mouth—but to those who live or think with heretical depravity, because they are signified in the belly, it is bitter. For it will accuse them on the day of God's judgment. Therefore, after the revelation, he was ordered to write the Gospel on account of these things which we have said above. And to the prophet Ezekiel it was similarly said, that he should receive a book which would be sweet in his mouth, when he was sent to rebuke the faithlessness of the people.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":145,"ref":"p145","source":"LXXVII. (LXXIII). QVID EST QVOD SVMEON DICIT AD MARIAM MATREM DOMINI INTER CETERA: 'POSITVS EST,' INQVIT, 'HIC IN RUINAM ET RESURRECTIONEM MULTORUM IN ISRAHEL; ET TUAM IPSIUS ANIMAM PERTRANSIBIT GLADIUS, UT REUELENTUR MULTORUM CORDIUM COGITATIONES'?\n\nSymeon uir sanctus et diuinis oraculis commendatus per spiritum sanctum locutus est quid futurum esset hominibus ex causa Christi, ut ruina his esset, qui cum sibi uiderentur stare per obseruantiam et peritiam legis, diffidentia . tamen operum Christi caderent dissoluti a promissione patrum, illis autem qui nullius prope dignitatis essent in lege, credentibus uero in Christum, resurrectio in Israhel, ut digni deo fierent qui prius indigni et inutiles erant, et reprobarentur qui aliquid putabantur. hoc. est quod alio loco dicit dominus: iniudicio ego ueni in hunc mundum, ut qui non uident uideant et qui uident caeci fiant. denique non legis doctores. non Farisei, non scribae secuti sunt Christum, sed piscatores, homines inperiti et rusticani. hinc est unde dicit dominus: pater, gratias ago tibi, quod abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et reuelasti ea paruolis.","english":"LXXVII. (LXXIII). What is it that Symeon says to Mary the mother of the Lord, among other things: 'He has been placed,' he says, 'here for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel; and a sword will pass through your own soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed'?\n\nSymeon, a holy man commended by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit what would be the future for men from the cause of Christ: that it would be ruin for those who, though they seemed to themselves to stand firm through observance and expertise of the law, would nevertheless, from distrust of the works of Christ, fall, dissolved from the promise of the fathers; but for those who were of almost no standing in the law, yet believing in Christ, there would be resurrection in Israel, so that those who were previously unworthy and useless would become worthy of God, and those who were thought to be something would be rejected. This is what the Lord says in another place: 'I have come into this world without judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.' Finally, it was not the teachers of the law, not the Pharisees, not the scribes who followed Christ, but fishermen, unskilled and rustic men. Hence it is that the Lord says: 'Father, I thank you that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":146,"ref":"p146","source":"Quod autem adiecit dicens: et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, ut reuelentur multorum cordium cogitationes, hoc utique significauit, quia etiam Maria, per quam gestum mysterium est incarnationis saluatoris, in morte domini dubitaret, ita tamen, ut resurrectione firmaretur. omnes enim stupore quodam in morte domini dubitarunt. quis enim non ambigeret uidens eum, qui se filium dei dicebat, sic humiliatum, ut usque ad mortem descenderet? et quia, ut dixi, omnis ambiguitas resurrectione domini recessura erat, 'pertransire' dixit gladium, non supercadere aut contingere transeuntem membrum aliquod. ut sicut gladius missus pertransiens iuxta hominem timorem facit, non tamen percutit, ita et dubitatio maestitiam fecit, non tamen occidit, quia non sedit in animo, sed pertransiit, quasi per umbram contingens corda discipulorum. denique Cleopas et Amaus euntes in uir tristes dicunt inter cetera ipsi domino nescientes quia domi nus est: nos putabamus, quia ipse erat qui incipiebat liberare Israhel. dubitauerunt, sed statim agnito domino transiit dubitatio. similiter dictum est et de Iosef, quia ferrum pertransiuit animam eius. hoc est mortem euadere, quia dubitare de deo uel Christo mors est ac per hoc qui desinit dubitare, euadit mortem.","english":"But what he added, saying, 'and a sword will pass through your own soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,' this signified that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Savior's incarnation was accomplished, would doubt at the Lord's death, yet in such a way that she would be confirmed by the resurrection. For all doubted in a kind of stupor at the Lord's death. For who would not be uncertain, seeing him who called himself the Son of God so humiliated that he descended even to death? And because, as I said, all ambiguity was to depart through the Lord's resurrection, he said the sword would 'pass through,' not fall upon or touch a passing limb. So that, just as a sword sent forth passing near a man causes fear, yet does not strike, so also doubt caused sadness, but did not kill, because it did not settle in the mind, but passed through, as if touching the hearts of the disciples through a shadow. Finally, Cleopas and the one going to Emmaus, sad, say among other things to the Lord himself, not knowing that he is the Lord: 'We thought that he was the one who was beginning to free Israel.' They doubted, but as soon as the Lord was recognized, the doubt passed. Similarly, it was said also of Joseph, that iron passed through his soul. This is to escape death, because to doubt about God or Christ is death, and thus he who ceases to doubt escapes death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":147,"ref":"p147","source":"LXXVIII. (LXXIV). QVID SIBI UULT UT ESEIAS PROFETA DICAT DE CHRISTO: 'QVI PECCATUM NON FECIT'. CONTRA AUTEM APOSTOLUS: 'EUM QVI PECCATUM'. INQVIT, 'NESCIEBAT, PRO NOBIS PECCATUM FECIT'?\n\nQuantum ad sensum pertinet, quaestiones diuersae sunt. sed uerba similia ex parte quidem, ex parte uero discrepantia. (fecit) enim et 'non fecit' contrarium est; 'nesciebat' et 'non fecit. simile est. profeta ergo ex persona Christi locutus est: quia peccatum non fecit nec dolus inuentus est in ore eius, apostolus uero de persona loquitur dei patris: quia eum — id est Christum —, qui peccatum nesciebat, pro nobis peccatum fecit. quod duplici modo intellegendum est. primum enim fecit illum peccatum, dum incarnari illum uoluit, ut quem sors non tangebat, de peccatrice carne corpus acciperet, per quod dicitur factus peccatum. deinde dum offerret illum pro peccatis, fecit illum peccatum. hostia enim in lege pro peccatis oblata peccatum nuncupabatur.","english":"LXXVIII. (LXXIV). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST: 'WHO HAS NOT COMMITTED SIN,' BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'HE WHO DID NOT KNOW SIN, FOR US HE MADE SIN'?\n\nAs far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different, but the words are similar in part, yet in part discrepant. For 'made' and 'has not committed' are opposites; 'did not know' and 'has not committed' are similar. Therefore the prophet spoke from the person of Christ: because he has not committed sin nor was deceit found in his mouth; but the apostle speaks from the person of God the Father: because he—that is, Christ—who did not know sin, for us he made sin. This is to be understood in a twofold manner. First, he made him sin, in that he willed him to be incarnated, so that he whom lot did not touch would receive a body from sinful flesh, through which he is said to have been made sin. Then, in that he offered him for sins, he made him sin. For a sacrifice offered for sins in the law was called sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":148,"ref":"p148","source":"Non ergo Christus peccatum fecit, sicut dicit profeta, sed aperte ipse peccatum factus est, sicut ostensum est. offerre autem Christum pro nobis quid est, nisi dare potestatem uolentibus eum occidere? quod idcirco concessum est, quia profuturum erat, ut esset causa descendendi ad inferos expoliare tartarum animabus. superabundans' enim et inauditum peccatum est occidisse eum, qui non solum nullo genere peccauerat, sed et multis uitam donauerat. hoc peccato reus factus diabolus contradicendi audaciam perdidit. nam simile aliud ad Galatas in epistula legitur; inter cetera enim: factus, inquit, pro nobis maledictum. a quo factus, nisi a patre? iudicio enim dei crux Christi maledictum est Iudaeorum; peccatum enim illorum exclamat mors saluatoris. cruci figi ergo se permisit. ut passio eius proficeret nobis, ut hinc cum signo eius exeuntes a secunda morte minime teneremur. metuit enim mors etiam seruos eius, a quo uicta est.","english":"Therefore Christ did not commit sin, as the prophet says, but clearly He Himself was made sin, as has been shown. Moreover, to offer Christ for us, what is it but to give power to those wishing to kill Him? This was granted because it would be beneficial, so that it might be the cause of descending to the underworld to strip Tartarus of souls. For it is an excessive and unheard-of sin to have killed Him who not only had sinned in no way, but had also granted life to many. Made guilty by this sin, the devil lost the audacity to contradict. For a similar thing is read in the Epistle to the Galatians; among other things, indeed, it says: 'He was made a curse for us.' By whom was He made, if not by the Father? For by the judgment of God, the cross of Christ is a curse of the Jews; for the sin of those people is proclaimed by the death of the Savior. Therefore He allowed Himself to be crucified, so that His passion might benefit us, so that, departing from here with His sign, we would be least held by a second death. For death also fears His servants, by whom it has been conquered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":149,"ref":"p149","source":"LXXVIIII. (LXXV). CUR SALUATOR PRO SE TANTUM ET PETRO DIDRAGMAM SOLUIT, NON ET PRO CETERIS APOSTOLIS, QVIPPE CUM OMNES EUM SECUTI SUNT DERELICTIS OMNIBUS SUIS?\n\nDidragma capitum exactio intellegitur, non praediorum. uec enim saluator aliquid possidebat in mundo, cum sit dominus mundi, mortuus autem alienis inpendiis sepelitur; et nos a quibus mundus extraneus est, facultates augere cupimus, ut morientes mundum a nobis inuasum non tantum uoce, sed et litteris contestemur, ut professione nostra ab eo, cuius mundus est, condemnemur. hinc dominus: qui non. inquit, reliquerit omnia et secutus me fuerit, non potest meus discipulus esse. quicumque ergo sic habet facultates suas, ut spem in illis non habeat, paratus autem sit pro fide illas abicere, uiam ambulat qua itur ad Christum dominum nostrum.,\n\nDidragma igitur ab his exigenda erat, qui aliquid negotii gerebant aut artibus operam dabant. saluator autem, qui nihil horum curabat, neque discipuli eius, exigendus utique non erat.","english":"LXXVIIII. (LXXV). WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRAGMA FOR HIMSELF AND FOR PETER ONLY, AND NOT FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL FOLLOWED HIM, HAVING ABANDONED ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS?\n\nThe didragma is understood as a tax on persons, not on estates. For the Savior possessed nothing in the world, since He is the Lord of the world, and when dead He is buried at others' expense; and we, to whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our wealth, so that when dying we may testify—not only by word but also in writing—that the world has been seized by us, and thus be condemned by our own profession by Him whose the world is. Hence the Lord says: \"He who has not left everything and followed me cannot be my disciple.\" Therefore, whoever holds his possessions in such a way that he places no hope in them, but is ready to cast them aside for the faith, walks the path that leads to Christ our Lord.\n\nThus the didragma was to be exacted from those who conducted some business or practiced trades. But the Savior, who cared for none of these things, nor did his disciples, was certainly not liable to be taxed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":150,"ref":"p150","source":"sed quia inimicus diabolus semper in insidiis erat occasionem quaerens, si posset inclinare saluatorem, exactorum didragmae animos occupauit, ut eius facerent uoluntatem, ut accedentes ad Petrum, qui primus inter apostolos erat, solui debere ab eorum magistro dicerent didragmam, qui ab his oneribus liberi erant — nihil enim agebant in mundo quod esset mundi —, ut, quia non erat unde solueret, aut his scandalo esset aut certe humilitate suffragii quaereret a quo solueretur. tunc dominus, ut inprouidum diabolum et aduersus semet ipsum semper machinari ostenderet, ad mare ire Petrum apostolum iubet et capti piscis os aperire et illic inuenire modum exactioni debitum, quo soluto non solum scandalo non esset exactoribus neque inclinaretur requisito auxilio ad soluendum. uerum etiam signum uirtutis maximae demonstraret, per quod captos a diabolo ad se traheret, ut argumento et astutia sua diabolus torqueretur. dicunt ergo exactores didragmae ad Petrum apostolum: magister uester non soluit didragmam? quo dicto magistrum, ut pro omnibus discipulis solueret, conuenerunt.","english":"as the enemy devil was always lying in wait, seeking an opportunity, if he could sway the Savior, he occupied the minds of the collectors of the didragma to do his will, so that, approaching Peter, who was first among the apostles, they would say that the didragma ought to be paid by their teacher for those who were free from these burdens—for they did nothing in the world that was of the world—so that, because he had no means to pay, either this would be a scandal to them or, certainly, by the humility of a petition he would seek someone from whom to be paid. Then the Lord, to show the devil as improvident and always plotting against himself, orders the apostle Peter to go to the sea and to open the mouth of a caught fish and there to find the amount due for the exaction, by which payment not only would there be no scandal to the collectors nor would he be brought low by seeking aid to pay, but also he would demonstrate a sign of the greatest power, through which he would draw to himself those captured by the devil, so that the devil would be tormented by his own trick and cunning. Therefore the collectors of the didragma say to the apostle Peter: Does your teacher not pay the didragma? By this statement they summoned the teacher to pay for all the disciples.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":151,"ref":"p151","source":"Saluator autem cum pro se et Petro dari iubet, pro omnibus soluisse uidetur, quia, sicut in saluatore erant omnes causa magisterii, ita et post saluatorem in Petro omnes continentur. ipsum enim constituit esse caput eorum, ut pastor esset gregis dominici. nam inter cetera dicit discipulis: uigilate et orate, ne intretis in temptationem, et Petro dicit: ecce satanas expostulauit, ut uos uentilet uelut triticum; ego autem rogaui pro te, ne deficiat fides tua, et tu tandem conuersus confirma fratres tuos. quid ambigitur? pro Petro rogabat, et pro Iacobo et Iohanne non rogabat, ut de ceteris taceam? manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia et alio loco dicit: ego pro his rogo quos mihi dedisti, et: uolo ut ubi ego sum et ipsi sint mecum.\n\nNunc uideamus quid sit didragma, hoc est, qui modus sit ponderis uel quantitatis aut in qua substantia * * * * * * * *","english":"But the Savior, when he orders that payment be made for himself and for Peter, seems to have paid for all, because, just as in the Savior all were included by reason of the teaching office, so also after the Savior all are contained in Peter. For he established him as their head, so that he might be the shepherd of the Lord's flock. For among other things he says to the disciples: \"Watch and pray, that you do not enter into temptation,\" and to Peter he says: \"Behold, Satan has demanded that you be winnowed like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith not fail, and that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.\" What is the doubt? He was praying for Peter, and was he not praying for James and John, not to mention the others? It is manifest that all are contained in Peter, because also in another place he says: \"I pray for these whom you have given to me,\" and: \"I wish that where I am, they also be with me.\"\n\nNow let us see what the didragma is, that is, what its mode of weight or quantity is, or in what substance * * * * * * * *","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":152,"ref":"p152","source":"LXXX. CERTE AUT FILIUS DEI QVIS EST AUT DIABOLI: SEMPER ERGO FILIUS EST, SED ALIQVANDO DEI, ALIQVANDO DIABOLI. QVID ERGO NASCIMUR REQVIRENDUM EST.\n\nDominus, cum filii Israhel saepe delinquerent educti de Aegypto, iratus sententiam dedit dicens nullum illorum intraturum in terram promissionis excepto Caleb et Iesu filio Naue, qui prius Auses dicebatur. eos autem qui nati fuerant in deserto, ipsos dixit intraturos, eo quod nescirent bonum aut malum. nescire autem bonum uel malum simplicitas quaedam est naturalis, quae neque ad bonum neque ad malum erudita est, hoc est ignorantia sine malitia. sine sensu enim nascimur, sed natura nostra hoc bonum habet, quia capax est ediscere ueritatem. filius autem diaboli hic est, qui natus malis rebus imbuitur, ut his studeat, quae inimica sunt creatori, multos adserens deos et his immolandum quasi mundi rectoribus. hic si resipiscat et iuxta naturam suam sentiat ad creatorem se conferens, filius erit dei..","english":"LXXX. Certainly, either one is a son of God or a son of the devil: therefore one is always a son, but sometimes of God, sometimes of the devil. What then we are born as must be examined.\n\nThe Lord, when the sons of Israel often transgressed after being led out of Egypt, gave a sentence in anger, saying that none of them would enter the land of promise except Caleb and Joshua son of Nun, who was formerly called Auses. But those who had been born in the desert, he said would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Not knowing good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has been instructed neither toward good nor toward evil, that is, ignorance without malice. For we are born without sense, but our nature has this good, that it is capable of learning the truth. But a son of the devil is one who is born and imbued with evil things, so that he pursues those things which are hostile to the creator, asserting many gods and that sacrifices must be offered to them as if to rulers of the world. If he should come to his senses and, in accordance with his nature, turn himself toward the creator, he will be a son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":153,"ref":"p153","source":"Ac per hoc neque filii dei sunt qui nascuntur neque diaboli. quid enim dicit saluator Iudaeis: uos de patre diabolo estis et concupiscentias patris uestri uultis facere? uides ergo operibus et professione filios creari diabolo; hos autem esse filios dei, qui confitentes proprium esse deum patrem Christi recte uersantur. sic enim deus instituit genus nostrum, ut sine sensu nati possibilitatem tamen habeamus discendi siue bona siue mala, ut ipsi nobis aut mala adquiramus aut bona, ut laetemur in nobis, cum recte agentes remuneramur, aut ipsi nobis inputemus, si praua sequentes condemnemur.\n\nLXXXI. APOSTOLUS AIT: \"NOS NATURA IUDAEI\". DE IUDAEIS ERGO NASCI IUDAEOS OSTENDIT - NON DE PKOSELITIS DICO, QVOS CONSTAT FIERI IUDAEOS. DENIQVE QVI IN HEREMO NATI SUNT, NON SUNT CIRCUMCISI —: SI ERGO DE IUDAEIS IUDAEI NASCUNTUR, QVARE NON ET DE CHRISTIANIS CHRISTIANI? NAM ET DE PAGANIS PAGANI NASCUNTUR.","english":"Therefore, neither are those who are born sons of God nor sons of the devil. For what does the Savior say to the Jews: \"You are from the father the devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.\" You see, then, that sons are created for the devil by works and profession; but those are sons of God who, confessing that God is the proper father of Christ, conduct themselves rightly. For God established our race in such a way that, born without understanding, we nevertheless have the capacity to learn either good or evil, so that we ourselves acquire either evil or good for ourselves, so that we rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded, or we ourselves blame ourselves if, following perverse ways, we are condemned.\n\nLXXXI. The Apostle says: \"We are Jews by nature.\" He shows, therefore, that Jews are born from Jews—I am not speaking of proselytes, who are known to become Jews. Finally, those who were born in the desert are not circumcised—: If, therefore, Jews are born from Jews, why are Christians not also born from Christians? For pagans are also born from pagans.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":154,"ref":"p154","source":"Non omne quod nascitur hoc est, quod et unde nascitur. nam et aurum de terra nascitur, et non tamen terra est, et gemmae et alia multa, et de ligno esca nascitur et de pullo ouum. de paganis autem ut pagani nascantur, haec facit causa: quia enim omnis paganus in ignorantia est et qui nascitur ex eo sine sensu est, ambo ignorantes sunt. sed hoc interest inter utrumque, quia generator sine dubio blasfemus est ac per hoc filius diaboli est; natus autem infans nescit blasfemare, sicut nescit benedicere; paganus tamen est, quia sine sensu est. de Iudaeo autem idcirco Iudaeus nascitur, quia sub creatoris deuotione generatur, sicut dixit Adam de Cain: procreaui hominem per deum. sicut enim pagani indeuoti creatori daemoniis gratias agunt in omnibus quae agunt, ita et Iudaei deo creatori supplices laudant eum in omni actu suo, in eo despiciendi quia non cognoscunt Christum, per quem sunt omnia. hoc etiam modo de Iudaeo Iudaeus nascitur, non enim, sicut quibusdam uidetur, quia circumcisio facit Iudaeum. circumcisio enim signum Iudaismi est, non Iudaismus, quia non in Abraham circumcisio iustitia est. sed signum iustitiae, ut nati ex Abraham signum haberent. per quod probarentur filii esse Abrahae, quippe cum ex Iuda Machabeo hoc nomine sint appellati, ut non solum ex Iuda. sed et ceteri ex omnibus filiis Iacob Iudaei uocarentur, propter quod ludas dux fuerit eis.","english":"Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold is born from the earth, and yet it is not earth; and gems and many other things are born from the earth; and food is born from wood, and an egg from a bird. But that pagans are born as pagans, this cause produces: because every pagan is in ignorance, and the one who is born from him is without sense; both are ignorant. But there is this difference between the two: the begetter is without doubt a blasphemer and on that account is a son of the devil; the infant who is born, however, does not know how to blaspheme, just as he does not know how to bless; yet he is a pagan, because he is without sense. But a Jew is born a Jew for this reason, because he is begotten under devotion to the Creator, just as Adam said of Cain: \"I have procreated a man through God.\" For just as pagans, undevoted to the Creator, give thanks to demons in everything they do, so also Jews, suppliant to the Creator God, praise Him in every act of theirs, being contemptible in this, that they do not know Christ, through whom all things exist. In this way also a Jew is born a Jew; for it is not, as it seems to some, because circumcision makes a Jew. For circumcision is a sign of Judaism, not Judaism itself, because in Abraham circumcision was not righteousness, but a sign of righteousness, so that those born from Abraham would have a sign, through which they would be proven to be sons of Abraham, especially since from Judas Maccabeus they were called by this name, so that not only those from Judah, but also the rest from all the sons of Jacob were called Jews, because Judas was their leader.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":155,"ref":"p155","source":"ideoque nati Iudaei signum accipiunt, ut qui sunt intellegantur.\n\n. 2. De Christiano autem ideo non nascitur Christianus, quia ipse qui generat non natus, sed factus est Christianus. quam 01, rem et istum qui nascitur fieri oportet, ut sit. nec enim per substantiam nascitur, sed per fidem quae iam natis accedit. ignorantia enim cum carne nascitur, fides autem postea spiritali ratione inseritur. sed dicitur e contra: 'si factus utique est qui generat, hoc iam debet generare, quod ipse est, ut accepta dignitas traducem faceret. nam senatores generant senatores.' sed senatorum dignitas non habet apud deum meritum, neque ipsa natura, hoc est substantia, consequitur beneficium, sed in sola fama et sermone dignitas uertitur. ac per hoc currit quidem sermo per traducem carnis, sed nihil aliud praestat, quam opinionem dignitatis, sicut et hi, qui consules sunt aut statuis honestantur, gaudent in uano. Christiani autem cum fiunt, ipsi naturae accedit dignitas, ut essentia ipsa hominis aeternum habeat incorruptibilitatis beneficium, ut non opinione sola, sed et j-e sit in effectum apud deum. tale est istud, ut si qui disertus pauper in laude sit et egeat pane aut reliquis necessariis.","english":"Therefore, the Jews receive a sign at birth, so that they may be understood for who they are.\n\n2. A Christian, however, is not born from a Christian, because the one who begets was not born a Christian, but was made one. For this reason, the one who is born must also become a Christian in order to be one. For he is not born through substance, but through faith, which comes to those already born. Ignorance, indeed, is born with the flesh, but faith is later instilled by spiritual reasoning. But it is argued on the contrary: \"If the one who begets was made, he ought to beget what he himself is, so that the dignity he received would be transmitted. For senators beget senators.\" But the dignity of senators has no merit before God, nor does nature itself—that is, substance—obtain the benefit; rather, the dignity consists solely in reputation and speech. And through this, speech indeed runs through the transmission of the flesh, but it provides nothing other than the opinion of dignity, just as those who are consuls or are honored with statues rejoice in vain. Christians, however, when they are made, add dignity to nature itself, so that the very essence of man receives the eternal benefit of incorruptibility, so that it is not only in opinion but also in effect before God. This is like a poor man who is eloquent and praised, yet lacks bread or other necessities.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":156,"ref":"p156","source":"haec enim uera laus est, si sic illi proficiat quaesita dignitas, ut nullius egeat, dum hoc naturae eius praestatur, ut per se ipsa uiuat et bene uiuat nullo requisito suffragio; hoc est uere diuitem fieri et gloriosum.\n\nLXXXII. PAGANOS ELEMENTIS ESSE SUBIECTOS NULLI DUBIUM EST: QVID EST ERGO QVOD APOSTOLUS DICIT: 'ERAMUS ET NOS SUB ELEMENTIS HUIUS MUNDI SERUIENTES'? SI ITAQVE ET IUDAEI ELEMENTIS ERANT SERUIENTES, QVID DIFFEREBANT A PAGANIS?\n\nManifestum est adiectione aut deminutione siue inmutatione syllabae sensum peruerti. idcirco paganos elementa colere omnibus cognitum est, Iudaeos autem non elementis, sed 'sub elementis' deo seruisse propter neumenias et sabbata et circumcisionem et cetera talia. haec enim carnalia sunt; quidquid enim uisibile est, carnale est et de elementis est. sed quia ei praecepto dei erat, deo seruiebatur, ut ex uisibilibus ad inuisibilia ueniretur et ex hac cura profectus fieret ad maiora capienda, ut in his meditati digni fierent promissis spiritalibus. ei ea igitur parte, quam supra dixi, sub elementis seruiebant Iudaei, ex alia parte legem habebant spiritalem, quae et peccari prohibet et exhortatur ad dilectionem domini dei, qui uenturus eis fuerat promissus ad remittenda peccata.","english":"For this is true praise, if the dignity sought should benefit him in such a way that he lacks nothing, while this is granted to his nature, that it may live by itself and live well without any required support; this is truly to become rich and glorious.\n\nLXXXII. THAT PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS IS IN DOUBT TO NO ONE: WHAT THEN IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'AND WE WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD'? IF, THEREFORE, THE JEWS ALSO WERE SERVING THE ELEMENTS, HOW DID THEY DIFFER FROM PAGANS?\n\nIt is manifest that by addition or subtraction or change of a syllable the sense is perverted. Therefore, it is known to all that pagans worship the elements, but that the Jews served not the elements, but 'under the elements' for God, on account of the new moons and sabbaths and circumcision and other such things. For these are carnal; for whatever is visible is carnal and is from the elements. But because it was by the command of God, God was served, so that from visible things one might come to invisible things, and from this observance progress might be made toward grasping greater things, so that, meditating in these, they might become worthy of spiritual promises. And so, in that part which I mentioned above, the Jews served under the elements; in another part they had a spiritual law, which both forbids sin and exhorts to the love of the Lord God, who had been promised to them as coming to remit sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":157,"ref":"p157","source":"LXXXIII. SI PER CHRISTUM SALUS ET UERA ET PERFECTA COGNITIO, CUR NON ANTE UENIT, UT ET ANTERIORES NOSTRI, QVI IN IGNORANTIA FUERUNT, ADDISCERENT UERITATEM? DENIQVE POST ADUENTUM CHRISTI MULTI SUNT SALVATI MAGIS QVAM PRIUS. UNDE, SI ANTE UENISSET, MULTO PLURES SALUATI FUISSENT. SI ERGO ITA EST, REPREHENSIBILE UIDETUR.\n\nNulli misericordiam facienti calumniam fieri oportet. in potestate enim dantis est, quando uel quantum uelit misereri. exhortandus est enim huius modi et precibus prouocandus. non contentione a bono opere reuocandus. forte non contradiceretur, si pro hac misericordia uices illi aliqua redderetur. aliquis medicum arguat, qui medicamenta sua et officium gratis inpendet, aut accusabitur tarditas eius ab eis, a quibus non est requisitus?\n\nHaec quidem diximus secundum rationem, sed saluatoris bonitas ista non curat propter inbecillitatem humanam; suam enim sequitur naturam ad faciendam misericordiam. idcirco tunc uenit, quando debuit uenire, uoluntatis suae rationem secutus, non meritorum nostrorum. nam si merita perpendas, uenire non debuit. uenit ergo quando et subueniri debere sciuit et futurum gratum beneficium. si enim ei cui necessitas inminet ante subueniatur, erit quidem gratum, non tamen ualde poterit scire quid sibi praestitum est; si autem in ipsa necessitate posito auxilium feras, sciet quale beneficium consecutus sit.","english":"LXXXIII. If salvation and true and perfect knowledge come through Christ, why did He not come earlier, so that our predecessors, who were in ignorance, might learn the truth? Indeed, after Christ's advent many are saved more than before. Hence, if He had come earlier, many more would have been saved. If this is so, it seems blameworthy.\n\nNo one who shows mercy ought to be slandered. For it is in the power of the giver to decide when or how much he wishes to show mercy. Such a one ought rather to be encouraged and urged by prayers, not dissuaded from a good work by contention. Perhaps there would be no objection if some return were given to him for this mercy. Would someone accuse a physician who gives his medicines and his service for free, or would his slowness be blamed by those who did not ask for him?\n\nThese things we have said according to reason, but the Savior's goodness does not concern itself with this because of human weakness; for it follows its own nature in showing mercy. Therefore He came at the time when He ought to come, following the reason of His own will, not our merits. For if you weigh merits, He ought not to have come. He came, then, when He knew help ought to be given and the benefit would be welcome. For if help is given to someone before necessity presses, it will indeed be welcome, yet he will not be able to know fully what has been granted to him; but if you bring aid to him when he is placed in the very necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has received.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":158,"ref":"p158","source":"de tribulatione enim ereptus maiores gratias referet, quo modo si esurienti offeras panem; si autem offeras cum non esurit, non utique tam gratum erit.\n\nIdcirco recte factum est, ut non ante ueniret dominus. primum enim dimisit genus hominum uti uoluntate sua, non sine testimonio sui, quia ex ipsa mundi fabrica et annua munera, quae elementorum ministerio humanis usibus exhiberi decreuit, intellegi et timeri diuinitatem suam uoluit, quippe cum etiam ex traduce primi hominis, deinde Enoch, Noe, notitia eius esset in terris. sed cum languore quodam humani generis obsolescere coepisset cognitio dei inter homines et mores inmutarentur, eligere dignatus est Abraham, in quo forma esset renouatae notitiae dei et morum. et cum adhuc reuerentia segnior esset, postea per Moysen legem litteris dedit, quae neque obsolesceret et magis metum incuteret. maior enim timor est, ubi auctoritas manifesta est. et quia accepta lege gentes spreuerunt non se subicientes ei neque hi qui acceperunt seruauerunt eam, motus dominus misericordia misit filium suum, qui se pro illis offerens et mortem destruens data omnibus remissione peccatorum deo patri illos iustificatos offerret non enim posset descendi ad inferos, nisi per mortem. nec ordo enim nec ratio poscebat eum, qui mortuus non fuisset, intrare ianuas tartari.","english":"For he who is snatched from tribulation will give greater thanks, just as if you offer bread to a hungry man; but if you offer it when he is not hungry, it will certainly not be so welcome.\n\nTherefore it was rightly done that the Lord did not come earlier. For first he allowed the human race to use its own will, not without testimony of himself, because from the very fabric of the world and the annual gifts which he decreed should be exhibited for human uses through the ministry of the elements, he wished his divinity to be understood and feared, especially since even from the stock of the first man, then Enoch, Noah, knowledge of him existed on earth. But when, by a certain languor of the human race, the knowledge of God among men began to grow obsolete and morals were changed, he deigned to choose Abraham, in whom there would be a form of renewed knowledge of God and of morals. And when reverence was still rather sluggish, later through Moses he gave the law in writing, which would neither grow obsolete and would instill greater fear. For the fear is greater where authority is manifest. And because, with the law received, the Gentiles spurned it, not submitting themselves to it, and those who received it did not keep it, the Lord, moved by mercy, sent his Son, who, offering himself for them and destroying death, granting remission of sins to all, would offer them, justified, to God the Father. For he could not descend to the underworld except through death. For neither order nor reason demanded that he who had not died should enter the gates of Tartarus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":159,"ref":"p159","source":"Nonne si quis uult in terra sua barbaros decipere, inmutat se in habitu illorum, ut putetur unus ex his, et sic explorat quo modo illos subuertat? ita factum est et diabolo. quoniam malo more hominem subuerterat. ut in morte remaneret, inuentum est remedium, quo modo quos male tenebat amitteret. ut subintraretur ei et, quem putabat se uelut hominem occidisse, repperiret illum apud inferos deum. quo facto reus inuentus omnes quos tenebat amisit et de cetero aperta est ad caelum uia.\n\nEcce quantum profuit aduentus saluatoris, ut scientes homines, de quo periculo liberati sunt, sine cessatione gratias illi referant! sed forte e contra dicatur: 'si multi ante legem et post legem peccatis pressi totos se carni dederunt et digni fuerunt in tartaro remanere, sine dubio fuerunt qui deuotione et reuerentia creatoris uitam suam naturae lege frenarunt. numquid non etiam hi detenti sunt apud inferos expuncti hac uita? si autem ante uenisset post mortem Adae, liberato Adam qui prior peccauerat ceteris ad caelum aperuerat uiam, ut. quia bene uixerant, agnito creatore defuncti reciperentur in caelum. damnum ergo est, quia non ante uenit Christus.' damnum esse manifestum est, sed quaere iustum an iniustum sit. solent enim damna iusta esse, de quibus queri non liceat. numquid fur deprehensus et iuxta legem in quadruplum condemnatus ausus est queri?","english":"Would not a man, if he wishes to deceive barbarians in their own land, change his appearance to their garb, so that he is thought to be one of them, and thus he spies out how to overthrow them? So it was done with the devil. Since he had overthrown man by an evil custom, so that he remained in death, a remedy was found by which he would lose those whom he held wickedly: that he should be infiltrated, and that he whom the devil thought he had killed as a man would find him to be a god among the dead. By this deed, found guilty, he lost all whom he held, and from then on the way to heaven was opened.\n\nBehold how much the coming of the Savior profited, so that men, knowing from what peril they have been freed, may give thanks to him without ceasing! But perhaps it may be said on the contrary: 'If many before the law and after the law, oppressed by sins, gave themselves entirely to the flesh and deserved to remain in Tartarus, without doubt there were those who, by devotion and reverence for the Creator, restrained their life by the law of nature. Were not even these detained among the dead, blotted out from this life? But if he had come after the death of Adam, Adam who first sinned, having been freed, would have opened the way to heaven for the rest, so that, because they had lived well, having acknowledged the Creator, the dead would be received into heaven. It is therefore a loss that Christ did not come earlier.' That it is a loss is manifest, but consider whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just, about which it is not permitted to complain. Does a thief, caught and condemned by law to fourfold restitution, dare to complain?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":160,"ref":"p160","source":"ac per hoc damnum, quod genus hominum passum est, iuste factum est, unde et permissum est.\n\nQuare et saluator inter ipsa primordia uenire non debuit. citui enim diabolus superbiret, homo factus a deo positus est illi inimicus, ut auxiliis dei munitus, quia inpar erat, resisteret ei accepto mandato. diabolus autem solita subtilitate simulauit se ignorare, quid praeceptum esset a deo, et inuenit Euam instabilem; postea autem promittens illi, quod, si interdictum contigissent, praestaret illis deitatem, circumuenit eos. tunc diabolus superato homine triumfauit, hic uictus genus suum subiecit peccato. quam ob rem iniustum erat uictori uiolenter auferre spolia, quia deus quod facit iuste facit, praeterea cum acerbe peccauerit homo. adsentiens enim contra mandatum creatoris fieri se deum idolatriam admisit, per quod in deum peccauit; ideoque non illi statim debuit subueniri, quippe cum nec paenituerit. nec grata enim fuisset misericordia, si non scisset quid mereretur. quamquam enim omnia possit deus, sed illud facit quod conuenit rationi, ut inreprehensibilis perseueret.","english":"And for this reason the harm which the human race suffered was justly done, and therefore it was permitted.\n\nMoreover, the Savior ought not to have come at the very beginning. For the devil would have quickly grown proud; man, made by God, was set against him as an enemy, so that, fortified by God’s aids—since he was unequal—he might resist him, having received the commandment. But the devil, with his usual cunning, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unstable; afterwards, however, promising them that if they touched the forbidden thing he would bestow divinity upon them, he deceived them. Then the devil, having overcome man, triumphed; the latter, vanquished, subjected his own race to sin. For this reason it was unjust violently to take the spoils from the victor, because God does justly what he does, especially since man had sinned grievously. For by consenting, contrary to the creator’s command, to become a god, he committed idolatry, by which he sinned against God; and therefore he ought not to have been helped immediately, especially since he did not repent. For mercy would not have been welcome if he had not known what he deserved. For although God can do all things, he does only what is consistent with reason, so that he may remain irreproachable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":161,"ref":"p161","source":"LXXXIIII. QVARE LUNAE CURSUM IN KATIONE PASCHAE CUSTODIENTES PAGANOS REPREHENDIMUS, QVIA DIES LUNARES ET MODUM CUSTODIANT?\n\nAbsit a Christianis ne sidera uenerari dicantur, quibus indulta est spiritalis cultura, ut despicientes quae uidentur his, quae inuisibilia et supercaelestia sunt, copulentur, ut haec omnia transcendant futuri cum angelis dei. nam siderum cultores aut cum ipsis erunt aut intra ista. qui enim fieri potest, ut aliquis super haec sit quae colit? pagani itaque non conputum lunae obseruant, sed lunam ipsam uelut deam uenerantur et effectus curriculorum eius adprehendisse se arbitrantes, quid certis diebus agendum quidue cauendum sit. decreuerunt imperio huius uitam et conuersationem suam ordine quodam subicientes, quos, quia extra dei ordinationem haec ausi sunt usurpare, falli frequenter deprehendimus. haec enim luminaria in signa temporum deus constituit, unde et nos numerum lunae custodimus, non illam ipsam excolimus. ut a quarta decima luna, quae nobis secundum legem prima est. rationem paschae obseruemus.","english":"LXXXIIII. Why do we reproach pagans for observing the course of the moon in the calculation of Easter, when they also keep lunar days and their method?\n\nFar be it from Christians to be said to venerate the stars, to whom spiritual cultivation has been granted, so that, despising what is seen, they may be joined to those things which are invisible and supercelestial, and so that they may transcend all these things, being destined to be with the angels of God. For worshippers of the stars will either be with them or within them. For how can it be that someone is above that which he worships? Pagans, therefore, do not observe the computation of the moon, but venerate the moon itself as a goddess, and, thinking they have grasped the effects of its courses, they have decreed what should be done or avoided on certain days, subjecting their life and conduct to its authority in a certain order. We find that they are frequently deceived, because they have dared to usurp these things apart from God's ordinance. For God established these lights as signs of the seasons, whence we also keep the number of the moon, not worshipping the moon itself. So that from the fourteenth moon, which for us is the first according to the Law, we observe the reckoning of Easter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":162,"ref":"p162","source":"omnia enim plena deus instituit; ideoque a decima quarta usque in uigensimam primam, his septem diebus pascha nobis celebrare concessum est, ut de his septem aliqui dies a parasceue usque ad resurrectionem domini concludantur, ut neque tertia decima in passione sit neque quarta decima in resurrectione aut quinta decima ne ante primam secundum nos lunam passio Christi sit neque resurrectio eius non primo die, quo coeptus mundus est.\n\nOmnia enim mundi tempora unius ebdomadae curriculis numerantur, qua deus mundi membra et ornamenta conposuit. sex enim diebus mundum aptauit et septima cessauit, quam sabbatum appellauit. his enim septem diebus totius mundi ratio et numerus continetur. semper enim in se redeuntes multiplicant numerum temporum. post sabbatum enim a primo die repetit semper usque in diem septimum, id est sabbatum, ut resurrectio domini primo die inchoati mundi facta discatur, qui dies dominicus dicitur. ipsum enim fecit dominus unum, qui uespere in septenarium numerum euolutus incipit iterum, ut sit post ebdomadam primus. quod ita decretum ab initio est propter sacramentum incarnationis domini et passionis et resurrectionis. in corpore enim domini totus prope mundus resurrexit et instauratus est.","english":"For all things God established as full; and therefore from the fourteenth to the twenty-first, it has been granted to us to celebrate Easter in these seven days, so that among these seven some days from the Parasceve to the Lord's resurrection may be included, so that neither the thirteenth be in the passion nor the fourteenth in the resurrection nor the fifteenth, nor that the passion of Christ be before the first moon according to us, nor that his resurrection be not on the first day, on which the world was begun.\n\nFor all the times of the world are numbered by the courses of one week, with which God composed the members and ornaments of the world. For in six days he fitted the world and on the seventh he rested, which he called the Sabbath. For in these seven days the whole reason and number of the world is contained. For always returning into themselves they multiply the number of times. For after the Sabbath it always repeats from the first day up to the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, so that the resurrection of the Lord may be understood to have occurred on the first day of the begun world, which is called the Lord's day. For the Lord himself made it one, which, having unfolded into the septenary number in the evening, begins again, so that after the week it is the first. And this was decreed from the beginning because of the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation and passion and resurrection. For in the body of the Lord almost the whole world rose again and was restored.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":163,"ref":"p163","source":"Absolutum est non nos lunam colere, sed numerum, qui per lunae cursum institutus est, custodire. diabolus autem, qui est satanas, ut fallaciae suae auctoritatem aliquam posset adhibere et mendacia sua commenticia ueritate colorare, primo mense quo sacramenta dominica scit celebranda, quia non mediocris potentiae est, paganis quae obseruarent instituit mysteria, ut animas eorum duabus ex causis in errore detineret: ut, quia praeuenit ueritatem fallacia, ueritas fallacia uideretur, quasi antiquitate praeiudicans ueritati; et quia in primo mense, in quo aequinoctium habent Romani, sicuti et nos, ea ipsa obseruatio ab his custoditur, ita ut et per sanguinem dicant expiationem fieri, sicut et nos per crucem. hac uersutia paganos detinet in errore, ut putent ueritatem nostram imitationem potius uideri quam ueritatem, quasi per aemulationem superstitione quadam inuentam. 'nec enim uerum potest', inquiunt, 'aestimari quod postea est inuentum'. sed quia apud nos pro certo ueritas est et ab initio haec est, uirtutum adque prodigiorum signa perhibent testimonium, ut teste uirtute diaboli inprobitas innotescat. quoniam enim sola est, quae facile suadeat haec, contra uersutiam et praeuentum diaboli posita est, ut simulationem eius reuelet. nemo enim etiam inimicorum negare audeat illic esse ueritatem, ubi uirtus apparet.","english":"It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but observe the number, which is established through the course of the moon. But the devil, who is Satan, in order to be able to lend some authority to his deceit and to color his fabricated lies with truth, in the first month in which he knows the Lord’s sacraments are to be celebrated—because he is not of mediocre power—instituted mysteries for the pagans to observe, so that he might hold their souls in error for two reasons: that, because falsehood anticipates truth, truth might seem falsehood, as if antiquity prejudiced truth; and because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, as we do, this same observance is kept by them, so that they even say that expiation is made through blood, just as we do through the cross. By this cunning he holds the pagans in error, so that they think our truth appears rather as an imitation than as truth, as if it were invented through emulation by some superstition. ‘For what is discovered later cannot be considered true,’ they say. But because with us the truth is certain and is this from the beginning, the signs of virtues and prodigies bear witness, so that the devil’s wickedness is made known by the testimony of virtue. For since it is alone, which easily persuades these things, it is set against the cunning and anticipated devil, to reveal his pretense. For no one, not even among enemies, dares to deny that truth is there where virtue appears.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":164,"ref":"p164","source":"LXXXV. QVID EST UT, CUM CONSTET A DAUID USQVE, AD TRANSMIGRATIONEM BABVLONIS SEPTEM ET DECEM ESSE GENERATIONES, EUANGELISTA QVATTUORDECIM DICAT PRAETERMISSO OCHODIA, QVI POST IORAM EST FILIUM IOSAFAT, ET IOAS FILIO OCHODIAE ET AMESSIA FILIO IOAS?\n\nNihil euangelistam quam sensum legis secutum credibile debet uideri, ideoque non inmerito hi ab euangelista sublati sunt de numero ceterorum. sic enim horum continuauit impietas, ut malignum illorum nullum interuallum haberet. a Ioram autem coeptum malignum sic perambulauit usque ad Oziam filium Amessiae, ut nullius lateris esset suffragium, quo ex parte merito patris aliquis horum remaneret in numero regum. nam Ioram maligne agens merito Iosafat remissus in numero est et Ozias merito Ioatham reseruatus in numero est; illorum autem trium continuata malignitas in deum est. Solomon quoque merito patris remissus in regno est et Roboam filius Solomonis maligne agens merito Asaf relictus est in numero regum. illi autem tres in medio malorum conclusi sunt maligne agentes; ideo erasi sunt. peius enim ad perditionem generis exemplum est, quando se iugiter malignitas pandit. et ut proprie dicam: propter quod ex traduce eorum non est Iosef, praetermissi sunt. ab Abraham enim horum generationem secutus est euangelista, ex quibus originem trahit Iosef, cui desponsata Maria genuit Christum.","english":"LXXXV. Why is it that, although it is established that from David up to the Babylonian Captivity there are seventeen generations, the Evangelist says fourteen, omitting Ochozias, who is after Joram the son of Josaphat, and Joas the son of Ochozias, and Amessias the son of Joas?\n\nIt ought to seem credible that the Evangelist followed nothing other than the sense of the law, and therefore these were not undeservedly removed by the Evangelist from the number of the rest. For their impiety continued in such a way that their wickedness had no interval. From Joram, moreover, the wickedness began and proceeded all the way to Ozias the son of Amessias, so that there was no support on any side by which, in part on account of the merit of the father, any of these might remain in the number of the kings. For Joram, acting wickedly, was deservedly omitted from the number on account of the merit of Josaphat, and Ozias was deservedly preserved in the number on account of the merit of Joatham; but the continuous wickedness of those three was against God. Solomon also, on account of the merit of his father, was left in the kingdom, and Roboam the son of Solomon, acting wickedly, was left in the number of the kings on account of the merit of Asa. Those three, however, were enclosed in the midst of the wicked, acting wickedly; therefore they were erased. For it is a worse example for the destruction of the race when wickedness displays itself continuously. And to speak precisely: because from their lineage there is no Joseph, they were omitted. For the Evangelist followed the generation of these from Abraham, from whom Joseph traces his origin, to whom Mary was betrothed, who bore Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":165,"ref":"p165","source":"LXXXVI. QVID EST QVOD PROBET MARIAM MATREM DOMINI EX TRIBU ET SEMINE ESSE DAUID?\n\nIdonei testis proferimus sermonem. dicit enim angelus ad Mariam inter cetera: et dabit illi dominus deus sedem Dauid patris sui, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum, et regni eius non erit finis. quo modo diceretur ab idoneo teste pater eius Dauid, si non esset Maria ex semine Dauid?\n\nLXXXVII. SI UNUS EST DEUS, CUR IN TRIBUS SPES SALUTIS EST, ET NON IN DUOBUS AUT QVATTUOR AUT CERTE IN IPSO UNO? ET QVARE NON EST AB INITIO TRINITAS PRAEDICATA?\n\nNihil paene nouum; sic enim trinitas praedicatur, ut unus deus credatur. non ergo additum est aliquid, sed sacramentum dei unius reuelatum. inter ipsa autem primordia manifestari non oportuit, quia prius praedicandum est et postea id quod praedicatum est reuelandum, ut scias patrem esse, a quo cuncta sunt, filium uero dici, per quem sunt omnia, spiritum autem sanctum appellari, per quem omnia, quae a patre quidem, sed per filium sunt, regenerantur ad fidem dei unius. h ergo tres sunt quidem, sed una diuinitas. ratio igitur facit ut tres sint, non plures aut infra. omnis enim numerus usque ad nouem peruenit, quia tres, dum inuicem in se sunt, faciunt numero nouem, quia in uno tres sunt et tres in unum. qui enim uidet unum, uidet tres, dum nihil differt alter ab altero.","english":"LXXXVI. What proves that Mary the mother of the Lord was from the tribe and seed of David?\n\nWe offer the testimony of a suitable witness. For the angel says to Mary, among other things: \"And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his kingdom.\" How could it be said by a suitable witness that her father was David, if Mary were not from the seed of David?\n\nLXXXVII. If God is one, why is the hope of salvation in three, and not in two or four or certainly in that one alone? And why was the Trinity not proclaimed from the beginning?\n\nAlmost nothing is new; for the Trinity is proclaimed in such a way that one God is believed. Therefore nothing has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed. However, it was not fitting for it to be manifested at the very beginnings, because first the preaching must occur and afterwards that which was preached must be revealed, so that you may know that the Father is, from whom all things are; that the Son is called, through whom all things are; and that the Holy Spirit is named, through whom all things, which are from the Father indeed but through the Son, are regenerated to the faith of the one God. Therefore these are three, indeed, but one divinity. Reason therefore makes them three, not more nor fewer. For every number reaches up to nine, because three, while they are mutually in each other, make the number nine, since in one there are three and three in one. For whoever sees one, sees three, since one differs in nothing from the other.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":166,"ref":"p166","source":"tres ergo unum et ter tres unum; hoc est, in nono numero perfectio est, quantum ad numerum pertinet, quia de uno sunt omnia. addito enim uno, ex quo uel in quo tres qui numerantur nouem, fiunt decem aut XX. semper tamen usque ad nouem uenitur et unus additur, quia nouem unum sunt, ut plena perfectio sit unitatis.\n\nLXXXVIII. SI MAIOR GRATIA ET MANIFESTIOR INTELLEGENTIA IN NOUO EST QVAM IN UETERI, QVARE ESEIAS PROFETA SEDENTEM IN THRONO MAIESTATIS UIDIT DOMINUM SABAOTH, QVI EST CHRISTUS, IUXTA INTERPRETATIONEM IOHANNIS EUANGELISTAE — DIXIT ENIM INTER CETERA: (HAEC LOCUTUS EST ESEIAS. QVANDO UIDIT MAIESTATEM EIUS ET LOCUTUS EST DE EO' —, IN NOUO AUTEM STEPHANUS PRIMUS MARTVR STANTEM UIDISSE SE DICIT IESUM A DEXTRIS DEI? QVID EST ISTUD UT HIC QVASI SUBIECTCS UIDEATUR POST TRIUMPHOS ET ILLIC QVASI DOMINUS, ANTEQVAM UINCERET?\n\nProut causa se fecit, ita et dominus se ostendit. profetae enim uisus est quasi rex corripiens plebem et hoc se ostendit quod erat; in pace enim erat causa deitatis eius. Stephano autem ut stans appareret, fecit calumnia Iudaeorum. in Stephano autem saluatoris causa uim patiebatur; ideo sedente iudice deo stans apparuit, quasi qui causam diceret, et quia bona causa eius est, ad dexteram iudicis erat. omnis enim qui causam dicit, stet necesse est.","english":"three therefore one, and three times three one; that is, in the number nine there is perfection, as far as number is concerned, because all things come from one. For when one is added, from which or in which the three that are counted become nine, they become ten or twenty. Yet one always reaches nine and one is added, because nine are one, so that the full perfection of unity may be.\n\nLXXXVIII. If there is greater grace and more manifest understanding in the New than in the Old, why did the prophet Isaiah see the Lord Sabaoth, who is Christ, sitting on the throne of majesty, according to the interpretation of John the Evangelist—for he said among other things: \"This is what Isaiah said when he saw his majesty and spoke about him\"—, whereas in the New Testament Stephen the first martyr says he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God? What is this, that here he seems almost subject after triumphs, and there almost as lord, before he had conquered?\n\nAs the case itself demanded, so the Lord showed himself. For to the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people, and he showed himself as he was; for the cause of his divinity was at peace. But for Stephen to appear standing, the malice of the Jews brought it about. In Stephen, the cause of the Savior was suffering violence; therefore, with God sitting as judge, he appeared standing, as one who was pleading a case, and because his case is good, he was at the right hand of the judge. For everyone who pleads a case must stand.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":167,"ref":"p167","source":"LXXXVIIII.\n\nSALUATOR INTER CETERA DICIT DE SPIRITU SANCTO, QVOD 'UENIENS,' INQVIT, 'ILLE ARGUET MUNDUM DE PECCATO ET DE IUSTITIA ET DE IUDICIO: DE PECCATO QVIDEM, QVIA NON CREDUNT IN ME; DE IUSTITIA UERO, QVIA EO AD PATREM ET IAM NON HDEBITIS ME; DE IUDICIO AUTEM, QVIA PRINCEPS MUNDI HUIUS IUDICATUS EST.' CAUSAM QVIDEM UIDETUR DIXISSE ARGUENDI MUNDI, SED INDIGET EXPLANATIONE.\n\nCum saluatori non crederent Iudaei neque mundanae potestates — quia non solum hominibus se manifestari uoluit, sed et principibus et potestatibus in caelestibus, sicut docet apostolus in epistula ad Efesios —, post passionem suam uera se locutum spiritum sanctum probaturum ostendit. et hoc est 'arguere mundum', ostendere illi uera esse quae credere noluit. credere enim noluit a deo uenisse saluatorem. saluator autem seruata iustitia non trepidauit reuerti ad eum qui se miserat, et per id quod regressus est, probauit se inde uenisse, quia nemo ascendit ad deum, nisi qui descendit a deo. uidentes ergo potestates ascendere eum confusae sunt, uidentes uerum esse quod uelut falsum spreuerant. itaque ista iustitia arguit eos, qua iustum probatum est, quia regressus est unde uenerat. sic autem arguit eos de peccato, quia non solum credere ei noluerunt, sed et occiderunt eum. de iudicio uero sic eos corripuit, dum ostendit principem mundi reum factum et conpressum ab eo, cuius fidei non communicarunt.","english":"LXXXIX.\n\nTHE SAVIOR SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT 'COMING,' HE SAYS, 'HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN AND CONCERNING JUSTICE AND CONCERNING JUDGMENT: CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ME; CONCERNING JUSTICE HOWEVER, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER AND YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE ME; CONCERNING JUDGMENT MOREOVER, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED.' HE SEEMS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR CONVICTING THE WORLD, BUT IT NEEDS EXPLANATION.\n\nSince the Jews and the worldly powers did not believe the savior — because he wished to manifest himself not only to men, but also to princes and powers in the heavens, as the apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians —, after his passion he shows that the Holy Spirit will prove that he spoke truly. And this is 'to convict the world,' to show it that those things are true which it was unwilling to believe. For it was unwilling to believe that the savior had come from God. The savior, however, having preserved justice, did not hesitate to return to the one who had sent him, and by the fact that he returned, he proved that he had come from there, because no one ascends to God except he who descended from God. Therefore, seeing him ascend, the powers were confounded, seeing that it was true which they had spurned as false. Thus that justice convicts them, by which it was proven just that he returned whence he had come. In this way, however, he convicts them concerning sin, because they were not only unwilling to believe in him, but also killed him. Concerning judgment indeed, he thus reproached them, while he showed the prince of the world to have been made guilty and subdued by him, in whose faith they did not share.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":168,"ref":"p168","source":"uidentes enim animas de inferis ire in caelos cognouerunt adiudicatum esse principem huius mundi, ut reus factus in causa saluatoris quae tenebat amitteret.\n\nHaec quidem ascendente saluatore uisa sunt, sed superueniente in discipulos spiritu sancto palam aperteque manifestata sunt. uera enim correptio tunc fuit, quando post passionem ad testimonium saluatoris publice a perfidis uidebantur resurgentes mortui, claudi currentes, leprosi mundati, paralytici confirmati, caeci aspicere, surdi audire, muti eloqui, daemoniatici purgati, infirmi recuperata sanitate gratias agere. hoc modo spiritus sanctus arguit mundum, quia in nomine saluatoris, qui reprobatus est a mundo, omnium curationum uirtutes operatus est.\n\nXC. SI DIABOLUS IPSE EST SATANAS, QVID EST UT INTER CETERA DICAT AD IUDAEOS SALUATOR: 'UOS DE PATRE DIABOLO ESTIS ET CONCUPISCENTIAS PATRIS UESTRI UULTIS FACERE. ILLE HOMICIDA FUIT AB INITIO ET IN UERITATE NON STETIT, QVIA UERITAS NON EST IN EO. CUM LOQVITUR MENDACIUM, EX SUIS PROPRIIS LOQVITUR, QVIA MENDAX EST, SICUT ET PATER EIUS'?","english":"For seeing souls going from the underworld into the heavens, they recognized that the prince of this world had been judged, so that, having been made guilty in the case of the Savior, he would lose what he held.\n\nThese things were indeed seen when the Savior ascended, but with the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples they were openly and clearly manifested. For the true reproof was then, when after the Passion, for the testimony of the Savior, the dead rising, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics strengthened, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, demoniacs purified, the sick restored to health giving thanks were publicly seen by the faithless. In this way the Holy Spirit convicts the world, because in the name of the Savior, who was rejected by the world, he worked the powers of all healings.\n\nXC. WHETHER THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, WHAT IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: 'YOU ARE FROM THE FATHER DEVIL AND YOU WANT TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM HIS OWN, BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR, JUST AS HIS FATHER IS'?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":169,"ref":"p169","source":"Diabolus non speciale nomen est, sed commune. in quocumque enim opera diaboli fuerint inuenta, sine dubio diabolus appellandus est. operis enim nomen est, non naturae. itaque hoc in loco patrem Iudaeorum Cain significat, cuius imitatores uolentes esse saluatorem peremerunt Iudaei. hunc dicit, quia se parricidio maculauit et reum fecit mortis, in ueritate non stetisse. ab ipso autem forma data est fratricidii. istum ipsum dicit, cum loquitur mendacium, de suis propriis loqui, ut ostenderet unum quemque non nisi propria uoluntate peccare. sed quia imitator diaboli est, adiecit: quia mendax eat, sicut et pater eius. hic enim ut primum hominem morte condemnaret, simulauit se nescisse quid praeceptum fuisset a deo. similiter et Cain interrogatus finxit se nescire, ubi esset frater suus Abel, quem occiderat. hoc ergo in loco diabolum Cain esse dixit, patrem autem eius diabolum, cuius opera secutus est; diaboli enim filius diabolus est. sed diabolus ille, qui et satanas, patrem in malitia sua nullum habet; ipse enim sibi in malo auctor est. prior enim ipse peccauit, ac per hoc quicumque imitati illum fuerint filii eius dicentur, et ille pater eorum. etenim nos in fide Abraham patrem habemus, quia prior ipse credidit deo, ac per hoc nomine eius censemur; fideles enim dicimur sicut et ille.","english":"Diabolus\" is not a proper name, but a common one. For in whomever the works of the devil are found, that one is without doubt to be called a devil. For it is a name of a work, not of a nature. Therefore in this passage \"the father\" signifies Cain of the Jews, whose imitators the Jews, wishing to be, killed the Savior. It says of him that, because he stained himself with parricide and made himself guilty of death, he did not stand in the truth. Moreover, from him the pattern of fratricide was given. It speaks of this same one, when it speaks a lie, as speaking from his own, to show that each one sins only by his own will. But because he is an imitator of the devil, it added: because the liar goes, just as his father does. For this one, in order to condemn the first man to death, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God. Similarly, Cain, when questioned, pretended not to know where his brother Abel, whom he had killed, was. Therefore in this passage it said that the devil is Cain, but his father is the devil, whose works he followed; for a son of the devil is a devil. But that devil, who is also Satan, has no father in his own malice; for he himself is the author of evil for himself. For he sinned first, and by this whoever imitates him will be called his sons, and he their father. For we also have Abraham as a father in faith, because he first believed in God, and by this we are counted under his name; for we are called faithful, just as he is.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":170,"ref":"p170","source":"XCI. QVAERENDUM QVO MODO CONTRADICENDUM SINE ARGUMENTIS FOTINO SIT CHRISTUM ANTE MARIAM ESSE.\n\nA Iohanne prius quaeramus baptista, quem ipse saluator testem suum esse professus est. ait enim inter cetera de domino: qui de sursum uenit, super omnes est; qui autem de terra est, de terra et loquitur; qui uero de caelo uenit, quod uidit et audiuit, testificatur et testimonium eius nemo accipit. ecce Iohannes omnes secum pariter ad conparationem domini terrestres appellat, quia illum de caelis testatur uenisse, ceteros uero omnes de terra esse, hoc est de inferioribus. et ipse dominus inter cetera eadem loquitur dicens: non enim descendi de caelo ut faciam uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius, qui me misit. patris. et iterum dominus inter alia hoc sensu loquitur dicens: et nunc dico uobis, quia ego rogabo patrem. ipse enim pater diligit uos, quia uos me diligitis et creditis quia ego a deo exiui patre et ueni in hunc mundum; iterum relinquo mundum et uado ad patrem. tunc uidentes discipuli manifeste illum esse locutum dicunt ei: ecce nunc palam loqueris et prouerbium nullum dicis; nunc scimus quoniam scis omnia, et non opus est tibi ut quis te interroget; in hoc credimus, quoniam a deo existi. haec interpretatione non indigent, quippe cum ista summa sit religionis nostrae, ut Christum ante carnem in caelis cum deo fuisse credamus ut filium apud patrem.","english":"XCI. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED HOW ONE MAY CONTRADICT PHOTINUS WITHOUT ARGUMENTS, THAT CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE MARY.\n\nLet us first inquire of John the Baptist, whom the Savior himself professed to be his witness. For he says, among other things, concerning the Lord: \"He who comes from above is over all; but he who is from the earth speaks of the earth; but he who comes from heaven testifies to what he saw and heard, and no one accepts his testimony.\" Behold, John calls all men together, in comparison to the Lord, earthly, because he testifies that the Lord came from the heavens, but that all others are from the earth, that is, from lower things. And the Lord himself speaks to the same effect among other things, saying: \"For I did not descend from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father.\" And again, the Lord speaks in this sense among other things, saying: \"And now I say to you, that I will ask the Father. For the Father himself loves you, because you love me and believe that I came out from God the Father and came into this world; again I leave the world and go to the Father.\" Then the disciples, seeing that he had spoken plainly, say to him: \"Behold, now you speak openly and speak no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for you to be questioned by anyone; in this we believe, that you came out from God.\" These things need no interpretation, since this is the summit of our religion, that we believe Christ, before his flesh, was in the heavens with God as Son with the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":171,"ref":"p171","source":"Nam si propter iustam conuersationem et caelestem doctrinam de caelo et a deo se dixit exisse et uenisse in mundum, eadem debuerant dicere de se omnes profetae et apostoli. et quia dixit: iterum relinquo mundum et uado ad patrem, hoc forte dicatur significasse, quia doctrina, quae uenerat a deo, relicto mundo ad deum est regressa. aliud enim quod dicant non habent. si enim de caelo uenisse et a deo exisse et uenisse in hunc mundum ad uirtutis et doctrinae pertinet causam, non ad saluatoris personam, cum dicit: iterum relinquo mundum et uado ad patrem, illo autem redit unde uenerat, sed uidemus post abscessum domini et uirtutem in mundo fuisse et doctrinam, uides ergo non de uirtute dictum esse a domino et doctrina, sed specialiter de se dominum locutum.\n\nQuod si uirtutis, quae in Christo operata est, dicis esse uerba, haec ipsa uirtus deum patrem suum appellat. ecce incurris quod times, quia si uirtus dei filius dei est, ipsa utique uirtus est, de qua dicit apostolus: Christum dei uirtutem et dei sapientiam; haec exiuit a deo et iterum ad deum regressa est. itaque haec ipsa uirtus, quae Christus est, in spiritu dei daemonia se testatur eicere.","english":"For if, on account of his righteous conduct and heavenly teaching, he said that he had come forth from heaven and from God and had come into the world, all the prophets and apostles ought to have said the same about themselves. And because he said, \"I leave the world again and go to the Father,\" this might perhaps be said to have signified that the teaching, which had come from God, returned to God after leaving the world. For they have nothing else to say. For if coming from heaven and going forth from God and coming into this world pertains to the cause of virtue and teaching, not to the person of the Savior, when he says, \"I leave the world again and go to the Father,\" he returns whence he came. But we see that after the Lord's departure both virtue and teaching were in the world. You see, therefore, that it was not said by the Lord concerning virtue and teaching, but that the Lord spoke specifically about himself.\n\nBut if you say that these are the words of the virtue which worked in Christ, this very virtue calls God its father. Behold, you fall into what you fear, because if the virtue of God is the Son of God, it is certainly that virtue of which the apostle says: \"Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God\"; this went forth from God and returned again to God. And so this very virtue, which is Christ, testifies that it casts out demons in the spirit of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":172,"ref":"p172","source":"qui spiritus per apostolos operatus est, ut scias sanctum spiritum, per quem dominus operatus est, post abscessum domini hic in mundo in apostolos operatum, ut plenius appareat dominum de sua persona locutum, quia relicto mundo regressus est ad deum. aut si putas uirtutem hanc non esse Christum, duae erunt uirtutes et duo filii dei; et ubi est illud quod legitur: unigenitus filius dei, qui est in sinu patris, et iterum: sic enim, inquit, dilexit deus mundum hunc, ut filium suum unicum daret pro eo? animaduertis iam uirtutem dei, quae operata est corporata in mundo, ipsam unam esse. quae et dei uirtus dicatur et filius. et uideamus quid crediderint aut cui apostoli audientes a domino: ecce iterum relinquo mundum et uado ad patrem responderunt ei: ecce nunc palam loqueris et prouerbium nullum dicis; nunc scimus quoniam nosti omnia, et non opus est tibi ut quis te interroget; in hoc credimus, quoniam a deo existi.","english":"the Spirit who worked through the apostles, so that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord worked, after the Lord's departure worked here in the world in the apostles, so that it might appear more fully that the Lord spoke concerning his own person, because, having left the world, he returned to God. But if you think that this power is not Christ, there will be two powers and two sons of God; and where is that which is read: \"the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father,\" and again: \"For thus,\" he says, \"God loved this world, that he gave his only Son for it\"? Do you now perceive that the power of God, which worked incarnate in the world, is itself one? which is called both the power of God and the Son. And let us see what the apostles believed or to whom, when they heard from the Lord: \"Behold, I again leave the world and go to the Father,\" they answered him: \"Behold, now you speak plainly and utter no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; in this we believe, that you came forth from God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":173,"ref":"p173","source":"Nunc uideamus si de uirtutibus ambigerent discipuli. utrum ex deo essent, cum uiderent Lazarum iam fetidum quarta die resuscitatum, caeco a natiuitate oculos reformatos. tactu fimbriae mulierem a profluuio liberatam, aquae naturam inmutatam in uinum, an de persona domini. nemo plane dubitauit de uirtutibus, quippe cum dicerent illum alii esse Heliam. alii Hieremiam aut unum ex profetis. nam cum lapidare uellent illum Iudaei, respondit eis Iesus: multa opera bona ostendi uobis a patre meo; propter quod eorum opus lapida. tis me? dixerunt ei Iudaei: nos de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed propter blasfemiam, quia, cum sis homo, facis te deum. si igitur Iudaei quod dei opera essent non ambigebant, apostoli ambigebant?\n\nQuoniam ergo omnis dubitatio de saluatoris persona erat — res enim inaudita et quae in sensum humanum non ruerat stuporem hominibus faciebat, cum audiebant dicentem illum se a deo exisse et proprium sibi patrem esse deum —, idcirco discipuli satis sibi factum confitentes manifestatione uerborum domini dixerunt ad eum: nunc scimus quoniam nosti omnia, et non opus est ut quis te interroget; in hoc credimus, quoniam a deo existi. si enim non uere a deo exiuit, fides apostolorum exinanitur; sed non potest, quia a saluatore probata est. respondit enim eis; modo creditis, id est (tanta signa uidentes non credebatis'.","english":"Now let us see whether the disciples doubted concerning the miracles—whether they were from God—when they saw Lazarus, already stinking, raised on the fourth day, the eyes of a man blind from birth restored, a woman freed from a hemorrhage by the touch of a fringe, the nature of water changed into wine, or concerning the person of the Lord. No one plainly doubted the miracles, especially since they said that he was either Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the prophets. For when the Jews wanted to stone him, Jesus answered them: \"I have shown you many good works from my father; for which of these works do you stone me?\" The Jews said to him: \"We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because, though you are a man, you make yourself God.\" If, therefore, the Jews did not doubt that these were works of God, did the apostles doubt?\n\nSince, therefore, every doubt was concerning the person of the Savior—for the thing was unheard of and had not entered into human understanding, causing astonishment in men when they heard him say that he had come forth from God and that God was his own father—for this reason the disciples, satisfied and confessing by the manifestation of the Lord's words, said to him: \"Now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; in this we believe, that you have come forth from God.\" For if he did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the apostles is emptied; but this cannot be, because it was approved by the Savior. For he answered them: \"Now you believe,\" that is, 'though you saw such great signs, you did not believe.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":174,"ref":"p174","source":"itaque probatum est apostolis Christum a deo exisse et uenisse, ut per hanc eiitionem filium istum dei credere non esset ambiguum. si enim nemo uidit deum, nisi qui est a deo hie uidit deum, et si nemo nouit patrem nisi filius - hoc est uere apud deum fuisse et ab eo exisse et uenisse; nemo enim alius poterat a deo exire, nisi hic qui in principio erat apud deum, quia et nec quisquam alius sciebat aut uiderat deum —, ideo non incredibile nobis est uerum filium hunc dei credere, sicut dixit Iohannes in epistula prima: et sumus, inquit, in uero filio eius Iesu Christo. hic est uerus et uita aeterna, et apostolus: qui proprio, inquit, filio non pepercit, et euangelista: quia proprium, ait, sibi patrem dicebat deum.\n\nSi uerus ergo filius dei est Christus, quo modo homo tantum est? uerus enim non diceretur, nisi proprie ab eo esset genitus. aut dicat Fotinus, quare uere filius dei creditur, si non est uerus. aut quod opus erat hunc credere filium dei, si unus esset de ceteris sanctis, qui filii dei digni sunt appellari? aut numquid aliqua indignitas in hoc est, per quam filius dei, sicut ceteri sunt, credi non posset, et idcirco dicitur, ut hic, de quo incredulum uidetur, credatur esse filius dei?","english":"Thus it was proven to the apostles that Christ came forth from God and arrived, so that through this going forth it would not be ambiguous to believe that this one was the Son of God. For if no one has seen God except one who is from God—this one has seen God—and if no one has known the Father except the Son—this means truly to have been with God and to have come forth from Him and arrived; for no one else could come forth from God except this one who was in the beginning with God, because no one else knew or had seen God—therefore it is not incredible to us to believe that this one is the true Son of God, as John said in his first epistle: \"And we are,\" he says, \"in His true Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true one and eternal life,\" and the Apostle: \"Who,\" he says, \"did not spare His own Son,\" and the Evangelist: \"Because,\" he says, \"He called God His own Father.\"\n\nIf, then, Christ is the true Son of God, how is He only a man? For He would not be called true unless He had been begotten by Him in a proper sense. Either let Photinus say why He is believed to be truly the Son of God, if He is not true. Or what need was there to believe that this one is the Son of God, if He were one among the other saints who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there some indignity in this, through which He could not be believed to be the Son of God as the others are, and is it therefore said, so that this one, about whom it seems incredible, might be believed to be the Son of God?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":175,"ref":"p175","source":"si enim potior est ceteris, quod opus est ut dicatur: 'crede Christum filium esse dei', nisi quia, ut aliter de hoc credatur, praecipitur quam de ceteris, ut, quia multi sunt qui filii dei sanctitatis causa appellantur, hic solus uerus dei filius credatur, unde et unicus dicitur? nam quis sanctorum ausus fuit filium dei se dicere, non dicam et uerum, nisi saluator conscius natiuitatis suae a deo profectae? quo modo autem pateretur se adorari, si nesciret se esse de deo, cum scriptum sit: dominum deum tuum adorabis et ipsi soli seruies, quippe cum Iohannem angelus corripuerit, eo quod adorare se uellet, dicens ei: ne feceris, quia conseruus tuus sum; deum adora, et, cum soli deo seruiendum scriptura testetur, apostolus: qui seruit, inquit, Christo, placet deo? quare? quia unum sunt deus et Christus, pater et filius.\n\nApostolus se Christi seruum fatetur et dicit Corinthiis: nolite fieri serui hominum, et ad Galatas: Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum et deum patrem, qui suscitauit eum a mortuis. ostendit aperte Christum deum esse et hominem, ut apostolatum suum non ab homine sed a Christo, iuxta quod deus est, et a patre deo esse monstraret. denique in subiectis ait: neque enim ego ab homine accepi illud neque didici, sed per reuelationem Iesu Christi. quid tam apertum ?","english":"For if he is more powerful than the others, what need is there to say: 'Believe that Christ is the Son of God,' unless it is commanded that one believe this differently than about the others, so that, because there are many who are called sons of God by reason of holiness, this one alone is believed to be the true Son of God, whence he is also called the only-begotten? For which of the saints dared to call himself the Son of God, let alone the true one, except the Savior, conscious of his birth proceeding from God? But how would he allow himself to be adored, if he did not know that he was from God, since it is written: 'You shall adore the Lord your God and serve him alone,' especially since the angel rebuked John, because he wanted to adore him, saying to him: 'Do not do it, for I am your fellow servant; adore God,' and, since Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, why does the apostle say: 'He who serves Christ pleases God'? Because God and Christ, Father and Son, are one.\n\nThe apostle declares himself a servant of Christ and says to the Corinthians: 'Do not become servants of men,' and to the Galatians: 'Paul the apostle, not by men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.' He clearly shows that Christ is God and man, so that he might demonstrate that his apostleship was not from man but from Christ, according to what he is as God, and from God the Father. Finally, in the following he says: 'For I did not receive that from man nor learn it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.' What could be clearer?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":176,"ref":"p176","source":"dei enim doctrinam non per hominem dicit se adsecutum, sed ab ipso deo doctum. nam nos dei doctrinam per homines accepimus, uas autem electionis nihil se probat ab apostolis adsecutum, hoc est ab hominibus. nam si, quia dei doctrina est, ideo non per hominem discitur, quam laudem suam testatur apostolus, si sic didicit, sicut ceteri populi?\n\nUt quid et dicit: neque ego ab homine accepi illud neque edoctus sum, sed per reuelationem Iesu Christi? quis ambigat hoc loco Christum deum significatum? sed quid mirum, cum inter cetera dicat ad Romanos: quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus, benedictus in saecula? quid est 'et ei quibus Christus secundum carnem'? non enim hoc diceret, nisi esset et secundum deum, ut secundum carnem ex patribus, secundum diuinitatem uero ex deo Christus sit super omnia deus. 'sed forte ad patris personam pertinere dicatur.' sed hoc loco nulla est paterni nominis mentio ideoque, si de Christo dictum negatur, persona cui conpetat detur. quare autem Christo non conpetat, cuius nomini caelestia et terrestria et inferna genu flectunt? hoc est super omnia esse deum; praeter haec enim alia nulla sunt. dicat nunc Fotinus, si haec homini genu flectunt aut si deus potentias illas caelestes et sanctos angelos, ut hominem adorent, decreuit.","english":"For he says that he attained the teaching of God not through a man, but was taught by God himself. For we received the teaching of God through men, but the vessel of election proves that he attained nothing from the apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is the teaching of God, it is therefore not learned through a man, what praise does the apostle testify for himself, if he learned in the same way as the rest of the peoples?\n\nWhy then does he also say: 'Neither did I receive it from a man nor was I taught, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ'? Who doubts that in this passage Christ is signified as God? But what wonder, since among other things he says to the Romans: 'whose fathers and from whom Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever'? What does 'and to whom Christ according to the flesh' mean? For he would not say this unless he were also according to God, so that according to the flesh he is from the fathers, but according to divinity Christ is from God, God over all. 'But perhaps it is said to pertain to the person of the Father.' But in this passage there is no mention of the Father's name, and therefore, if it is denied that it is said of Christ, let a person to whom it applies be given. For why should it not apply to Christ, to whose name the heavens, the earth, and the underworld bow? This is to be God over all; for besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bow to a man, or whether God decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels adore a man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":177,"ref":"p177","source":"sed absit, quia deus nihil stultum decernit, maxime cum non liceat nisi deum adorari; quanto magis in caelis! rex enim adoratur in terris quasi uicarius dei, Christus autem post uicariam impleta dispensatione adoratur in caelis et in terra.\n\nLegimus namque quia uerbum caro factum est, hoc est ministro sancto spiritu incarnatum esse ex Maria, hoc uerbum in principio apud deum fuisse et deum esse, hoc quoque filium dei appellari. quo modo ergo non ante Mariam est, quod et in principio erat et deus erat? etiam si obcaecatus deum hoc esse neges uerbum, tamen non negas neque ignoras hoc uerbum filium dei appellatum et hoc apud deum fuisse in principio. qua ergo ratione post Mariam dicis esse, quod in principio legis fuisse? in Apocalypsi enim legimus de Christo: et nomen eius est uerbum dei, quod uerbum multas habet interpretationes. nam nihil de deo est quod non deus dicatur, sed propter auctoritatem unius dei quod de ipso natum est uerbum appellauit, ut hac ratione ducti, qua scimus uerba nostra non nisi ex nobis esse, Christum de deo esse crederemus.","english":"But far be it, because God decrees nothing foolish, especially since it is not permitted to worship anyone but God; how much more so in the heavens! For a king is worshipped on earth as a vicar of God, but Christ, after fulfilling his vicarious dispensation, is worshipped in the heavens and on earth.\n\nFor we read that the Word became flesh, that is, was incarnated from Mary through the Holy Spirit, that this Word was with God in the beginning and was God, and that this is also called the Son of God. How then is it not before Mary, that which was both in the beginning and was God? Even if, blinded, you deny that this Word is God, yet you do not deny nor are you ignorant that this Word is called the Son of God and that this was with God in the beginning. By what reasoning, then, do you say it is after Mary, that which you read was in the beginning? For in the Apocalypse we read of Christ: \"And his name is the Word of God,\" which Word has many interpretations. For nothing of God is not called God, but for the authority of the one God, that which was born from him he called \"Word,\" so that, led by this reasoning—by which we know that our words are only from us—we might believe that Christ is from God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":178,"ref":"p178","source":"Nec aliter quidem oportuit dici, 'ut de ipso et non extra eum crederetur. nam simili modo et uirtus et sapientia dei uocatur, ut eadem ratione de ipso intellegatur. si enim dixisset (deus et deus\\\\ non illum de se esse significauerat, sed duos deos fecerat, quod unitati aduersum est. haec ratio in diuinis libris est, ut significatus deus Christus modum non excedat dei unius.\n\nQuam autem illud tuum stultum est, Fotine, quod sic distinguis in capite euangelii Iohannis, ne uerbum deus dicatur? sic enim legis: in principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat. uerbum hoc in principio erat apud deum quid sibi uult haec distinctio? quem indicat sensum? quam significat pietatis rationem, nisi solam aduersus dei filium inimicitiam? quae enim significatio est pronuntiantis: et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat? haec ergo legis nostrae sapientia est, ut doceat quia est deus? quae lingua est, quae gens, quae terra, quae secta, quae neget deum esse? et ut quid insinuet dicit: et uerbum erat apud deum? aut uerbum hoc quid uult intellegi, nisi rationem eius ostendat? non enim propter deum euangelium scribitur, de quo nemo dubitat, sed propter uerbum de quo quaestiones fiunt. mysterium enim dei est, quod ideo creditur, quia non est omnibus manifestum. ideoque scriptura contendit docere quid sit uerbum dicens: et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat uerbum.","english":"It could not have been said otherwise, so that it would be believed concerning Him and not apart from Him. For in a similar way, He is called both the power and the wisdom of God, so that by the same reasoning He is understood to be from Him. For if He had said \"God and God,\" He would not have signified that He is from Him, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the reasoning in the divine books, that Christ, signified as God, does not exceed the measure of the one God.\n\nBut how foolish that statement of yours is, Photinus, that you thus make a distinction at the beginning of John's Gospel, lest the Word be called God! For you read thus: \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was.\" The Word was in the beginning with God—what does this distinction mean to you? What sense does it indicate? What reason of piety does it signify, except mere enmity against the Son of God? For what is the meaning of one who pronounces: \"And the Word was with God, and God was\"? Is this, then, the wisdom of our law, to teach that God exists? What tongue, what nation, what land, what sect denies that God exists? And why does it insinuate, saying: \"And the Word was with God\"? Or what does this Word wish to be understood, except that it shows His reason? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about whom questions arise. For it is a mystery of God, which is believed precisely because it is not manifest to all. And therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: \"And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":179,"ref":"p179","source":"hoc erat in principio apud deum. istud et rationi conuenit et pronuntiatio integra est. ostendit enim quia uerbum hoc, quod in principio apud deum erat, deus erat, ut in sacramento mysterii aeterni dei, quod ignotum erat a saeculis et generationibus, deus uerbum apud deum patrem fuisse credatur.\n\nEt quia carnalibus in dubium uenit, qui uolunt scripturam pro sensus sui loqui capacitate, fides posita est, quae sensum scripturae secuta praemium mereatur. Solomoni, cum sapientiam a deo postulasset, responsum a domino est: ecce dedi tibi, inquit, cor sapiens et prudens, quale non fuit ante te, et post te non exsurget uir similis tibi. quid dicemus? uerum est quod promisit deus? immo uero. nemo ergo hominum similis erit Solomoni. et quid uidebitur de Christo, qui inter cetera: regina, inquit, austri uenit ab ultimis terrae audire sapientiam Solomonis: et ecce plus Solomone hic? nunc elige cui credas, Fotine, deo aut Christo, patri an filio. si patri credis, arguis filium; si filio credis, accusas patrem. si enim homo tantum est Christus, frustra se praeposuit Solomoni contra promissum dei; si autem intellegitur esse et deus, digne se anteposuit Solomoni et promissum intaminatum est dei, quia non exsurrexit homo similis Solomoni. Christus enim idcirco se potiorem ostendit, quia deus est.","english":"This was in the beginning with God. This both suits reason and is a complete statement. For it shows that this Word, which was in the beginning with God, was God, so that in the sacrament of the eternal God's mystery, which was unknown through the ages and generations, the Word of God might be believed to have been with God the Father.\n\nAnd because it came into doubt for carnal men, who wish Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been established, which, following the sense of Scripture, may earn its reward. When Solomon had asked for wisdom from God, a response was given by the Lord: \"Behold,\" He said, \"I have given you a wise and prudent heart, such as was not before you, and after you no man like you will arise.\" What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Indeed it is. Therefore no man will be like Solomon. And what will seem to be the case concerning Christ, who among other things says: \"The Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and behold, this one is more than Solomon?\" Now choose whom you believe, Photinus: God or Christ, the Father or the Son. If you believe the Father, you accuse the Son; if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is only a man, he vainly set himself above Solomon contrary to God's promise; but if He is understood to be also God, He fittingly set Himself above Solomon, and God's promise remains unstained, because no man like Solomon arose. For Christ showed Himself mightier for this reason, because He is God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":180,"ref":"p180","source":"dementia Fotini, qui Christum ante Mariam non fateri uult, quem uoce sua audit testantem quod ante Abraham sit! cum enim de tempore agerent cum eo Iudaei dicentes: quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham uidisti? respondit eis: amen dice uobis, ante Abraham ego sum. non dixit: 'melior sum', sed ad interrogata respondit, quia ante erat quam putabant Iudaei. maledictum plane legis Fotinus euadere non potest, quia spem habet in Christo, quem tantum hominem dicit, cum legat: maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. apostolus autem sciens Christum deum et ideo et in praesenti et in futuro spem esse in eo ait: si in hac tantum uita sperantes sumus in Christo, miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus. non ergo homo tantum est, in quo spem habere docemur, quia uana spes in homine. haec diximus pauca de multis; sufficeret enim, si bonae mentis Fotino hoc solum postremum posuimus.","english":"of Fotinus, who refuses to confess Christ before Mary, though he hears with his own voice Christ testifying that he was before Abraham! For when the Jews were arguing with him about time, saying, \"You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?\" he answered them, \"Amen, I say to you, I am before Abraham.\" He did not say, \"I am better,\" but he answered what was asked, because he was earlier than the Jews thought. Fotinus clearly cannot escape the curse of the law, because he has hope in Christ, whom he calls only a man, while he reads: \"Cursed is the man who has hope in a man.\" But the apostle, knowing Christ is God and therefore that hope is in him both in the present and in the future, says: \"If we are hoping in Christ only in this life, we are more miserable than all men.\" Therefore he is not only a man, in whom we are taught to have hope, because vain hope is in a man. We have said these few things out of many; for it would be sufficient, if Fotinus were of good mind, that we placed only this last point.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":181,"ref":"p181","source":"XCII. QVO MODO INTELLEGITUR QVOD DICIT SALUATOR: 'PACEM DO UOBIS, PACEM MEAM RELINQVO UOBIS; NON SICUT HIC MUNDUS DAT, EGO DO UOBIS'?\n\nQui pacem suscipit saluatoris inimicitiam contrahet mundi. nisi enim discordauerit a diabolo, pacem non habebit cum Christo. nemo enim potest duobus dominis seruire. hic ergo a mundo discordat, qui legi dei fideliter seruit; Christi pace munitus omnium aduersariorum conprimit tela. quis enim audeat aduersus eum quem scit regis amicum? aliter tamen mundus pacem dat, quam se saluator dare promisit. mundus enim aut metu pacem dat aut prece; saluator uero, cum sit fortior omnium nullum utique metuens, non rogatus dat pacem. salutaris ergo haec pax est, quae idcirco datur, ut munimentum sit contra hostes. pax quidem uno nomine appellatur, sed longo interuallo discernitur dei et mundi. haec enim fragilis est, illa fortis; haec carnea, illa spiritalis; haec terrena, illa caelestis; haec de necessitate est, illa de uoluntate. Christus enim nullius egens pacem offeret inualidis et inermibus, dominus semis, bonus malis, deus hominibus.","english":"XCII. How is it understood that the Savior says: 'I give you peace, I leave you my peace; not as this world gives, so I give to you'?\n\nHe who receives the peace of the Savior will contract the enmity of the world. For unless he has discord with the devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters. Therefore, he who faithfully serves the law of God is at discord with the world; fortified by Christ's peace, he suppresses the weapons of all adversaries. For who would dare to attack one whom he knows to be a friend of the king? Yet the world gives peace in one way, and the Savior promised to give it in another. For the world gives peace either through fear or through entreaty; the Savior, however, since he is stronger than all and fears none, gives peace unasked. Therefore, this peace is salutary, which is given for this reason, that it may be a defense against enemies. Peace is indeed called by one name, but the peace of God and that of the world are separated by a great distance. For the latter is fragile, the former strong; the latter is fleshly, the former spiritual; the latter is earthly, the former heavenly; the latter arises from necessity, the former from will. For Christ, needing nothing, offers peace to the weak and unarmed, the Lord to slaves, the good to the evil, God to men.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":182,"ref":"p182","source":"Recte ergo ait: non sicut hic mundus dat, ego do uobis; hoc enim dicens intellegi uoluit clementiam bonae uoluntatis suae. cum enim omnis idcirco det pacem ut proSciat sibi, hic ad hoc dat, ut prosit non sibi sed eis quibus dat aliter ergo mundus dat pacem, quam dedit saluator, et mundi pax non docet bonam uitam, non suadet ad patientiam, non prouocat ad iustitiam, non hortatur ad misericordiam, non promittit aeternam uitam. quicumque enim acceperit pacem Christi, alienus erit a uitiis huius mundi, quae militant aduersus animam.\n\nXCIII. QVAERENDUM AN SPIRITUM SANCTUM HABUERINT APOSTOLI TEMPORE ILLO QVO FUERINT CUM DOMINO, QVIA INTER MULTA DICIT EUANGELISTA: 'SPIRITUS', INQVIT, 'NONDUM ERAT DATUS, QVIA IESUS NONDUM FUERAT HONORIFICATUS,' ET ALIO IN LOCO: 'SI DILIGITIS ME,' AIT, 'PRAECEPTA MEA SERUATE, ET EGO ROGABO PATREM, ET ALIUM PARA. CLETUM DABIT UOBIS, UT UOBISCUM SIT IN AETERNUM, SPIRITUM UERITATIS, QVEM MUNDUS NUN POTEST ACCIPERE, QVIA NON UIDET NEC COGNOSCIT EUM; UOS UIDETIS EUM ET COGNOSCITIS, QVIA APUD UOS MANET ET UOBISCUM EST.' QVID EST HOC? NEGAT DATUM SPIRITUM ANTE PASSIONEM, ROGATURUM AUTEM SE PROMITTIT PATREM, UT MITTAT EUM. ITEM SUBICIT, QVIA CUM IPSIS ERAT ET MANEBAT APUD EOS, POST RESURRECTIONEM AUTEM LEGITUR INSUFFLASSE ET DIXISSE EIS: 'ACCIPITE SPIRITUM SANCTUM', IN PENTECOSTE AUTEM DESCENDISSE LEGITUR SPIRITUS SANCTUSIN APOSTOLOS.","english":"Therefore, he rightly says: \"Not as this world gives, do I give to you\"; for in saying this, he wished to make understood the clemency of his good will. For while everyone else gives peace in order to gain something for himself, he gives it in order to benefit not himself but those to whom he gives. The world gives peace in one way, the Savior gave it in another; and the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not urge patience, does not provoke to justice, does not exhort to mercy, does not promise eternal life. For whoever has received the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the vices of this world, which war against the soul.\n\nXCIII. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS: \"THE SPIRIT,\" HE SAYS, \"WAS NOT YET GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED,\" AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: \"IF YOU LOVE ME,\" HE SAYS, \"KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES NOR KNOWS HIM; YOU SEE HIM AND KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE REMAINS WITH YOU AND IS WITH YOU.\" WHAT IS THIS? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION, BUT HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN, HE ADDS THAT HE WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED WITH THEM; BUT AFTER THE RESURRECTION IT IS READ THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID TO THEM: \"RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT,\" AND AT PENTECOST IT IS READ THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":183,"ref":"p183","source":"TANTAS UIDEO IN HAC CAUSA PERTURBATIONES, UT QVID TENENDUM SIT NESCIAM.\n\nIn his omnibus quae proposita sunt non una est causa. breuiter enim singularum causarum significatae sunt formae, quia unus quidem est spiritus, sed dona habet multa. cum ergo legitur spiritus sanctus, intellegi debet et eius officium. in quo sit significatus. nam quia et cum eis erat et uenturus erat, non est falsum, sed si non istud ad personam trahas, sed ad naturam. alterum enim se uenturum a patre. promisit Christus, ut, quia indifferens est eorum diuinitas, in praesentia Christi non absens putetur spiritus sanctus et in aduentu et in apparentia spiritus sancti praesens aestimetur et Christus. ideo cum uenturum eum promittat, dicit: uos uidetis eum, quia apud uos manet et uobiscum est, ut securi essent apostoli, quia post ascensum domini non minorem aut degenerem ad tuitionem habituri essent pastorem aut regem. nam non est dubium non datum esse credentibus spiritum nisi, sicut euangelista testatur, postquam deuicta morte resurgens clariificatus est dominus. ipsius enim triumfantis domini uerba sunt et dicentis: quia Iohannes quidem baptizauit aqua, uos autem spiritu sancto baptizabimini, quem et accepturi estis non post multos hos dies. hoc tempore quo ascendere ad patrem disposuit, interfatus uidetur.","english":"I see such great disturbances in this matter that I do not know what should be held.\n\nIn all these things which have been set forth, the cause is not one. For the forms of the individual causes have been briefly indicated, because the spirit is indeed one, but it has many gifts. Therefore, when the Holy Spirit is read, both it and its office ought to be understood, in which it has been signified. For because it was both with them and was going to come, this is not false, provided you do not refer this to the person but to the nature. For Christ promised that he himself would come from the Father, so that, because their divinity is undifferentiated, the Holy Spirit might not be thought absent in the presence of Christ, and in the advent and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Christ might be considered present as well. Therefore, when he promises that it will come, he says: \"You see it, because it remains with you and is with you,\" so that the apostles might be secure, because after the Lord's ascension they would not have a lesser or degenerate pastor or king for their protection. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers except, as the evangelist testifies, after the Lord, having conquered death, was glorified by rising again. For these are the words of the triumphant Lord himself, saying: \"For John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you will receive not many days from now.\" At this time, when he arranged to ascend to the Father, he seems to have interposed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":184,"ref":"p184","source":"Illud autem quod insufflasse in discipulos dominus legitur post dies paucos resurrectionis suae et dixisse: accipite spiritum sanctum, ecclesiastica potestas intellegitur esse. quia enim omnia in traditione dominica per spiritum sanctum aguntur, idcirco, cum regula eis et forma traditur huius modi disciplinae, dicitur eis: accipite spiritum sanctum. et quia uere ad ius ecclesiasticum pertinet, statim subiecit dicens: cuius tenueritis peccata, tenebuntur; si cuius remiseritis, remittentur eis. inspiratio ergo haec gratia quaedam est quae per traditionem infunditur ordinatis, per quam commendatiores habeantur. unde apostolus dicit ad Timotheum: noli, inquit, neglegere gratiam quae est in te, quae data est tibi per inpositionem manuum presbiterii. semel ergo fieri oportuit, ut de cetero traditio ista non sine dono spiritus sancti esse crederetur. sicut enim in saluatore forma data est uisibiliter, ut post baptismum spiritus sanctus credentibus de cetero inuisibiliter dari non ambigeretur, ita et in supra dicta causa forma data est in principio, ut ex eo traditioni ecclesiasticae spiritus sanctus infusus credatur. ut autem apostoli praesente domino uirtutes facerent, potestas data est, sicut et prius profetis.","english":"But that the Lord is read to have breathed upon the disciples a few days after his resurrection and to have said, \"Receive the Holy Spirit,\" is understood to be ecclesiastical authority. For because everything in the dominical tradition is done through the Holy Spirit, therefore, when the rule and form of this kind of discipline is handed to them, it is said to them: \"Receive the Holy Spirit.\" And because it truly pertains to ecclesiastical right, he immediately added, saying: \"Whose sins you have held, they will be held; if you have remitted anyone's, they will be remitted to them.\" Therefore this inspiration is a certain grace which is infused into the ordained through tradition, by which they are held in greater esteem. Whence the apostle says to Timothy: \"Do not,\" he says, \"neglect the grace which is in you, which was given to you through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.\" Therefore it had to happen once, so that henceforth this tradition might be believed not to be without the gift of the Holy Spirit. For just as in the Savior a form was given visibly, so that after baptism the Holy Spirit might not be doubted to be given invisibly to believers thereafter, so also in the above-mentioned cause a form was given in the beginning, so that from that point the Holy Spirit might be believed to be infused into ecclesiastical tradition. But that the apostles might work miracles in the presence of the Lord, power was given, as also to the prophets before.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":185,"ref":"p185","source":".3. Trium ergo officiorum formae donis spiritus sancti in apostolis sunt ostensae, quarum prima haec est, quae ad ius ecclesiasticum pertinet in regenerandis uel ceteris officiis; secunda, quae in pentecoste data est, quae est generalis — non solum enim in apostolos, uerum etiam in omnes decidit spiritus sanctus credentes —; tertia forma est, quae solis apostolis uel ordinatis initio est concessa in signis ac uirtutibus faciendis, usque dum fidei semina iacerentur ad crementum. semina enim fidei sunt uirtutes per apostolos factae. ipsi enim antistites positi sunt huius modi ueritatis, qui per signa et prodigia non inrationabilem esse fidem nostram s testarentur. nulla enim maior probatio est ueritatis quam uirtus. haec est enim quae omnem terrenam filosofiam accusat, quia semper solis uerbis studuit non habens testimonium uirtutis, qua stabile esse, quod uerbis adstructum erat. demonstraret. igitur spiritus sanctus generaliter semel datur omnibus credentibus, per quem filii dei esse probentur, dum; manet in eis. in signis uero et prodigiis faciendis non manet in homine, sed uocatus aduenit aut suggerit necessaria et recedit similiter et in traditione uel ordinatione de foris. gratiam praestat, tuitionem etiam deferens deuotis fidei.","english":".3. Therefore, three forms of the gifts of the Holy Spirit were shown in the apostles. The first of these is that which pertains to ecclesiastical authority in regenerating or in other offices; the second, which was given at Pentecost, is general—for the Holy Spirit descended not only upon the apostles, but also upon all the believers; the third form is that which was granted at the beginning to the apostles alone, or to those ordained, in performing signs and miracles, until the seeds of faith might be sown for increase. For the seeds of faith are the miracles performed through the apostles. For they themselves were set as overseers of this kind of truth, who through signs and wonders would testify that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than power. For this is what accuses all earthly philosophy, because it always devoted itself solely to words, lacking the testimony of power, by which it might demonstrate that what was built up by words was stable. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is given once in a general way to all believers, through whom they are proven to be sons of God, as long as He remains in them. But in performing signs and wonders, He does not remain in a person, but, when called, He comes or suggests what is necessary and departs; similarly, in tradition or ordination, He bestows grace from without, also bringing protection to those devoted to the faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":186,"ref":"p186","source":"XCIIII. QVAERENDUM, SI IUDAS SCARIOTES PRODITOR DOMINI ANTE PASSIONEM SALUATORIS LAQVEO UITAM FINIIT.\n\nTradito saluatore inlucescente parasceue omnes principes sacerdotum et scribae et seniores conuenerunt in domum Caiphae pontificis, quo perducendum sciebant esse Iesum, ut audirent eum. hoc et Matheus et Marcus euangelistae testantur et nullum ex his ante perfectum impium opus a domo praesidis abscessisse, quippe cum omnis instantia eorum et. deuotio ad agendum pascha mors esset saluatoris. occupatis ergo eis ad necem domini a mane usque ad horam nonam quomodo ludas eis retulisse pretium sanguinis. quod acceperat, ante crucem domini probatur et dixisse illis in templo: peccaui, quod tradiderim sanguinem iustum, cum constet utique omnes principes et seniores ante passionem domini non fuisse in templo, quippe cum et in cruce posito insultarent ei?","english":"XCIIII. It must be asked whether Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the Lord, ended his life by the noose before the Savior's passion.\n\nAfter the Savior was betrayed, as the day of Preparation was dawning, all the chief priests, scribes, and elders assembled in the house of the high priest Caiaphas, where they knew Jesus was to be brought, so that they might hear him. Both Matthew and Mark the evangelists testify to this, and that none of them departed from the house of the governor before their impious work was completed, especially since all their zeal and devotion for celebrating the Passover was the death of the Savior. Therefore, while they were occupied with the slaying of the Lord from morning until the ninth hour, how is it proven that Judas reported to them the blood money he had received before the Lord's cross, and said to them in the temple: \"I have sinned, because I betrayed innocent blood,\" when it is certain that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord's passion, especially since they were insulting him even as he was placed on the cross?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":187,"ref":"p187","source":"Nec enim inde potest probari, quia ante passionem relatum est, cum sint multa, quae, cum ante facta probentur, nouissima ordinantur. est iterum, quando locus admittit, ut, quod post factum est, ante ponatur. nam manifestum utique est quinquagensimum psalmum anteriorem esse quam tertium. sic ergo aliquando euenit, ut anticipentur quae posteriora sunt. unde et Maria cum post resurrectionem fratris sui Lazari ante sex dies paschae in cena ungento pedes domini unxisse probetur, propter significationem eius anticipatum est ab euangelista dicente inter cetera: Maria autem erat, inquit, quae unxit dominum ungento. hoc referet antequam Lazarus moreretur; quod nisi postea factum inueniremus, nesciremus quo tempore factum esset.\n\nSed ne forte post nonam horam factum sit ut uidens impius et crudelissimus ludas occisum saluatorem et ob hoc uelum templi scissum, terram tremuisse, saxa fissa, elementa conterrita, ipso metu correptus doluerit, non nescius iustum se tradidisse, in cuius passione sic indignatus sit iudex deus? sed et post nonam horam occupati erant, sicut aestimo, seniores et principes sacerdotum. uespere enim eadem die pascham acturi erant; sabbato autem nummos portare non licebat secundum legem: ac per hoc inprobabile est apud me, quo die, immo tempore laqueo uitam finierit ludas Scariotes.","english":"Nor can it be proven from that, because it is reported before the passion, since there are many things which, though they are shown to have been done earlier, are arranged last. Again, there are times when the context allows what was done later to be placed earlier. For it is clearly evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. Thus it sometimes happens that what is later is anticipated. Hence, even though Mary is proven to have anointed the Lord’s feet with ointment at the supper six days before Passover, after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, the evangelist anticipated this for the sake of its significance, saying among other things: “But Mary,” he says, “was the one who anointed the Lord with ointment.” He reports this before Lazarus died; if we did not find that it was done afterward, we would not know at what time it was done.\n\nBut lest perhaps it happened after the ninth hour, that the impious and most cruel Judas, seeing the Savior killed and because of this the temple veil torn, the earth trembling, rocks split, the elements terrified, seized by fear itself, regretted—not unaware that he had betrayed a just man, in whose passion the judge God was so indignant? But even after the ninth hour, the elders and chief priests were occupied, as I think. For on that same evening they were about to celebrate Passover; and on the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry money according to the law. And for this reason, it seems improbable to me on which day, indeed at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by the noose.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":188,"ref":"p188","source":"XCV. UNDE ORTA SIT OBSERUATIO PENTECOSTES UEL QVA RATIONE.\n\nNon est ambiguum cuncta religionis nostrae ueri testimonio roborari et legis ueteris praerogatiua signari. omnia enim in praeteritum in figura futurae fidei nostrae gesta et designata noscuntur, ut uerum nos tenere non ambigeremus, quando ea, quae nunc et audimus et credimus, ante saecula praedestinata uidemus, non solum uocibus, sed etiam signorum uirtutibus commendata. sed nunc illud est, si eodem modo ut designata sunt a nobis intellegantur, ut dies pentecostes unde et qua ratione tractus sit congrue dinoscamus. scripturae etenim dominicae sensus suos sollicitis et deuotis aperiunt, indiligentibus claudunt. nec enim par erat, ut res, quae meritis ac dignis reseruatae sunt, passim ab omnibus uiderentur.\n\nPentecoste ergo, qui quinquagensimus a pascha conputatur dies, hanc habet rationem: ut sicut post ebdomadam dominicus dies primus est, in quo adimpletum est paschae mysterium in redemptionem salutis humanae — quia semper post curricula dierum septem ad primum reuerti necesse est, ut ostendatur aetatem mundi septenario numero consummari —, ita et post ebdomadas septem primus dies est pentecostes. denique numquam alio die quam dominico pentecostes est, ut totum quod ad salutem humanam pertinet, dominico die et inchoatum et adimpletum noscatur.","english":"XCV. Whence the Observance of Pentecost Arose, or for What Reason.\n\nIt is not ambiguous that all things of our religion are strengthened by the testimony of truth and marked by the prerogative of the old law. For all things in the past are known to have been done and designated in figure of our future faith, so that we would not doubt that we hold the truth, when we see that those things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages, commended not only by words but also by the powers of signs. But now this is the point: whether they are understood by us in the same way as they were designated, so that we may fittingly discern whence and for what reason the day of Pentecost is derived. For the Lord's scriptures open their meanings to the diligent and devout, but close them to the careless. For it was not fitting that a matter reserved for the meritorious and worthy should be seen indiscriminately by all.\n\nPentecost, therefore, which is computed as the fiftieth day from Easter, has this rationale: that just as after a week the Lord's day is the first, on which the mystery of Easter was fulfilled for the redemption of human salvation—because it is always necessary to return to the first after cycles of seven days, so that the age of the world is shown to be completed by the number seven—so also after seven weeks the first day is Pentecost. Finally, Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord's day, so that everything which pertains to human salvation is known to have been both begun and fulfilled on the Lord's day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":189,"ref":"p189","source":"dominico enim die factus est mundus et post lapsum rursus dominico die reformatus, cuius reformationis figura data est primum in circumcisione, in qua futurae fidei signum fuit. post ebdomadam enim qui octauus dictus est primus est in mysterio. haec est enim dies quam fecit dominus. unum enim diem fecit, ex quo ceteri curricula sortirentur. ac per hoc ipsa die resurrexit quam fecit et secundum numerum supra dictae rationis ipsa die et in monte Sina legem dedit per famulum suum Moysen. ut sicut agnus figura passionis domini fuit in sacramento paschae, ita et legis datio euangelicae praedicationis, quia eodem die, id est pentecosten, lex data est, quo et spiritus sanctus decidit in discipulos, ut auctoritatem caperent ac scirent euangelicum ius praedicare. quod factum duplici testimonio confirmatur, quia et praedestinatum ostenditur et manitesta spiritus sancti infusione diuinum et supercaeleste probatur; inperiti enim diuersis linguis magnalia dei loquebantur.-","english":"For on the Lord's day the world was made, and after the fall it was again reformed on the Lord's day, the figure of which reformation was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the future faith. For after a week, the day which is called the eighth is the first in mystery. For this is the day which the Lord made. For He made one day, from which the rest of the cycles would take their course. And by this, on that same day He rose again, which He made, and according to the number of the aforementioned reasoning, on that same day He gave the law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses. So that just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord's passion in the sacrament of Passover, so also the giving of the law is a figure of the evangelical preaching, because on the same day, that is Pentecost, the law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and know how to preach the evangelical law. This fact is confirmed by a twofold testimony, because it is shown to be predestined and, by the manifest infusion of the Holy Spirit, is proven to be divine and supercelestial; for the unlearned were speaking the great deeds of God in diverse tongues.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":190,"ref":"p190","source":"Filiis ergo Israhel tertio die mensis tertii data est lex per Moysen, sicut in libro Exodi continetur, qui dies a quarta decima mensis primi, quo die factum est pascha in Aegypto, quinquagensimus est, hoc est pentecosten. unde factum est, ut ad legem fidei praedicandam in pentecosten spiritus sanctus descenderet in apostolos, ut gesta ueterum futurorum imagines haberentur ad securitatem fidei nostrae, quia falsum uideri non potest quod ab initio praedicatum est. ideo remissionis et reformationis tempus in quinquagensimo psalmo describitur, -ut eadem prouidentia quinquagensimi diei, quae et primi est, sciretur. hinc factum est ut et manna primo die, qui est dominicus, de caelo daretur populo Iudaeorum, quod ita esse sex dierum continuatio probat, quibus collegerunt, et septima die, id est sabbato, quieuerunt. manna autem typus est escae spiritalis, quae resurrectione domini ueritas facta est in eucharistiae mysterio.","english":"To the sons of Israel, therefore, the law was given on the third day of the third month through Moses, as is contained in the book of Exodus; which day is the fiftieth from the fourteenth day of the first month, on which day the Passover was celebrated in Egypt, that is, Pentecost. Hence it came about that for the preaching of the law of faith, the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, so that the deeds of the ancients might be held as images of future things for the assurance of our faith, because what has been preached from the beginning cannot appear false. Therefore the time of remission and reformation is described in the fiftieth psalm, so that the same providence of the fiftieth day, which is also that of the first, might be known. From this it came about that manna was given from heaven to the people of the Jews on the first day, which is the Lord's day; that this is so is proved by the continuation of six days during which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, they rested. Manna, moreover, is a type of spiritual food, which became truth at the Lord's resurrection in the mystery of the Eucharist.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":191,"ref":"p191","source":"Nunc superest ut probemus, si ita intellegenda sunt quae diximus, ut supra memorauimus. mensis primus quo pascha quarta decima die celebratum est in Aegypto, haec dies quarta feria fuit; unde et lex quarta feria data est. quod hinc datur intellegi, quia quinto decimo die mensis secundi profectionis filiorum Israhel sabbatum uidetur fuisse; idcirco non in die grex illis missus est.coturnicum, sed uespere. mane autem manna; illis pluit de caelo, id est die dominico, qui primus post ebdomadem in repetitione inuenitur. denique sex diebus continuis manna collegerunt, septimo autem die, qui est sabbatum, quieuerunt. ab hoc ergo die usque ad tertii mensis diem tertium, quo lex data est, quaere et inuenies quartam feriam fuisse quando. lex data est. sunt enim a quinto decimo die mensis secundi, quando sabbatum fuit, usque ad tertii mensis diem tertium, quo lex data est, dies decem et nouem. tene ergo hos decem et nouem et redi super quintum decimum diem secundi mensis, quo sabbatum fuit, qui a primo conputatur quartus decimus, et perueni usque ad diem primum secundi mensis et habebis alios XIIII; quos superiunge ad decem et nouem supra memoratos et inuenies primum diem secundi mensis sabbatum fuisse.","english":"Now it remains for us to prove whether what we have said is to be understood as we recalled above. The first month, in which Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day in Egypt, that day was a Wednesday; hence the law was given on a Wednesday. This can be understood from the fact that the fifteenth day of the second month, the departure of the sons of Israel, seems to have been a Sabbath; for that reason the flock of quails was not sent to them during the day, but in the evening. In the morning, however, manna rained down for them from heaven, that is, on the Lord’s day, which is found as the first after the week in the repetition. Finally, for six continuous days they gathered manna, and on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, they rested. From this day, therefore, up to the third day of the third month, on which the law was given, count and you will find that it was a Wednesday when the law was given. For there are nineteen days from the fifteenth day of the second month, when the Sabbath was, up to the third day of the third month, on which the law was given. Therefore hold these nineteen and go back to the fifteenth day of the second month, when the Sabbath was, which is counted as the fourteenth from the first, and proceed up to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen; add these to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":192,"ref":"p192","source":"superadde adhuc ad caput primi mensis dies septem et decem, quia primi mensis tredecim dies retrahendi sunt, qui ante pascha fuerunt; quarta decima enim die primi mensis pascha factum est. retractis ergo tredecim et additis septem et decem inuenies quarta decima mensis primi quartam feriam fuisse.\n\nEt ne legendi fastidium patiaris aut quaestionis singula membra curiose inspicere, do conpendium, ut et de numero dierum, qui a pascha usque ad datam legem sunt, certus sis et ab ipso facilius discas, quota feria factum est pascha. tertio die post secundum mensem lex data est; sunt ergo menses duo et dies tres. retrahe de his tredecim dies, qui ante pascha fuerunt, et reliqui erunt dies quinquaginta. quoniam autem quarta feria lex data est, hinc facile uidetur. manna prima feria data est, quia continuis sex diebus collegerunt, quae prima feria sexto decimo die fuit mensis secundi. ab hac itaque prima feria in octauum decimum diem, quo lex data est, quartam feriam inuenies. a feria uero quarta, siue ante siue retro conputes in quinquagensimum diem, quarta feria est. idcirco quia quarta feria pascha egerunt in Aegypto Iudaei et quarta feria legem acceperunt, quinta autem feria profecti sunt de Aegypto, igitur dedicatio legis est pentecoste.","english":"Add further to the beginning of the first month seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month are to be subtracted, which were before Passover; for Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month. Therefore, with thirteen subtracted and seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was a Wednesday.\n\nAnd lest you suffer weariness in reading or examine each part of the question with excessive curiosity, I give a summary, so that you may be certain both about the number of days from Passover to the giving of the Law, and learn from it more easily on what day of the week Passover occurred. On the third day after the second month, the Law was given; there are therefore two months and three days. Subtract from these the thirteen days that were before Passover, and the remainder will be fifty days. Since, however, the Law was given on a Wednesday, this is easily seen from the following. Manna was given on a Sunday, because they gathered it for six consecutive days, which was on the sixteenth day of the second month, a Sunday. From this Sunday, then, to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find a Wednesday. And from Wednesday, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is a Wednesday. For this reason, because the Jews celebrated Passover in Egypt on a Wednesday and received the Law on a Wednesday, but departed from Egypt on a Thursday, therefore the dedication of the Law is Pentecost.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":193,"ref":"p193","source":"XCVI. QVAERENDUM SI PASCHA TRANSITUS INTERPRETETUR, SICUT GRAECIS UIDETUR.\n\nApostolus falli non potuit, qui ait: pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, quod non suum utique, sed legis est uerbum dicente Moyse: et erit cum dicent uobis filii uestri: quae est deseruitio haec? et dicetis: immolatio pascha hoc domini est. quid amplius est necessarium ad testimonium? lex loquitur, apostolus probat; hoc superest, ut contradictor abiciatur ut peruicax. manifestum est enim transitum post pascham fuisse. de sanguine enim immolati agni supra postes ostii et supra limen posuerunt, ut transiens nocte angelus non percuteret domum, in qua signum sanguinis esset. sanguis igitur salutem praestitit, non transitus, quia, ut transitus non noceret, obstitit sanguis.\n\nXCVII. QVA RATIONE RESPONDERI POSSIT ARRII IMPIETATI SIMPLICITER EX LEGE.\n\nSi rationi fides commodetur, ipsa nominum ratio patris et filii ostenderet unitatem fysico modo. non enim uerus dei filius diceretur, nisi exstitisset de substantia dei patris; nec enim pateretur ueritas et iustitia dei uerum dicere filium, si de ipso non esset. non est enim uerus, si de ipso non est. sed scriptura dicit: 'uerus est': ergo de ipso est. qui enim negat de deo natum Christum, scripturae calumniam facit, quae ideo illum dicit uerum filium, ut significet de deo hunc natum, si enim non est de deo et uerus filius dei dicitur, fallax est scriptura.","english":"XCVI. AN INQUIRY WHETHER PASCHA IS INTERPRETED AS \"PASSOVER,\" AS IT SEEMS TO THE GREEKS.\n\nThe Apostle could not have been deceived, who says: \"Christ, our pascha, was sacrificed,\" which is not his own word, but that of the Law, with Moses saying: \"And it shall be, when your children say to you: 'What is this service?' you will say: 'This is the sacrifice of the pascha of the Lord.'\" What more is needed for testimony? The Law speaks, the Apostle proves; it remains that the contradictor be cast out as obstinate. For it is manifest that the crossing over was after the pascha. For they placed the blood of the sacrificed lamb above the doorposts and above the lintel, so that the angel passing by at night would not strike the house in which the sign of blood was. Therefore, blood provided safety, not the crossing over, because, so that the crossing over would not harm, the blood stood in the way.\n\nXCVII. ON WHAT GROUND THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS CAN BE SIMPLY ANSWERED FROM THE LAW.\n\nIf faith is granted to reason, the very rationale of the names \"father\" and \"son\" would show unity in a physical manner. For he would not be called the true son of God unless he had come forth from the substance of God the Father; nor would the truth and justice of God allow him to be called a true son if he were not from him. For he is not true if he is not from him. But Scripture says: \"He is true\"; therefore he is from him. For whoever denies that Christ was born from God does violence to Scripture, which calls him the true son precisely to signify that he was born from God; for if he is not from God and is called the true son of God, Scripture is deceitful.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":194,"ref":"p194","source":"quod si scriptura non fallit, qui Christum non fatetur exstitisse de deo, et scripturam euacuat et Christum negat uerum filium dei. non enim uoluntas uerum filium facit, sed natiuitas. (sed potentiae', inquiunt, (dei hoc subest, ut falsa faciat uera'. immo potentia dei haec est, unde et omni laude dignus est, quia uerum apud illum uerum Est et falsum falsum. nam istud mendacis est, ut falsum dicat uerum, quod deo non conpetit. nam omnia quidem potest deus, sed non facit nisi quod conueniat ueritati eius adque iustitiae.\n\nManifestum igitur est idcirco uerum dici filium dei Christum, ut proprius, id est de substantia eius natus intellegatur. unde et apostolus: qui proprio, inquit, filio non pepercit, et in alia epistula: qui cum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se parem deo. si ergo non rapinam arbitratus est dicens se parem deo, uerum se filium dei demonstrauit. deo enim par esse non poterat, nisi esset de ipso. pares enim hi sunt, qui aut ambo ueri sunt aut ambo falsi. nec enim parilitatem recipit coeptum (et) aeternum aut unitatem. unum enim se esse dicendo Christus cum patre parem se deo fecit. non solum enim, inquit, soluebat sabbatum, sed et patrem proprium sibi dicebat deum, aequalem se faciens deo, hoc est parem. nonne manifestum est aequalitatem hanc de proprietate natiuitatis descendere?","english":"But if Scripture does not deceive, whoever does not confess that Christ existed from God both empties Scripture and denies that Christ is the true Son of God. For will does not make a true son, but birth. (But they say, 'It is within God's power to make false things true.') On the contrary, God's power is this, on account of which he is worthy of all praise, because for him truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood. For that belongs to a liar, to call falsehood truth, which does not befit God. For God can do all things, but he does only what is fitting to his truth and justice.\n\nIt is therefore manifest that Christ is called the true Son of God so that he may be understood as proper, that is, born from his substance. Whence also the Apostle says: \"who did not spare his own son,\" and in another epistle: \"who, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God.\" If, therefore, he did not consider it a usurpation to declare himself equal to God, he demonstrated that he is the true Son of God. For he could not be equal to God unless he were from him. For those are equal who are either both true or both false. For a beginning and an eternal do not admit equality or unity. For by saying that he is one with the Father, Christ made himself equal to God. For not only, it says, did he break the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God, that is, equal. Is it not manifest that this equality descends from the property of birth?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":195,"ref":"p195","source":"proprium enim se, id est uerum, dicens dei filium aequalem se faciebat deo.\n\nHinc est unde dicit: qui me uidit, uidit et patrem. per id quod enim consubstantiui sunt, qui unum uidet ambos uidet. sicut enim habet pater uitam in semet ipso, sic dedit et filio habere uitam, hoc est aequalem sibi genuit filium pater; et omnia quae patris sunt filii sunt et quae sunt filii patris sunt: et nemo potest quicquam rapere de manu patris neque de manu filii. et subiecit: ego et pater unum sumus, et: uerba quae, inquit, loquor uobis, a me ipso non loquor, pater autem manens in me ipse loquitur; et opera quae facio ipse facit. credite mihi, quod ego in patre et pater in me; alioquin uel propter opera ipsa credite. quia enim generatio non a semet ipsa est, sed ab eo qui genuit, idcirco quicquid facit, factum dicit patris, ut per haec omnia illud firmetur, quia ideo uerus dicitur filius dei Christus, ut de ipso natus credatur, ne et essentia eius extra unius dei naturam existimaretur. humilitas ergo eius maxima exaltatio est. cum enim uidetur se subicere dicens: uerba quae loquor uobis, a me ipso non loquor, pater autem manens in me ipse loquitur; et opera quae facio ipse facit, probat se originem a deo habere et uirtutem eius se esse, dum non quod est a semet ipso esse se dicit, sed ab ipso. per haec enim commendatur Christus, non inclinatur. qui enim a se loquitur, uerus filius non est.","english":"For by calling himself \"own,\" that is, true, Son of God, he was making himself equal to God.\n\nHence it is where he says: \"He who has seen me has seen the Father also.\" For because they are consubstantial, whoever sees one sees both. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son also to have life, that is, the Father begot the Son equal to himself; and all that is the Father's is the Son's, and what is the Son's is the Father's: and no one can snatch anything from the hand of the Father nor from the hand of the Son. And he added: \"I and the Father are one,\" and: \"The words,\" he says, \"which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father, remaining in me, speaks them himself; and the works which I do, he does them himself. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; otherwise, believe at least on account of the works themselves.\" For because generation is not from itself, but from the one who begot, therefore whatever he does, he says is the work of the Father, so that through all these things that point is established, that Christ is called the true Son of God in order that he be believed to have been born from him, lest his essence be thought to be outside the nature of the one God. Therefore his humility is his greatest exaltation. For when he seems to subject himself, saying: \"The words which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father, remaining in me, speaks them himself; and the works which I do, he does them himself,\" he proves that he has his origin from God and that he is his power, since he says that he is not what he is from himself, but from him. For through these things Christ is commended, not humiliated. For he who speaks from himself is not a true Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":196,"ref":"p196","source":"Uides ergo quia Arrii inde male intellegunt Christum unde bene intellegendus est, et inde illum inprobant et falsum dicunt, unde uerus dei esse filius approbatur. nam clarificandum se a patre postulat et clarificare se patrem quem petit promittit, ut ubi se humiliare uidetur exaltet. pater enim cum testimonium dat filio, laudem suam testatur; filius uero cum praedicat patrem, gloriam suam manifestat. magnificentia enim et nobilitas patris generositas est ueri filii. ideoque quicquid patris dicitur esse, est et filii sine dubio; et quod filii esse dicitur, est et patris. nam spiritus dicitur dei, idem spiritus dicitur et Christi; ecclesia dicitur dei, dicitur et Christi; adoratur deus, adoratur et Christus; seruitur deo, seruitur et Christo; sancti dicuntur sacerdotes dei, dicuntur et sacerdotes Christ; templum ciuitatis sanctae dicitur deus, similiter Christus; lumine dei inlustrari dicitur ciuitas sancta, eodem modo -et Christi; sedes dei est, nec non et Christi; iudex deus est, -est et Christus, quia Eseias profeta in throno maiestatis Christum uidit sedentem dominum sabaoth, quod Arrii non negant. de deo patre legitur, quod rex regum sit et dominus dominorum, eadem et de Christo filio dei uero. sic ubique diuinitate exaequantur pater et filius, ut unius dei modum non egrediatur numerus personarum.","english":"You see, therefore, that the Arians misunderstand Christ precisely from that which he ought to be understood rightly, and from that they reject him and call him false, from which he is proved to be the true Son of God. For he asks the Father to glorify him and promises to glorify the Father whom he petitions, so that where he seems to humble himself, he is exalted. For when the Father bears witness to the Son, he testifies to his own praise; the Son, when he preaches the Father, manifests his own glory. For the magnificence and nobility of the Father is the true Son's nobility. And therefore whatever is said to be the Father's is without doubt also the Son's; and what is said to be the Son's is also the Father's. For the Spirit is called of God, the same Spirit is called also of Christ; the Church is called of God, it is called also of Christ; God is worshipped, Christ is also worshipped; service is given to God, service is given also to Christ; priests are called holy men of God, they are called also priests of Christ; the temple of the holy city is called God, likewise Christ; the holy city is said to be illuminated by the light of God, in the same way also by that of Christ; the seat is of God, and also of Christ; God is judge, Christ is also judge, because the prophet Isaiah saw Christ sitting on the throne of majesty as the Lord Sabaoth, which the Arians do not deny. It is read of God the Father that he is King of kings and Lord of lords, the same is read also of Christ the true Son of God. Thus everywhere the Father and Son are equal in divinity, so that the number of persons does not exceed the measure of one God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":197,"ref":"p197","source":"Inter patrem autem et filium nihil interest, nisi hoc solum, quia pater ingenitus est, filius uero genitus; id est, pater a nullo est, filius autem de patre; quod quidem sublime est in filio. hinc enim addiscitur nobilitatis eius aeternitas et quia uerus filius est ueri patris. unde est enim illud quod legitur in Genesi dicente deo: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram? itaque si imago eorum et similitudo una est, quo modo non unum sunt et natura? in spiritalibus enim ubi utique non sunt figurae, simile non erit aliquid nisi per substantiam, ut ubi duorum imago una est, quo modo non eorum una erit et substantia? idcirco enim imaginem eorum et similitudinem unam esse legimus, ut unum eorum nihil differre ab altero crederemus, hoc est, uerum dei filium esse Christum, quia non est dispar a generante natiuitas. denique Iudaei intellegentes, quia proprium sibi patrem dicebat deum, dicunt ad Pilatum: nos legem habemus, et secundum legem debet mori, quia filium dei se fecit. Iudaei intellexerunt, et Christiani se dicunt non intellegere? qui non credebant, intellegebant; et qui se dicunt credere, faciunt ne intellegant?","english":"Between the Father and the Son, however, there is no difference except only this: that the Father is unbegotten, the Son indeed begotten; that is, the Father is from no one, the Son, however, from the Father—which is indeed sublime in the Son. For from this is learned the eternity of his nobility and that he is the true Son of the true Father. For whence comes that which is read in Genesis, with God saying: \"Let us make man in our image and likeness\"? Therefore, if their image and likeness is one, how are they not also one in nature? For in spiritual things, where there are certainly no shapes, something will not be similar except through substance, so that where the image of two is one, how will their substance not also be one? For this reason we read that their image and likeness is one, so that we might believe that one of them differs in nothing from the other—that is, that Christ is the true Son of God, because the offspring is not disparate from the begetter. Finally, the Jews, understanding that he was calling God his own Father, say to Pilate: \"We have a law, and according to the law he must die, because he made himself the Son of God.\" The Jews understood, and Christians say they do not understand? Those who did not believe understood; and those who say they believe, do they cause themselves not to understand?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":198,"ref":"p198","source":"uel hoc saltim admitterent, quod profeta Eseias, ut Christum non a semet ipso quidem, sed de deo deum esse significaret, inter cetera ait: post te sequentur alligati uinculis et adorabunt te et in te deprecabuntur, quoniam in te est deus et non est deus praeter te. tu enim es deus, et nesciebamus, deus Israhel saluator.\n\nQuantum ad bonam mentem pertinet, haec manifesta sunt. his enim et pater in filio esse probatur et filius deus eiusdem substantiae, qua pater est, significatur. in quo enim deus est et praeter ipsum deus non est et ipse deus est, quid aliud poterit esse dici, quam hoc quod est pater deus, et nec differre in aliquo? hoc est enim duo esse unum. in ipso enim deus est, quia quamuis deus sit, non tamen ex se deus est. est enim a patre, quia filius est. praeter ipsum autem non est deus, quia unicus patris filius est. ipse autem deus est, quia una adque eadem substantia dei et Christi est. nihil igitur ambiguitatis relinquitur, ut patris et filii una esse credatur substantia. uerus enim filius et ueri patris est.","english":"If only they would at least admit this: that the prophet Isaiah, in order to signify that Christ is not from himself indeed, but God from God, says among other things: \"After you, those bound with chains will follow, and they will adore you, and they will pray in you, because in you is God, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it, God of Israel, the Savior.\"\n\nAs far as a sound mind is concerned, these things are clear. For by these words, both that the Father is in the Son is proved, and that the Son is God of the same substance as the Father is signified. For in whom God is, and besides whom there is no God, and who himself is God, what else could he be said to be, other than that which the Father God is, and not to differ in any respect? For this is for two to be one. For in him God is, because although he is God, he is not, however, God from himself. For he is from the Father, because he is the Son. But besides him there is no God, because he is the only Son of the Father. And he himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. Therefore no ambiguity remains, so that the substance of the Father and the Son is believed to be one. For he is the true Son of a true Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":199,"ref":"p199","source":"Tale etiam illud Hieremiae profetae est; dicit enim inter alia: hicdeus noster: non aestimabitur alter ad eum. hic adinuenit omnem uiamscientiae et dedit eam Iacob puero suo et Israhel dilecto sibi. post haec in terra uisus est et inter homines conuersatus est. numquid degener potest dici, ad quem alius non potest aestimari? aut alius deus quam pater est poterit dici, ut deo proficiat ad iniuriam patri? si enim aestimari ad eum alter deus non potest et absque deo patre est, uidete an debeat dici quod sequitur; periculosum est enim. maior enim patre dicetur. putantes enim deo se patri deferre, si ab eo filium segregent, derogant ei, ut quem minorem uolunt facere impie obcaecati mente proponant eum illi, cuius auctoritati inclinandum hunc putant. scriptura autem, ut nihil filium a patre differre doceret — differret autem, si non esset uerus — nullum alium dixit aestimandum ad eum, quia nulla alia substantia poterit similis repperiri substantiae dei, quae est et Christi. aliter enim Christum de deo esse doceri non poterat, quam ut nullum diceret alium aestimandum ut eum. sciens enim deum patrem nullo modo dici posse subiectum, filium eius ut huic parem esse ostenderet: non aestimabitur, inquit, alter ad e u m, quia patri deo, qui omnium deus est, aequalis est; uerus enim eius filius est. igitur profeta ait: hic est deus noster, hoc est deus Israhel.","english":"This also is the case with the prophet Jeremiah; for he says among other things: \"This is our God: no other will be esteemed equal to him. He discovered every path of knowledge and gave it to his servant Jacob and to Israel, beloved to him. After these things, he was seen on earth and lived among men.\" Can he be called degenerate, to whom no other can be esteemed equal? Or can another God than the Father be spoken of, so that it redounds to the injury of the Father? For if no other God can be esteemed equal to him and he is without the Father God, see whether what follows ought to be said; for it is dangerous. For he will be said to be greater than the Father. For those who think they are deferring to the Father God, if they separate the Son from him, detract from him, so that they impiously, with blinded mind, set up as lesser the one whom they think should bow to that one's authority. But Scripture, to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father—for he would differ if he were not true—said that no other is to be esteemed equal to him, because no other substance can be found similar to the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For Christ could not otherwise be taught to be from God than by saying that no other is to be esteemed like him. For knowing that the Father God can in no way be said to be subject, he showed his Son to be equal to him: \"No other,\" he says, \"will be esteemed equal to him,\" because he is equal to the Father God, who is the God of all; for he is his true Son. Therefore the prophet says: \"This is our God,\" that is, the God of Israel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":200,"ref":"p200","source":"si hic est, ipse est deus unus; de isto enim dicit scriptura: audi, Israhel, dominus deus tuus deus unus est, et certe non hie est pater, sed est filius eius.\n\nUides ergo non praeiudicare uni deo personam filii, si et ipse unus deus dicatur, quippe cum hoc scriptura testetur. unde hoc, nisi quia unum sunt pater et filius, quia non personis significatur unitas, sed natura, ut non substantia duo sint, sed unum, neque duo diuinitate sed deus unus, ut, siue loquatur pater siue loquatur filius, unus deus locutus dicatur? nam si ipse dominus inter cetera de mare et femina: iam non sunt, inquit, duo, sed una caro, quanto magis pater et filius non duo dii sunt, sed una substantia! ut autem duo dicantur pater et filius, causa est natiuitatis; ne autem iterum duo dii sint, causa est unius diuinitatis. qua tamen hebetudine Christum creatum, id est factum, praedicant, cum legant nihil deum sine Christo fecisse ? si ergo sine illo nihil factum est, non erit ipse factura. si enim factura est, factum est aliquid sine ipso. sed absit, quia nihil sine illo. natus enim de deo non coepit, sed extitit natiuitas enim nihil est aliud quam exitio; exitio autem manifestatio est: itaque non factus, sed editus est.","english":"If this is He, He is the one God; for concerning Him Scripture says: \"Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God,\" and certainly this is not the Father, but His Son.\n\nYou see, therefore, that the person of the Son does not prejudice the one God, if He too is called one God, especially since Scripture attests to this. Whence this, except that the Father and the Son are one, because unity is signified not by persons but by nature, so that they are not two in substance but one, nor two in divinity but one God, so that whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, it is said that one God has spoken? For if the Lord Himself says among other things about man and woman: \"They are no longer two, but one flesh,\" how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance! That the Father and the Son are called two, however, is due to the fact of birth; but that they are not again two gods is due to the fact of one divinity. Yet with what dullness do they proclaim Christ as created, that is, made, when they read that God made nothing without Christ? If, therefore, nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a creature. For if He is a creature, then something was made without Him. But far be it, because nothing is without Him. For He who was born from God did not begin, but came forth; for birth is nothing other than a coming forth; a coming forth, moreover, is a manifestation: thus He was not made, but brought forth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":201,"ref":"p201","source":"ut enim Christus de essentia dei extitisse uel processisse significaretur, exitio eius natiuitas appellata est ut, quia non dispar est a genitore natiuitas, consubstantiuus esse deo Christus non ambigeretur et mens illa quae ait: 'erat, quando non erat', damnaretur, quia non potest aliquando non fuisse qui, ut apud deum semper fuisse significaretur, de deo legitur processisse. nemo enim de eo processit ubi non fuit.\n\nSolent quidem Arrii sic interpretari de filio dei dicentes: (ideo uerus dicitur Christus filius dei, quia sic illum fecit ut uerus sit.' quasi sit aliquid quod falsum faciat deus. et illa omnia quae supra diximus de unitate patris et filii quid erunt, cum sic roborata sint et firmata? si hic aliter sentiendum putatur, multa poterunt diuinis solidata oraculis unius conuelli degeneris testimonio.. amputandum est tamen, ne sibi uel de eo ipso blandiatur iniquitas. igitur 'sic', inquit, illum fecit ut uerus sit, ut uoluntas cesserit pro natiuitate et factura pro generatione. tantum enim dandum est./ inquiunt, 'potentiae dei, ut possit facere quae non sunt tamquam quae sunt'.","english":"For when it was to be signified that Christ had come forth or proceeded from the essence of God, his coming forth was called nativity, so that, because nativity is not unlike its begetter, Christ might not be doubted to be consubstantial with God, and that opinion which said, 'there was a time when he was not' might be condemned, because one who is read to have proceeded from God cannot at some time not have existed, in order to signify that he always was with God. For no one proceeds from that where he was not.\n\nIndeed, the Arians are accustomed to interpret concerning the Son of God in this way, saying: 'Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason, because God made him in such a way that he is true,' as if there were something that God makes false. And what of all those things we have said above concerning the unity of Father and Son, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed? If a different opinion is to be held here, many things established by divine oracles could be overthrown by the testimony of one degenerate man. Yet it must be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even concerning this very point. Therefore, 'thus,' he says, 'he made him so that he is true, so that will took the place of nativity and making took the place of generation. For so much must be granted,' they say, 'to the power of God, that he can make things which are not as if they were things which are.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":202,"ref":"p202","source":"Quoniam ergo hac astutiae calliditate utuntur contra filium dei, ex his ipsis de quibus praesumunt, quia in reliquis sunt conuicti, respondendum est eis, ut in tota summa conuicti appareant. propositio enim haec, quantum ad sensum pertinet, nullius momenti est; quantum autem ad uerba, caliginem facit ne cito appareat. sic est enim ac si Aegyptius positus in obscuro, quia causa mala bono sensu defendi non potest. ad impietatem ergo defendendam sacrilegis uerbis utuntur. si itaque haec est potentia dei, ut uerum faceret Christum esse filium sibi, cum de ipso non esset natus, ergo talem illum fecit qualis ipse est, ut hoc praestiterit factura, quod datura erat generatio. si ergo nihil interesse dicitis inter deum et Christum, poterit forte putari, quia non hoc malitiose a uobis asseritur, ut quod in uoce dicitur hoc sit et in sensu, ut, quia uerus dicitur filius, uerus sentiatur, per id quod unius substantiae est cum patre, licet non per generationem, sed per facturam, quia totum potest deus, sicut dicitis, ut factum sic sit quasi infectum.","english":"Since they use this cunning trickery against the Son of God, from the very things they presume upon, because they have been refuted in the rest, they must be answered so that they may appear refuted in the whole matter. For this proposition, as far as the sense is concerned, is of no moment; but as far as the words go, it creates obscurity so that it does not quickly become apparent. It is just as if an Egyptian were placed in the dark, because a bad cause cannot be defended with good sense. Therefore, to defend impiety, they use sacrilegious words. If, then, this is the power of God, that He would make Christ truly be His Son, even though He was not born from Him, then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that the creation would bestow what generation was to give. If, therefore, you say there is no difference between God and Christ, it might perhaps be thought that this is not asserted by you maliciously, so that what is said in word is also in sense, so that, because He is called true Son, He is felt to be true, by virtue of being of one substance with the Father, although not through generation but through creation, because God can do everything, as you say, so that what is made is as if it were unbegotten.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":203,"ref":"p203","source":"Si autem rationis lineam sequentes non posse dicitis, quod initio continetur, aequale esse et consubstantiuum cum id quod aeternum est, reuelatis dolum malitiae uestrae, quia ut sensum uerbi eludatis, falsa uoce Christum uerum esse filium dei dicitis negantes ei quia aequalis est deo patri. non enim uerus est, si inaequalis est. poteritnum uerus dici filius, si non uerus dicatur et pater? si enim uerus est filius, erit uerus et pater; quam ueritatem aequalitas probat. quod si dispares sunt, neuter eorum uerus est sed quoniam scripturarum testimonium inritum fieri non potest, quo Christus uerus dei filius adprobatur, de deo patre natus credendus est, quia, ut ueritas haec firmaretur, et par deo et aequalis legitur.\n\nAt tu qui potentiam dei inaestimabilem praedicas, ais: 'deus generare non potest, quia simplex natura est'; per quod etiam ipsi deo patri contumeliam facis. mendacem enim istum dicis, ut filium, quem ille suum et uerum asserit, deneges et tuam hypocrisin detegas, quia falso potentem deum praedicas. si enim potentiam dei in id quod uerum ex falso factum asseris, praedicas, ut quod uere uerum est inludas, quanto magis hoc amplecti deberes, si bonae mentis esses, per quod uerum quod dicitur uerum probatur et deus pater testimonium quod de filio suo dedit uerum firmatur!","english":"If, however, following the line of reason, you say that what is contained in a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you reveal the deceit of your malice, because in order to evade the sense of the word, you say with a false voice that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying to him that he is equal to God the Father. For he is not true if he is unequal. Can a son truly be called true if the father is not also called true? For if the son is true, the father will also be true; this truth equality proves. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. However, since the testimony of the Scriptures, by which Christ is proven to be the true Son of God, cannot be rendered void, he must be believed to have been born from God the Father, because, in order for this truth to be established, he is read as both equal and equal to God.\n\nBut you, who proclaim the inestimable power of God, say: 'God cannot generate, because his nature is simple'; by this you also do an injury to God the Father himself. For you call him a liar, so that you may deny the son whom he asserts as his own and true, and you expose your own hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God as powerful. For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert is made true from false, in order to mock what is truly true, how much more ought you to embrace this, if you were of good mind, by which what is said to be true is proven true and the testimony which God the Father gave concerning his own son is confirmed as true!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":204,"ref":"p204","source":"nam dominusait:apud deum autem, inquit, omnia possibilia, ut quidquid hominibus inpossibile uidetur deo possibile sit. nam si ratio carnis respicitur, nec uirgo peperit nec Ionas in uentre ceti uixit nec mortui resurgent nec deus filium genuit. quia simplex natura non potest generare, quia nihil sine commixtione generatur in mundo. haec omnia aut simul credenda sunt aut simul refellenda. si enim ratio mundi tenenda est. in his omnibus debet auctoritatem habere; quod si aliqua ratio spiritalium est, carnalis dicendus est, qui mundi ratione infectus negat aliter quid fieri quam nouit.\n\nAliud iterum adsolent sua tergiuersatione proponere. aiunt enim: 'uoluntate pater genuit filium aut non?) ut, cum audierint: utique uoluntate', statim ut inimici filii dei respondeant: 'ergo uoluntas ante filium est, ut ex hoc non aeternus appareat, cum non utique per natiuitatem initium acceperit, sed extiterit'. et tamen si hoc putant, non solum ante filium erit uoluntas, sed et ante patrem, quia causa generationis pater et filius est. infidelitas carnales sensus sequitur in omnibus. sic enim inducit causam dei quasi hominis, ut ante deliberauerit et cogitauerit ut generaret quasi infirmitati subiectus, cum in deo neque generatio sine uoluntate fuerit neque uoluntas sine generatione. ipsa enim uoluntas generatio est.","english":"For the Lord says: \"But with God,\" he says, \"all things are possible,\" so that whatever seems impossible to men is possible for God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is considered, neither did a virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of a whale, nor will the dead rise again, nor did God beget a Son. Because a simple nature cannot generate, since nothing in the world is generated without mixture. All these things must either be believed together or rejected together. For if the reasoning of the world is to be maintained, it ought to have authority in all these matters; but if there is any reasoning of spiritual things, then he who, infected by worldly reasoning, denies that anything can happen otherwise than he knows, is to be called carnal.\n\nAgain, they are accustomed to propose another point by their tergiversation. For they say: \"Did the Father beget the Son by will or not?\" so that when they hear \"certainly by will,\" they immediately, as enemies of the Son of God, reply: \"Therefore will is before the Son, so that from this he does not appear eternal, since he did not, of course, receive a beginning through birth, but came into existence.\" And yet if they think this, not only will will be before the Son, but also before the Father, because the cause of generation is the Father and the Son. Unfaithfulness follows carnal senses in all things. For they introduce the case of God as if of a man, so that he deliberated and thought beforehand in order to generate, as if subject to infirmity, whereas in God neither was generation without will, nor was will without generation. For the will itself is the generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":205,"ref":"p205","source":"nam utique commune dictum est: 'fecit deus., 'fecit homo.; sed aliter facit deus, aliter homo. ita et in ceteris causis; sic enim de deo dicendum est, ut dignum est ei.\n\nSolent etiam ipsi deo patri aliam facere quaestionem dicentes: 'accessit illi, ut generaret, aut eius naturae est, ut semper generet?' quod ideo afferunt, ut et deum mendacem asserant, qui se Christum generasse testatur, et Christum non uerum, sed adoptiuum faciant. (si enim generauit', inquiunt, 'semper debet generare, ut, quia non semper generat, nec Christum genuisse credatur', quasi mundum negetur fecisse, quia alios non facit. quae inreuerentia, quae indisciplinatio est legem deo ponere ut: 'si genuit, aut multos genuit aut unum generare non potuit,' nec ipsi domino credentes, qui se unicum dei filium protestatus est!\n\nPost haec quae supra ostensa sunt aequalia patri et filio, uideamus an his concordent ea quae de sancto spiritu scripta sunt, ut trinitas, quam in salutari professione retinemus, non recipiat discrepantiam naturae, quo modo non habet fidei diuersitatem. quando enim salus sine aliquo ex his non est, una eorum trium uidetur potestas, quae in se credentibus dat salutem.","english":"For indeed it is a common expression: 'God made,' 'man made'; but God makes in one way, man in another. So too in other matters; for one must speak of God in a manner worthy of him.\n\nThey also customarily raise another question concerning God the Father himself, saying: 'Did it occur to him to beget, or is it of his nature always to beget?' They bring this forward in order both to assert that God is a liar, who testifies that he begot Christ, and to make Christ not true, but adoptive. (For if he begot, they say, 'he ought always to beget, so that, because he does not always beget, he should not be believed to have begotten Christ either,' as if it were denied that he made the world because he does not make others. What irreverence, what lack of discipline it is to impose a law on God such as: 'If he begot, he either begot many or could not beget one,' not even believing the Lord himself, who declared himself to be the only Son of God!\n\nAfter these things which have been shown above as equal between Father and Son, let us see whether those things which are written concerning the Holy Spirit agree with them, so that the Trinity, which we hold in our creedal profession, may not admit a discrepancy of nature, just as it has no diversity of faith. For when salvation is not present without any one of these, the power of the three of them seems to be one, which grants salvation to those who believe in it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":206,"ref":"p206","source":"quoniam ad testimonium filii uerba patris protulimus, nunc ad testimonium spiritus sancti uerbis utamur filii, quibus non differre a se spiritum sanctum protestatur, ut, cum filio pater et filius spiritui sancto testis est, unius esse naturae trinitas intellegatur. dicit ergo inter cetera dominus: rogabo patrem et alium paracletum dabit uobis, ut uobiscum sit in aeternum, spiritum ueritatis. cum alium paracletum mittendum dicit, se utique paracletum probat. nam et legitur in epistula Iohannis; dicit enim: habemus aduocatum apud patrem, Iesum Christum, qui exorat pro peccatis nostris, et iterum dicit dominus: ego sum ueritas. ecce aperta unitas spiritus sancti et filii dei; quae de se enim filius, eadem loquitur et de sancto spiritu.\n\nNunc subicienda sunt, quae in hunc sensum ordinat scriptura. legitur in Eseia quia dominum sabaoth uiderit in throno maiestatis sedentem, quem Iohannes euangelista Christum esse intellexit dicens inter alia: haec dixit Eseias, quando uidit maiestatem eius et locutus est de eo. hunc apostolus sanctum dicit esse spiritum. ait enim in nouissima parte Actuum Apostolorum: bene locutus est spiritus sanctus ad patres uestros dicens: aure audietis et non intellegitis tis et cetera. haec uerba a domino sabaoth dicta sunt. hic est unus deus, qui siue pater intellegatur siue filius siue spiritus sanctus, non est contrarium.","english":"Since we have brought forth the words of the Father as a testimony to the Son, let us now use the words of the Son as a testimony to the Holy Spirit, by which he declares that the Holy Spirit is not different from himself, so that, when the Father bears witness to the Son and the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity may be understood to be of one nature. Therefore the Lord says among other things: \"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth.\" When he says that another Paraclete is to be sent, he certainly proves himself to be a Paraclete. For it is also read in the Epistle of John; for he says: \"We have an advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for our sins,\" and again the Lord says: \"I am the truth.\" Behold the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God; for what the Son says of himself, he also says of the Holy Spirit.\n\nNow those things are to be subjoined which Scripture arranges in this sense. It is read in Isaiah that he saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting on the throne of majesty, whom the evangelist John understood to be Christ, saying among other things: \"Isaiah said this when he saw his majesty and spoke of him.\" The apostle declares this to be the Holy Spirit. For he says in the last part of the Acts of the Apostles: \"The Holy Spirit spoke well to your fathers, saying: 'You will hear with your ears and not understand,'\" and so forth. These words were spoken by the Lord Sabaoth. This is the one God, whether he is understood as Father or Son or Holy Spirit, it is not contrary.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":207,"ref":"p207","source":"quia una eorum diuinitas et potestas est. nam si in unius praefecti praetorio programmate etiam ceteri praefecti iubere dicuntur propter auctoritatem unius potestatis, quanto magis in unius dei imperio, si locutus unus e tribus fuerit, non incongrue dicentur tres locuti! est enim eorum et natura et uoluntas una.\n\nSolent iterum praeiudicare sancto spiritui, quod ideo degener intellegatur, quia in ordine tertius ponitur, cum tanta simplicitas sit in scripturis diuinis, ut aliquando inuenias tertium primum positum. ut enim causa se tulerit, sic et ponuntur. nullius enim iniuria est, quia una eorum diuinitas est. denique legimus in Eseia dicente domino: ego sum primus et ego in aeternum et manus mea fundauit terram, dextera mea solidauit caelum, et in subiectis: ego locutus sum, ego uocaui, ego adduxi eum et i prosperum iter eius feci. accedite ad me et audite haec: non in occulto ab initio locutus sum; cum fierent, illic eram et nunc dominus misit me et spiritus eius. quem uis esse qui fundauit terram? ipse enim dicit missum se esse. numquid patrem? absit. filius ergo est qui se missum dicit a deo et spiritu sancto. ecce paria sunt ista inter filium et spiritum sanctum. sicut enim a patre et filio missus legitur spiritus sanctus, ita et a deo et spiritu sancto missus est Christus. hoc enim solius patris peculiare est, ne missus dicatur.","english":"Because their divinity and power is one. For if in the program of one praetorian prefect the other prefects are also said to command on account of the authority of a single power, how much more in the command of one God, if one of the three has spoken, will the three not incongruously be said to have spoken! For their nature and will are one.\n\nAgain, they are accustomed to prejudice the Holy Spirit, that he is understood to be inferior because he is placed third in order, when there is such simplicity in the divine scriptures that sometimes you find the third placed first. For as the case demands, so they are placed. For it is no injury to any, because their divinity is one. Finally, we read in Isaiah, the Lord saying: I am the first and I am forever, and my hand founded the earth, my right hand solidified the sky, and in the following: I spoke, I called, I led him and made his journey prosperous. Come to me and hear these things: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; when they were happening, I was there, and now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit. Whom do you suppose it is who founded the earth? For he himself says he was sent. Surely not the Father? Far from it. Therefore it is the Son who says he was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. Behold, these things are equal between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Holy Spirit is read to have been sent by the Father and the Son, so also Christ was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. For this is peculiar to the Father alone, that he is not said to be sent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":208,"ref":"p208","source":"Accipe dicta apostoli, qui alio ordine conplectitur trinitatem; dicit enim inter cetera in epistula ad Thessalonicenses secunda: dominus dirigat corda uestra in caritate dei et patientia Christi, quem, putas, dicit dominum nisi spiritum sanctum? et quid mirum cum, quem in throno maiestatis sedentem Eseias uiderit, hic ipsum dicat spiritum sanctum dominum sabaoth, sicut supra ostendimus? et Iohannes apostolus deum intellegi in spiritu sancto significat inter cetera dicens: ex hoc cognoscimus quia deus in nobis manet et de spiritu suo quem dedit nobis. si ergo per spiritum suum ipse in nobis manet, non ambigitur de deo esse spiritum sanctum. et nec dubium est, quia quod de deo est deus est. hinc est unde dicit apostolus: nemo scit quae sunt in deo nisi spiritus dei. quo modo potest scire quae in deo sunt, nisi sit eiusdem diuinitatis? inferior enim natura non potest scire quid sit in potiore; quanto magis creatura quid in conditore suo esset scire non poterat!","english":"Take the words of the apostle, who embraces the Trinity in a different order; for he says among other things in the second letter to the Thessalonians: \"May the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God and the patience of Christ.\" Whom do you think he calls Lord except the Holy Spirit? And what wonder, when the one whom Isaiah saw sitting on the throne of majesty, he here calls the Holy Spirit the Lord Sabaoth, as we have shown above? And the apostle John signifies that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things: \"From this we know that God dwells in us and from His Spirit which He gave us.\" Therefore, if through His Spirit He Himself dwells in us, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is from God. And there is no doubt that what is from God is God. Hence it is that the apostle says: \"No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God.\" How can it know what is in God, unless it is of the same divinity? For an inferior nature cannot know what is in a superior; how much more could a creature not know what was in its Creator!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":209,"ref":"p209","source":"Et ad Corinthios in epistula prima praeterito ordine, qui in traditione fidei est, ab spiritu sancto incipit gratiarum et ministeriorum memorare operationes et subiungit dominum Iesum et tertium ponit deum, quem et in spiritu sancto et in domino dicit operari, sicut ait et dominus: pater manens in me ipse operatur. per id quod enim de deo patre est et spiritus sanctus et Christus, operatio eorum opus est dei. denique sanctum spiritum idem dicit et dominum, et dominum idem dicit et deum - hoc propter unitatem naturae —; cum ergo hoc loco idem deum, qui est et dominus, dicat operari omnia in omnibus, inferius sic conclusit dicens: omnia autem haec operatur unus adque idem spiritus diuidens uni cuique prout uult. quid tam apertum tres unius esse operationis, quia operante uno operari dicuntur tres? quare, nisi quia unius sunt diuinitatis? nam non est ambiguum donum gratiarum proprie spiritum sanctum operari. sed ut deum et dominum et spiritum sanctum unum esse propter naturae indifferentiam doceret, opus spiritus sancti trium esse opus ostendit. et ut manifestaret quia solius, quantum ad personam pertinet, spiritus sancti opus est: haec autem omnia. inquit, operaturunus adque idem spiritus diuidens uni cuique prout uult. ideo 'prout uult), quia uoluntas eius uoluntas est dei. non enim dixit (prout uult deus,' sed (prout uult spiritus).","english":"And to the Corinthians, in the first epistle, inverting the order which is in the tradition of the faith, he begins from the Holy Spirit to recount the operations of graces and ministries, and then joins the Lord Jesus, and places God third, whom he says works both in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord, just as the Lord says: \"The Father abiding in me Himself works.\" For by the fact that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are from God the Father, their operation is the work of God. Finally, he calls the Holy Spirit the same as the Lord, and the Lord the same as God—this on account of the unity of nature—; therefore, when in this passage he says that the same God, who is also the Lord, works everything in all things, he concluded below thus: \"But all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each as he wills.\" What is so clear as that three are of one operation, because when one works, the three are said to work? Why, unless because they are of one divinity? For it is not ambiguous that the gift of graces is properly worked by the Holy Spirit. But in order to teach that God and the Lord and the Holy Spirit are one on account of the indifference of nature, he showed that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And to make it manifest that, as far as the person is concerned, it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone: \"But all these things,\" he says, \"one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each as he wills.\" He says \"as he wills\" because his will is the will of God. For he did not say \"as God wills,\" but \"as the Spirit wills.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":210,"ref":"p210","source":"creatura enim cogit se, ut dei faciat uoluntatem; spiritus autem sanctus naturaliter hoc uult\n\nUt aperte luceat quia omnia spiritus sanctus operatur, dicit dominus inter cetera: si enim ego in digito dei eicio demonia et cetera. digitum dei appellat spiritum sanctum, ut probet hunc de deo esse. denique Iudaeos, qui eum in Belzebub eicere demonia dicebant, in sanctum spiritum blasfemasse testatus est. Moyses quoque quia per spiritum sanctum signa faciebat, confitentur magi dicentes: digitus dei est hic. nam et in Actis Apostolorum legimus: deseruientibus autem eis et ieiunantibus domino dixit spiritus sanctus: segregate mihi Barnaban et Saulum ad opus, quod uocaui eos. ecce seruitur domino, et hoc spiritus sanctus sibi uindicat - unde manifeste apparet hunc esse dominum sicut et deum patrem —; et Saulum Christus de caelo uocauit et misit praedicare, et hoc simili modo sibi defendit spiritus sanctus dicendo: ad opus quod uocaui eos. nam nemo ignorat episcopos saluatorem ecclesiis instituisse; ipse enim priusquam in caelos ascenderet, inponens manum apostolis ordinauit eos episcopos. hoc apostolus sancto spiritui deputat, cum dicat: adtendite uobis et omni gregi, in quo uos spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam domini Iesu. et inter cetera dicit Petrus ad Ananiam: Ananias, cur repleuit satanas cor tuum, ut mentireris spiritui sancto?","english":"For the creature compels itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit naturally wills this.\n\nSo that it may shine forth clearly that the Holy Spirit works everything, the Lord says among other things: \"For if I in the finger of God cast out demons,\" and so forth. He calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God, to prove that this one is from God. Finally, he testified that the Jews, who said he cast out demons by Beelzebub, had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Also Moses, because he performed signs through the Holy Spirit, the magi confess, saying: \"This is the finger of God.\" For also in the Acts of the Apostles we read: \"While they were serving and fasting, the Holy Spirit said to the Lord: 'Separate Barnabas and Saul for me for the work to which I have called them.'\" Behold, the Lord is served, and the Holy Spirit claims this for himself—whence it manifestly appears that this one is Lord just as God the Father is—; and Christ called Saul from heaven and sent him to preach, and the Holy Spirit similarly claims this for himself by saying: \"for the work to which I have called them.\" For no one is ignorant that the Savior instituted bishops for the churches; for he himself, before he ascended into the heavens, laying on his hands, ordained them bishops. The apostle attributes this to the Holy Spirit, when he says: \"Attend to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the church of the Lord Jesus.\" And among other things, Peter says to Ananias: \"Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":211,"ref":"p211","source":"et infra: non es, inquit, hominibus mentitus, sed deo. apertum est spiritum sanctum dictum deum, cui mentitus Ananias deo mentitus dicitur. quod si spiritum sanctum minime uoluisset deum intellegi, dixisset: 'non es mentitus hominibus, sed spiritui sancto,' ut neque deum hunc neque hominem signaret. et quid mirum? apostolus enim aliquando templum dei hominem appellat, aliquando uero templum spiritus sancti, propterea quia unum sunt natura. si enim minime deus intellegeretur spiritus sanctus, qua audacia diceret infra: templum enim dei sanctum est, quod estis uos?\n\nQuoniam unus deus omnibus in scripturis praedicatur. mysterium autem eius in trinitate adoratur, idcirco sic agit scriptura, ut sub unius dei professione ea, quae de ipso sunt, id est filius et spiritus eius, in eodem honore intellegantur, in quo ipse deus est, quia ideo sacramentum reuelatum est dei, ut gloria eius in trinitate manere signaretur. quam ob rem : non plena auctoritate deus uocatur quod de deo est, ne alterum absque eo, qui unus est, facere credatur, sed intellectum dat, ut credamus ea ratione in trinitate creaturae salutem consistere, quia una est eorum diuinitas. neque enim possit simul iungi et in ordine poni creator et creatura, dominus et serui, aeternitas et quae sub initio sunt, quippe cum sine uno eorum salus nulli sit.","english":"And further: \"You have not,\" he says, \"lied to men, but to God.\" It is clear that the Holy Spirit is called God, to whom Ananias is said to have lied to God. But if he had not wished the Holy Spirit to be understood as God, he would have said: \"You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit,\" so that he would designate this one as neither God nor man. And what wonder? For the apostle sometimes calls a man the temple of God, but sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, because they are one in nature. For if the Holy Spirit were not understood to be God, with what audacity would he say below: \"For the temple of God is holy, which you are\"?\n\nSince one God is proclaimed in all the Scriptures, but His mystery is worshipped in the Trinity, Scripture acts in such a way that, under the profession of one God, those things which are of Him, that is, His Son and His Spirit, are understood to be in the same honor in which God Himself is, because the sacrament of God was revealed for this reason, that His glory might be signified to abide in the Trinity. For this reason: that which is of God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed that another is made apart from the One who is, but it gives understanding, so that we may believe that the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity by that reasoning, because their divinity is one. For it is not possible for the creator and the creature, the Lord and the servants, eternity and those things which have a beginning, to be joined together and placed in the same order, especially since without one of them salvation exists for no one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":212,"ref":"p212","source":"ad iniuriam enim uocatur omne quod deus est, siue filius siue sanctus spiritus, si extra unius dei honorem deputetur et gloriam. scripturae igitur ostendunt Christum deum, ostendunt spiritum sanctum deum, ut uidentes sciant quid sit quod ostenditur. tale est si quis gemmam ostendat non clamans quia gemma est; numquid, quia ille non clamat, non erit gemma quae uidetur? ita et scripturae ostendunt per ea quae supra tractata sunt, quid credere debeamus, intra unius dei fidem sensum nostrum concludentes mysterio trinitatis.\n\nXCVIII. DE EUANGELIO IOHANNE.\n\nAudistis quae contestetur sacrosanctum euangelium dicente domino ad Iudaeos: uos de patre diabolo nati estis et desideria patris uestri uultis facere. ille homicida fuit ab initio et in ueritate non stetit, quia ueritas non est in illo. cum loquitur mendacium, ex suis propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, sicut et pater eius. nemo fidelium dubitet diabolum apostasiae suae auctorem non habere. ipse enim totius erroris est princeps, qui uidens a deo factum se non mediocris potentiae ausus est praesumere deitatem, ut, quia ceteros uidit inferiores, se ipsum praeferret ut deum. denique nomina, quibus appellatur diabolus et satanas, ab actu eius conposita sunt, non ex natura. omne enim malum opere probatur, ut non subsistentia in crimine sit, sed uoluntas concepta ex causis.","english":"For everything that is God is called to injury, whether Son or Holy Spirit, if it is assigned outside the honor and glory of the one God. Therefore the Scriptures show Christ to be God; they show the Holy Spirit to be God, so that those who see may know what it is that is shown. It is as if someone were to show a gem without crying out that it is a gem; surely, because he does not cry out, will it not be a gem that is seen? So too the Scriptures show, through those things which have been treated above, what we ought to believe, confining our understanding within the faith of the one God by the mystery of the Trinity.\n\nXCVIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.\n\nYou have heard what the sacrosanct Gospel attests, when the Lord says to the Jews: \"You are born from the father devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.\" He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, just as his father is. Let none of the faithful doubt that the devil has no author of his own apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error, who, seeing himself made by God as one of not mediocre power, dared to presume upon divinity, so that, because he saw others as inferior, he preferred himself as a god. Finally, the names by which he is called, devil and Satan, are composed from his action, not from nature. For every evil is proven by its work, so that the subsistence is not in the crime, but the will conceived from causes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":213,"ref":"p213","source":"dum enim se uidit ceteris potiorem, inflatus est ad exercendam dominationem.\n\nQuo modo ergo patrem habere dicetur, qui auctor sceleris eius habeatur? aut unde probatur ab initio homicida fuisse? sed scriptura illum, qui eius fuerit imitator, nomine eius appellat, ut, quia ab opere nomen accepit, omnis qui malum opus fecerit non inmerito diabolus nominetur. saluator ergo hoc loco Cain diabolum appellauit, quia operum eius aemulus. dum inuidet fratri, homicidium perpetrauit exemplum relinquens crudelitatis parricidii; sicut et diabolus, dum inuidet homini facto ad imaginem dei, malignitatem operis sui cumulauit typum praebens errori. hinc itaque etiam mendax extitit Cain dicente sibi deo: ubi est Abel frater tuus? qui patris sui imbutus malitia in mendacium prorumpens: nescio, inquit, ut, cui uitam extorserat, ubi esset nescire se simularet sic furore caecatus, ut deo sic responderet quasi homini, quem putaret se posse celare.","english":"For when he saw himself superior to the others, he was puffed up to exercise domination.\n\nHow, then, will he be said to have a father, who is considered the author of his crime? Or from where is it proven that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls by his name the one who was his imitator, so that, because he received his name from his deed, everyone who has done an evil work is not undeservedly called 'devil'. Therefore the Saviour in this passage called Cain 'devil', because he was an emulator of his works. While he envied his brother, he perpetrated homicide, leaving an example of cruelty and parricide; just as the devil, while he envies man made in the image of God, heaped up the malignity of his own work, providing a type for error. Hence, then, Cain also proved a liar, when God said to him: 'Where is your brother Abel?' He, imbued with his father's malice, bursting into a lie, said: 'I do not know', so that he pretended not to know where he was, whose life he had extorted, thus blinded by fury that he answered God as if to a man whom he thought he could deceive.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":214,"ref":"p214","source":"Igitur huius imitatores facti Iudaei etiam ipsum dominum occiderunt, Cain potius fratricidam patrem uolentes habere quam deum, ut totius sanguinis effusi rei fierent. auctorem enim uitae perimentes totius sceleris principes extiterunt, ita ut huic malo etiam filios suos obligarent dicentes: sanguis eius super nos et super filios nostros. ut enim Pilato suaderent nihil mali esse quod petebant, in filios suos retorqueri dixerunt, si esset iniustum, quia, ut furori suo satis facerent, nec filiis suis parcere uoluerunt.\n\nNam quia diabolus non natura malus est, hinc facilius discitur, quia poena non promitteretur ei qui non fecerat quod nescierat. iniquum est enim punire eum qui non facit aliud quam quod suae est naturae; et magis istud malum est, si hoc exigas ab aliquo, quod scias illum non posse. quam ob rem iuste plectendus est, quem cum constet scire ac facere posse bonum agit malum. hoc etiam ex uerbis saluatoris poterit aduerti; ait enim, sicut supra memoratum est: pater uester homicida fuit ab initio et in ueritate non stetit. igitur si per naturam mendax est, quo modo dicitur in ueritate non stetisse? hic enim in ueritate non stat, qui in ueritate non permanet. constat ergo diabolum in ueritate fuisse, sed non perseuerasse.","english":"Therefore, the Jews, becoming imitators of him, also killed the Lord himself, preferring to have Cain, a fratricidal father, rather than God, so that they might become guilty of all the blood that was shed. For by killing the author of life, they became the chief perpetrators of every crime, to the extent that they bound even their own children to this evil, saying: \"His blood is upon us and upon our children.\" For in order to persuade Pilate that there was nothing wrong in what they were seeking, they said that it would be turned back upon their children if it were unjust, because, to satisfy their own fury, they were unwilling to spare even their own children.\n\nFor that the devil is not evil by nature is more easily learned from this: that punishment would not be promised to one who had not done what he had not known. For it is unjust to punish one who does nothing other than what is in his nature; and this evil is even greater if you demand from someone what you know he cannot do. For this reason, one is justly punished who, when it is established that he knows and is able to do good, does evil. This can also be observed from the words of the Savior; for He says, as was mentioned above: \"Your father was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth.\" Therefore, if he is a liar by nature, how is it said that he did not stand in the truth? For he does not stand in the truth who does not remain in the truth. It is established, therefore, that the devil was in the truth, but did not persevere.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":215,"ref":"p215","source":"denique legimus per profetam dicentem dominum: si stetissent, inquit, in substantia mea, id est 'in lege mea', et apostolus ad Galatas: state, inquit, et nolite iterum seruitutis iugo cohiberi. quid tam apertum? hoc enim mandat, ut de cetero permaneant in mandatis eius. quod si diabolus seruasset, steterat in substantia et lege dei. fundamentum est enim lex seruantibus eam.\n\nQuo modo ergo quibusdam uidetur diabolum aut malum a deo factum aut propriam habere originem, id est ex nullo ortum, quod utrumque deo uidetur contrarium? qui enim ad hoc illum dicit factum, ut esset malus, inperfectae putat deum bonitatis, quia perfectus bonus non facit malum; qui uero originis eius deum auctorem esse non credit, dominium deo abnegat. per hoc enim, cum omnia dei sint, aliquid esse arbitrantur quod minime ad deum pertineat, quos oportet poenas perpeti, cum uiderint cuncta a deo iudicari per Christum.","english":"Finally, we read through the prophet the Lord saying: \"If they had stood,\" he says, \"in my substance,\" that is, \"in my law.\" And the Apostle, in his letter to the Galatians, says: \"Stand,\" he says, \"and do not be held back again under the yoke of servitude.\" What could be clearer? For this commands that from now on they remain in his commandments. If the devil had kept this, he would have stood in the substance and law of God. For the law is a foundation for those who keep it.\n\nHow, then, does it seem to some that the devil was either made evil by God or has his own origin, that is, arose from nothing—both of which appear contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for the purpose of being evil considers God to be of imperfect goodness, because a perfectly good being does not create evil. But whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies dominion to God. For by this, since all things belong to God, they suppose that there is something that in no way pertains to God—those who ought to suffer penalties when they see that all things are judged by God through Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":216,"ref":"p216","source":"XCVIIII. QVID SIT 'TEMTATIO UOS NON ADPREHENDAT NISI HUMANA.'\n\nNon sine prouidentia, ut arbitror, magister gentium, apostolus noster, temptatio ut nos adprehendat exoptat, sed humana dumtaxat, quia diuina temptatio perniciem parit. hac enim Iudaei adprehensi serpentibus perierunt; agentes enim sub lege dei de prouidentia eius dubitabant. ac per hoc ne diuina nos sed humana temptatio adprehendat, hortatur. hic enim deum temptare dicitur, qui sub nomine eius agens ab idolis sperat salutem, quia non habet deum probatum. omne enim quod probatum non est temptatur et quod temptatur in dubium uenit. ac per hoc diuina temptatio mortalis est, humana uero temptatio salutaris, quia, sicut de deo dubitare perniciosum est, ita de homine desperare propter dei legem saluberrimum est. quam ob rem prouidenter apostolus: temptatio uos, inquit, non adprehendat nisi humana, ut propter dei legem ab hominibus temptati fortes inueniamur dubitantibus de nobis hominibus carnalibus, deo autem probati simus, quia qui probati deo non sunt temptantur ut emendentur.","english":"XCVIIII. WHAT IT MEANS THAT 'NO TEMPTATION SHOULD SEIZE YOU EXCEPT A HUMAN ONE.'\n\nNot without foresight, in my judgment, our apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, desires that temptation seize us, but only a human one, because divine temptation brings ruin. For the Jews, seized by this, perished from serpents; for while acting under the law of God, they doubted concerning his providence. And on this account, he urges that no divine temptation, but rather a human one, should seize us. For a person is said to tempt God who, acting under his name, hopes for salvation from idols, because he does not have God as proven. For everything that is not proven is tempted, and what is tempted comes into doubt. And on this account, divine temptation is deadly, but human temptation is salutary, because, just as doubting God is ruinous, so despairing of a human being for the sake of God's law is most beneficial. For this reason the apostle providently says: let no temptation seize you except a human one, so that, tempted by human beings for the sake of God's law, we may be found strong by those carnal humans who doubt us, but be proven to God, because those who are not proven to God are tempted so that they may be corrected.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":217,"ref":"p217","source":"Duplex ergo temptatio est; aliquando enim quasi fideles, aliquando quasi diffidentes temptamurutfidelium temptatio humana sit. propter fidem enim ab hominibus tribulamur — temptant enim nos, si possint abducere nos a fide -, propter diffidentiam autem temptantur, ut angustiati paenitentes redeant in uiam, sicut factum est et Iudaeis. cum enim diffiderent de prouidentia dei, temptati sunt a serpentibus, ut dolore correpti emendarentur. deus enim sic temptat, ut corrigat huius modi homines. est et alia temptatio, qua temptatus est Abraham et Iob nec non et Tobias, famuli dei, ut Abraham per tribulationem oblati unici et dilectissimi filii uberiorem fructum iustitiae haberet ad aeternam gloriam, Iob autem amissione totius substantiae augmentaretur diuitiis locupletatus in caelis et in terra; Tobias uero caecitatem luminum passus sic prouectior extitit, ut et ad praesens gloriosus fieret receptis oculis et in futurum seruaretur ei claritas perpetua, quia ad hoc probantur iusti, ut proficiant. ideoque in temptatione robusto animo esse debemus scientes non ad deminutionem nostram hoc proficere, sed ad augmentum, si modo aequo animo toleremus per Christum.","english":"Therefore, temptation is twofold: for at times we are tempted as believers, at times as unbelievers, so that the temptation of believers is human. For on account of faith we are harassed by men—for they tempt us, to see if they can lead us away from the faith—but on account of unbelief they are tempted, so that, distressed, they may repent and return to the way, as also happened with the Jews. For when they despaired of God’s providence, they were tempted by serpents, so that, seized by pain, they might be corrected. For God tempts in this way in order to correct such men. There is also another temptation, by which Abraham and Job were tempted, and also Tobias, servants of God, so that Abraham, through the tribulation of his only and most beloved son offered up, might have a richer fruit of righteousness for eternal glory; Job, however, through the loss of his entire substance, might be increased, enriched with wealth in heaven and on earth; Tobias, indeed, having suffered blindness of the eyes, thus became more advanced, so that he was made glorious even in the present by the recovery of his eyes, and for the future perpetual brightness is preserved for him, because the righteous are tested in order that they may advance. And therefore in temptation we ought to be of stout heart, knowing that this works not to our diminishment, but to our increase, if only we endure it with equanimity through Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":218,"ref":"p218","source":"C. DE EUANGELIO MATHEO.\n\nAudistis, fratres carissimi, quae contestetur euangelium dicente domino: confiteor tibi, pater, domine caeli et terrae, quod abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et reuelasti ea paruolis. ita, pater, quoniam sic fuit placitum ante te. igitur, si dictorum sensum inspiciamus, uidebimus ea, quae ad exhortationem credentium a domino dicta sunt, eorum qui, propter quod mundanam sapientiam spernunt, paruuli uidentur sapientibus mundi, qui nullo testimonio commendati sapientes uolunt dici. idcirco indignum uisum est deo his ostendere ueritatem, humilibus autem, qui nihil de se praesumentes dei se uoluntati inclinant, aequitate cogente salutaria reuelanda sunt hic enim prudens deo est et salutis suae memor, qui scientiae suae anteponit dei legem, quam utique uidet non uerborum strepitu fulciri, sed rerum uirtutibus. et sine dubio hic stultus et uanus est, qui huic rei se commendat, quae nulla munitur praerogatiua signorum.","english":"Chapter on the Gospel of Matthew.\n\nYou have heard, dearest brothers, what the Gospel attests, the Lord saying: \"I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones. Thus, Father, since such was your pleasure before you.\" Therefore, if we examine the sense of the words, we will see that those things which were said by the Lord for the encouragement of believers—of those who, because they despise worldly wisdom, appear as little ones to the wise of the world, who, commended by no testimony, wish to be called wise. For this reason it seemed unworthy to God to show the truth to these, but to the humble, however, who, presuming nothing of themselves, incline themselves to God's will, the salutary truths are to be revealed, equity compelling. For here is prudent before God and mindful of his own salvation, he who places God's law before his own knowledge, which he certainly sees is supported not by a clatter of words, but by the powers of things. And without doubt, he is foolish and vain who commends himself to that which is fortified by no prerogative of signs.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":219,"ref":"p219","source":"Unde non litteratis saeculi regnum deus promisit, sed fidelibus; neque scrutatoribus siderum aeternitatem pollicetur, sed recte agentibus; nec dialecticis, qui fraude et minutis quibusdam uerum excludere nituntur, gloriam dat, sed bonae uoluntatis hominibus, qui accurati magis uita sunt quam sermone. istos enim reprobat deus, qui oratione clari sermonis uti uolunt quam bonis actibus. nam et gloriam dei in se uult conuertere, qui rem dei uerbis exornare se putat. res enim ipsae per se placere debent, ut non sermo, sed sensus laudetur. si enim sensus auctor est litterae et uerba propter res significandas inuenta sunt, cur non magis res ipsae puro sensu promendae sunt, ut facilius mentem incitent ad salutem? ideoque piscatores elegit dominus nostros apostolos, homines simplices et sine litteris, qui sine aliqua uersutia fidem seruando et bene uiuendo dei in se ostenderent ueritatem. unde et apostolus Paulus: et ego ueniens, inquit, ad uos, fratres, ueni non in sublimitate sermonis ant sapientiae, inter cetera: quia non, ait, in sermone eat regnum dei, sed in uirtute, ut, quia uerba contradictioni obnoxia sunt, dei legi uirtus testis existeret, cui omnis cedit sermonum sublimitas.","english":"Therefore God promised the kingdom of the world not to the learned, but to the faithful; nor does He promise eternity to the investigators of the stars, but to those acting rightly; nor does He give glory to the dialecticians, who by fraud and certain subtleties strive to exclude the truth, but to men of good will, who are more careful in life than in speech. For God rejects those who prefer to use the brilliance of eloquent speech rather than good deeds. For he who thinks he adorns God’s matter by embellishing it with words seeks to turn God’s glory to himself. For the things themselves ought to please on their own, so that not the speech, but the sense is praised. For if the sense is the author of the letter and words were invented for the sake of signifying things, why should the things themselves not be set forth with pure sense, so that they may more easily incite the mind to salvation? Therefore our Lord chose the apostles, fishermen, simple and unlettered men, who, by preserving faith without any cunning and by living well, would show forth God’s truth in themselves. Hence also the Apostle Paul says: “And I, coming to you, brothers, came not in sublimity of speech or wisdom,” among other things: “because,” he says, “the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power,” so that, since words are subject to contradiction, the power of God’s law might stand as a witness, to which all sublimity of speech yields.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":220,"ref":"p220","source":"Itaque haec idcirco praemissa sunt, fratres carissimi, ut consuleretur simplicioribus, ne se forte indignos putarent gratia dei, quia minime sunt litteris forensibus eruditi, cum magis ad laudem proficiat simplicitas eorum, quando quod prudentes mundi non uident superbia litterarum, hi credunt, non uerbis sed consilio prudentes. sciunt enim in bonis operibus requiescere deum et fidem quaerere, non cultum sermonem. legunt enim dicentem dominum: in quo requiescam, nisi in humili et mansueto et tremente uerba mea? quam ob rem, ut digni efficiamur ad promissa praemia, ea quae a domino iubentur facere debemus, securi quia hos diligit dominus, qui uerba eius custodiunt. sic enim dixit discipulis suis: si diligitis me, praecepta mea seruate, ut in his domino seruientes regni eius heredes esse possimus per legum Christum dominum nostrum.","english":"These things have been set forth beforehand, dearest brothers, so that the simpler ones might be reassured, lest they perhaps consider themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are not at all trained in forensic letters, when rather their simplicity redounds to their praise, since what the worldly wise do not see because of the pride of letters, these believe, wise not in words but in counsel. For they know that God rests in good works and seeks faith, not polished speech. For they read the Lord saying: \"In whom shall I rest, if not in the humble and meek and in one who trembles at my words?\" For this reason, that we may become worthy of the promised rewards, we ought to do those things which are commanded by the Lord, secure in the knowledge that the Lord loves those who keep his words. For thus He said to His disciples: \"If you love me, keep my commandments,\" so that by serving the Lord in these things we may be able to be heirs of His kingdom through the law of Christ our Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":221,"ref":"p221","source":"CI. DE IACTANTIA ROMANORUM LEUITARUM.\n\nDum iussis caritatis parere uolumus, in uituperationem forte cademus, qui de re, quae nulli aliquando in dubium uenit, scribimus, quia, cum amicitiam offendere nolumus, studium, quod ad aliquam rem occultam reuelandam proficere debuit, intricamus, quamuis propter nimiam stultitiam cuiusdam hoc adseuerantis, quod in subiectis pandemus, istud et nobis iniunxerit caritas memorata, ne. cum nemo ad haec diu responderet, in peius proficeret et diu in uano exercitatus emendari non possit. hoc enim caritatis studium est. quae non quaerit quae sua sunt.\n\nQuidam igitur, qui nomen habet falsi dei, duce stultitia et ciuitatis Romanae iactantia leuitas sacerdotibus et diaconos presbiteris coaequare contendit, non dicam praeferre. quia stultius est et forte incredibile uideatur et nos non emendatores, sed calumniatores habeamur. qua igitur lege quaue consuetudine, quonam exemplo hoc adgredi audeat, nullum scire arbitror, ut istos, quibus consessus in ecclesia datus est minime, his coaequet qui. propter quod antistites dei sunt, in domo dei et in honore Christi cum dignitate considunt. quae audacia est presbiteris ministros ipsorum pares facere! quae temeritatis uana praesumptio sacerdotibus baiulos tabernaculi et omnium uasorum eius et lignorum concisores et portitores* aquae conferre! hoc enim officium fuit leuitarum.","english":"101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF THE ROMAN LEVITES.\n\nWhile we wish to obey the command of charity, we may perhaps fall into blame, writing about a matter that has never at any time come into doubt for anyone, because, when we are unwilling to offend friendship, we entangle the zeal which ought to have been applied to revealing some hidden matter, although on account of the excessive stupidity of a certain person asserting this, which we will disclose in what follows, that same mentioned charity has also imposed this upon us, lest, since no one was responding to these things for a long time, it should grow worse and, long exercised in vain, could not be corrected. For this is the zeal of charity, which does not seek its own interests.\n\nTherefore, a certain person, who bears the name of a false god, led by stupidity and the boastfulness of the city of Rome, strives to equate Levites with priests and deacons with presbyters, not to say to prefer them. Because it is more foolish and perhaps may seem incredible, and we might be considered not correctors but slanderers. By what law, then, or by what custom, by what example he dares to attempt this, I think no one knows, so that he might make these, to whom a seat in the church has been given least of all, equal to those who, because they are the overseers of God, sit with dignity in the house of God and in the honor of Christ. What audacity it is to make presbyters equal to their own ministers! What empty presumption of temerity to compare priests to the bearers of the tabernacle and of all its vessels and the cutters and carriers of wood and water! For this was the office of the Levites.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":222,"ref":"p222","source":"tale est, si praefectis officiales, dominis serui aequentur. hoc enim scriptum est dicente domino ad Moysen: accipe tribum Leui de medio filiorum Israhel et statue illos ante Aaron sacerdotem et deseruient ei. quid hoc exemplo apertius, quod etiam nunc in ecclesia custoditur?\n\nQuamquam Romanae ecclesiae diaconi modice inuerecundiores uideantur, sedendi tamen dignitatem in ecclesia non praesumunt. ut autem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant, multitudo facit clericorum. nam utique et altare portarent et uasa eius, et aquam in manus funderent sacerdoti, sicut uidemus per omnes ecclesias et sicut constitutum est a domino per Moysen. aut numquid meliores Heliseo sunt, qui aquam fundebat in manus Heliae?\n\nSic autem diaconos aduersus presbiteros defendit, quasi ex presbyteris diaconi et non ex diaconibus presbiteri ordinentur. sed quia Romanae ecclesiae ministri sunt, idcirco honorabiliores putantur quam apud ceteras ecclesias propter magnificentiam urbis Romae, quae caput esse uidetur omnium ciuitatum. si ita est, hoc debent et sacerdotibus suis uindicare, quia, si hi qui inferiores sunt crescunt propter magnificentiam, ciuitatis, quanto magis qui potiores sunt sublimandi sunt!","english":"It is as if deputies were equated to prefects, or slaves to masters. For this is what is written when the Lord says to Moses: \"Take the tribe of Levi from among the sons of Israel and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him.\" What could be clearer than this example, which is even now observed in the church?\n\nAlthough the deacons of the Roman church seem somewhat more shameless, they do not, however, presume upon the dignity of sitting in the church. But that they do not perform all the ministries of service in order is due to the multitude of clerics. For they would certainly carry the altar and its vessels, and pour water into the hands of the priest, as we see in all churches and as was established by the Lord through Moses. Or are they better than Elisha, who poured water into the hands of Elijah?\n\nNow, he defends deacons against presbyters as if deacons are ordained from among presbyters, and not presbyters from among deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman church, they are therefore considered more honorable than in other churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which seems to be the head of all cities. If this is so, they ought to claim this also for their priests, because if those who are inferior are elevated on account of the magnificence of the city, how much more should those who are superior be exalted!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":223,"ref":"p223","source":"quicquid enim officialibus praestatur, augmentum fit potestati, sicut honor serui ad laudem proficit 'domini, quamquam apud iustum iudicem deum uni cuique hic honor maneat, qui creatus est singulis ecclesiarum officiis, ut qui diaconus est diaconii honorem per omnes ecclesias habeat - non enim qualiscumque honor est antistiti dei seruire, in ecclesia dumtaxat — et sacerdos totius honoris ecclesiastici dignus habeatur. maior enim ordo intra se et apud se habet et minorem; presbiter enim et diaconi agit officium et exorcistae et lectoris,.\n\nPresbiterum autem intellegi episcopum probat Paulus apostolus, cum quando Timotheum. quem ordinauit presbiterum. instruit qualem debeat creare episcopum. quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbiter, hoc est summus sacerdos? denique non aliter quam conpresbiteros hos uocat et consacerdotes; numquid et ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus? non utique, quia multo inferiores sunt et turpe est iudici dicere primiscrinium. nam in Alexandria et per totam Aegyptum, si desit episcopus, consignat presbiter.","english":"For whatever is provided to officials is an increase to the power, just as the honor of a slave redounds to the praise of the master, although before a just judge, God, this honor remains for each one who is created for the individual offices of the churches, so that whoever is a deacon has the honor of the diaconate in all churches—for it is no small honor to serve the priest of God, at least in the church—and a priest is considered worthy of all ecclesiastical honor. For the greater order contains within itself and in relation to itself the lesser; a presbyter performs the office of both deacon and exorcist and lector.\n\nBut that presbyter is understood as bishop is proved by the apostle Paul, when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained presbyter, as to what sort of man he ought to create as bishop. For what is a bishop except the first presbyter, that is, the high priest? Indeed, he calls them fellow presbyters and fellow priests, not otherwise; does the bishop also call them his fellow deacons and ministers? Certainly not, because they are far inferior, and it is shameful for a judge to say \"chief of the record office.\" For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is absent, a presbyter consecrates.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":224,"ref":"p224","source":"Quanta autem sit dignitas ordinis sacerdotalis, causa ostendit Caiphae, qui, cum esset homo pessimus, profetauit. quare? inquit, (quia princeps erat sacerdotum'. et iterum multum distare inter diaconum et sacerdotem liber adprobat, quem dicimus Actus Apostolorum. cum enim ex Samaria credidissent Philippo praedicanti, diacono ab apostolis ordinato: miserunt. inquit, ad Petrum et Iohannem ut uenirent et his. qui crediderant, darent spiritum sanctum per manus inpositionem.\n\nSed inscii, credo, scripturarum aut inmemores legis haec defendunt. recordari ergo debet qui ista putat asserenda, quid Leuitis acciderit cum taliter saperent. cum enim nihil inter sacerdotes et leuitas interesse praesumerent, deo iudice hiatu terrae absorti sunt Chore et consentientes ei, et CCL uiros torrens ignis simul consumsit, et Ozias rex, cum opus sacerdotale praesumeret, lepra perfusus est, ut hoc utique exemplo ceteri territi non auderent quod concessum non est praesumere. nunc enim uidemus diaconos temere quod sacerdotum est agere per conuiuia et in oratione id uelle, ut respondeatur illis, cum istud solis liceat sacerdotibus. diaconii enim ordo est accipere a sacerdote et sic dare plebi.","english":"But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, although he was a very wicked man, prophesied. Why? he says, \"because he was chief of the priests.\" And again, the book we call the Acts of the Apostles proves that there is a great difference between a deacon and a priest. For when those from Samaria had believed Philip, a deacon ordained by the apostles, preaching, they sent, it says, to Peter and John that they might come and give the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands to those who had believed.\n\nBut the ignorant, I believe, of the scriptures, or those unmindful of the law, defend these things. Therefore, he who thinks these things are to be asserted ought to recall what happened to the Levites when they thought in such a way. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and Levites, by the judgment of God, Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up by a chasm of the earth, and a torrent of fire consumed 250 men at once, and King Uzziah, when he presumed upon the priestly office, was covered with leprosy, so that by this example, the rest, terrified, would not dare to presume what is not granted. For now we see deacons rashly doing what belongs to priests at banquets and in prayer wishing that a response be given to them, when this is permitted only to priests. For the order of the diaconate is to receive from the priest and thus give to the people.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":225,"ref":"p225","source":"Uides quid pariat uana praesumptio? inmemores enim elatione mentis, eo quod uideant Romanae ecclesiae se esse ministros, non considerant quid illis a deo decretum sit et quid debeant custodire, sed tollunt hoc de memoria adsiduae stationes domesticae et officialitas, quae per suggestiones malas seu bonas nunc plurimum potest. aut timentur enim, ne male suggerant, aut emuntur, ut praestent. hi sunt qui faciunt eos ordinis sui non considerare rationem. dum enim per adulationem obsecuntur illis inlicite, praecipites illos faciunt, ut plus sibi putent licere, quippe cum uideant non sic deferri sacerdotibus, ac per hoc anteferri se putant.\n\n'Sed testimonio', inquit, diaconi fit pre-sbiter\\\\ quasi istud ad praerogatiuam pertineat magnitudinis. legimus enim ad plebem dixisse Petrum apostolum: eligite, inquit, ex uobis quos constituamusdeseruire minsteriis ecclesiae, nolo dicere (mensis'. ecce laicorum testimonio creati sunt diaconi. et apostolus eum, qui ordinandus dicitur episcopus, etiam testimonium uult habere gentilium; sic enim ait: oportet enim hunc et testimonium habere bonum ab his qui foris sunt. omnium est ergo testimonium dare et non tamen omnes hoc honore digni sunt. iudicare enim omnes possunt et non tamen omnes possunt esse quod iudicant. potest enim pictor bonus pictor iudicari ab illo, qui pingere nesciat, et coraula melior alio coraula adprobari ab eo.","english":"You see what vain presumption brings forth? For, unmindful, with elation of mind, because they see themselves to be ministers of the Roman church, they do not consider what has been decreed for them by God and what they ought to observe, but they remove this from memory by constant domestic stations and officiality, which through evil or good suggestions now has very great power. For either they are feared, lest they suggest evil, or they are bribed, so that they may provide. These are the ones who make them not consider the rationale of their order. For while they serve them illicitly through adulation, they make them headlong, so that they think more is permitted to them, especially since they see that such deference is not shown to priests, and through this they think themselves preferred.\n\n'But', he says, 'a presbyter is made on the testimony of a deacon', as if that pertains to a prerogative of greatness. For we read that the apostle Peter said to the people: 'Choose', he says, 'from among you those whom we may appoint to serve the ministries of the church, I do not wish to say 'tables'. Behold, deacons were created on the testimony of laymen. And the apostle wishes the one who is said to be ordained bishop also to have the testimony of gentiles; for thus he says: 'For he ought also to have a good testimony from those who are outside.' Therefore it is for all to give testimony, and yet not all are worthy of this honor. For all can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. For a good painter can be judged by one who does not know how to paint, and a better cithara-player than another cithara-player can be approved by him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":226,"ref":"p226","source":"qui alterius sit artis; ita et testis potest esse creandi presbiteri qui inferior ordine est.\n\nEst iterum, quo inflentur et putent sibi multum deberi: 'a nobis' enim. inquiunt, 'perducuntur qui ordinandi sunt'. ut. dum lateri illorum saepti sunt, honore digni uideantur. fac uerum esse; quasi officialis enim ab episcopo mittitur, ut obsequium praebeat ordinando. nam et imperator, ut imperator appareat, ordinatur obsequio militari; non tamen melior nec par exercitus imperatori. nam et Aman. cum esset clarus in honore militari, a rege missus est ut Mardocheo in obsequium iret. ut quantum dignus esset Mardocheus, ex huius obsequiis nosceretur; ita et diaconi creandis presbiteris in obsequium mittuntur, ut dignos eos fieri sacerdotes omnes intellegant. exceptis enim sacerdotibus, quibus obsequium debent, omnibus praeponuntur diaconi.","english":"who is of another craft; so also a witness can be one who creates a presbyter, who is inferior in order.\n\nThere is again something by which they are puffed up and think much is owed to them: 'by us,' they say, 'those who are to be ordained are led forward.' So that, while they are hedged in by their sides, they may seem worthy of honor. Grant that it is true; for an official is sent by the bishop to provide service to the one being ordained. For even the emperor, that he may appear as emperor, is ordered by military service; yet the army is neither better nor equal to the emperor. For even Haman, when he was illustrious in military honor, was sent by the king to go into service to Mordecai, so that how worthy Mordecai was might be known from this man's services; so also deacons are sent into service to create presbyters, that all may understand that they are made worthy to be priests. For except for priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are placed over all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":227,"ref":"p227","source":"CII. CONTRA NOUATIANUM.\n\nDicunt discipuli sui ad Iesum: domine, uis dicimus, ut descendat ignis de caelo et consumat eos, sicut fecit Helias? et respondit illis dominus dicens: nescitis quali «piritn estis. filius enim hominis non uenit animas perdere. sed saluare. cum dignum utique esset uindicare in Samnritanos non suscipientes eum, dominus tamen. quia ad misericordiam dandam aduenit, sententiam amouit. ut de cetero corrigences emendarentur. et profeta Heliseus indignatus pueris, qui ei contumeliam faciebant. deo iudice uindicauit in eos. ut eo loco ab ursis comederentur, ubi silua esse negatur. dominus autem oblatae sibi meretrici pepercit. ei uidelicet, quam in adulterio se deprehendisse maiores Iudaeorum dixerunt, ut. quia pia praedicatio inciperet, non condemnandum, sed ignoscendum doceret. nam per Moysen data lex, quia iustitiam hahuit ad uindictam, in primordiis suis seueritatem exercuit, quia et in illum, qui sabbatis exiit ligna colligere, funebriter uindicauit et in filium Aegyptiae, qui blasphemauerat in deum, similiter ultionem dedit et in causa fusilis uituli percussit filios Israhel.","english":"102. Against Novatian.\n\nHis disciples say to Jesus: \"Lord, do you wish us to say that fire should descend from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?\" And the Lord answered them, saying: \"You do not know what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them.\" Although it would have been fitting to take vengeance on the Samaritans who did not receive him, the Lord, because he came to grant mercy, set aside the sentence, so that the rest might be corrected and reformed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, with God as judge took vengeance on them, so that they were eaten by bears in a place where no forest is said to exist. But the Lord spared a prostitute who was offered to him—namely, the one whom the elders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery—so that, because a pious preaching was beginning, he would teach not condemnation but forgiveness. For the law given through Moses, because it had justice for vengeance, exercised severity in its beginnings, since it punished with death the one who went out to gather wood on the Sabbath, and likewise inflicted vengeance on the son of an Egyptian woman who had blasphemed against God, and in the matter of the golden calf struck down the sons of Israel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":228,"ref":"p228","source":"Una quaeque ergo lex inter ipsa primordia sensum suum plenum ostendit, ut uetus lex, quia ad uindicandum promptior erat, inter initia sua asperior nideretur, ut metu incusso diligentes et sollicitos faceret auditores suos. nona uero, propter quod pia et ad misericordiam facilis est, primordia sua mitissima et clementissima demonstrauit, ut ipsa oblectatione omnes ad indulgentiam prouocaret. postea autem et illa, quae asperior uisa est, propter fragilitatem humani generis non solum rigorem suum molliuit. sed et humanam et piam se praestitit et haec, quae clemens uisa est, aliquando uindicauit. Anania etenim cum Sapphira uxore sua diuinitus caesi sunt; et Etimas magus, incredulus et dei legi repugnans. domini iudicio et uirtute caecatus est; et Herodes rex, propter quod honorem non dedit deo, ab angelo dei percussus, scatens uermibus expirauit. ne, quia misericordia praedicatur, inultum omnino putarent homines et inpune peccari, timorem posuit ostendens ad hoc dari ueniam delictorum, ut quasi ex mortuis uiuificati postea abstinerent se a contrariis, ut id elaboretur, ne quis hinc cum crimine exeat, quia ad iudicium uenietur. haec enim uni cuique sententia inputatur, in qua defungitur. quoniam igitur noua lex plenitudinem habet misericordiae, ne contemptui duceretur ab amatoribus peccatorum, in supra dictos uindicauit.","english":"Each law, therefore, at its very beginnings shows its full character: the old law, because it was more inclined to punish, appeared harsher at its outset, so that by instilling fear it would make its hearers attentive and careful. The new law, however, because it is pious and inclined toward mercy, showed its beginnings as very mild and clement, so that by this very delight it would summon all to forgiveness. Later, however, that law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its rigor but also showed itself humane and pious; and this law, which seemed clement, sometimes punished. For Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, were divinely struck down; and Elymas the magician, unbelieving and resisting the law of God, was blinded by the Lord's judgment and power; and King Herod, because he did not give honor to God, was struck by an angel of God and, swarming with worms, died. Lest, because mercy is preached, men should think that sinning is altogether unavenged and unpunished, it instilled fear, showing that pardon for offenses is given so that, as if revived from the dead, they might afterwards abstain from wrongs, and that effort be made that no one depart from this life with a crime, because judgment will come. For each person is charged with the sentence in which he dies. Therefore, because the new law has fullness of mercy, lest it be held in contempt by lovers of sins, it punished the aforementioned persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":229,"ref":"p229","source":"uetus uero lex, quamquam ad uindictam data sit, quibusdam tamen ignouit, ne omnino crudelis duceretur, sed in plures uindicauit, quia sensus eius ad ulciscendum promptus est.\n\nSine dubio igitur maior gratia nouae legis est quam fuit ueteris. si ergo maior gratia est, quo modo negatur hoc piaestare posse, quod praestitit illa, quae minorem gratiam habuit? erat enim propensior in seueritate. itaque si ista paenitentibus ignouisse probatur, qui fieri potest ut ista, quae clemens est, non recipiat paenitentes? nam et Iudaei filii dei appellati sunt, qui per Moysen et in nube et in mari baptizati apostoli Pauli auctoritate leguntur. legem enim accepturi procul dubio purificati noscuntur, ut de cetero acceptae legis redderent rationem et, si qui peccarent, per paenitentiam se reformarent dicente domino per Eseiam profetam: paenitentiam habete qui erratis et conuertimini. sed forte e contrario dicitur: 'paenitentia quidem praedicata est, non tamen remissio'. si ergo paenitentia praedicata a deo est, est fructus agentibus paenitentiam; nec enim superuacue hoc dominus commoneret porro autem sciens dominus conuersis dari debere peccatorum remissa, hoc praecepit, quippe cum dixerit: nolo mortem morientis, quantum ut reuertatur et uiuat. itaque est fructus paenitentiae, sicut claruit, conuersis ad deum.","english":"The old law, although it was given for the purpose of punishment, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be considered utterly cruel, but it punished many, because its disposition is inclined toward vengeance.\n\nWithout doubt, therefore, the grace of the new law is greater than that of the old. If, then, the grace is greater, how can it be denied that this law is able to grant what that law, which had lesser grace, granted? For the old law was more inclined toward severity. Thus, if that law is proved to have pardoned those who did penance, how can it be that this law, which is merciful, does not receive those who do penance? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, through Moses, are read to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, by the authority of the Apostle Paul. For, about to receive the law, they are known without doubt to have been purified, so that thereafter they might render account of the law received, and if any sinned, they might reform themselves through penance, as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah: \"Do penance, you who err, and be converted.\" But perhaps it is argued to the contrary: \"Penance indeed was preached, but not remission.\" If, therefore, penance was preached by God, there is fruit for those doing penance; for the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, the Lord, knowing that remission of sins ought to be given to those converted, commanded this, especially since he said: \"I do not desire the death of the dying, so much as that he return and live.\" Thus, as has been made clear, there is fruit of penance for those converted to God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":230,"ref":"p230","source":"exclusa est ergo Nouatiani impie conposita adsertio, qua uerborum domini sensum inuertit dicens: 'ait dominus: qui me negauerit, et ego negabo eum', ut si aliquis Christianus, quacumque ex causa negauerit, iam redire non possit aut certe reuertens minime suscipiatur.\n\nEt ubi erit demandata paenitentia, cum saluator post datam hanc sententiam negantem apostolum Petrum non negauerit? quare? quia paenitentia subsequente erratum suum amarissime fleuit scius utique conuersis ignosci et reformari eos per paenitentiam. sed Nouatianus fingit agendam paenitentiam. quia enim aperte negare non audet dandam paenitentiam. adstrictus lege subtiliter hanc frustrare contendit. quando enim dicit quia 'qui negauerit. nullo modo ueniam habebit, sed negabitur et ipse in conspectu angelorum dei.' quo modo non cum dolo agendam paenitentiam profitetur? hinc autem manifeste fraus eius apparet. cum adiungit dicens: quicumque peccauerit in spiritum sanctum. non remittetur ei neque hic neque in futurum. quamuis alia causa sit, qua peccatum est in spiritum sanctum, et alia negare dominum Iesum, Nouatianus tamen. ut huic peccato ueniam deneget, unum sensum uult esse negantis dominum et peccantis in spiritum sanctum. ut hac tergiuersatione fructum amputet paenitentiae. si enim idem est negare dominum quod peccasse in spiritum sanctum.","english":"Therefore, the impiously contrived assertion of Novatian is excluded, by which he inverts the sense of the Lord's words, saying: 'The Lord says: He who denies me, I also will deny him,' so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or at least, upon returning, is not received at all.\n\nAnd where will the enjoined penance be, when the Savior, after giving this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who denied? Why? Because, with subsequent penance, he wept over his error most bitterly, knowing that those who convert are forgiven and reformed through penance. But Novatian pretends that penance is to be performed. For, since he does not dare openly to deny that penance should be given, bound by the law, he subtly strives to frustrate it. For when he says that 'he who has denied will in no way have pardon, but will himself be denied in the sight of the angels of God,' how does he not profess penance to be performed deceitfully? But from this, his fraud clearly appears when he adds, saying: Whoever has sinned against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither here nor in the future. Although there is one cause for which one sins against the Holy Spirit, and another for denying the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants the one who denies the Lord and the one who sins against the Holy Spirit to be of the same sense, so that by this tergiversation he may cut off the fruit of penance—if indeed denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":231,"ref":"p231","source":"nulla uenia speranda est negantibus neque fructus aliquis paenitentiae, quia hoc peccatum neque hic neque in futuro remitti dominica oracula promiserunt.\n\nHinc ergo apparet cum dolo dicere Nouatianum agendam paenitentiam; ut quid enim paeniteat, si delictum aboleri negatur? paenitentiae enim gemitus, fletus et lamentatio hoc adquirit, ut et ueniam mereatur et reformationem. denique Dauid paenitens et coufitens peccatum et ueniam meruit et ad pristinum statum redditus est, quia et rex permansit et postea profetauit. quod liquido probatur; in quinquagensimo enim psalmo paenituit et postea persecutionem a filio passus profetauit; tertius enim psalmus iuxta historiam post quinquagensimum est. sed forte regi ignosci oportuit, humilibus autem ignosci non debet, cum magis potentioribus difficilius ignoscendum uideatur. deus enim personam hominis non accipit. quanto enim quis sublimior est, tanto magis, licet leue peccatum eius, graue est crimen. sicut enim humilitas in petente sublimis et magnifica est, ita et culpa eius pro crimine habenda est. exceptis enim peccatis, quae constat omnibus esse inlicita, non omnia licent potentibus, quae sunt concessa humilibus. dignitoso enim homini negotiari deforme est et popinam ingredi notabile est; senatoribus quoque fenus infamia est. si ergo in his leuibus inuenti notandi sunt, quanto magis rei constituendi sunt, si peccauerint!","english":"no hope of forgiveness is to be expected for those who deny, nor any fruit of penance, because this sin the Lord's oracles have promised is to be remitted neither here nor in the future.\n\nHence it is evident that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says penance is to be performed; for why should one repent, if the offense is denied to be abolished? For the groans, tears, and lamentation of penance obtain this: that it may merit both forgiveness and restoration. Indeed, David, repenting and confessing his sin, both merited forgiveness and was restored to his former state, for he both remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven; for in the fiftieth psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied; for the third psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it was fitting that a king be forgiven, whereas the humble ought not to be forgiven, although it would seem that the more powerful are more difficult to forgive. For God does not accept a person's station. For the more exalted someone is, the more, even if his sin is light, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a suppliant is sublime and magnificent, so too his fault is to be considered a crime. For apart from sins which are manifestly unlawful for all, not everything permitted to the humble is lawful for the powerful. For a man of rank, it is disgraceful to engage in trade, and entering a tavern is shameful; for senators, usury is infamous. If, therefore, they are to be noted in these light matters, how much more are they to be considered guilty if they sin!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":232,"ref":"p232","source":"per haec ergo apparet Dauid grauissime peccasse, et quidem duplici modo: conuersus tamen et homicidii et adulterii ueniam consecutus est et, quod amplius est, deflens reformatus est. cum enim a profeta\n\nNathan argueretur, peccatum celare non ausus est, sed confessus est dicens: peccaui domino. tunc respondit ei profeta et dixit: abstulit dominus peccatum tuum et non morieris, quoniam paenituisti; et quia inuenitur postea profetasse, dubium non est hunc reformatum. nam et Achab correptus a profeta propter mortem Nabuthe ibat plorans et conscidit uestimenta sua et praecinxit se cilicio et factum est uerbum domini in manu serui eius Heliae de Achab et dixit dominus: audisti quo modo motus est Achab a facie mea? non inducam mala in diebus eius. et Nineuitis peccata deflentibus inminente morte reparata est uita. ecce quantus profectus est paenitentiae!","english":"Through these things, therefore, it appears that David sinned most grievously, and indeed in a twofold manner; yet, having turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both homicide and adultery and, what is more, weeping, he was restored. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare to conceal the sin, but confessed, saying: “I have sinned against the Lord.” Then the prophet answered him and said: “The Lord has taken away your sin, and you will not die, because you have repented”; and because he is found to have prophesied afterward, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet on account of the death of Naboth, went weeping and tore his garments and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came through the hand of his servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: “Have you heard how Ahab was moved by my presence? I will not bring evils in his days.” And for the Ninevites, weeping over their sins when death was imminent, life was restored. Behold how great is the benefit of penance!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":233,"ref":"p233","source":"Sed forte dicatur e contra: 'concessum quidem est, sed non crimen idolatriae; quamuis enim haec grauia sint, maius est tamen crimen idolatriae'. recte tamen explosa est non ex modica parte Nouatiani adsertio, qua duo crimina grauia concessa paenitentiae uidentur, quia si fornicationi ignosci non debet, sicut Nouatiano uidetur, quanto magis homicidio aut adulterio! sed hinc uanitas eius apparet, quando haec quae grauiora sunt concessa probantur. quam ob rem nunc, an idololatris concedi posse promiserit deus, requirendum est. omne enim quod iure hic concessum non fuerit, nec in futurum poterit concedi. hic enim, sicut dixit dominus, ant ligantur aut soluuntur peccata; in futurum autem nihil aliud erit nisi remuneratio aut condemnatio. omnis enim qui hic iure reprobatur, non poterit eligi aut dignus in futurum iudicari.\n\nAudiamus ergo quae dicat dominus de idololatris ad Hieremiam profetam: uade et dic, inquit, reuertimini ad me, commoratio Israhel, dicit dominus, et non firmabo faciem meam in uos, quia misericors ego sum, dicit dominus, nec irascor uobis in aeuum. uerum tamen cognosce delictum tuum; impie egisti et posuisti uias tuas in alienos subtus omne lignum nemorosum. ecce quid promittit deus eis, qui post lapsum conuertuntur ad eum, ut post apostasiam regressis remittat peccata.","english":"But perhaps it may be argued on the contrary: 'It is indeed granted, but not the crime of idolatry; for although these are serious, the crime of idolatry is nevertheless greater.' Yet the assertion of Novatian is rightly refuted not in a small part, whereby two serious crimes are seen to be conceded to penance, because if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much more so homicide or adultery! But from this his vanity appears, when these things which are more serious are proven to have been conceded. For this reason, it must now be inquired whether God has promised that it can be conceded to idolaters. For everything that is not lawfully conceded here will not be able to be conceded in the future either. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed; in the future, however, there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here will not be able to be chosen or judged worthy in the future.\n\nLet us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, return to me, dwelling of Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you, because I am merciful, says the Lord, nor will I be angry with you forever. Yet acknowledge your sin; you have acted impiously and placed your ways among aliens under every wooded tree. Behold what God promises to those who, after a fall, turn back to him, so that he remits sins to those who return after apostasy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":234,"ref":"p234","source":"et iterum dicit deus per Hieremiam: delicati mei ambulauerunt uias asperas, ducti sunt ut grex direptus ab inimicis. constantes estote, filii, et proclamate ad deum; erit uestra in abductione memoria. nam sicut fuit mens uestra ut erraretis a deo, duplicabitis decies tantum conuersi quaerentes eum; qui enim induxit in uos mala, inducet in uos aeternam iucunditatem cum salute uestra. o clementia dei! quem ad modum lapsos prouocat ut se erigant! quo modo hortatur ut post errorem idolorum reuertantur ad eum! quasi pater beniuolus filiis suis iucunditatem perennem promittit salutis, si se corrigant. item apud eundem inter cetera: et restituam illos in terram istam et reaedificabo eos et non destituam; et replantabo eos et non euellam ut, quia comminatus dixerat: sacrificans dis eradicabitur, ne peccantes in deum desperarent de se, quasi iam, qui sacrificauerant idolis, eradicati replantari non possent, hortatur eos, quia, si paeniteant, poterunt ad statum suum pristinum reformari. sententia enim tunc manet, sinon emendetur delictum.","english":"And again God says through Jeremiah: \"My delicate ones have walked rough paths, they have been led like a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be preserved in captivity. For just as your mind was to stray from God, you will multiply tenfold when converted, seeking Him; for He who brought evils upon you will bring eternal joy with your salvation.\" O the mercy of God! How He urges the fallen to raise themselves up! How He exhorts them to return to Him after the error of idols! Like a benevolent father, He promises perennial joy of salvation to His children, if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet, among other things: \"And I will restore them to that land, and I will rebuild them and not abandon them; and I will replant them and not uproot them,\" so that, because He had threatened by saying, \"He who sacrifices to the gods will be uprooted,\" lest those sinning against God despair of themselves, as if those who had already sacrificed to idols, having been uprooted, could not be replanted, He exhorts them, because if they repent, they will be able to be reformed to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the offense is not corrected.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":235,"ref":"p235","source":"Denique Nineuitis praedicatum est, quia post triduum euerteretur ciuitas eorum. quare post triduum nisi ut aut paeniterent et auferretur sententia, aut in eo permanentes iustius deperirent? hoc est quod dixit per profetam: nolo mortem morientis, quantum ut reuertatur et uiuat. ita factum est ut morituris peccatorum causa Nineuitis ignosceretur paenitentiasubsequente. ut quid etenim centum annis sub Noe arcam inuenimus fabricatam, nisi ut uidentes et audientes quid inmineret emendarent se? neminem enim uult deus perire. hinc est unde in Solomone legimus: quoniam, inquit, altissimus misertus est paenitentibus, et iterum: misereris omnium, quia omnia potes. et dissimulas peccata hominum propter paenitentiam. hoc sensu etiam dominus dolens super perfidiam Iudaeorum ait: Hierusalem, Hierusalem, quae interficis profetas et lapidas missos ad te, quotiens uolui congregare filios tuos, quem ad modum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alis suis, et noluistis!","english":"Finally, it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, unless so that they might either repent and the sentence be removed, or, persisting in it, they might perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet: \"I do not desire the death of the dying so much as that he should turn back and live.\" Thus it happened that, for those about to die, the Ninevites were pardoned on account of their sin, with repentance following. For why else do we find the ark under Noah being built for a hundred years, unless so that, seeing and hearing what threatened, they might correct themselves? For God does not wish anyone to perish. Hence it is that we read in Solomon: \"For,\" he says, \"the Most High has taken pity on the repentant,\" and again: \"You take pity on all, because you can do all things. And you overlook the sins of men on account of repentance.\" With this same meaning, the Lord, grieving over the faithlessness of the Jews, says: \"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those sent to you, how often have I wanted to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you have been unwilling!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":236,"ref":"p236","source":"Igitur semper dominus per totam legem peccatores ad se conuerti hortatur nolens opus suum perditioni esse obnoxium, cum nec alia causa datae legis sit, quam ut ex errore homines conuertantur ad ueritatem, ita tamen, ut in nouo testamento auctor legis clementior uideatur, quia tempore quo sacramentum filii sui domini nostri manifestare dignatus est largior et uberior in misericordia esse uoluit, ut plus gratiae praedicante filio esset, quam fuerat praedicantibus seruis. nec inmerito: sic enim fuit dignum ut maiora dona per filium quam per tamulos largiretur. denique ad se conuersis credentibus omnia simul peccata concedit nulla interueniente lamentatione paenitentiae. unde dicit apostolus Paulus: sine paenitentia enim sunt dona et uocatio dei. post autem si peccauerint. per paenitentiam poterunt mereri ueniam, ut, quia post acceptam gratuitam misericordiam peccauerunt, non iam gratis, sed interueniente gemitu et fletu possint ad indulgentiam peruenire.","english":"Therefore, throughout the entire Law, the Lord always urges sinners to turn to Him, not wishing His own work to be subject to destruction, since there is no other reason for the Law to have been given than that men might be converted from error to truth. Yet in such a way that, in the New Testament, the author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He deigned to reveal the sacrament of His Son, our Lord, He wished to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace through the Son’s preaching than there had been through the preaching of servants. And not undeservedly: for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through servants. Finally, to those who are converted and believe, He grants all sins at once, with no intervening lamentation of penance. Hence the apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and calling of God are without penance.” But afterwards, if they have sinned, they may be able to earn forgiveness through penance, so that, because they sinned after receiving gratuitous mercy, they may not obtain it gratis, but may be able to reach indulgence through groaning and weeping.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":237,"ref":"p237","source":"Inpossibile est enim homini ut non peccet. unde Iohannes apostolus: si dixerimus, inquit, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos decipimus et ueritas in nobis non est; si confitemur peccata nostra, fidelis et iustus est, ut remittat nobis peccata et mundet nos ab omni iniustitia. sic Dauid meruit ueniam et reformationem, cum confitetur peccatum. certe Christianis loquitur apostolus; ait enim in subiectis: filioli mei. haec scribo nobis ut non peccetis; et si quis peccauerit, aduocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum. hoc dicit, ut si post baptismum peccauerimus, aduocatum subplices deprecemur, ut exoret pro nobis patrem. si enim apud ueteres nostros paenitentia habuit locum, qui fieri potest ut hoc tempore locum non habeat, quando maior clementia praedicationis est? et qui inimicis misertus est uocando illos ad gratiam amicis factis non miserebitur cum mercede? tribulatio enim cordis merces est paenitentis. quod si esset uerum, dolerent homines ex inimicis factos se amicos. aut qualis aestimandus erat ille, si inimicis non paenitentibus misericordiam daret, amicis uero et precantibus non daret? praeterea cum sciat dominus diabolum aduersus amicos et seruos dei plus se extollere et saeuire, unde dicit Petrus apostolus: uigilate, sobrii estote, quia aduersarius noster diabolus fremens sicut leo circuit quaerens quem deuoret?","english":"It is impossible for a man not to sin. Hence the apostle John says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us; if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, that He may remit our sins and cleanse us from all injustice. Thus David merited pardon and reformation when he confesses his sin. Certainly the apostle speaks to Christians; for he says in the following: My little children. I write these things to you that you may not sin; and if anyone has sinned, we have an advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ. He says this, so that if we have sinned after baptism, we may suppliantly entreat the advocate, that he may intercede for us with the Father. For if penance had a place among our forefathers, how can it be that it has no place at this time, when there is greater clemency of preaching? And He who has taken pity on enemies by calling them to grace, will He not take pity on those who have become friends, with recompense? For tribulation of heart is the reward of the penitent. But if that were true, men would grieve that they had become friends from enemies. Or what sort of man would he be considered, if he gave mercy to enemies who were not penitent, but would not give it to friends who were entreating? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the devil exalts himself and rages more against the friends and servants of God, whence the apostle Peter says: Watch, be sober, because our adversary the devil, roaring like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":238,"ref":"p238","source":"Quoniam ergo nouit dominus aduersarium nos habere horrendum et ualidum, si uicti ab eo fuerimus, uult nos ad auxilium suum confugere dolens elisos nos, ut uirtute eius reparati fortiter repugnemus. sicut enim nisi breuiati fuerint dies illi, quos dicit dominus, nulla fiet salua caro, ita et, si negetur hominibus paenitentia, nemo poterit saluus fieri. si enim nemo, inquit, gloriabitur mundum se habere cor. et alibi: nemo, ait, sine sorde, nec infans unius diei. quis poterit euadere, si paenitentia denegetur? et ubi est quod dicit dominus, quia gaudium erit in caelo super peccatorem paenitentiam agentem?\n\nSed: 'maiora crimina,' inquit, 'ignosci non debent, fornicatio et idolatria/ et ubi est dictum dominicum, quo omnia peccata et blasphemias promittit remitti hominibus, spiritus autem sancti blasphemia non remittetur hominibus? omnia penitus peccata dicit posse remitti excepto uno. nunc elige, Nouatiane, de quibus uis dictum: de adhuc non credentibus aut de iam credentibus? si de non credentibus, quo modo datur remissio peccatorum, cum constet omnes, antequam credant, in deum peccare et in spiritum sanctum? nam non nulli gesta dominica magias appellant opus spiritus sancti daemoniis adsignantes. si autem de credentibus uis dictum, exclusa est adseueratio tua, quia omnia peccata remittentur: et qui dixerit, inquit, uerbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei.","english":"Since, therefore, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wishes us to flee to His aid, grieving that we are cast down, so that, restored by His strength, we may fight back vigorously. For just as, unless those days which the Lord speaks of are shortened, no flesh will be saved, so also, if penance is denied to men, no one will be able to be saved. For if no one, he says, will boast that he has a clean heart. And elsewhere: no one, he says, is without stain, not even a one-day-old infant. Who will be able to escape, if penance is denied? And where is what the Lord says, that there will be joy in heaven over the sinner doing penance?\n\nBut: 'Greater crimes,' he says, 'ought not to be forgiven, fornication and idolatry.' And where is the Lord's saying, by which He promises that all sins and blasphemies are remitted to men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be remitted to men? He says that absolutely all sins can be remitted except one. Now choose, Novatian, concerning which you wish it to be said: concerning those not yet believing or concerning those already believing? If concerning those not believing, how is remission of sins given, when it is established that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For not a few call the Lord's deeds magic, attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said concerning believers, your assertion is excluded, because all sins will be remitted: and he who has spoken, he says, a word against the Son of man, it will be remitted to him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":239,"ref":"p239","source":"ergo siue in deum siue in Christum peccetur, remittetur hominibus; omnia enim peccata conplexus est praeter in spiritum sanctum. itaque non hoc peccatum uult intellegi, quod peccatur in deum, hoc esse et in spiritum sanctum; si enim hoc esset, non utique istud exciperet. quoniam ergo aliud peccatum significat, cum blasphematur in spiritum sanctum — ad personam enim pertinet hoc dictum, non ad naturam spiritus sancti —, siue iam credentibus per paenitentiam siue futuris credentibus per baptismum omnia remittentur peccata.\n\nQuod autem in spiritum sanctum peccauerunt Iudaei, alia causa est et quae ad tempus illud pertinuit. unde non illis hoc remitti neque hic neque in futurum ostendit. non enim errore peccauerunt in spiritum sanctum, sed maliuolentia. scientes enim prudentesque opera quae uidebant in gestis saluatoris dei esse, ut populum a fide eius auerterent, haec simulabant esse principis daemoniorum. hinc est unde dicit eis dominus: uos habetis clauem scientiae et neque uos intratis neque alios sinitis introire. haec ergo sententia contra maliuolos prolata est, quibus remedium inueniri non potest ut saluentur. nihil est enim hoc crimine grauius; fingit enim falsum esse quod scit esse uerum. Iudaei enim qui sub dei lege esse uidebantur quibusque facta promissio Christi est.","english":"Therefore, whether the sin is committed against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men; for it has encompassed all sins except against the Holy Spirit. Thus, it does not wish this sin, which is committed against God, to be understood as being also against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, it would certainly not except that one. Since, therefore, it signifies a different sin when blasphemy is committed against the Holy Spirit — for this saying pertains to the person, not to the nature of the Holy Spirit — whether to those already believing through penance or to future believers through baptism, all sins will be forgiven.\n\nBut that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit is a different case, and one which pertained to that time. Hence it shows that this is not forgiven to them either here or in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through malice. For knowing and being aware that the works they saw in the deeds of the Savior were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended these were the works of the prince of demons. Hence it is that the Lord says to them: \"You have the key of knowledge, and neither do you enter yourselves nor do you allow others to enter.\" This sentence, therefore, was pronounced against the malicious, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For there is nothing more grievous than this crime; it pretends to be false what it knows to be true. For these were Jews who seemed to be under the law of God and to whom the promise of Christ was made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":240,"ref":"p240","source":"uidentes magnalia et intellegentes hoc esse quod promiserat deus, inuidia caecati sunt, ut hoc esse negarent et non solum negarent, sed et persequerentur usque ad mortem. non ergo dignum est istis peccatum hoc umquam debere remitti, qui conscientia sua teste deo, cui se deuotos dicebant. ausi sunt repugnare.\n\nUt autem uel in deum uel in Christum peccetur, diuersae sunt causae. aut enim aliquis, dum felicitati alterius inuidet, dolore humilitatis suae insurgit in creatorem aut aliquid repentinum passus, quod sit aduersum, iracundia excitatus in parentem iniuriosus existit. Christo autem incarnatio sua iniuriam prouocat. dum enim ignorant homines sacramentum incarnati Christi, blasphemant indignum ducentes, si filius dei, qui incorporalis et simplicis naturae est, hominum more natus dicatur. blasphemant ergo, quia ignorant mysterium. quam ob rem conuersis his porrigenda est manus, quia sic contra uerum existunt, dum pro uero se facere arbitrantur. tortus huius modi et exungulatus hoc uerum esse dicit, quod sequitur; supra memorati autem Iudaei aliud senserunt et aliud egerunt, qui sine iudice et carnifice conscientia sua teste semper torquentur. qui enim per errorem inimicus extitit uero, cum conuersus fuerit, gaudet cognouisse se ueritatem. maliuolus enim non habet quod emendet; si enim conuerterit se, incipiet uerum dicere quod prius falsum esse nesciebat.","english":"Seeing the great wonders and understanding that this was what God had promised, they were blinded by envy, so that they denied it to be so, and not only denied it, but also persecuted it unto death. Therefore, it is not fitting that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness before God, to whom they professed devotion, dared to oppose him.\n\nNow, when sin is committed either against God or against Christ, the causes are different. For either someone, envying another's good fortune, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own lowliness, or, having suffered something sudden and adverse, becomes abusive toward the parent, roused by anger. But Christ's incarnation provokes injury against him. For because men are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, deeming it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of an incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born as men are. They blaspheme, therefore, because they do not know the mystery. For this reason, a helping hand must be extended to these when they are converted, because they rise up against the truth while thinking they are acting for the truth. A person of this sort, even when tortured and having his nails torn out, declares to be true that which he follows; but the aforementioned Jews thought one thing and did another, and are always tormented, with their own conscience as witness, without a judge or executioner. For he who, through error, was an enemy of the truth, when converted, rejoices that he has come to know the truth. But the malicious person has nothing to correct; for if he converts, he will begin to say as true what he previously did not know to be false.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":241,"ref":"p241","source":"Spiritui autem sancto ut fiat iniuria, causa nulla existit; officium enim eius offensionem non parit, quia in uirtute signorum et prodigiorum apparet. quis enim insilire audeat contra eum uidens mortuos excitatos? aut quis irascatur ei, cuius effectu uideat currentes paraliticos, caecos lumen admittere, surdos audire? aut quo modo non amabit eum, quem uidet spiritus inmundos eicere, leprosos mundare et simul omnes infirmitates curare? huic Iudaei maluerunt iniuriam facere opus eius dicentes opus esse daemoniorum, dum modo inuidiam adque odium, quod circa saluatorem exercebant, explerent. idcirco neque hic neque in futurum peccatum hoc remitti eis ostendit.\n\nSed Nouatianus: 'maiora', inquit, 'crimina nominatim remitti probentur, id est idolatria et fornicatio post lauacrum. idcirco enim in baptismo\\\\ ait, (simul omnia remittuntur peccata, ut de cetero si quid graue commiserint, nullo modo ueniam consequantur, quia post acceptum spiritum sanctum quod contra spiritum sanctum est admitti non debet). quis neget peccari numquam debere, sed si esset possibile? porro autem sciens deus fragile genus humanum semper remediis salutaribus prosecutus est eos, ut post peccata haberent quo modo se repararent. si autem spiritus datus prohibet peccantibus dari paenitentiam, nulla prouidentia est in nouo testamento et melius uidebitur ueteribus prouisum, quibus medicina ista minime est denegata.","english":"But for the Holy Spirit to suffer injury, there is no cause; for its office does not produce offense, because it appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare to attack it, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry at it, seeing by its effect paralytics running, the blind receiving light, the deaf hearing? Or how would he not love it, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time curing all infirmities? The Jews preferred to do injury to it, calling its work the work of demons, while they thus fulfilled the envy and hatred which they exercised toward the Savior. For this reason, it shows that this sin is remitted to them neither here nor in the future.\n\nBut Novatian says: 'Greater crimes are proven to be remitted by name, that is, idolatry and fornication after baptism. For in baptism,' he says, 'all sins are remitted at once, so that if thereafter they commit something grave, they obtain pardon in no way, because after receiving the Holy Spirit, what is against the Holy Spirit ought not to be admitted.' Who denies that one should never sin, but if it were possible? Moreover, God, knowing the fragile human race, has always pursued them with salutary remedies, so that after sins they would have a way to repair themselves. But if the given Spirit forbids granting penance to those sinning, there is no providence in the New Testament, and the Old will seem better provided for, to which this medicine was by no means denied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":242,"ref":"p242","source":"et quo modo maior gratia in nouo est quam in ueteri? nam hoc inimici est, qui sciens aliter hominibus prouideri non posse, ut perueniant ad salutem, quam interuentu paenitentiae, spiritum sanctum det, cui si iniuria facta fuerit metu aliquo aut per errorem, iam satisfactio locum non habeat reformandi hominem; hoc est occasionem quaesisse perdendi hominis, non saluandi. sed absit, quia dominus ait: filius hominis non uenit animas perdere, se.d saluare. nam si nobis peccata, quae in nos peccamus inuicem, si conuertamur, septuagies septies remitti a nobis alterutrum praecepit deus, quanto magis ipse, si in illum peccetur, ignoscit conuersis! omnem enim peccatorem conuerti uult.\n\nUnde apostolus fornicariis et inmundis remissum probat dicens: ne forte ueniens lugeam multos ex his, qui ante peccauerunt et non egerunt paenitentiam super inmunditia et fornicatione, quam gesserunt. probat quosdam egisse paenitentiam, de quibus non dolet, sed gaudet: aliquos autem significat non egisse fornicationis suae paenitentiam, propter quod et lugere se eos dicit non pertinentes ad uitam, quia non egerunt paenitentiam. si enim huius criminis in hac uita semper agenda paenitentia esset, non diceret lugere se eos, quia non egerunt, sed quia non agunt. sciens autem hic et incipi et peragi paenitentiam, ait quia (non egerunt). hoc enim uolebat, ut ueniens ad eos pacem haberet cum communione eorum.","english":"And how is there greater grace in the New than in the Old? For this is the work of an enemy, who, knowing that men cannot otherwise be provided for so that they may attain salvation except through the intervention of penance, gives the Holy Spirit, so that if injury is done to it out of some fear or error, satisfaction would no longer have a place for reforming the man; this is to have sought an opportunity for destroying man, not for saving him. But far be it, because the Lord says: the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them. For if sins which we commit against one another, if we repent, God commands them to be forgiven by us to each other seventy times seven times, how much more does He Himself, if sin is committed against Him, forgive those who repent! For He wishes every sinner to repent.\n\nHence the Apostle proves forgiveness for fornicators and the impure, saying: lest coming I should mourn many of those who have sinned before and have not done penance for the impurity and fornication which they committed. He proves that some have done penance, concerning whom he does not grieve, but rejoices: but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, on account of which he says he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if penance for this crime were always to be done in this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. Knowing, however, that penance both begins and is completed here, he says that they \"have not done\" it. For he wished that when he came to them, he would have peace with their communion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":243,"ref":"p243","source":"ecce probatum est fornicariis post actam paenitentiam communicandum. non enim potest illis communicari quamdiu agunt; tunc autem communicandum est, cum desinunt agere iudicio ecclesiae.\n\nNunc superest an specialiter idololatris remitti posse probemus. legimus enim in Apocalipsi beati Iohanni apostoli paenitentiam super idolatria praedicari. commonentur enim episcopi, quos angelos uocat — id est nuntios, sicut et beatus apostolus Paulus ait: sicut angelum dei excepistis me —, ut peccantibus dent paenitentiam nec eos patiantur minime commoneri, qui scandala faciunt in ecclesia, cum sint et ipsi de ecclesia. dicit ergo: et angelo Pergami ecclesiae scribe: haec dicit qui habet gladium ex utraque parte acutum: scio ubi habitas, ubi sedes est satanae; et tenes nomen meum et non negasti fidem meam in diebus. quibus Antiphas testis meus fidelissimus, qui occisus est apud uos, ubi satanas habitat. sed habeo aduersus te pauca, quia habes illic tenentes doctrinam Balaam, qui docebat Balaac mittere scandalum sub oculis filiorum Israhel, manducare delibata et fornicari; ita et tu habes tenentes doctrinam Nicolaitarum. similiter age paenitentiam. hanc dicit esse doctrinam Nicolaitarum quae fuit et Balaam, id est idolatriam et fornicationem, de qua iubetagi paenitentiam. et quia hominibus ecclesiae loquitur, ostendit dicens: haec dicit spiritus ecclesiis.","english":"Behold, it has been proven that fornicators, after performing penance, are to be communicated with. For they cannot be communicated with as long as they are acting; but then they are to be communicated with when they cease to act by the judgment of the church.\n\nNow it remains to be proven whether pardon can be granted specifically to idolaters. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed John the Apostle that penance is preached concerning idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels—that is, messengers, as the blessed Apostle Paul also says: \"You received me as an angel of God\"—are admonished to give penance to those who sin and not to suffer them to be least admonished, who cause scandals in the church, since they themselves are of the church. Therefore he says: \"And to the angel of the church of Pergamum write: Thus says the one who has the sword sharp on both sides: I know where you dwell, where the seat of Satan is; and you hold my name and have not denied my faith in the days in which Antipas, my most faithful witness, was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those holding the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to send a scandal under the eyes of the children of Israel, to eat things offered to idols and to fornicate; so also you have those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance.\" He says that this is the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, concerning which he commands penance to be done. And because he speaks to the men of the church, he shows this, saying: \"Thus says the Spirit to the churches.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":244,"ref":"p244","source":"Quia autem fructus est paenitentiae, ita significat: uincenti, inquit, dabo manducare manna, quod est absconditum — ut per paenitentiam quis uincat peccata. quid est enim paeniteri, nisi dolere praeterita et de cetero temperare ab his quae admiserat? —■ et angelo Thyatirae ecclesiae scribe: haec dicit filius dei, qui habet oculos suos sicut flamma ignis, et pedes eius similes aeramento turino: scio opera tua et dilectionem et fidem et ministerium et patientiam et opera tua nouissima meliora priorum. sed habeo aduersum te, quod sinis mulierem Zezabel, quae se dicit profetam et docet et seducit seruos meos fornicari et manducare inmolata idolis. et dedi ei tempus ad paenitendum, et noluit agere paenitentiam a fornicatione sua. ecce mittam illam in lectum et adulteros eius cum illa in tribulationem magnam, nisi egerint paenitentiam factorum suorum, et natos eius occidam morte; et scient omnes ecclesiae, quia ego sum qui scrutor renes et corda, et dabo uni cuique uestrum secundum opera sua. uobis autem dico ceteris qui Thyatirae estis, qui hanc doctrinam non habetis et ignoratis altitudinem satanae, sicut dicunt: non mitto in uos aliud pondus: uerum tamen tenete quod habetis, donec ueniam. uincenti autem et seruanti opera mea usque ad finem dabo ei potestatem super gentes.","english":"Because the fruit of penance is shown in this way: \"To the one who conquers,\" he says, \"I will give to eat manna, which is hidden\"—so that through penance one may conquer sins. For what is it to do penance, except to grieve over the past and from then on to refrain from those things which one had committed?—and \"To the angel of the Thyatiran church write: Thus says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire and his feet like burnished brass: I know your works and your love and your faith and your ministry and your patience, and your later works are better than the earlier ones. But I have a complaint against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and seduces my servants to fornicate and to eat meat sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to do penance, and she was unwilling to do penance from her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into bed and her adulterers with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds, and I will kill her children by death; and all the churches will know that I am the one who searches reins and hearts, and I will give to each one of you according to your works. But to you others who are in Thyatira, who do not have this teaching and are ignorant of the depth of Satan, as they say: I place no other burden upon you; nevertheless, hold what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and preserves my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":245,"ref":"p245","source":"Sub una epistula data ad ecclesiam Thyatiram duplicem Nouatianae heresis confundit et explodit errorem; et paenitentibus enim idolatriae causa fructum promittit et in una ecclesia malos non contaminare bonos ostendit, cum unius utique essent communionis. nec enim extra ecclesiam positis scribebat dicens: qui habet aures, inquit, audiat quid dicit spiritus ecclesiis. simili etenim modo apostolus Paulus: scimus autem, inquit, quia quaecumque lex loquitur his qui sub lege sunt loquitur; et alio loco: quo enim, inquit, mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare? unius ergo ecclesiae homines partim ad paenitentiam prouocat, partim conlaudat dicens: uobis autem dico ceteris qui Thyatirae estis, quicumque non habetis doctrinam istam — id est idolatriae —, tenete quod habetis, donec ueniam; hoc est perseuerate usque ad finem', quia qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit. simili modo et qui perseuerauerit in malo damnabitur. ac per hoc sicut iustitia iusti non liberabit eum in dic qua errauerit, sic et iniquitas iniusti non nocebit ei, cum conuerterit se. ideo dixit: sacrificans diis eradicabitur; si autem conuerterit se, uita uiuet. sic est et illud quod ait dominus: qui me negauerit, negabo eum. si autem conuerterit se, non poterit negari ab eo quem confitetur.","english":"In a single letter sent to the church of Thyatira, he confutes and explodes the twofold error of the Novatian heresy; for he both promises the fruit of penance to those who have lapsed on account of idolatry, and shows that in one church the wicked do not contaminate the good, since they were all of one communion. For he was not writing to those placed outside the church, saying: \"Whoever has ears,\" he says, \"let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.\" In a similar way, the apostle Paul says: \"But we know,\" he says, \"that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law\"; and in another place: \"For why,\" he says, \"should I judge concerning those who are outside?\" Therefore, he partly summons the men of one church to penance, partly praises them, saying: \"But to you others who are at Thyatira, I say, whoever do not have that teaching\"—that is, of idolatry—\"hold what you have until I come\"; that is, persevere until the end, because he who has persevered to the end will be saved. In a similar way, he who has persevered in evil will be damned. And through this, just as the righteousness of a righteous man will not free him on the day he has erred, so the iniquity of an unjust man will not harm him when he has converted. Therefore he said: \"He who sacrifices to gods will be rooted out; but if he converts, he will live life.\" So also is that which the Lord said: \"He who has denied me, I will deny him. But if he converts, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":246,"ref":"p246","source":"Hinc est ut diceret in psalmo: non iustificabitur in conspectu meo omnis homo uiuens. haec enim sententia inputatur homini, in qua moritur. nam quia in ecclesia mali cum bonis futuri essent usque ad iudicium dei. ipse etiam dominus significauit dicens: simile est regnum caelorum retiae missae in mari, quae ex omni genere piscium colligit. cum autem uenissent ad litus, bonos segregauerunt in uasa sua, malos uero foras miserunt. sic erit in consummatione saeculi: exibunt angeli et segregabunt de regno dei omnia scandala et eos qui iniquitatem faciunt. haec causa significatur etiam in illo, qui inter discumbentes inuentus est non habens uestimentum nuptiale, quem solum proiectum de coetu ostendit ecclesiae, quia crimen indignitatis eius non polluit ceteros; et quia haec indignitas eius designata est, eo quod uestimenu tum non habuerit nuptiale, manifestus fuit ceteris. uidebant enim eum inter se aliud esse uestitum.","english":"Hence it is that he said in the psalm: \"No living man shall be justified in my sight.\" For this sentence is imputed to a man, in which he dies. For because in the church the wicked would be with the good until the judgment of God, the Lord himself also signified this, saying: \"The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. But when they had come to the shore, the good separated them into their vessels, and cast the bad out.\" Thus it will be at the end of the world: angels will go out and separate from the kingdom of God all scandals and those who commit iniquity. This cause is also signified in the one who, among those reclining, was found not having a wedding garment, whom alone he showed cast out from the assembly of the church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not pollute the others; and because this unworthiness of his was indicated, by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was manifest to the others. For they saw him among them dressed otherwise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":247,"ref":"p247","source":"Hinc est unde apostolus Paulus: in magna autem, inquit, domo non solum sunt uasa aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia. istud propter Hymeneum et Filetum posuit, qui cum essent ex ecclesia, peruerse de resurrectione sentiebant, sicut aliqui de Corinthiorum ecclesia resurrectionem negabant. sed hanc domum magnam Nouatianus mundum intellegendum significat, non ecclesiam, ne in una ecclesia malos cum bonis, mundos cum inmundis cogatur adserere. quod facile puto conuelli. in una enim domo omnes sub uno sunt nomine; quamuis enim moribus diuersi sint, uno tamen domini sui nomine censentur in professione. mundus autem hic diuersae professionis continet homines, ita ut dispares profiteantur se habere et deos et dominos. uides ergo non hoc potuisse dici de mundo, sed de ecclesia, in qua sub uno degentes nomine diuersi sunt actu. quod quidem Nouatianum non ignorasse aduerto, sed quia abscessionis suae iustas querimonias non habebat, ne aperte erubesceret, argumenta quaedam sibi conflauit per malam legis interpretationem, quibus excusare niteretur et tegere liuoris sui inuidam uoluntatem.","english":"This is why the apostle Paul says: \"In a great house, however,\" he says, \"there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthenware ones.\" He set this forth on account of Hymeneus and Philetus, who, although they were from the church, held perverse views concerning the resurrection, just as some from the church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian signifies that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the church, lest he be compelled to assert that in one church there are evil with good, unclean with clean. This I think can easily be refuted. For in one house all are under one name; although they are diverse in character, they are still counted under the name of their one master in profession. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that they profess to have different gods and masters. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said about the world, but about the church, in which those living under one name are diverse in action. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just complaints for his secession, lest he openly blush, he concocted for himself certain arguments through a bad interpretation of the law, by which he might try to excuse and conceal the invidious will of his envy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":248,"ref":"p248","source":"Denique respondit ad haec quae diximus dicens: nec ego rennuo agendam paenitentiam admissae idolatriae, sed ego remittere non audeo, quia crimen hoc ab eo remittendum est, in quem admissum est'. hoc autem cum dolo respondit. interpretationibus enim suis detegitur, quibus fraus eius apparet. quando enim dicit: 'scriptum est: qui me negauerit, et ego negabo eum, et mentiri non potest cuius uerba sunt), paenitentiam, quam agendam dicit, inanem et infructuosam ostendit. si enim sententia data est et non fallit qui dedit, quid excruciari conpellis hominem lamentationibus et gemitibus, qui huius rei effectum aut denegas aut scire te minime confiteris? omnis enim qui consilium alicui dat, ad hoc utique dat, ut quid ex eo proficere possit praedicet. sed quia tu. Nouatiane, dolose hoc profiteris, ad inludendas mentes hominum agendam paenitentiam dicis. sciens enim aperte hoc negari non posse subtiliter facis, quia non uoce sed effectu paenitentiam amputas. omnem certe, qui idolis sacrificauerit, in spiritum sanctum. dicis peccare, cui neque hic neque in futurum peccatum hoc remitti per legis uerba contendis. quo modo ergo huius delicti agendam paenitentiam dicis, nisi quia fallis, sicut supra ostendi?","english":"Finally, he responded to what we have said, stating: \"I do not refuse that penance be performed for the admitted idolatry, but I dare not remit it, because this crime must be remitted by the one against whom it was committed.\" This, however, he said deceitfully. For his interpretations reveal this, by which his fraud appears. For when he says: \"It is written: 'Whoever denies me, I will also deny him,' and the one whose words these are cannot lie,\" he shows that the penance, which he says should be performed, is empty and fruitless. For if the sentence has been given and the one who gave it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to torment himself with lamentations and groans, when you either deny the effect of this matter or confess that you have no knowledge of it? For everyone who gives counsel to someone gives it precisely so that he may declare what benefit can come from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, you say that penance should be performed in order to mock the minds of men. For, knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you do so subtly, because you cut off penance not by word but by effect. Certainly, you say that everyone who has sacrificed to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you contend that this sin is remitted neither here nor in the future through the words of the law. How then do you say that penance for this offense should be performed, unless you are deceiving, as I have shown above?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":249,"ref":"p249","source":"Sed soles alio dolo fraudem hanc uelle contegere dicens eodem sensu etiam Petrum apostolum dixisse Simoni: age paenitentiam ab hac malitia tua, si forte remittatur tibi. sed contuens apostolus Petrus uenenatam malitiam hominis et peramaram idcirco dubium ei dedit responsum. quis enim mortalium sic peccauit, ut donum dei pecunia uellet mercari? maliuolentiae ergo responsum istud datum est, non errori. haec est enim quae remedium non habet. quia neque error est neque per quam excuset necessitas, ut possit per fletum ad ueniam peruenire. si in tali itaque causa aliqui fuerint inuenti, hoc audiant quod audiuit et Simon. nam et cur dubie respondit, apostolus Petrus ostendit dicens: in felle enim amaritudinis et in obligatione iniquitatis uideo te esse. si ergo in tam graui causa et quae sine remedio uideatur, dubie responsum est, ambiguum non est eis, qui errore aut necessitate aliqua in deum peccant, posse remitti, si congruam paenitentiam agant. hoc enim concessum est iuri ecclesiastico ab auctore, ut et paenitentiam det et post paenitentiam recipiat.","english":"But you are accustomed to covering over this fraud with another deceit, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: \"Do penance for this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be remitted to you.\" But the apostle Peter, considering the man's venomous and exceedingly bitter malice, gave him a doubtful response. For what mortal has sinned in such a way as to wish to purchase the gift of God with money? That response, therefore, was given to malice, not to error. For this is what has no remedy, because it is neither error nor necessity by which one might excuse it, so that it could attain pardon through weeping. If, therefore, any are found in such a cause, let them hear what Simon heard. And indeed, the apostle Peter showed why he responded doubtfully, saying: \"For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.\" If, therefore, in so grave a cause, which seems without remedy, a doubtful response was given, it is not ambiguous that those who sin against God through error or some necessity can be pardoned if they perform suitable penance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author, that it may both give penance and receive one back after penance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":250,"ref":"p250","source":"Est et aliud quod reprehendit Nouatianus: 'cur', inquit, 'corpus domini tradunt eis quos norunt peccatores?' quasi possint ipsi accusatores esse, qui sunt iudices. si autem accusati fuerint et manifestati, poterunt abici. nam quis iudex accusatoris sumat personam? nam si ipse dominus ludam passus est, quem sciebat furem esse et ea quae mittebantur exportare, nec eum qui accusatus non eat abiecit, hoc exemplo uti oportet, ut eum abici non liceat, qui publice detectus non fuerit. nam nec iusto uiro conpetit aliquem accusare. unde Ioseph cum esset, inquit, homo iustus et nollet eam traducere, uoluitearn occulte remittere. ludas ergo cum esset inter discipulos, contagione sua non eos maculauit, dissentientes utique a furtis eius, et eucharistiam inter eos accipiens non polluit innocentes, nec dominus ei, quem latronem sciebat, corpus suum denegauit, quia secundum apostolum qui indigne sumit gladium sibi sumit unde nec ab osculo eius se auertit. peccatores etenim eos polluunt, qui consentiunt Malis eorum. unde dictum est: uidebas furem et concurrebas cum eo.","english":"There is also another point which Novatian criticizes: \"Why,\" he says, \"do they give the Lord's body to those whom they know to be sinners?\"—as if they themselves could be accusers, who are judges. But if they have been accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge would assume the role of an accuser? For if the Lord himself tolerated Judas, whom he knew to be a thief and to carry off what was sent in, and did not cast him out when he had not been accused, it is fitting to use this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out one who has not been publicly detected. For it is not fitting for a just man to accuse anyone. Hence Joseph, when he was, it says, a just man and did not wish to expose her, wanted to send her away secretly. Therefore Judas, while he was among the disciples, did not defile them with his contagion, since they dissented from his thefts, and receiving the Eucharist among them did not pollute the innocent, nor did the Lord deny his own body to him whom he knew to be a thief, because according to the apostle, he who unworthily receives takes the sword for himself, whence he did not even turn away from his kiss. For sinners defile those who consent to their evils. Whence it was said: you saw a thief and you ran with him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":251,"ref":"p251","source":"Hinc est unde apostolus plebem Corinthiorum arguit, propter quod illum, qui publice uxorem patris habebat, non corriperent aut euitarent, ut se emendaret, dicens: nescitis quia modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit? cum enim non esset dux aliquis aut praepositus ecclesiae, plebis erat corripere eum, quem uidebant tam turpiter et obscene inter eos uersari. ac per hoc quasi consentientes eos crimini eius apostolus arguit. nec enim in hac re accusatore opus erat aut testibus; publice enim nouercam suam loco uxoris habebat M\n\nItaque, quantum ad causam nostram pertinet, exposuimus rationem non alios criminantes, sed nos defendentes. Nouatiani autem obtestor conscientiam, qui nos semper accusat, si sanctos scit esse omnes quos secum habet. in tantum autem irascitur nobis, ut et Christianos nos neget, cum sciat nos ea fide tinctos, de qua ipse praesumit. Christianum certe professio facit et uita. si ergo uides hominem ea profiteri, quae tu, et non dissimilem esse in uita, quare negas esse eum quod tu es? certe qui dicit dominum Iesum, in spiritu sancto dicit; uerum enim dicit. omnis enim ueritas de deo est. cur non adsentis uera dicenti, sed negas? fatenti deum contradicis non ratione, sed furore. numquid non inimicus dei uideris, qui uera de eo profitenti resistie ? numquid paganus audiens aliquem idola dicentem esse deos negat paganum esse?","english":"This is why the apostle rebukes the Corinthian people, because they did not rebuke or shun the man who publicly had his father's wife, so that he might correct himself, saying: \"Do you not know that a little leaven spoils the whole lump?\" For when there was no leader or overseer of the church, it was the people's duty to rebuke him whom they saw living so shamefully and obscenely among them. And thus the apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or witnesses; for he publicly had his stepmother as his wife.\n\nTherefore, as far as our case is concerned, we have set forth the reasoning not by accusing others, but by defending ourselves. But I call upon the conscience of Novatian, who always accuses us, to know whether he knows all those whom he has with him to be saints. Moreover, he is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, although he knows that we are baptized in that faith of which he himself boasts. Certainly, profession and life make a Christian. Therefore, if you see a man professing what you profess, and not unlike you in life, why do you deny that he is what you are? Certainly, whoever says \"Lord Jesus\" says it in the Holy Spirit; for he speaks the truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not assent to one speaking the truth, but deny him? You contradict one confessing God, not by reason, but by rage. Do you not seem to be an enemy of God, who resists one speaking the truth about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":252,"ref":"p252","source":"cur tu negas Christianum quem audis uerba integrae fidei profitentem, cum legas: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit in salutem? at tu, ut inimicus, quod per iracundiam non uides, deo repugnas negans haec confitentem habere salutem, cum dominus dicat: quicumque me confessus fuerit, et ego eum. numquid ait: 'si Nouatianus me fuerit confessus'? sed tu hoc sic adstruis, ut tibi hoc defendere uidearis, ut hic saluetur qui non Christianus tantum, sed qui fuerit et Nouatianus. sed si in Christum facta confessio dat salutem, ubicumque, apud quoscumque integra fuerit haec confessio, habet salutem. itaque si confessionis huius traditio corrupta est apud nos aut sensus inmutatus, recte accusas. si enim haec manet in nobis sicut et in te, nos negando et te negare uideris.\n\nSed fidei ministros accusas; fac uerum esse, quamuis probare non possis. qui tamen ab his audierunt, uerum est quod audierunt aut falsum? nec enim si uitiosus uerum dixerit, non erit uerum, quia a uitioso dictum est, cum alia causa sit conuersationis et alia professionis. nonne persecutor odio Christiani nominis professionem persequitur, non conuersationem? primo in loco sciens hoc proficere religioni, cum confitemur esse nos Christianos, sacrilegus confitentibus nobis credit quod non uult audire, quia odit.","english":"Why do you deny that a man is a Christian when you hear him professing the words of the whole faith, when you read: \"By the heart one believes for righteousness, but by the mouth confession is made for salvation\"? But you, like an enemy, because you do not see through anger, fight against God by denying that the one confessing these things has salvation, when the Lord says: \"Whoever has confessed me, I also [confess] him.\" Does he say: \"If Novatian has confessed me\"? But you construct this in such a way that you seem to defend this, that here the one who is saved is not only a Christian, but whoever has been a Novatian as well. But if confession made in Christ grants salvation, wherever, among whomever this confession has been whole, it has salvation. Therefore, if the tradition of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its meaning altered, you rightly accuse. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem to deny yourself as well.\n\nBut you accuse the ministers of the faith; suppose it is true, although you cannot prove it. Yet what those who have heard from them have heard—is it true or false? For even if a corrupt man has spoken the truth, it will not be untrue because it was spoken by a corrupt man, since the matter of conduct is one thing and the matter of profession another. Does not a persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? In the first place, knowing that this benefits the religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes us confessing what he does not want to hear, because he hates it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":253,"ref":"p253","source":"tu autem, cum eiusdem professionis sis et signaculi, non credis confitentibus nobis quae ipse confiteris. si aliter nos renatos scires quam tu renatus es, recte non crederes hoc nos esse quod tu es. ut quid a sacrilego persecutionem patior, si non hoc sum quod tu es? nam si hoc de me profiterer, quod tu de me dicis, persecutionem non paterer. ad postremum mihi credendum est de me, non tibi. meam enim professionem quaerit iudex, non tuam de me. quid ergo me confitente tu negas, cum uerum sit in hac causa non alienum testimonium, sed meam professionem requiri aut pro me aut contra me? uolebam pro nomine torqueri te contra me, ut appareret si uera confitente me tu negares contra me, aut cui crederetur. dolo enim hoc proponis, ut iustam causam uidearis habere schismatis. nam non ignoras in hac re meam de me testificationem requiri, non alienam, et hoc uerum haberi, quod ego fuero confessus, non quod alter negauerit.","english":"You, however, although you are of the same profession and the same seal, do not believe us when we confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in a different way than you were reborn, you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious person, if I am not what you are? For if I professed about myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. In the end, I am to be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my profession, not yours about me. Why, then, do you deny when I confess, since in this case it is not another’s testimony but my own profession that is required either for me or against me? I wished that you, on behalf of the Name, be tortured against me, so that it might appear whether, when I confess the truth, you would deny against me, or whom would be believed. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not unaware that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s, and that what I have confessed is held as true, not what another has denied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":254,"ref":"p254","source":"Manifestum est itaque liberos esse eos, qui amore Christi non disquirentes hominum actus ad fidem eius consequendam concurrunt, hoc eorum probantes quod sibi utile norunt, id est, ut traditionem fidei, quae de Christo est, consequantur. nam qui praeter ministerium aliquid aliud hominis in hac re putat necessarium, traditioni facit iniuriam; minus enim sentit de gratia dei. quando enim, nisi meritum hominis adfuerit, negat donum dei proficere posse deuoto sibi, aut potiorem aut parem facit hominem ipsi traditioni, cum longe sit meritum hominis ab hoc officio, sicut de hac eadem re dicit apostolus Paulus: ego plantaui, Apollo rigauit, sed deus incrementum dedit. itaque neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum datdeus.\n\nQuo modo in hac re aliquid de homine sperandum est. cum uerba data sint quae tradantur? uideamus itaque quid proderit, si boni meriti fuerit, aut quid oberit, si mali fuerit meriti. accedens uerba dei audire desiderat, quibus fidem commodans salutem se credit accipere. quid facit in hac re, si bonae an malae uitae sit qui uerba sollemnia tradit, cum fides deuota quaeratur percipientis, ut ea, quae audit, toto animo credat? numquid si malae uitae sit qui tradit, inpedimentum faciet percipienti, ne credat quae audit, credenda, ut peccatum eius intret in cor eius ne credat?","english":"It is therefore clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ, without scrutinizing men’s actions, hasten to obtain His faith, approving in this what they know to be useful to themselves, that is, that they may receive the tradition of faith which is about Christ. For whoever thinks that something else of a man, besides the ministry, is necessary in this matter does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For when, unless the merit of a man is present, does he deny that the gift of God can be effective for one devoted to it? He either makes man greater than or equal to the tradition itself, whereas the merit of a man is far removed from this office, as the apostle Paul says concerning this same matter: “I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.” Therefore, neither the one who plants is anything, nor the one who waters, but the one who gives the increase is God.\n\nHow, in this matter, is anything to be hoped for from man, when the words which are to be handed over have been given? Let us see, therefore, what will be gained if he is of good merit, or what will be lost if he is of bad merit. The one approaching desires to hear the words of God, by which, lending his faith, he believes he receives salvation. What does the one who hands over the solemn words do in this matter, whether he is of good or of bad life, since the devoted faith of the recipient is sought, so that he may believe with his whole heart what he hears? Surely, if the one who hands over is of bad life, will it create an impediment for the recipient, so that he does not believe what he hears as things to be believed, so that his sin enters the heart of the recipient and prevents him from believing?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":255,"ref":"p255","source":"aut deus, qui iustus est, despicere habet deuotum sibi propter peccatum eius, quem ipse patitur esse in ordine? nec homo sic iudicat, quem constat falli frequenter aut esse gratiosum. si ita esset et homo causam suam ageret, nonne diceret deo: (qui sit iste cuius causa me despicis, nescio. ego ad eum tui causa accessi, quia tuus dicebatur antistes. te quaesiui, te desideraui, tibi credidi; de homine nihil speraui: quare ergo mala eius mihi obsint, quem nescirem nisi te quaesissem? si bona eius mihi possent proficere, iustum uideretur forte, ut et mala eius obessent mihi. sed sicut bona eius, si dubie credidissem, nihil proderant mihi, ita et mala eius nihil obesse mihi debent bene credenti. ego enim uerbis eius fidem dedi, quae a te data dicuntur quaeque te inspirant, te loquuntur, de te promittunt; huic de se nihil credidi nec gestis eius, sed fidei, quae ex te est, me copulaui.'","english":"or is God, who is just, to disregard a devotee of His because of that devotee’s sin, when He Himself allows that devotee to exist in his order? Not even a human being judges thus, though it is certain that a human being is frequently mistaken or partial. If it were so, and a man were pleading his own case, would he not say to God: “Who this man is, on whose account you disregard me, I do not know. I approached him for your sake, because he was said to be your minister. I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you; I hoped for nothing from the man. Why, then, should his evils harm me, whom I would not have known had I not sought you? If his goods could have profited me, it might perhaps seem just that his evils should also harm me. But just as his goods, if I had believed doubtfully, would have profited me nothing, so too his evils ought to harm me nothing, since I believed rightly. For I gave credence to his words, which are said to be given by you, which are inspired by you, which speak of you, which promise concerning you; I believed nothing about him from himself, nor in his deeds, but I joined myself to the faith that comes from you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":256,"ref":"p256","source":"Secundum haec integra est causa credentis. aduocatorum enim more accipe antistites. numquid si malae uitae sit aduocatus, contra susceptum eius pronuntiabitur? hoc est officium aduocati, ut secundum iuris ordinem suscepti sui causam peroret: numquid poterit uita eius, si turpis est, obesse causae suscepti? persona enim aduocati nec obesse nec prodesse poterit; qualis enim fuerit causa, sic et respondebitur ei. sic sunt et qui uolunt fieri Christiani. accedunt ad antistitem, dicunt ei uota sua, ille facit uerba iuris ecclesiastici. si uera uota sunt, suscipiuntur a iudice. in quo ille aut obesse poterit aut prode esse, quippe cum nec causam suscepti sui norit? deo enim iudici soli cognitum est, quis qua mente accedat. antistitis ergo est delegato sibi fungi officio, iudicis autem aut suscipere aut rennuere causam suscepti. ipse enim inuenitur dixisse: filia, fides tua te saluam fecit.","english":"According to these things, the case of the believer is intact. For take the bishops in the manner of advocates. If an advocate is of evil life, will judgment be given against his client? This is the office of an advocate, to plead the case of his client according to the order of the law: can his life, if it is shameful, harm the case of his client? For the person of the advocate can neither harm nor help; for whatever the case is like, so will the response be given to it. So it is with those who wish to become Christians. They approach the bishop, declare their vows to him, he speaks the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are accepted by the judge. In what way can he either harm or be of use, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God the judge alone with what mind each person approaches. Therefore, it is the bishop’s duty to perform the office delegated to him, but the judge’s either to accept or reject the case of the client. For He Himself is found to have said: “Daughter, your faith has saved you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":257,"ref":"p257","source":"Uides itaque nullius adiutorio, sed unum quemque fide sua saluari. hoc enim deus decreuit fidei, ut, si non dubitet, omne quod uoluerit consequatur. tu tamen non ut amicus, sed quasi inimicus Christi populum sub tuo nomine congregasti, ut non sint Christiani nisi fuerint Nouatiani, cum apostolus condemnet, si qui dicat se Paulianum aut alterius alicuius. sed tu potiorem te iudicans super Christi nomen tuum posuisti, quasi ille non sufficeret ad tuendam ecclesiam suam.\n\nCIII. CUM CONSTET IN LEDITICO DE SACRIFICIIS OFFERENDIS DOMINUM MANDASSE, QVID EST UT IRATUS AD POPULUM DICAT NON SE MANDASSE PATRIBUS EORUM, UT OFFERRENT LIBAMINA UEL SACRIFICIA SIUE HOLOCAUSTA? DENIQVE SIC DICIT PER HIEREMIAM PROFETAM: 'HAEC DICIT DOMINUS: HOLOCAUSTA UESTRA CONGREGATE CUM SACRIFICIIS UESTRIS ET MANDUCATE CARNES, QVIA NON SUM LOCUTUS AD PATRES UESTROS NEQVE MANDAUI ILLIS, QVA DIE EDUXI ILLOS DE TERRA AEGVPTI, DE HOLOCAUSTIS ET SACRIFICIIS.'","english":"You see, therefore, that no one is saved by another’s help, but each one by his own faith. For God has decreed this concerning faith, that, if one does not doubt, he will obtain everything he wishes. You, however, not as a friend, but as an enemy of Christ, have gathered the people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are Novatians, although the apostle condemns anyone who calls himself a Paulian or of anyone else. But you, judging yourself more important, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as if he were not sufficient to protect his own church.\n\nCIII. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED CONCERNING SACRIFICES TO BE OFFERED, WHY IS IT THAT, ANGRY AT THE PEOPLE, HE SAYS THAT HE DID NOT COMMAND THEIR FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR HOLOCAUSTS? INDEED, HE SPEAKS THUS THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: ‘Thus says the Lord: Gather your holocausts with your sacrifices and eat the meats, because I did not speak to your fathers nor did I command them, on the day I led them out of the land of Egypt, concerning holocausts and sacrifices.’","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":258,"ref":"p258","source":"Si penitus aduertas, non est de hac re facere quaestionem; nec mentitum dominum aut inmutatum putes, ut mandaret at postea denegaret. de huius modi enim sacrificiis et libaminibus seu holocaustis nihil inuenitur mandasse, de quibus nihil se locutum testatur. duorum etenim genera sacrificiorum aduerte: unum quod per singula genera offerri mandatum est, et aliud quod uoluntarium dictum est. illud ergo quod per diuersa genera siue pro peccatis siue pro primogenitis offerri praeceptum est, quid et quale et quo modo offerendum esset, mandatum est. sacrificium enim uoluntaiium non utique mandatum est, quia arbitrio remissum est, ut, si aliquis uoluisset offerre, quod illi uisum fuisset, offerret; uotiua enim erant haec sacrificia. et quia neglegenter et inprouide haec offerebant non deliberantes, quia qui offerret potentiori munera electa offerret, idcirco dicitur eis: 'non mandaui uobis de his; sed si uultis, debetis quae digna sunt offerre'.","english":"If you pay close attention, there is no need to raise a question about this matter; nor should you think the Lord lied or changed his mind, so that he commanded something and later denied it. For concerning sacrifices and libations or holocausts of this kind, nothing is found to have been commanded, about which he testifies that he said nothing. For note two kinds of sacrifices: one which was ordered to be offered according to each type, and another which was called voluntary. Therefore, for that which was prescribed to be offered according to various types, whether for sins or for firstborn, it was commanded what, of what kind, and in what manner it was to be offered. For a voluntary sacrifice was by no means commanded, because it was left to discretion, so that, if someone wished to offer, he would offer whatever seemed good to him; for these sacrifices were votive. And because they were offering these negligently and improvidently, without deliberation—since one who offers would offer choice gifts to a more powerful person—therefore it is said to them: \"I did not command you concerning these; but if you wish, you ought to offer what is worthy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":259,"ref":"p259","source":"Sic etenim inuenitur et Cain peccasse, cum non considerat deo haec debere offerri, quae potiora sunt. cum enim ad propitiandum deum haec se dicerent offerre, in eo ipso deum ad indignationem prouocabant, ut in id quod dicerent se bene facere peccarent offerentes deo holocausta indigna. unde dicit in Malachihel profeta: si adducatis ad uictimam caecum aut claudum aut aegrum, non est bonum. offers autem ea duci aut praeposito tuo, si suscipiet te, dicit domi nus omnipotens. hinc est ut in Eseia de eadem re queratur deus dicens: quo mihi oues holocausti tui? neque in sacrificiis tuis honorasti me. non enim ad hoc te feci, ut laborares in ture aut ut mercareris mihi argento incensum, nec adipem sacrificiorum tuorum concupiui; in peccatis autem tuis et iniquitatibus adstitisti mihi. manifestum est itaque ortas querellas, quia cum uoluntaria sacrificia offerrent non in his deum honorabant offerentes indigna, cum hoc utique non esset necessitatis. si enim mandata fuissent, necessitate uidebantur qualiacumque offerre: quando autem arbitrio suo haec offerebant, talia debuerant offerre, ex quibus obsequium in se dei ostenderent. sed quia animus illorum cupiditate idolorum errabat, inconsiderate haec agebant.","english":"Thus it is also found that Cain sinned, when he did not consider that these things ought to be offered to God which are superior. For when they said they were offering these things to propitiate God, in that very act they provoked God to indignation, so that in what they claimed to be doing well, they sinned by offering to God unworthy sacrifices. Whence it is said in the prophet Malachi: \"If you bring to the sacrifice a blind or lame or sick animal, it is not good. But if you offer these to your leader or your superior, will he receive you?\" says the Lord Almighty. Hence it is that in Isaiah God complains about the same matter, saying: \"What are your sacrificial sheep to me? You have not honored me in your sacrifices. For I did not make you so that you would labor over incense or so that you would buy incense for me with silver, nor did I covet the fat of your sacrifices; in your sins and iniquities you have stood before me.\" It is therefore clear that complaints arose because, when they offered voluntary sacrifices, they did not honor God in them by offering unworthy things, since this was certainly not a matter of necessity. For if these had been commanded, they would seem to be offering whatever they had out of necessity; but when they offered these of their own free will, they ought to have offered such things as would show their devotion to God in themselves. But because their minds were wandering in the desire for idols, they did these things thoughtlessly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":260,"ref":"p260","source":"igitur duplici genere exprobrantur, quia et inique agentes deo audebant offerre et quae indigna erant offerebant, cum iniqui actus non sacrificiis redimantur, sed lamentatione et misericordia.\n\nUnde dicit Dauid cum peccasset: si uoluisses, sacrificia dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. sacrificium deo spiritus contribulatus, et cor contritum et humiliatum deus non despicit. denique dicit Samuhel ad Saul, qui, cum contemsisset praeceptum domini, sacrificio deum putabat posse placari: non enim, inquit, uult deus sacrificium magis quam audiri uocem suam. et scriptura dicit: misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium, quia, cum iniusti essent et inmisericordes, oblationibus propitium deum fieri arbitrabantur, sicut et nunc quidam spernentes iustitiam oblationibus laudari se putant. bona ergo oblatio, si seruetur iustitia et non neclegatur misericordia, quia quod nobis petimus et aliis praestare debemus.","english":"Therefore they are reproached on two counts: both because they dared to offer to God while acting unjustly, and because they offered things that were unworthy, since unjust acts are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by lamentation and mercy.\n\nWhence David says, when he had sinned: \"If you had wished, I would certainly have given sacrifices; you will not take delight in burnt offerings.\" The sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, and a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise. Finally, Samuel says to Saul, who, when he had despised the Lord's command, thought he could placate God with a sacrifice: \"For,\" he says, \"God does not want sacrifice more than to have his voice heard.\" And Scripture says: \"I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,\" because, when they were unjust and unmerciful, they thought they could make God propitious with offerings, just as now some, spurning justice, think they are praised by offerings. Therefore an offering is good, if justice is preserved and mercy is not neglected, because what we seek for ourselves we ought also to provide to others.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":261,"ref":"p261","source":"CIIII. DE EUANGELIO LUCA.\n\nSciens dominus bellum Iudaicum aduersus se futurum dixit discipulis suis ut gladios sibi pararent. quo facto cum coeptum esset bellum duce Simone Scariote, uidens Petrus apostolus insurgentes hostes, protulit gladium et amputauit auriculam serui sacerdotum. tunc dominus dixit Petro, ut reconderet gladium in thecam suam: omnis enim, inquit, qui accipit gladium, gladio peribit. ut quid parari iussit. qui prohibuit percuti, reum etiam mortis designans eum, qui percusserit gladio, cum non utique iniuste uideatur apostolus percussisse? quantum pertinet enim, percussit eum quem contra se armatum uidebat. resistere enim debuit ingratis seruis et ad dominum necandum armatis.\n\nSi singula membra inspicias causae, cuius uis patefieri rationem, inuenies et alia quae requiras his dictis. quid enim opus erat, ut hic, qui spiritali fretus erat uirtute, gladios iuberet parari carnales et, qui prius in uia iusserit nec peram ferri nec pecuniam nec uirgam, nunc iuberet haberi, quae prius prohibuit?","english":"CIIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.\n\nThe Lord, knowing that the Jewish war would arise against him, told his disciples to prepare swords for themselves. When this was done, and the war had begun under the leadership of Simon Scariote, the apostle Peter, seeing the enemies rising up, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the priests. Then the Lord said to Peter that he should put his sword back into its sheath: for everyone, he said, who takes up the sword will perish by the sword. Why did he order them to be prepared, he who forbade striking, also designating as guilty of death the one who struck with the sword, when the apostle does not seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as it concerns, he struck one whom he saw armed against himself. For he had to resist ungrateful servants armed to kill their master.\n\nIf you examine the individual parts of the case, whose reason you wish to lay bare, you will find other things that you seek in these words. For what need was there that he, who relied on spiritual strength, should order carnal swords to be prepared, and that he, who earlier on the journey ordered that neither a wallet nor money nor a staff be carried, should now order to have what he previously forbade?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":262,"ref":"p262","source":"Incipiamus igitur, cur gladios iusserit parari et caedi prohibuit, explanare. non solum enim inimicorum, uerum etiam ipsorum discipulorum suorum causa ad superuenturum bellum arma procurari praecepit. noua enim et mirabilis res futura erat, ut hic, qui noua et inaudita signa faciebat, sic subito humiliaretur, ut et uerberibus subiceretur et morti. : ne ergo uelut inpraescius haec pati uideretur et a quo forte uirtus recessisset, haec omnia sic praedixit, ut non dubitaret de his, sed praescius contra haec se pararet et, quia uoluntate humiliatus est, non resisti acrius inimicis iuberet in tantum ipsum se esse qui fuerat ostendens, ut iam detentus aurem quae abscisa fuerat restitueret, (et) ut quod gladio operante deciderat redderet. non quasi carnalis utique medicus, sed quasi corporis conditor opus suum truncatum refinxit. nec enim possunt medici abscisa corporis membra reparare. ut autem dei uirtus non deminuta in illo, sed ita ut fuerat inesse uideretur et illud firmaret quod dixerat: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam, hac ergo causa gladios parari, non tamen iussit occidi.","english":"Let us therefore begin to explain why he ordered swords to be prepared but forbade killing. For he commanded that arms be procured not only on account of his enemies, but also on account of his own disciples, because of the impending war. For a new and astonishing thing was about to happen: that he, who performed new and unheard-of signs, would suddenly be humiliated to the point of being subjected to beatings and death. Lest, therefore, he should seem to suffer these things as though without foreknowledge, and as though his power had perhaps departed from him, he foretold all these things in such a way that he did not doubt them, but, being foreknowing, prepared himself against them; and because he was humiliated willingly, he ordered that the enemies not be resisted too fiercely, showing himself to be so much the one he had been that, when already seized, he restored the ear which had been cut off, and gave back what had fallen by the work of the sword. Not, indeed, as a fleshly physician, but as the creator of the body, he refashioned his mutilated work. For physicians cannot repair severed parts of the body. But so that the power of God might seem not diminished in him, but to be present just as it had been, and so that it might confirm what he had said: \"I have the power to lay down my life and I have the power to take it up again,\" for this reason he had swords prepared, yet he did not order killing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":263,"ref":"p263","source":"Nunc illud superest, quare contuens factum apostoli Petri eum, qui gladio usus fuerit, gladio dixit perire, cum non iniuste percussisse uideatur. nam sicut significatur in Luca, ipso domino permittente percussit et sic prohibitus haec audiuit. ideo etenim permissum est, ut et uindicare se posse uiderentur, sed nolle, et ut uirtus ostenderetur in eo manere, in quo fuerat, ut in utroque uindicare se posse non ambigerentur, inimici uero pro certo haberent datam sibi ab eo potestatem, ut haec facerent. non enim uictus apparebat, sed tradens se uoluntati eorum. quare ergo sententia data est, ut qui accipit gladium gladio pereat, nisi quia nulli licet excepto iudice gladio quemquam occidere ? apostolo autem Petro usque ad hoc permissum est, quod dolorem faceret, non quod occideret. hoc enim audiens, ne iterum percuteret, didicit praeterea, quia Christianis iam factis occidere non licet in misericordia enim positis lege iuris mundo crediti uti non liceat aspere. illud autem quod ante euntibus in uia discipulis mandasse uidetur, ut nihil tollerent in uia, pacis est causa et gratia uirtutum et adfabilitas doctrinae. quid enim opus erat tollere aliquid in uia, quibus signorum causa omnia offerenda erant?","english":"Now this remains: why, when he considered the deed of the apostle Peter, he said that the one who had used the sword would perish by the sword, even though he does not seem to have struck unjustly. For as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord himself permitting it, and thus, when prohibited, he heard these words. For this reason it was permitted, so that they might be seen to be able to avenge themselves, but unwilling, and so that the virtue might be shown to remain in him in whom it had been, so that in both respects they would not be doubted to be able to avenge themselves, but the enemies would hold for certain that power had been given to them by him to do these things. For he did not appear conquered, but surrendering himself to their will. Why then was the sentence given, that he who takes the sword shall perish by the sword, except that it is permitted to no one except a judge to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only to the extent that he would cause pain, not that he would kill. For hearing this, lest he strike again, he learned besides that it is not lawful for those who have already become Christians to kill; for those placed in mercy it is not lawful to use the harsh law of the world's trust. But that which he seems to have commanded to the disciples going before on the road, that they should take nothing on the road, is for the sake of peace and the grace of virtues and the affability of teaching. For what need was there to take anything on the road, when on account of signs everything was to be offered to them?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":264,"ref":"p264","source":"adubi autem tempus, quo se pati permisit, aduenit, propter quod rixa magis bellum inminebat, armatos iubet esse discipulos, non ut repugnaret qui pati uolebat, sed, ut dixi, et praescium se huius rei et in potestate habere passionem suam ostenderet, humiliaret autem se humanae salutis causa, quod suo loco dicetur..\n\nCV. CONUENIRE EUANGELIUM CUM PROFETIA.\n\nCum in primo aduentu domini praedictum sit, quia contenebraretur sol in passione eius eadem hora qua factum probatur - id est meridie; sic enim scriptum est in Amos profeta: et erit in die illo, dicit dominus, occidet sol meridie et contenebrescet super terram dies lucis —,. illo ergo die a sexta hora contenebratus est sol usque ad horam nonam et ita completa est profetia supra dicti profetae. imago enim huius rei, quae futura est in aduentu domini secundo, in passione domini est ostensa, quia in fine, cum coeperit dominus aduenire ut iudicet mundum, soluentur . luminaria ab officio suo dicente domino: in illis diebus sol contenebrabitur et luna non dabit fulgorem suum. quod quidem et Iohel profeta non praetermisit, ut, cum a Iohel significatur. sine dubio impleri credatur. ita enim dixit: sol conuertetur in tenebras et luna in sanguinem, priusquam ueniat dies domini magnus et manifestus.","english":"But when the time at which he allowed himself to suffer arrived, on account of which a quarrel threatened more than war, he ordered the disciples to be armed, not so that he who wished to suffer might fight back, but, as I have said, to show both that he was prescient of this matter and that he had his passion in his power, but he would humble himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be discussed in its proper place.\n\nCV. THAT THE GOSPEL AGREES WITH THE PROPHECY.\n\nSince it was predicted in the first coming of the Lord that the sun would be darkened at the time of his passion, at the same hour at which it is proven to have happened—that is, at midday; for thus it is written in the prophet Amos: \"And it shall be on that day, says the Lord, the sun will set at midday and the day of light will grow dark over the earth\"—therefore on that day the sun was darkened from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, and thus the prophecy of the aforementioned prophet was fulfilled. For an image of this matter, which will occur at the second coming of the Lord, was shown in the passion of the Lord, because at the end, when the Lord begins to come to judge the world, the luminaries will be released from their office, the Lord saying: \"In those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its brightness.\" Indeed, the prophet Joel did not omit this, so that, when it is signified by Joel, it is believed without doubt to be fulfilled. For he spoke thus: \"The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":265,"ref":"p265","source":"hoc, quantum apparet, secundo aduentui magis congruit; tunc enim aperte manifestabitur omnibus sic dicente scriptura: tunc uidebit illum omnis oculus et plangent se super illo omnes tribus terrae et qui illum cruci fixerunt.\n\nItaque si in utroque aduentu hoc continetur, quia sol contenebrabitur illis diebus, qui dies ille est, quo ampliari solem et lunam cecinit scriptura? ait enim inter cetera Eseias dicens: eritque super omnem montem excelsum et in omni loco excelso aqua perambulans in die illa, cum perierint multi, cum ceciderint turres. et erit lumen lunae ut lumen solis; et lux solis erit septiens tantum in die, cum sanabit contritionem populi sui et cetera. qui dies potest intellegi, quo promisit se dominus sanare contritionem populi sui? hic, opinor, est dies, quem pater Iohannis Zacharias ostendit dicens: benedictus est deus Israhel, quia uisitauit et fecit redemtionem plebi suae et erexit cornu salutis nostrae in domo Dauid pueri sui, sicut locutus est per os sanctorum profetarum suorum, qui a saeculo sunt. et liberauit nos ab inimicis nostris. et de manibus omnium, qui oderunt nos, ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris. et Simeon inter cetera: hic positus est, inquit. in ruina et in resurrectione multorum in Israhel. haec .ruina est scribarum et Farisaeorum et principum Iudaeorum, quos profeta significauit in 'turres'.","english":"This, as far as can be seen, is more fitting for the second coming; for then it will be openly manifest to all, as Scripture says: then every eye will see him, and all the tribes of the earth will lament over him, and those who crucified him.\n\nTherefore, if this is contained in both comings, that the sun will be darkened in those days, what day is that on which Scripture has sung that the sun and moon will be enlarged? For Isaiah says among other things: and there will be water flowing over every high mountain and in every high place on that day, when many have perished, when towers have fallen. And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun; and the light of the sun will be seven times as great on the day when he heals the contrition of his people, and so forth. What day can be understood as the one on which the Lord promised to heal the contrition of his people? This, I think, is the day which John's father Zacharias pointed out, saying: blessed is the God of Israel, because he has visited and made redemption for his people and raised up the horn of our salvation in the house of David his servant, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from eternity. And he freed us from our enemies. And from the hands of all who hate us, to show mercy to our fathers. And Simeon among other things: he is placed, he says, in the ruin and in the resurrection of many in Israel. This ruin is of the scribes and Pharisees and the princes of the Jews, whom the prophet signified by 'towers'.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":266,"ref":"p266","source":"His ergo per incredulitatem ruentibus alii surrexerunt credendo, qui prius uidebantur infirmi et aegri per neclegentiam. unde saluator: in iudicio, ait, ego ueni in hunc mundum, ut qui non uident uideant et qui uident caeci fiant, ut qui per legis culturam et peritiam lumina uiderentur per incredulitatem caecarentur, caeci uero, id est inperiti uel publicani, uiderent, dum crederent. quorum infirmitates profeta saluatorem portaturum praedixit. itaque hoc tempore saluatoris factum est, sicut legitur in euangelio, quia ipse infiimitates nostras accepit et uulnera nostra curauit.\n\nQuae quidem omnia in passione saluatoris consummata et adimpleta sunt; sic enim salus humani generis tam apud superos quam apud inferos et redempta est et firmata, quia profetia Zachariae supra dicti utrumque conprehendit. et hic enim £ apud superos liberati sunt a contritione inimicorum interuentu misericordiae et illic apud inferos, cum erepti sunt de tartaro. cuncti enim, qui sperauerunt in promissum Christum, exspectabant aduentum eius, ut deuicta morte liberarentur de inferno. unde dixit: ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris. si quis autem salutem hanc etiam in secundo aduentu contineri intellegat, in utroque tamen aduentu, maximesecundo, sol conuertetur in tenebras et luna non dabit fulgorem suum.","english":"Thus, while these fell through unbelief, others rose by believing, who previously seemed weak and sick through negligence. Hence the Savior says: \"In judgment,\" he says, \"I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind,\" so that those who seemed lights through the cultivation and expertise of the law would be blinded through unbelief, while the blind—that is, the unskilled or publicans—would see, by believing. The prophet foretold that the Savior would bear their infirmities. And so this happened at the time of the Savior, as is read in the Gospel, because he himself took on our infirmities and healed our wounds.\n\nAll these things were indeed consummated and fulfilled in the passion of the Savior; for in this way the salvation of the human race was both redeemed and confirmed among the higher powers as well as among the lower, because the aforementioned prophecy of Zechariah encompasses both. For here among the higher powers, they were freed from the crushing of enemies by the intervention of mercy, and there among the lower, when they were snatched from Tartarus. For all who hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting his advent, so that, with death conquered, they might be freed from the underworld. Hence he said: \"To show mercy to our fathers.\" But if anyone understands this salvation to be contained also in the second advent, yet in both advents—especially the second—the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon will not give its light.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":267,"ref":"p267","source":"quo modo ergo augeri solem et lunam die, quo uisitabit dominus populum suum, aduertemus, quando utroque in tempore, quo coepta liberatio populi et adimpleta est, solem et lunam non minui, sed contenebrari legamus? nisi plane solem et lunam sanctis conparatos intellegamus, sicut alio in loco legimus sanctos luminaribus exaequatos Paulo apostolo praedicante, quia inter ceteros homines sancti in hoc mundo uelut luminaria uideantur, et in euangelio: tunc iusti, inquit, fulgebunt sicut sol. dominus enim opera iusta lumen appellat; sic enim ait: luceat lumen uestrum coram hominibus, ut uidentes opera uestra bona magnificent patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est.\n\nHi ergo, qui omnibus suis derelictis dominum sequuntur iustitiae et sanctitatis causa soli et lunae conparantur septiens honorati, sicut dicit dominus: nemo est qui relinquat domum aut uxorem aut filios aut agros, qui non recipiat septiens tantum in hoc saeculo. qui ergo ad praesens septiens honorantur, potest intellegi, quia et in futuro septem partibus clariores ceteris futuri credantur, ut resurrectio eorum soli conparetur ac lunae; ceterorum uero sicut stellae sunt. claritas ergo sanctorum, quae hic septiens bono. ratur, in resurrectione aliud septiens consequitur. ut qui hic claritatem lunae habet in futuro solis accipiat claritatem et qui hic soli conparatur septiens tantum futurus credatur accipere.","english":"How then shall we understand that the sun and moon increase on the day when the Lord will visit his people, when at both times—when the liberation of the people was begun and when it was completed—we read that the sun and moon were not diminished, but darkened? Unless we understand that the sun and moon are compared to the saints, as we read elsewhere that the saints are equated to lights, with the apostle Paul preaching that among other men the saints in this world are seen as lights; and in the Gospel: \"Then the just,\" it says, \"will shine like the sun.\" For the Lord calls just works \"light\"; thus he says: \"Let your light shine before men, so that seeing your good works they may magnify your Father, who is in heaven.\"\n\nTherefore, those who, having abandoned all their possessions, follow the Lord for the sake of justice and holiness are compared to the sun and moon, honored sevenfold, as the Lord says: \"There is no one who leaves a home or a wife or children or fields who does not receive seven times as much in this world.\" Therefore, those who are honored sevenfold in the present can be understood to be believed to be seven parts brighter than others in the future, so that their resurrection is compared to the sun and moon; but that of others is like stars. Thus the brightness of the saints, which is honored sevenfold here, receives another sevenfold in the resurrection, so that whoever has the brightness of the moon here will receive the brightness of the sun in the future, and whoever is compared to the sun here is believed to receive seven times as much in the future.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":268,"ref":"p268","source":"Profeta ergo Eseias solis et lunae conparatione sancs torum merita augeri praedixit, nec inmerito. si enim ipse dominus (801 iustitiae) dictus est, sancti autem similes ei erunt Iohanne apostolo dicente: cum enim apparuerit, inquit, similes ei erimus, conuenit sanctos in sole significatos. septem tamen partibus maiorem solem quam lunam profeta supra dictus ostendit. quando enim lunam sicut lumen solis futuram ostendit, solem autem septiens tantum, ad modum utique solis septiens lunam augeri significat, ut talis sit qualis sol. quamuis sanctorum ratio hic uertatur, sub hac tamen causa luminarium ex parte prodidit quantitatem, ut post crementum solis ac lunae tantum iterum maior sit, quantum erat sol, ut, quantum in praesenti distat sanctus a sancto, tantum distet et in futuro post remunerationem.\n\nCVI. DE LIBRO GENESIS.\n\nIn principio fecit deus caelum et terram. si caelum in principio fecit et terram, caelum autem firmamentum est, sicut in subiectis apparet, non est uerum, quia prior lux facta est et sic firmamentum; aliud enim caelum significare non poterat, quia facturam mundi describit deo operante perfectam. propter quod enim diuersis opinionibus homines fallebantur in causa mundi, Moyses deo se inspirante ostendit quae esset ratio mundi.","english":"The prophet Isaiah therefore foretold that the merits of the saints would be increased by comparison with the sun and moon, and not undeservedly. For if the Lord himself is called the Sun of Justice, and the saints will be like him, as the apostle John says: \"For when he appears,\" he says, \"we will be like him,\" it is fitting that the saints are signified in the sun. Yet the above-mentioned prophet shows that the sun is seven times greater than the moon. For when he shows that the moon will be like the light of the sun, but the sun seven times as much, he signifies that the moon is increased sevenfold according to the measure of the sun, so that it becomes such as the sun is. Although the reasoning concerning the saints is at issue here, yet under this cause he has partly revealed the quantity of the luminaries, so that after the increase of the sun and moon, the one is again as much greater as the sun was, so that as much as a saint now differs from a saint, so much shall he differ also in the future after the reward.\n\nCVI. ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS.\n\nIn the beginning God made heaven and earth. If he made heaven and earth in the beginning, and heaven is the firmament, as appears in what follows, it is not true, because light was made first and then the firmament; for he could not signify another heaven, since he describes the making of the world, perfected by God's working. For because men were deceived by various opinions concerning the origin of the world, Moses, inspired by God, showed what the nature of the world was.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":269,"ref":"p269","source":"quibusdam enim uidebatur initium non habere; aliis initium quidem habere, sed ab angelis quibusdam fabricatus esse; nonnullis uero factus similiter, sed a Sacla quodam, qui esset deus potestatis aduersae; pauci autem de origine ueritatis traducem sequentes deum opificem eius adserebant. horum ergo causa diuersitatis, qui falsa opinione trahebantur,. coactus est Moyses quae esset causa huius uera ostendere, ne filii Israhel erepti de potestate Aegyptiorum, a falsa tamen intellegentia eorum liberati non essent. ipsi enim inter ceteros magis erroris studium sequebantur; hi enim antiquitus prae ceteris uanae filosofiae operam dabant. denique Moyses, per id quod a filia Faraonis adoptatiuus uidebatur, eruditus est omni sapientia Aegyptiorum.\n\nQuid ergo est quod dicit: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram? si enim firmamentum) non significat secundum quod supra ostendimus, uideamus quid dicat. arbitramur, quia Moyses, ut omnem errorem inferioris creaturae auferret et inpensarum facti mundi, in principio substantias ipsas, quibus mundus constat, factas esse significauit, quia, si hoc tacuisset, aeternae forte putarentur esse substantiae deo iugabiles aestimatae, ut qui huius rei testimonium recipit ambigere non possit factum esse mundum, quando substantias, quae ad inpensam mundi profecerunt, initio subiectas fatetur.","english":"For it seemed to some that it had no beginning; to others, that it had a beginning indeed, but was fashioned by certain angels; to some, moreover, that it was made similarly, but by a certain Sacla, who was a god of the opposing power; but a few, following the line of truth concerning its origin, asserted that God was its maker. Therefore, because of this diversity of opinion among those who were drawn by false belief, Moses was compelled to show what the true cause of this was, lest the children of Israel, though delivered from the power of the Egyptians, should not be freed from their false understanding. For they, among others, were more given to the pursuit of error; for from ancient times they devoted themselves to vain philosophy more than the rest. Finally, Moses, through the fact that he was considered the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter, was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.\n\nWhat then does it mean when it says: \"In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth\"? For if \"firmament\" does not signify what we have shown above, let us see what it says. We think that Moses, in order to remove all error concerning the lower creation and the materials of which the world was made, signified that the substances themselves, of which the world consists, were made in the beginning, because, if he had kept silent about this, these substances might perhaps be thought eternal, deemed to be joined to God, so that he who accepts the testimony of this matter cannot doubt that the world was made, when he confesses that the substances which contributed to the material of the world were subject to a beginning.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":270,"ref":"p270","source":"igitur in principio fecit deus caelum et terram, id est supernam et infernam substantiam. superna est, qua constat caelum; inferna autem concretio est quaedam faeculenta. quae profecit in aridam, quae dicitur terra, et tenebras. unde dicit in Eseia profeta: ego deus, qui feci lucem et creaui tenebras, hoc est aquam, tenebras et terram.\n\nHis ergo creatis simul substantiis ante tempora — tem pora enim sub firmamento sunt; firmamentum enim, sicut quibusdam uidetur, glacies est aquarum et ideo firmamentum dicitur, quia concretis diuinitus aquis firmatum est, quod ab occulendo uel celando appellatum est caelum. itaque propter quod aqua maius est elementum, prior est significata et quia pars eius profecit in cameram mundi; terra autem pauimentum est. quae quidem et Dauid per spiritum sanctum creata fatetur; aitenim:et aqua, quae super caelos eat, laudet nomen domini, quia ipse dixit et facta est, ipse mandauit et creata est —, post haec ergo elementa ante conpaginationem mundi fecit deus lucem, ut opera eius in luce procederent, quae lux modo disposito cursum diei expleuit. et facta est nox iuxta diei modum, quae similiter impleto modo spatii inluminata est aduentu luminis matutini, et sic impletus est primus dies, cum coepit secundus; nox enim diei deputata est, ut simul dicantur unus dies.","english":"Therefore, in the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the upper and lower substance. The upper is that of which the heaven consists; the lower, however, is a certain muddy concretion. This concretion produced dry land, which is called earth, and darkness. Whence the prophet Isaiah says: \"I am God, who made light and created darkness,\" that is, water, darkness, and earth.\n\nThese substances having been created together before times—for times are under the firmament; for the firmament, as it seems to some, is ice of waters and is therefore called firmament, because it was made firm by waters congealed by divine power, and it is called heaven from the act of hiding or concealing. Therefore, because water is the greater element, it was signified first, and because a part of it produced the vault of the world; the earth, however, is the pavement. And indeed David confesses through the Holy Spirit that these were created; for he says: \"And the water which is above the heavens praises the name of the Lord, because He spoke and it was made, He commanded and it was created.\" After these elements, therefore, before the joining together of the world, God made light, so that His works might proceed in light, which light, once arranged, completed the course of the day. And night was made according to the measure of the day, which, similarly, when its span was completed, was illuminated by the arrival of the morning light, and thus the first day was completed when the second began; for night is assigned to the day, so that together they are called one day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":271,"ref":"p271","source":"propter quod enim subiectae sunt tenebrae lumini, auctoritate carent, ne possint numerum facere. triginta etenim dies una luna appellatur, cum secum habeant et noctes. itaque lucis ministerium, quo spatium consummat sibi decretum, dies nuncupatur; tenebrarum autem substantia, antequam inluminetur, nox appellatur. spatium autem illud, quod inter occasum et ortum est, nox est. non enim tenebrae faciunt noctem, sicut et lux diem, quia tenebrae manent in sua natura. lucis autem accessus facit diem et decessus noctem. non inmerito ergo subiecta est nox diei. -\n\nLuce igitur facta et cursu duodecim horarum impleto totidemque et noctis spatio peracto aequinoctium fuit in primo die. et exinde coepit dies increscere super noctem tribus scilicet mensibus, qui sunt tempus ueris. ex eo deinde augmento BUO minuitur dies aliis mensibus tribus, qui sunt tempus aestatis. et iterum fit aequinoctium, ita ut ex eo nox increscat super diem aliis mensibus tribus, qui sunt tempus autumni. et incipit iterum nox de magnitudine, qua supergreditur diem, minorari usque ad finem quarti temporis, quod est hiemps. et fit aequinoctium primi temporis, quando deus mundum creauit, qui dies intellegitur esse XI Kl. Apr., quando primus dies paschae est, id est primus dies primi mensis. in lege enim mandatum est, ut decima die primi mensis uespere praepararent se ad pascha faciendum quarta decima mensis die.","english":"For this reason, because darkness is subject to light, it lacks authority, so that it cannot make a number. For thirty days are called one moon, although they also have nights. Thus, the service of light, by which it completes the space decreed for it, is called day; the substance of darkness, before it is illuminated, is called night. But that space which is between sunset and sunrise is night. For darkness does not make night, just as light makes day, because darkness remains in its own nature. But the approach of light makes day, and its departure makes night. Not undeservedly, therefore, is night subject to day.\n\nTherefore, with light made and the course of twelve hours completed, and the same number of hours of night's space having been accomplished, there was an equinox on the first day. And from then on, day began to increase over night for three months, which are the time of spring. Then, from that increase, day diminishes for another three months, which are the time of summer. And again there is an equinox, so that from it night increases over day for another three months, which are the time of autumn. And night begins to decrease from the magnitude by which it exceeds day, until the end of the fourth season, which is winter. And the equinox of the first season occurs, when God created the world, which day is understood to be the 11th day before the Kalends of April, when the first day of Passover is, that is, the first day of the first month. For in the Law it is commanded that on the tenth day of the first month in the evening they should prepare themselves to celebrate Passover on the fourteenth day of the month.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":272,"ref":"p272","source":"id est ab undecimo. iam enim uesper decimi diei in . undecimum lucet, ut ab XI Kl. Apr. initium esset primi mensis. in principio etenim facta luna fuit quarta decima, quia omnia plena sunt facta; adde et triduum a decima uespere, et hi sunt tres dies ante luminaria qui fuerunt, ut XI Kl. Apr. factus sit mundus, quia numerus lunae ab undecimo uenit ad quarto. decimum, cui paschae primus mensis integer est adtributus, ut in pascha die sollemni neque extra XI sit Kl. Apr. neque extra lunam quartodecimam, quia undecimo mundus factus est. quarta decima autem luna maiore lumine clarior factus est.\n\nInter principium ergo et claritatem, qua inluminatus est mundus, saluator noster et passus est et resurrexit. quia quarta decima luna passus est et primo die resurrexit, qui ideo 'dominicus' dicitur, quia ipsum fecit, qui multiplicatus menses facit et tempora et annos. ut autem uno adque eodem modo minime celebretur, cursus facit lunae in detrimentis et crementis.","english":"that is, from the eleventh. For the evening of the tenth day already shines into the eleventh, so that the beginning of the first month would be from the eleventh day before the Kalends of April. In the beginning, indeed, the moon was made on the fourteenth day, because all things were made full; add also the three days from the evening of the tenth, and these are the three days before the lights which there were, so that the world was made on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, because the number of the moon comes from the eleventh to the fourteenth, to which the first month of Passover is wholly assigned, so that on the solemn day of Passover it is neither outside the eleventh day before the Kalends of April nor outside the fourteenth moon, because the world was made on the eleventh. But the world was made brighter by the greater light of the fourteenth moon.\n\nTherefore, between the beginning and the brightness by which the world was illuminated, our Savior both suffered and rose again. For he suffered on the fourteenth moon and rose on the first day, which is called 'the Lord's day' because he made it, which, multiplied, makes months and seasons and years. But so that it is not celebrated in one and the same way, the course of the moon makes its waning and waxing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":273,"ref":"p273","source":"Terra autem erat inuisibilis et inconposita. manifestum est, quia terra, postquam facta est, inuisibilis erat et inconposita. tegebatur enim aquis, ideo erat inuisibilis; inconposita autem ideo, quia, cum esset fluxa, non erat apta ad culturam.\n\nEt tenebrae erant super abyssum. tenebras dicit fuisse super abyssum, id est super inmensam ex omni parte aquam.\n\nEt spiritus dei superferebatur super aquam. hanc aquam quasi summitatem significat, super quam spiritum dei, quia superferebatur, ostendit, ut tenebras super infinitam profunditatem fuisse significet, spiritum autem dei super aquas, quia, ubi spiritus erat dei, obscuritas non erat. quantum enim poterat, inluminabat aquam, abyssum autem, id est inmensam profunditatem, inluminare non poterat; hoc est, superiores. aquas inluminabat; subter erant et tenebrae super abyssum.\n\nIdcirco autem hunc (dei spiritum' dicit, non quia sanctum hunc intellegi uult spiritum, sed cum super creaturam hylicam spiritalia uult intellegi, totum autem dei esse significans dei hunc, qui super aquas ferebatur, spiritum uocat, ut prauam adseuerationem conuellat, qua quidam utuntur dicentes aliquid esse quod non sit dei. nam nec ordinis nec rationis est, ut super aquas spiritus sanctus fuisse dicatur, quia super omnem creaturam est. quod enim de deo est, super omnes potestates et principatus et simul super omnes potentias spiritales est.","english":"Now the earth was invisible and unformed. It is clear that the earth, after it was made, was invisible and unformed. For it was covered by waters, therefore it was invisible; and it was unformed for this reason, because, being fluid, it was not suitable for cultivation.\n\nAnd there were darknesses over the abyss. It says that darknesses were over the abyss, that is, over the immense water on every side.\n\nAnd the spirit of God was borne over the water. This word \"water\" signifies a kind of surface, over which it shows that the spirit of God was borne, so that it signifies that the darknesses were over the infinite depth, but the spirit of God was over the waters, because where the spirit of God was, there was no darkness. For as far as it could, it illuminated the water, but it could not illuminate the abyss, that is, the immense depth; that is, it illuminated the upper waters; below there were also the darknesses over the abyss.\n\nNow it calls this \"the spirit of God\" not because it wishes this to be understood as the Holy Spirit, but because, when it wishes spiritual things to be understood as being over hyletic creation, and signifying that the whole is of God, it calls this, which was borne over the waters, \"spirit of God,\" in order to refute the perverse assertion which some use, saying that there is something which is not of God. For it is neither of order nor of reason that the Holy Spirit should be said to have been over the waters, because it is over every creature. For that which is from God is over all powers and principalities and at the same time over all spiritual powers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":274,"ref":"p274","source":"non moueat autem mentem alicuius, quia dei spiritus dicitur, cum constet omnia dei esse. ait enim deus inter cetera facturus diluuium: non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro, et in Ezechihel inter alia: haec dicit dominus ossibus istis: extendam super uos cutem et dabo spiritum meum in uos et uiuetis. numquid haec ad officium spiritus sancti pertinent et non ad animam? spiritus ergo hic dei est quidem, sicut cetera, hylicarum tamen moderator est substantiarum; ipsius ordo est his. praeesse.\n\nLuce igitur facta et cursu diei moderato et peracto secundo die fecit firmamentum, id est caelum, ut lux intra firmamentum. moderaretur diem, ut esset quasi lucerna in domo. hoc itaque firmamentum factum est ex supra dicta aquae substantia. nunc enim conpaginatur in specie mundus, ut de confusione rerum discretis substantiis singulae partes aptarentur, quae ad membra mundi proficerent. substantiae enim, quas primum factas diximus, inpensae sunt mundi et ideo mundus dicitur, quia res ab inuicem separatae, quae erant confusae et in speciem productae, mundum fecerunt uocari, cuius in fabricam profecerunt.","english":"Let no one’s mind be troubled because the spirit of God is spoken of, when it is established that all things belong to God. For God says, among other things, when about to make the flood: “My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh”; and in Ezekiel, among other things: “Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and put my spirit into you, and you will live.” Do these things pertain to the office of the Holy Spirit, and not to the soul? Therefore this spirit of God is indeed of God, like the rest, yet it is the moderator of material substances; its order is to preside over these.\n\nTherefore, after light was made and the course of the day was regulated, and after the second day was completed, he made the firmament, that is, the sky, so that light within the firmament might regulate the day, as if it were a lamp in a house. And so this firmament was made from the aforementioned substance of water. For now the world is being put together in its form, so that from the confusion of things, with the substances separated, individual parts might be fitted together, which would serve as the members of the world. For the substances which we said were first made were expended on the world, and therefore it is called “world” because things separated from each other, which were confused and brought into form, made it to be called world, into whose construction they advanced.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":275,"ref":"p275","source":"firmamentum ergo, id est caelum, factum est in medio aquarum, ut diuideret inter aquam, quae erat supra firmamentum, et inter aquam, quae erat sub firmamento, ut dei uirtute in medio aquarum consisteret firmamentum sub se et intra se et supra et circa se habens aquam, ut esset concauum de foris et intra munitum, ne aquae siue exteriores siue interiores . penetrarent concauum eius, ut esset quasi domus munita adque firmata, ut securi essent habitantes in ea.\n\nTertio die iussit congregari aquam quae erat sub caelo, hoc est intra capacitatem firmamenti, in congregationem unam, ut appareret arida, quae est terra, et factum est sic. exhausta enim latitudine terrae factum est uelut alueum, in quod demergeretur omnis aqua, quae erat intra firmamentum, et tunc apparuit arida. recedente enim aqua necesse erat appareret terra facta uisibilis, quae prius fuerat inuisibilis. tunc arida appellata est terra et congregationes aquarum maria. et iussit producere terram herbam pabuli et ligna fructifera ad semen super terram.","english":"Therefore the firmament, that is, the sky, was made in the midst of the waters, to divide between the water that was above the firmament and the water that was below the firmament, so that by the power of God the firmament would stand in the midst of the waters, having water beneath it, within it, above it, and around it, so that it would be hollow, fortified from without and within, lest the waters, whether outer or inner, penetrate its hollow, so that it would be like a fortified and secured house, so that those dwelling in it would be safe.\n\nOn the third day, he commanded the water that was under the sky, that is, within the capacity of the firmament, to gather into one gathering, so that the dry land, which is the earth, would appear, and it was done. For when the breadth of the earth was drained, a kind of channel was made, into which all the water that was within the firmament would be submerged, and then the dry land appeared. For as the water receded, it was necessary that the earth, which had previously been invisible, would appear, having been made visible. Then the earth was called dry land, and the gatherings of waters were called seas. And he commanded the earth to produce fodder grass and fruit-bearing trees for seed upon the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":276,"ref":"p276","source":"Quarto iterum die iussit deus fieri luminaria in firmamento caeli, ut luceant super terram: luminare maius in inchoationem diei et luminare minus in inchoationem noctis et stellas. haec ad conceptum et natiuitatem et ad nutrimenta pertinent eorum, quae gignuntur in mundo, et ad signa temporum certis titulis necessaria nec non et ad ornatum totius mundi. sicut enim ad ornatum domus pertinet, si camera eius habeat auro distincta laquearia, ita et mundo ornatum praestant stellae diuersa luce fulgentes. luci itaque, quae facta est prior, est additus splendor solis, ita ut conexa sint haec et indiuidua; nocti autem, quae erat tenebrosa, datum est luminare. et quia quarta decima fuit luna, quando facta est, sic ait: luminare minus in inchoationem noctis; facta enim tota nocte luxit. a parte ergo ad totum dictum est: in inchoationem noctis, quia non semper uespere lucet. luminare autem maius, quod solem dicimus, manet in initia diei, quia simul cum luce priore concretus est.","english":"On the fourth day again God commanded that lights be made in the firmament of the sky, to shine upon the earth: the greater light at the beginning of the day and the lesser light at the beginning of the night, and the stars. These pertain to the conception, birth, and nourishment of those things that are generated in the world, and to the signs of the seasons necessary for fixed purposes, and also to the adornment of the whole world. For just as it pertains to the adornment of a house if its ceiling has paneling distinguished with gold, so too do the stars, gleaming with diverse light, provide adornment for the world. To the light, therefore, which was made first, the splendor of the sun was added, so that these are conjoined and indivisible; but to the night, which was dark, a light was given. And because the moon was at the fourteenth day when it was made, thus it says: the lesser light at the beginning of the night; for it shone the whole night when it was made. Therefore it is said from the part to the whole: at the beginning of the night, because it does not always shine in the evening. But the greater light, which we call the sun, remains at the beginning of the day, because it was conjoined with the earlier light at the same time.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":277,"ref":"p277","source":"Tribus igitur diebus sine luminaribus his fuit mundus; non enim erant adhuc quibus proficerent officia eorum. adubi autem produxit terra herbam pabuli et ligna fructifera, necessaria fuerunt quae enutrirent uel conseruarent quae erant producta. quia ergo generatio omnis horum interuentu perficitur, non oportuit prius hoc fieri, ne eorum effectu, quae producta de terra sunt, orta putarentur, sed illa ante facere et sic haec, ut sine his facta non ambigantur.\n\nQuinto deinde die aquas iussit producere reptilia animarum uiuarum et uolatilia uolantia super terram secundum firmamentum caeli; et factum est sic. et inter cetera: et uidit, inquit, deus quia bona sunt et dixit: crescite et multiplicamini. ideo autem adiecit: et uidit deus quia bona sunt, quia a quibusdam dicuntur mala esse, ut uel sic erubescant. quando enim deo et conditori suo placent, nulli utique debent displicere. nam solent dicere stulti: (ideo,' inquiunt, uidit et placuerunt ei, quia ante nesciebat.' o hebetes, quo modo nesciuit, qui quod uoluit, productum est? aliquis uult quod nescit? et qui potest facere, potest dici quia nescit quid faciat? et quod amplius est, non ipse fecit, sed iussit ut fieret; et quam iussit, non est huius uirtutis ut faceret?","english":"For three days, then, the world was without these lights; for there were not yet things for whose benefit their functions would serve. But as soon as the earth produced fodder-grass and fruit-bearing trees, those things became necessary which would nourish or preserve what had been produced. Therefore, because all generation of these is accomplished through their intervention, it was not fitting for this to happen earlier, lest the things produced from the earth be thought to have arisen because of their effect; rather, He made those first and then these, so that it might not be doubted that these were made without them.\n\nOn the fifth day, then, He commanded the waters to produce living reptiles and birds flying over the earth according to the firmament of the sky; and it was done. And among other things: \"And God saw,\" it says, \"that they were good and said: 'Increase and multiply.'\" But He added, \"And God saw that they were good,\" because some say they are evil, so that they might blush even in this way. For when they please God, their own creator, they ought certainly to displease no one. For fools are accustomed to say: \"Therefore,\" they say, \"He saw them and they pleased Him, because He did not know before.\" O dullards, how did He not know, when what He willed was produced? Does anyone will what he does not know? And can it be said that He who is able to make does not know what He makes? And what is more, He did not make them Himself, but commanded that they be made; and what He commanded is not of such a nature that He could make it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":278,"ref":"p278","source":"sed quia huic omnia possibilia sunt, iubente hoc quae non poterat coepit posse, ut ad huius laudem proficeret duplex enim uirtus est, ut insensibilem iuberet sensibilia producere.\n\nSexto uero die praecepit, ut produceret terra animam uiuentem, quadripedia et bestias terrae; et factum est sic et producta sunt. et uidit deus quia bona sunt, et ualde bona, quia omnia necessaria sunt.\n\nSupra dicta igitur die dixit deus: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et habeat, inquit, potestatem super omnia quae facta sunt super terram. primum quidem fecit deus substantias ex quibus mundum conpaginaret, quo conpacto et omnibus ornatibus decorato et necessariis honestato post haec hominem fecit, qui frueretur eo et omnibus quae in illo sunt. nam cum omnia super terram ex aquis et terra produci iussisset, hominem tamen ut faceret, limum terrae manibus adprehendisse describitur, ut multum differre hominem ab his, quae fecerat, edoceret. ad honorem enim hominis pertinere uult, quando eum dei manibus factum describit et factum ad imaginem et similitudinem dei, id est ad patris et filii.","english":"But because all things are possible for Him, at His command what was unable began to be able, so that it might redound to His praise; for the power is twofold, that He should command the insensible to produce sentient things.\n\nOn the sixth day, He commanded that the earth bring forth living soul, four-footed animals and beasts of the earth; and it was done so, and they were produced. And God saw that they were good, and very good, because all are necessary.\n\nOn the aforementioned day, God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him have, He said, power over all things that have been made upon the earth. First, indeed, God made the substances from which He would join together the world; once it was joined together and adorned with all ornaments and dignified with necessities, after this He made man, who would enjoy it and all things that are in it. For although He had commanded all things upon the earth to be produced from waters and earth, yet when He was to make man, He is described as having taken up mud of the earth with His hands, so that He might teach that man differs greatly from those things which He had made. For He wishes it to pertain to the honor of man, when He describes him as made by the hands of God and made in the image and likeness of God, that is, of the Father and the Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":279,"ref":"p279","source":"Quid sit autem (ad imaginem et similitudinem', quamuis alibi dixerimus, hic tamen locus et causa postulat ut iterum dicamus. patris enim ad filium uerba sunt dicentis: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, quamquam in omni opere utriusque intellegatur persona, dicentis et obaudientis. haec ergo imago dei est in homine, ut unus factus sit quasi dominus, ex quo ceteri orirentur, habens imperium dei quasi uicarius eius, quia omnis rex dei habet imaginem. ideoque mulier non est facta ad dei imaginem. sic etenim dicit: et fecit deus hominem, ad imaginem dei fecit eum. hinc est unde apostolus: uir quidem, ait, non debet uelare caput, quia imago et gloria dei est; mulier autem ideo uelat, quia non est gloria aut imago dei. similitudo autem dei haec est in homine, ut, sicut ex patre filius, similiter ex homine mulier, in hoc plane dispar, quia haec facta, ille uero natus est.","english":"But what 'to the image and likeness' means, although we have said elsewhere, yet this place and subject demands that we say it again. For these are the words of the father speaking to the son: 'Let us make man to our image and likeness,' although in every work the person of both the speaker and the obedient is understood. This, then, is the image of God in man, that one was made as a lord, from whom the rest would arise, holding the command of God as His vicar, because every king has the image of God. And therefore woman was not made to the image of God. For thus it says: 'And God made man; He made him to the image of God.' Hence it is that the apostle says: 'A man,' indeed, 'ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but a woman covers herself for this reason, because she is not the glory or image of God.' The likeness of God, however, is this in man: that, just as from the father the son, so from man woman, but clearly unequal in this, that she was made, while he was born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":280,"ref":"p280","source":"Quibusdam tamen uidetur omnia simul dominum fecisse. (si enim uerbo', inquiunt, 'fecit, quare non omnia simul fecisse dicatur? nam hic hominum mos est, si partibus fecisse credatur.' ad potentiam ergo magis dei proficere dicunt, si uno die omnia ab eo facta credantur. porro autem magnam prouidentiam in hoc opere et ordine contuemur. nam potuit utique simul facere cuncta, sed ratio multiformis prohibuit et sepositis his omnibus scripturae diuinae fides habenda est, quae dicit et saepe dicit, quia in sex, inquit, diebus fecit dominus deus tuus caelum et terram et mare et omnia quae in eis sunt. primo enim in loco sic debuerunt fieri, ut sentirent ac scirent quia facta sunt. quando enim non se omnia simul uiderunt sed unum hodie, cras alterum, cognouerunt initio se contineri nec posse aeternitatem suspicari, ubi se partibus inuicem recognoscunt. nam si omnia simul exstitissent, non esset eis sensus infirmitatis, sed putarent se non coepisse. quae enim uerbo dei subito simul existunt, non se fieri sentiunt, nisi aliud ante se aliud post se uidendo. et ne forte illud quod primum factum est putet se infectum maiora post se facta cernendo, hoc credit de se quod uidet in alterum potiorem. denique lumen, quod dies appellatur, ante se habet caelum et terram, id est aquam et aridam.","english":"Some, however, think that the Lord made everything at once. For if He made by a word, they say, why should He not be said to have made everything at once? For this is the custom of men, if He is believed to have made things in parts. They say, therefore, that it redounds more to the power of God if all things are believed to have been made by Him in one day. But on the other hand, we observe great providence in this work and order. For He could indeed have made everything at once, but the manifold reason forbade it; and setting all these aside, the authority of divine Scripture must be trusted, which says and often says that in six days, it says, the Lord your God made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. For in the first place, things had to be made in such a way that they would perceive and know that they were made. For when they did not see everything at once, but one thing today, another tomorrow, they recognized that they were contained by a beginning and could not suspect eternity, where they recognize each other in parts. For if everything had come into existence at once, they would have had no sense of weakness, but would have thought they had not begun. For things that come into existence suddenly at once by the word of God do not feel themselves being made, unless by seeing one thing before them and another after them. And lest that which was made first should think itself uncreated, seeing greater things made after it, it believes this about itself which it sees in another more powerful. Finally, the light, which is called day, has before it heaven and earth, that is, water and dry land.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":281,"ref":"p281","source":"cum autem ipsa aqua et arida et tenebrae confusa fuissent facta, aeternitatem sibi uindicare non poterant, quia nemo harum statum et proprietatem sibi ausa est uindicare. sol iterum et luna cum sint clarissima, ante se habent multa. ita ergo factum est, ut, potiora posteriora, anteriora autem inferiora cum se uident, nihil horum sibi uindicet aeternitatem.\n\nPraeterea, quia sex diebus opus consummatum, totius mundi aetatem in se continet, ut sex dierum opera sex milium annorum haberent figuram, quia, quod uno quoque saeculo futurum erat, sex dierum per ordinem operibus continetur: ut — puto quia prioribus saeculis tanta cognitio dei in terris futura non erat —, sine splendore anteriores dies uiderentur; ut autem ante hominem pecora fierent, quia ueteres nostri inculti et agrestes pecorum more uicturi erant; sexto autem die homo fieret, haec res fecit, quia sexto millesimo anno aduentus Christi hominem fecit, ne morti esset obnoxius; ut autem imago dei esset homo, quia dono dei coimaginari haberet filio dei dicente Iohanne apostolo: scimus autem, inquit, quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus. et uas electionis: coimaginati, ait, filio dei. arbor autem uitae, quae posita est in paradiso, imago fuit futurae gratiae dei, quae est corpus domini, quod qui edit, uiuet in aeternum.","english":"But since water and dry land and darkness had been made in a confused state, they could not claim eternity for themselves, because none of them dared to claim for itself a fixed state and proper nature. Again, the sun and the moon, although they are very bright, have many things before them. Thus it happened that, when the more powerful things are later and the earlier things are inferior, seeing themselves, none of them claims eternity for itself.\n\nMoreover, because the work was completed in six days, it contains within itself the age of the whole world, so that the works of the six days would have the pattern of six thousand years, since what was to happen in each age is contained in the works of the six days in order: so that—I think because in the earlier ages there was not to be such great knowledge of God on earth—the earlier days would appear without splendor; and so that beasts would be made before man, because our uncultivated and rustic ancestors were to live in the manner of beasts; and so that man would be made on the sixth day, this fact brought it about that in the sixth thousandth year the coming of Christ made man, so that he would not be subject to death; and so that man would be the image of God, because by the gift of God he was to be co-formed with the Son of God, as the apostle John says: \"But we know,\" he says, \"that when he appears, we will be like him.\" And the vessel of election says: \"co-formed,\" he says, \"with the Son of God.\" Moreover, the tree of life, which was placed in paradise, was an image of the future grace of God, which is the body of the Lord; whoever eats it will live forever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":282,"ref":"p282","source":"nam arbor scientiae boni et mali lex est data per Moysen, quae, cum cognitum fecisset peccatum quod prius latebat, dedit scientiam boni et mali. ostendit enim quid esset bonum, quidue malum. illud uero, quod septimo die requieuit ab operibus suis, hoc significauit, quia impleto sexto millesimo anno in septimo millesimo requiesceret cessante iam mundo ab omni opere saeculari. 20. Haec diximus pauca de multis, ut uiam panderemus intellegendi secundum ea quae supra ostendimus.\n\nCVII. DE ORDINE DIEI ET NOCTIS.\n\nQuantum ad mundi rationem pertinet, tenebras ante legimus quam lucem. ea enim, quae ad mundi fabricam profecerunt quaeque simul facta uidentur, lumine priuata fuisse considerantur, id est aqua terra tenebrae, ex quibus conpaginatus est mundus, sicut continetur in Sapientia, quae dicitur Solomonis: ex materia inuisa, hoc est tenebrosa. et tenebras enim et aquam factam sacra uolumina ipsius domini uoce testanturper Eseiamprofetam: ego enim, inquit, deusqui feci lucem et creaui tenebras. similiter et per Dauid et aquas factas et terram firmatam super aquas spiritus sanctus ostendit. quod conuenit et euangelicae auctoritati et apostolicae traditioni, in quibus omnia facta leguntur et, ut nihil exciperet, siue quae in caelis sunt, ait, siue quae in terris.","english":"For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the law given through Moses, which, when it had made known the sin that previously lay hidden, gave the knowledge of good and evil. For it showed what was good and what was evil. But that he rested on the seventh day from his works signified this: that when the sixth thousandth year was completed, in the seventh thousandth he would rest, the world already ceasing from all secular work. 20. We have said these few things out of many, to open a way of understanding according to what we have shown above.\n\nCVII. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT.\n\nAs far as the reason of the world is concerned, we read of darkness before light. For those things which contributed to the building of the world and which seem to have been made together are considered to have been deprived of light, that is, water, earth, and darkness, from which the world was put together, as is contained in the Wisdom which is called Solomon's: from invisible matter, that is, dark matter. And both darkness and water were made, the sacred volumes of the Lord himself testify through the prophet Isaiah: For I, he says, am the God who made light and created darkness. Similarly, through David, the Holy Spirit shows both that waters were made and that the earth was established upon the waters. This agrees with evangelical authority and apostolic tradition, in which all things are read as having been made and, so that nothing be excepted, whether those which are in the heavens, it says, or those which are on the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":283,"ref":"p283","source":"In hac ergo parte, quae ad terras pertinet, ante tenebras legimus quam lucem. hoc, quantum ad ordinem lectionis pertinet, non quantum ad dignitatem; nam utique multo melior lux quam tenebrae. in mundi tamen ratione lux accepit nomen, ut appellaretur dies et tenebrae nox, sed hac scilicet ratione, quia, dum inluminantur tenebrae et praeterit lux, illud tempus. quamdiu redeat lux, dicitur nox et illud tempus, quo inluminantur tenebrae, appellatur dies. nox ergo cum dicitur, speratur futurus dies et, cum dies dicitur, speratur fore nox. cum uero officia haec cessauerint transeunte mundo, tenebrae tantum dicentur et lumen. non enim potest dici nox, cum perpetuo sint tenebrae, neque dies, cum occidere cessauerit lumen. ubi enim aeternitas est, cessant haec nomina, quia cum mundo coeperunt. denique antequam lux fieret, quae appellata est dies, non nox legitur fuisse, sed tenebrae; quae postquam inluminatae sunt et praeteriit lux, uespera appellatae sunt et nox.","english":"In this part, therefore, which pertains to the earth, we read of darkness before light. This, however, pertains to the order of the reading, not to the order of dignity; for light is certainly much better than darkness. Yet in the rationale of the world, light received the name by which it is called 'day,' and darkness 'night,' but for this reason, namely, that while darkness is illuminated and light passes away, that time—as long as light returns—is called 'night,' and that time in which darkness is illuminated is called 'day.' Therefore, when 'night' is said, the coming day is hoped for, and when 'day' is said, the coming night is expected. But when these functions have ceased as the world passes away, only 'darkness' and 'light' will be spoken. For it cannot be called 'night' when there is perpetual darkness, nor 'day' when light has ceased to set. For where eternity exists, these names cease, because they began with the world. Finally, before light was made, which was called 'day,' it is not read that 'night' existed, but 'darkness'; which, after it was illuminated and light passed away, was called 'evening' and 'night.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":284,"ref":"p284","source":"Igitur, quantum apparet, subiecta est nox diei. nec enim, quia ante tenebrae leguntur quam lux, idcirco anteponendae debent uideri, quia et caelum ante solem est et tamen claritate maior est sol et terra ante hominem et pecora et cetera animantia et tamen subiecta sunt homini. non ergo idcirco nox praeferri debet diei, quia ante leguntur tenebrae, cum appareat et dignitate lumen tenebris et tempore diem nocti anteponi. sicut enim supra ostensum est, cum essent tenebrae, facta est lux.\n\nEt appellauit deus lucem diem et tenebras appellauit noctem; et factum est uespere et factum est mane dies unus. nam nisi dies fuisset, nec nox; tenebrae enim erant, quae cum inluminatae sunt et praeteriit dies cursu suo peracto, factus est uesper. et cum post uesperum inluxisset, factus est dies primus nocte transacta, ut diem sequeretur nox. hoc et dignum est et ratione commendatum, ut inferior natura per omnia subiecta sit potiori.","english":"Therefore, as far as can be seen, night is subject to day. For just because darkness is read before light, it should not for that reason be thought preferable, since heaven is before the sun and yet the sun is greater in brightness, and earth is before man and cattle and other living creatures and yet they are subject to man. Night, therefore, ought not to be preferred to day simply because darkness is read first, when it is evident that light is superior to darkness in dignity and day is placed before night in time. For, as has been shown above, when there was darkness, light was made.\n\nAnd God called the light day and the darkness he called night; and evening came and morning came, and it was one day. For if there had been no day, there would have been no night either; for there was darkness, and when it was illuminated and the day had passed through its course, evening came. And when after evening it had dawned, the first day was made, with night having passed, so that night would follow day. This is both fitting and commended by reason, that the inferior nature should in all things be subject to the superior.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":285,"ref":"p285","source":"Quo modo ergo nox ante diem dicetur, cuius nomen post diem legis? non enim appellata fuisset nox neque uesper, nisi facta lux diem egisset, quo transacto factus est uesper, qui est nox: dies utique factus est uesper, ut scias noctem partem esse diei. tunc enim consummatur dies, cum transit et non denique sic dicimus: annus dies habet CCCLXV', non utique sine noctibus. cum enim dies dicimus, ibidem cohputamus et noctes. sub auctoritate enim diei significamus et noctem; nam si nox praeiret diem, sub uocabulo noctis conputaretur et dies. quis etenim hominum dicat: (post quinque noctes uidebo te\\\\ et non: 'post quinque dies'? nec legisse nos meminimus alicubi noctem ante diem significatam. nam fuit, inquit, Moyses in monte XL diebus et XL noctibus; et in psalmo: sol, inquit, non uret te per diem neque luna per noctem; et ut de ipsis primordiis demus exemplum: fiant, inquit, luminaria in firmamento caeli sic, ut luceant super terram; luminare maius in inchoationem diei et luminare minus in inchoationem noctis. si luna potest praeponi soli, sic et nox diei, sed, sicut luna sub sole est, ita et nox sub die. et in euangelio habemus sub auctoritate et numero dierum significatas et noctes. ait enim inter cetera dominus: sunt hic quidam circumstantium, qui non. gustabunt mortem, donec uideant filium hominis in regno suo. et subiecit: et factum est post dies octo, et cetera.","english":"How, then, will night be said to be before day, when you read its name after day? For night would not have been called, nor evening, unless light had been made and driven out the day, after which evening came, which is night: day indeed became evening, so that you may know that night is a part of day. For day is then completed when it passes, and we do not finally say thus: 'a year has 365 days,' not without nights, of course. For when we say 'days,' we count the nights as well. For under the authority of day we signify also night; for if night preceded day, under the term 'night' day would also be counted. For what man says: 'after five nights I will see you,' and not 'after five days'? Nor do we recall having read anywhere that night is signified before day. For it says: 'Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights'; and in the Psalm: 'the sun,' it says, 'will not burn you by day, nor the moon by night'; and to give an example from the very beginnings: 'Let there be,' it says, 'luminaries in the firmament of the sky, so that they shine upon the earth; the greater luminary for the beginning of day and the lesser luminary for the beginning of night.' If the moon can be set before the sun, so also night before day, but, just as the moon is under the sun, so also night is under day. And in the Gospel we have nights signified under the authority and number of days. For among other things the Lord says: 'There are some here standing around who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man in his kingdom.' And he added: 'And it happened after eight days,' and so forth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":286,"ref":"p286","source":"numquid non in hoc numero continentur et noctes? et alio loco: haec, inquit, in Bethania gesta sunt trans Iordanen, ubi erat Iohannes baptizans. postera die uidit Iesum uenientem. numquid dixit: 'postera nocte'? iterum sequitur: sequenti die uoluit proficisci in Galileam, et in subiectis: et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Channan Galileae.\n\nEcce ubique dies in auctoritate probatur noctem habens subiectam. si enim numerus noctis nomine contineretur, praeiret nox diem. nam quia Romani regnum habent, Hispani et Galli et Affri et ceteri subiecti eis sub eorum nomine Romani uocantur; ita et nox, quia subiecta est diei, sub eius nomine continetur. sed inde quidam falluntur, quia Iudaei in sabbatum uespere iubentur intrare, non considerantes cur ita mandatum sit. nam utique pridie necesse habent emere sibi escas et praeparare in sabbatum et lautum ire. numquid possent haec nocte facere, ut orto die intrarent in sabbatum? dominus certe uespere resurrexit et diei deputatur. in die enim resurrectio celebratur, qui dies dominicas appellatur - sic enimlegis: haec dies quam fecit dominus non tamen nox dominica, quia principatum dies habet. siue enim praeterito diei siue futuro, semper nox subiecta est, quia et ordine inferior est et natura dicente apostolo: filii diei estis et luminis, non noctis et tenebrarum.","english":"Are not the nights also contained in this number? And in another place: \"These things,\" he says, \"were done in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day he saw Jesus coming.\" Did he say \"on the next night\"? Again it follows: \"On the following day he wished to set out for Galilee,\" and in the subsequent passages: \"And on the third day the wedding took place at Cana of Galilee.\"\n\nBehold, everywhere day is established in authority, having night subject to it. For if the number were contained under the name of night, night would precede day. For just as the Romans hold the empire, and the Spaniards, Gauls, Africans, and others subject to them are called Romans under their name, so also night, because it is subject to day, is contained under its name. But some are deceived in this matter because the Jews are commanded to enter the Sabbath in the evening, not considering why it was so commanded. For indeed, on the previous day they need to buy food for themselves and prepare for the Sabbath and bathe. Could they do these things by night, so that at sunrise they would enter the Sabbath? The Lord certainly rose in the evening, and it is attributed to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on the day, which is called the Lord's day—for thus it is written: \"This day which the Lord made,\" yet not \"the Lord's night,\" because the day holds primacy. For whether in relation to the past day or the future, night is always subject, because it is both inferior in order and by nature, as the apostle says: \"You are sons of the day and of light, not of night and of darkness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":287,"ref":"p287","source":"et si de consulibus coniciamus, uidebimus illum primo nominari qui prior eligitur. denique solet dici: 'cum illo quis erit consul?' si ergo et nox ante diem esset, prior et nominaretur. nam usque adeo a die incipit numerus, ut puta si dicamus: 'cras sexto Kl. est,' a mane utique usque dum ueniatur ad aliud mane, ut transacto die et nocte conputetur. nam et luna utique initio mane facta est quarta decima; facta enim lucere debuit tota nocte et in aliud mane coepit quinta decima. quid ergo ambigitur, ut non a die principia teneantur?\n\nPropter quorundam contentiones de re manifesta coacti sumus latius loqui, cum ipsa se lectio explanet, in qua dies ante noctem aperta ratione significatur. haec omnia supra memorata. secundum mundi originem diximus. uerum si altius loqui uelimus, intellectum nostrum spiritali erigentes uigore incongruum deprehendemus tenebras ante lucem creatas adserere. si enim lucis caelestis natura est et tenebrarum terrena, ineptum utique est post tenebras lucem factam putare, quia Moyses lucem quidem factam, sed in qua nunc mundus est parte, non quia tunc creata est, dicit, quia omnia spiritalia ante creata sunt quam carnalia, ut lux quae in supernis erat fieret in subiectis, ut lampas in domo. qua autem ratione ante lucem tenebrae dicuntur, cum semper post lucem uideantur?","english":"If we infer from the consuls, we see that the one who is elected first is named first. Indeed, it is customary to say: 'With him, who will be consul?' Therefore, if night also came before day, it would be named first. For the count begins from the day to such an extent that, for example, if we say: 'Tomorrow is the sixth Kalends,' it is reckoned from morning until the next morning, so that the day and night having passed are computed. For the moon also was made the fourteenth at the beginning of the morning; for it had to shine throughout the whole night and began the fifteenth at the next morning. Why, then, is it doubted that the beginnings are held from the day?\n\nOn account of the contentions of certain people about a manifest matter, we have been compelled to speak at greater length, although the reading itself explains it, in which day before night is signified by clear reasoning. All these things have been mentioned above according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more deeply, raising our understanding with spiritual vigor, we will find it incongruous to assert that darkness was created before light. For if light is of a celestial nature and darkness of an earthly one, it is certainly inept to think that light was made after darkness, because Moses says that light was made, but in the part of the world in which it now exists, not that it was then created, since all spiritual things were created before carnal ones, so that the light which was in the higher regions might be made in the lower, like a lamp in a house. But by what reasoning are darkness said to be before light, when they are always seen after light?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":288,"ref":"p288","source":"denique caelestia et spiritalia lumen natura esse creduntur, terrena et carnalia tenebrarum, ut tenebrarum natura potentia luminis subsistere uideatur, quia omne imum summitatis est. nam si requiramus, in ipso sole tenebras deprehendimus, quando enim, si iuxta illum fueris, tam clarissimus uidetur, ut perspici non possit; si uero in interuallo, clarissimus quidem, sed ut possit aspici; si autem longe, minus clarissimus et quicquid longius defectus quidam apparet, qui tenebras nuntiat, et ita peruenitur. ut tenebrae ex lumine ortum capere uideantur, itaque qui fecit lucem, hoc modo creauit et tenebras, quo modo faciens aquam simul creauit et terram; ut sicut firmum aquae terra est, ita tenebrae defectus luminis.\n\nDeus autem solus eat qui defectum non patitur, qui, cum ubique sit, immo omnia intra se habeat, tam praeclarus est ut a nullo uideatur, nisi se uoluerit temperare. denique saluator, cum esset in corpore et clausus non esset, tamen minime uidebatur, nisi uoluisset. nam utique, quod in monte transfiguratus est et in claritate magna apparuit, hoc ueluti latebat in corpore, quod, cum uoluit, manifestauit. quo modo ergo latebat qui clausus non erat? nam si cum corpore clausis ostiis intrauit ad discipulos, quem ad modum diuinitas eius non omnia penetrat? hoc est, claudi non potest, quia defectum non patitur.","english":"Finally, celestial and spiritual things are believed to be light by nature, while earthly and carnal things are of darkness, so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because every low point belongs to the summit. For if we inquire, we detect darkness even in the sun itself: when, if you are near it, it appears so exceedingly bright that it cannot be looked at; if at a distance, it is indeed very bright, but can be looked at; if far away, it is less bright, and whatever is farther away appears as a kind of defect, which announces darkness, and so it proceeds until darkness seems to take its origin from light. Thus, He who made light also created darkness in this way, just as in making water He simultaneously created earth; so that, just as earth is the solid base of water, darkness is the defect of light.\n\nBut God alone is He who suffers no defect; He, who is everywhere, or rather holds all things within Himself, is so brilliant that He is seen by no one, unless He has chosen to temper Himself. Finally, the Savior, when He was in a body and was not confined, was nevertheless not seen unless He wished. For indeed, that He was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great glory, this was as if He were hidden in the body, which He manifested when He wished. How, then, did He hide who was not confined? For if He entered to the disciples with a body through closed doors, how does His divinity not penetrate everything? That is, it cannot be confined, because it suffers no defect.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":289,"ref":"p289","source":"cum ergo nusquam desit deus, illic tamen dicitur esse, ubi apparet et uult uideri. cum ergo omnia in deo sint, quia excedit cuncta dicente apostolo: in ipso enim uiuimus et mouemur et sumus, ipse tamen in nullo est nisi in quo uoluerit. mysterio enim quodam in omnibus est et prouidentia quadam in quo uult apparet..\n\nCVIII. DE LINGUA HABREA, EX QVO NOMEN ACCEPERIT.\n\nOmne quod a deo est, rationale est et uni cuique rei exordium causa dat, quae sit origo ipsius, ut non absurde nominari aut subsistere uideatur, sed ut nuncupatio rem ostenderet, quae caput intellegatur esse ipsius nominis. igitur ratio hominis est causa qua constat. constat autem ex quattuor elementis, terra aere aqua igne, deo auctore dumtaxat; quintus est animus quasi auriga, ut concretum et figuratum corpus agitet quasi imperator ipsius. ex hoc omnes initium sumpsimus et eius nomine nuncupamur. homines enim uocamur propter humum, unde pater noster forinsecus originem habet. igitur causa et ratio facit, ut ex nomine alicuius ceteri subsistentes sub eodem nomine appellentur ipsum significantes in sese..","english":"Therefore, although God is never absent, He is said to be there where He appears and wishes to be seen. Since all things are in God—for, as the Apostle says, “in Him we live and move and have our being”—He Himself, however, is in nothing except where He wills. For by a certain mystery He is in all things, and by a certain providence He appears where He wills.\n\nCVIII. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, FROM WHENCE IT TOOK ITS NAME.\n\nEverything that comes from God is rational, and to each thing a beginning gives a cause, which is its own origin, so that it may not seem to be named or to subsist absurdly, but so that the name might reveal the thing, which is understood to be the head of that name itself. Therefore, the reason of a human being is the cause by which he consists. He consists, however, of four elements—earth, air, water, fire—with God alone as author; the fifth is the mind, like a charioteer, so that it may move the concrete and formed body as its commander. From this we all have taken our beginning and are named by its name. For we are called “human beings” on account of the earth (humus), from which our external father has his origin. Therefore, cause and reason bring it about that, from the name of someone, the rest subsisting under the same name are called, signifying that one in themselves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":290,"ref":"p290","source":"Quam ob rem uideamus si congruit, sicut quidam putant, ex Heber dictos Hebreos. uidetur enim, quantum ad nomen pertinet, inde huius nominis origo descendere; anterior est enim Heber quam Habraham. quod si esset uerum, deberent hi, qui de tribu Heber sunt, post ipsum eodem nomine nuncupari; ab Heber enim septima generatione natus est Habraham. si ergo super Habraham uel ipse Habraham Hebreus dictus est, sine dubio Hebrei ab Heber nuncupantur; si autem non legitur super Habraham dictos Hebreos, sed.post Habraham, non iam utique ex Heber, sed ab Habraham dicuntur Hebrei, quippe cum filii Habrahae primo hoc nomine appellati noscantur. in Genesi enim [Iosef et fratres eius Hebrei sunt appellati. scientes enim Habraham fuisse, qui de Syria descendisset in Chanaan et multiplicatus fuisset, fidei causa omnibus copiis refertus rex et profeta appellatus et pater multarum gentium, qui cum trecentis decem et octo uiris uernaculis suis quinque reges confoderit, quia non in angulo haec gesta et dicta sunt, ut laterent, eos, qui ex semine eius erant, Hebreos nuncuparunt. ordinis ergo et meriti fuit Habrahae, ut caput fieret his qui ex eo traducem habent.","english":"Therefore, let us see whether it is fitting, as some think, that the Hebrews are named from Heber. For it seems, as far as the name is concerned, that the origin of this name descends from him; for Heber is earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are from the tribe of Heber ought to be called by the same name after him; for Abraham was born in the seventh generation from Heber. Therefore, if Abraham or Abraham himself was called a Hebrew, without doubt the Hebrews are named from Heber; but if it is not read that the Hebrews were called so before Abraham, but after Abraham, then they are certainly not called from Heber, but from Abraham, since the sons of Abraham are known to have been first called by this name. For in Genesis, Joseph and his brothers are called Hebrews. For, knowing that Abraham, who had come down from Syria into Canaan and had multiplied, was, on account of his faith, filled with all resources, called king and prophet and father of many nations, and that with three hundred and eighteen of his own household men he pierced through five kings—since these deeds and words were not done in a corner so as to be hidden—they called those who were from his seed Hebrews. Therefore, it was by reason of order and merit that Abraham became the head of those who have their descent from him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":291,"ref":"p291","source":"dei enim iudicio princeps et origo positus est in terra Chanaan, ut ex eo geniti alterius essent et professionis et conuersationis, quam fuerat ipse, priusquam descenderet in terram Chanaan; innouatus enim ipse nouum constitueret populum in dei deuotione. hinc est unde apostolus Paulus Hebreum se ex Hebreis fatetur; hoc enim dignitatis uidebatur esse cognomen. testimonium enim et nobilitas generis erat, ut ex nomine eius cognominarentur, qui multis modis deo placuerat quique eis erat origo.\n\nAbnuatur, si non conuenit rationi; spernatur, si dispar est; conuellatur, si alienum est a meritis Habrahae, et nos refellamur quasi adulatores eius. quae est haec inimicitia aduersus Habraham, quae aemulatio, qua ei obtrectant inimici, et qui sunt hi, nisi qui filii eius dicuntur? quid est in quo displicet Habraham, ut gloria haec aliena ab eo putetur? et quid est quod placeat in Heber, ut primatum istum habere dicatur? cuius si conuersatio possit inquiri, inueniretur forte idola coluisse sicut Thara et Nachor et pater Nachor, quos constat non longe ab eo fuisse, sicut testatur Hiesus Naue, quia hi idola coluerunt.","english":"by God's judgment, a prince and origin was placed in the land of Canaan, so that those born from him would be of another allegiance and manner of life than he himself had been before he descended into the land of Canaan; for he himself, renewed, would establish a new people devoted to God. Hence it is that the apostle Paul declares himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for this seemed to be a title of distinction. For it was a testimony and nobility of lineage that they should be named after him who had pleased God in many ways and who was their origin.\n\nLet it be rejected, if it does not agree with reason; let it be scorned, if it is inconsistent; let it be torn down, if it is foreign to the merits of Abraham, and let us be refuted as his flatterers. What is this hostility against Abraham, this rivalry, by which his enemies disparage him, and who are these, if not those who are called his sons? What is there in Abraham that displeases, so that this glory is thought alien to him? And what is there that pleases in Heber, that he should be said to hold this primacy? If his manner of life could be investigated, it would perhaps be found that he worshipped idols, like Terah and Nahor and Nahor's father, who are known not to have been far from him, as Joshua son of Nun testifies, because they worshipped idols.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":292,"ref":"p292","source":"Aut certe qui ex diuerso sunt, ostendant qua ratione uindicandum est hoc Heber, ne forte a nobis subprimatur meritum eius; sed nullum est, quia communes sunt nobis scripturae et quid uni cuique debeatur in propatulo est. si enim ex solo nomine putant hoc debere defendi, infirmum et inprobabile est. tunc enim rite nomini eius uindicaretur, si causae aliquae testes exsisterent quae hoc confirmarent; possent enim aliqui eiusdem nominis rem sibi non suam uindicare, ideoque hoc est uerum, quod non solo nomine, sed et perspicua ratione firmatur. nam quoniam dignatione dei factum est ut in Habraham uisitaretur genus humanum et forma fieret salutaris hominibus, nulli est ambiguum. idcirco in ipso reparatum est quod fuerat amissum uitio fragilitatis humanae. hic enim imago quaedam positus est, ut ad eius similitudinem genus hominum reuerteretur ad deum, ut et dei culturam et sermonem, qui datus prius fuerat in usum hominum, recuperaret hominibus, quia, sicut in principio in Adam dei fuit imago, ut cognitio eius esset in terris, ita post ruinas humani generis et obliuionem ueri in Habraham reformatum est, utab ipso fides in deum iterum coepta germinaret in fructum. unde non est absurdum ut ei nomine eius plebs ab eo coepta uocabulum sortiretur.","english":"Or certainly those who are of a different opinion should show by what reasoning this is to be attributed to Heber, lest perhaps his merit be suppressed by us; but there is none, because the scriptures are common to us and what is due to each one is manifest. For if they think this ought to be defended on the basis of name alone, it is weak and improbable. For then it would rightly be attributed to his name if some causes existed as witnesses which would confirm this; for some persons of the same name could claim for themselves something not their own, and therefore that is true which is confirmed not only by name but also by clear reason. For since it happened by the grace of God that in Abraham the human race was visited and a salutary form was made for men, no one doubts this. Therefore in him was restored what had been lost through the fault of human frailty. For he was placed as a kind of image, so that the human race might return to God in his likeness, and so that he might recover for men both the worship of God and the language which had previously been given for the use of men, because, just as in the beginning in Adam there was the image of God, so that knowledge of him might exist on earth, so after the ruins of the human race and the oblivion of the truth it was restored in Abraham, so that from him faith in God, begun anew, might germinate into fruit. Hence it is not absurd that the people begun from him should receive a name from his name.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":293,"ref":"p293","source":"Sed ne forte propter nomen Heber scrupulum patiantur, quia magis Hebreis Heber sonat nomen, quia Hebrei dicuntur, non Habraei, recognoscant iterum quia Hebrei, non Heberei dicuntur; Heber enim dictus est, non Hebrer. si ergo hinc inpugnandum putant, patiuntur quod faciunt et neuter nostrum habebit ex hac parte uictoriam, nisi is qui per ordinem reddita ratione ostendit uerum esse quod asserit. qui enim in una re par est, perdidisse dicendus est, si in altera inaequalis fuerit inuentus; nam propter sonum inmutata est littera, ut Hebrei pro Habraei dicerentur, quia melius sonat, quoniam et ex Iuda non Iudai dicuntur, sed Iudaei. ubicumque enim absurdum uisum est, inmutata est littera, ut uox sonum conpositum haberet. nam pro 'medidie' meridie dicimus et multa sunt talia. igitur conuenit, ut est ostensum, ut nomine Habrahae tam lingua quam populus nuncuparetur.","english":"But lest they suffer scruple on account of the name Heber, because the name Heber sounds more like Hebrews, since they are called Hebrews, not Habraei, let them recognize again that they are called Hebrews, not Hebereans; for he was called Heber, not Hebrer. If, therefore, they think to attack on this ground, they suffer what they do, and neither of us will have victory from this part, except he who, by presenting the reasoning in order, shows what he asserts to be true. For he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost, if he is found unequal in another; for the letter was changed on account of sound, so that they were called Hebrews instead of Habraei, because it sounds better, just as from Iuda they are not called Iudai, but Iudaei. For wherever it seemed absurd, the letter was changed, so that the utterance might have a composed sound. For we say 'meridie' instead of 'medidie,' and there are many such things. Therefore, it is fitting, as has been shown, that both the language and the people be named from the name of Abraham.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":294,"ref":"p294","source":"Haec ergo lingua est, quam dicimus primitus datam Adae et ceteris, quam propter praesumptionem turris aedificatae credimus in multas dispersam et confusam, ut non iam haec, sed multae ex hac inmutatione habita quorundam dictorum existerent, ut non haberet speciem nec tamen deperiret, sed tota confusa esset ceteris linguis. ita enim tunc actum est, ne se homines intellegerent et maiora auderent. tantae ergo tunc linguae intelleguntur exstitisse, quanti et homines fuerunt, qui dispersi locis, in quibus habitarunt, unus quisque linguam suam instituit.\n\nSi autem ipsa esse minime putabitur quae scripta est tunc una fuisse, hoc supererit, ut de ceteris linguis collecta sit particulatim et conpaginata in speciem linguae unius qua uteretur Habraham, ut, quia pater multarum gentium erat, ex multis linguis sermonem haberet conpositum et esset per omnia innouatus. sed quia hi, quos memorat liber Geneseos unius uocis et sermonis, ab oriente migrasse leguntur et inde iterum dispersi a deo super faciem totius terrae, non utique illic remansit. qui in primitus lingua data remaneret. denique neque terram aliquam habet inter homines, ut ceterae linguae, neque gentem exceptis Iudaeis, quia primo homini data est in paradiso. et postquam confusae suntlinguae, nusquam reperta haec quae nunc dicitur Habraea.","english":"This therefore is the language which we say was first given to Adam and the others, which we believe was scattered and confused into many languages because of the presumption of the tower that was built, so that it was no longer this one language, but many arose from it through a change in certain words, so that it did not retain its form, yet did not perish entirely, but was completely intermingled with the other languages. For it was done thus at that time, lest men understand one another and dare greater things. As many languages are therefore understood to have come into existence then as there were men, who, scattered in the places where they dwelt, each one established his own language.\n\nBut if it is thought that this language itself was not the one that was then one, this will remain: that it was gathered piece by piece from the other languages and joined together into the form of a single language which Abraham would use, so that, because he was the father of many nations, he would have a speech composed from many languages and would be entirely renewed in every respect. But because those whom the book of Genesis mentions as being of one voice and speech are read to have migrated from the east and then to have been scattered again by God over the face of the whole earth, that language did not remain there. For the language first given would have remained with someone. Finally, it has neither any land among men, as other languages do, nor any people except the Jews, because it was given to the first man in paradise. And after the languages were confused, this language which is now called Hebrew was found nowhere.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":295,"ref":"p295","source":"si igitur nusquam habet locum uel gentem — Habraham autem natione Syrus erat —, unde hanc linguam Habrahae uel ceteris seminis eius, nisi quia aut illa prior est aut certe de multis aptata? uidemus enim aliquantas linguas similia eius habere.\n\nSed non sic conuenit rationi quo modo illud, si prima ipsa esse dicatur; non enim otiose hoc factum ratio probat. ipsam enim linguam debuit Habraham habere, quam habuit primus homo, ut Moyses ueniens et creaturam et hominem a deo factum describens hac uoce uteretur, qua deus locutus est et hominem appellauit Adam et Adae mulier uocata est Eua, ut haec uox esset in libro Moysi, quae fuerat et in his quos describit, ut uere in omnibus reformatam doceret primam causam et beneficium diuinum in Habraham.\n\nCVIIII. DE MELCHISEDECH.\n\nLegimus in libro Geneseos de Melchisedech, simili modo et in epistula data ad Hebreos, quia obuiauit, inquit, Melchisedech sacerdos dei summi Abrahae reuertenti a caede regum et protulit panes et uinum et obtulit ei et benedixit eum dicens: benedictus es, Abraham, deo excelso, qui fecit caelum et terram, qui tradidit inimicos tuos sub manus tuas, et, ut significaret, quid intellegendus esset idem Melchisedech, adiecit: sine dubio enim, ait, quod minimum est, a meliore benedicitur. quod quidem non utique ad traditionem rettulit officii ecclesiastici.","english":"If, therefore, it has a place among no people or nation—but Abraham was a Syrian by nation—, whence did Abraham or the rest of his seed have this language, unless either that language is earlier or certainly it was fitted together from many? For we see that some languages have similarities to it.\n\nBut it does not suit reason as well as that, if it is said to be the first language itself; for reason proves that this was not done idly. For Abraham ought to have had the same language which the first man had, so that Moses, when he came and described creation and man as made by God, would use that voice by which God spoke and called man Adam and Adam’s wife was called Eve, so that this voice would be in the book of Moses which had also been in those whom he describes, so that he might truly teach that the first cause and the divine benefit in Abraham were restored in all things.\n\nCVIIII. ON MELCHISEDECH.\n\nWe read in the book of Genesis about Melchisedech, and similarly in the letter written to the Hebrews, that Melchisedech, the priest of the most high God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and brought forth bread and wine and offered them to him and blessed him, saying: “Blessed are you, Abraham, by the most high God, who made heaven and earth, who delivered your enemies into your hands,” and, to indicate what the same Melchisedech was to be understood to be, he added: “For without doubt,” he says, “the lesser is blessed by the better.” This indeed he did not refer to the tradition of ecclesiastical office.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":296,"ref":"p296","source":"quis enim ambigeret regulam traditionis dominicae, qua benedicuntur subiecti domino, meliorem esse his qui benedicuntur ab ea? domini enim mysterium in his uerbis, quae ipsum complectuntur ac memorant, operatur. personae autem eius proprium meritum et potentiam uoluit demonstrare.\n\nQuis ergo hic et quantus est, ad cuius conparationem minimus dicitur Abraham, quem constat in omnibus fidelibus signum habere testimonii nobilitatis ac fidei! igitur hic Melchisedech non utique sic benedixisse intellegitur Abraham, sicut faciunt homines sacerdotes, ut ex delegatione daret benedictionem uerbis solemnibus, sed quasi proprium, quam non per uerba, sed per naturam accepit substantialiter, ut sit ei propria. sacerdotes autem, quos antestites dicimus, regulam habent uerbis solemnibus ordinatam et traditam sibi, quam superponentes hominibus benedicunt, non quos uolunt, sed et aliquando quos nolunt, quia dator regulae ipse scit cui dari debeat uel infundi sacratissima benedictio.","english":"For who would doubt that the rule of dominical tradition, by which those subject to the Lord are blessed, is better than those who are blessed by it? For the mystery of the Lord works in these words, which encompass and recall him. But he wished to demonstrate the proper merit and power of his person.\n\nWho, then, is this, and how great is he, in comparison to whom Abraham is called least, Abraham who is known to have among all the faithful the sign of the testimony of nobility and faith! Therefore, this Melchisedech is understood not to have blessed Abraham in the way that human priests do, as if by delegation he gave a blessing with solemn words, but as his own, which he received not through words but through nature substantially, so that it is proper to him. But the priests, whom we call bishops, have a rule ordained and handed down to them with solemn words, which they impose upon men when they bless, not those whom they wish, but sometimes even those whom they do not wish, because the giver of the rule himself knows to whom the most sacred blessing ought to be given or infused.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":297,"ref":"p297","source":"Ille uero qui in natura habet benedictionem substantialiter, quem dicit summi dei sacerdotem, per uoluntatem dat benedictionem. uerba enim benedictionis et natura eius cum uoluntate concordant. nec errat, ut ibi uelit ubi non debet, neque nolit ubi debet, sed cui dederit uerba, dedit effectum. nostri autem sacerdotes super multos cottidie nomen domini et uerba benedictionis inponunt, sed in paucis effectus est, est iterum quando meliores se benedicunt. quamuis enim quia sanctus sit, curuat tamen caput ad benedictionem sumendam, quia non proprium sacerdotis est, sed dei inuentum. Heli enim sacerdos Annam benedixit et prosecutus effectus est non utique merito sacerdotis, sed ipsius Annae, cuius mundum cor inspexit deus.\n\nIgitur Melchisedech non ideo melior Abrahae dicitur propter solum officium sacerdotii, sed et natura anteponitur illi, ut ultra homines intellegatur. nullo modo enim fieri potest ut qui tantum amico dei praeponitur et fideli usque adeo, ut amore eius nec filium suum carissimum dubitaret occidere, homo putetur. qua enim iustitia, quibus operibus plus posset mereri, quam meruit Abraham? nec enim erat plus quod faceret ad commendationem meritorum, quam fecit Abrabam.","english":"But he who has the blessing substantially in his nature, whom he calls the priest of the highest God, gives the blessing by will. For the words of blessing and his nature agree with his will. He neither errs, so as to will where he ought not, nor does he not will where he ought, but to whom he has given the words, he has given the effect. Our priests, however, daily pronounce the name of the Lord and the words of blessing over many, but the effect is in few; and again, sometimes they bless those better than themselves. For although a man is holy, he nevertheless bows his head to receive the blessing, because it is not the priest's own, but a discovery of God. For Eli the priest blessed Anna, and the effect followed, not by any means due to the priest's merit, but to Anna herself, whose pure heart God beheld.\n\nTherefore Melchisedech is said to be better than Abraham not only on account of the office of the priesthood, but his nature is also set before him, so that he is understood to be beyond men. For it cannot happen in any way that he who is set above such a friend of God and so faithful, to the point that for love of him he did not hesitate to kill his own dearest son, should be thought a man. For by what justice, by what works could he have merited more than Abraham merited? For there was nothing more that he could do to commend his merits than what Abraham did.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":298,"ref":"p298","source":"primum enim, cum nesciret deum neque signum uidisset, quo ei suaderetur, dicenti sibi deo: exi de terra tua et de cognatione et de domo patris tui, nec distulit, sed statim oboediuit non solum praesentis dei, sed et futuri domini implens uoluntatem. dicit enim dominus: quicumque plus fecerit domum aut parentes aut fratres aut cognatos quam me, non est me dignus. qualis ergo Abraham et cuius meriti est, qui ante mandata saluatoris impleuit quam praedicarentur!\n\nApostolus hospitalitatem sectandam magnopere docet: hanc\n\nAbraham sic et tam deuote excoluit, ut uideatur ab hoc didicisse apostolus hanc praedicandam. deinde prouectus annis sic multiplicari credidit semen suum, quod prudentibus mundi stultum uidetur, quem ad modum sunt stellae caeli, ut, antequam sententia daretur prudentibus saeculi, ab hoc damnati uideantur. postea enim dictum est: perdam prudentiam prudentium. iussu dei circumciditur — quod non utique sine dolore fit - et non aegre fert, ut posteris formam daret patientiae. ex Sarra illi uxore sua iam anicula filius promittitur et non dubitat, ut futuris ostenderet in tantum auctoritati dei cedendum, ut, etiam si quae inrationabilia uidentur praecipiat aut promittat, non ambigatur, quia magis persona eius respicienda est quam uerba, ut, quod in uerbis infirmum aut inpossibile uidetur, persona eius confirmet et faciat uideri possibile.","english":"First, when he did not know God and had seen no sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him, \"Leave your land, your kindred, and your father's house,\" he did not delay but immediately obeyed, fulfilling not only the will of the present God but also of the future Lord. For the Lord says: \"Whoever does more for his house, parents, brothers, or kindred than for me is not worthy of me.\" What kind of man, then, was Abraham, and of what merit, that he fulfilled the commandments of the Savior before they were preached!\n\nThe Apostle strongly teaches that hospitality is to be pursued: this Abraham cultivated so devoutly and to such an extent that the Apostle seems to have learned from him to preach it. Then, advanced in years, he believed that his seed would be multiplied as the stars of the sky—which seems foolish to the wise of the world—so that, before judgment was passed by the wise of the age, they appear condemned by him. For later it was said: \"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.\" At God's command he is circumcised—which is certainly not done without pain—and he does not bear it grudgingly, so as to give a pattern of patience to posterity. A son is promised to him from Sarah, his wife, already an old woman, and he does not doubt, to show to future generations that the authority of God is to be yielded to so much that, even if He commands or promises things that seem irrational, one should not waver, because His person is to be regarded more than His words, so that what in words seems weak or impossible, His person confirms and makes appear possible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":299,"ref":"p299","source":"deus est enim qui promittit, de quo credendum est, quia potest quod hominibus inpossibile uidetur. quae enim offensio potest iudicari, cum plus de deo opinatur, quam de se sentit humanitas?\n\nPropter quod datum sibi a deo Abraham filium eodem iubente occidere illum non ambigit nec tempus differt nec admiratur ad dei uoluntatem, ut filium, quem magnopere beneficii et admirationis dederat gratia, hunc iuberet occidi certus dei uoluntatem non debere ab homine retractari neque iussionem et factum dei sine prouidentia esse. quod ut omni deuotione festinanter impleret, matri eius coniugi suae non indicat non ignarus fragiliores esse circa filios feminas et posse huic deuotioni lacrimarum miseratione inpedimentum adferre; nec non et ipsum puerum latet usque ad horam necis, ut iussioni dei toto mentis obsequio oboediret non parricidium hoc deputans, sed holocaustum, quod iusto iudice auctore fiebat.","english":"For it is God who promises, and he is to be believed because he can do what seems impossible to men. For what offense can be judged, when one thinks more highly of God than humanity feels about itself?\n\nFor this reason, when God commanded him to kill the son given to him by God, Abraham does not hesitate, does not delay the time, nor does he marvel at God’s will—that the son, whom grace had given as a great benefit and object of admiration, should be ordered killed—being certain that God’s will ought not to be reconsidered by man, and that God’s command and action are not without providence. To fulfill this with all devotion and haste, he does not inform the boy’s mother, his own wife, not unaware that women are weaker concerning their children and could bring hindrance to this devotion through the compassion of tears; nor does he even let the boy himself know until the hour of the slaughter, so that he might obey God’s command with the full obedience of his mind, not deeming this a parricide, but a holocaust, since it was done by the authority of a just judge.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":300,"ref":"p300","source":"Quae igitur his maiora posset gerere Melchisedech, quibus praecederet Abraham, quem, sicut uidemus, in nullo constat inoboedientem fuisse? Moyses etenim, cui legitur facie ad faciem dominus esse locutus, missus ad gentem et fratres suos ire nolebat. Ionas adaeque profeta praeceptum sibi ut Nineuitis praedicaret inrupit, ut ad alium locum pergeret, quo missus non fuerat. Iob plane egregius in omnibus tamen motus amissione filiorum uestimenta scidit sua et totondit comam capitis sui: Abraham autem nec contristatus legitur de morte carissimi filii et quem iussus fuerat ipse occidere, nec alicubi deo sibi iubente legitur trepidasse._\n\nIgitur per haec apparet Melchisedech ultra hominem esse, quia non erat unde melior esset quam Abraham, nisi sola praecedat illum natura. natura enim inpassibilis beatitudinem per substantiam habet, humana autem natiuitas beatitudinem adquiritper gesta. quia enim perfectionem deitatis non habet, per exercitium et conluctationem proficit ut melior fiat, cum plus. uincit quam uincitur. si enim sic ageretquod inpossibile est-, ut numquam peccaret, melior deo fieret — quod absit! —, quia natura quae potest peccare, sicut et non peccare, si semper uinceret, illi naturae praeponenda erat, quae ideo non peccat, quia inpassibilis est. non enim magnum uideretur non peccare, quia non potest, magnificum autem, si, cum posset peccare, non peccaret.","english":"What greater things, then, could Melchisedech have done, by which he would surpass Abraham, whom, as we see, is in no respect proven to have been disobedient? For Moses, to whom the Lord is read to have spoken face to face, was unwilling to go when sent to his people and his brothers. Jonah, likewise a prophet, broke the command given to him to preach to the Ninevites, so that he might go to another place to which he had not been sent. Job, clearly outstanding in all things, was nevertheless moved by the loss of his sons to tear his garments and shave the hair of his head. Abraham, however, is not read to have grieved at the death of his dearest son, whom he had been ordered to kill himself, nor is he read anywhere to have trembled when God commanded him.\n\nTherefore, through these things it appears that Melchisedech is beyond human, because there was no way he could be better than Abraham, unless his nature alone precedes him. For nature incapable of suffering has blessedness through its substance, but human birth acquires blessedness through deeds. For because it does not have the perfection of divinity, it advances through exercise and struggle to become better, when it conquers more than it is conquered. For if it acted in such a way—which is impossible—that it never sinned, it would become better than God—which God forbid!—because a nature which can sin, as well as not sin, if it always conquered, would have to be preferred to that nature which does not sin because it is incapable of suffering. For it would not seem great not to sin because one cannot, but it would be magnificent if, when one could sin, one did not sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":301,"ref":"p301","source":"Hoc ergo interest inter substantiam dei et hominis, quia dei substantia beata semper est securitate inuincibilis aeternitatis suae; hominis autem substantia aliter beata fit, per laborem. et alia necesse est beatitudo sit inpassibilis, alia illius, qui tribulationibus conficitur, ut possit aliquando gaudere. beatitudo enim inpassibilis in eo est semper ut beata sit, passibilis autem post magna exercitia gaudet euasisse se mortem. contristatur ergo, ut possit gaudere, nec perpetuo securus passibilitate naturae; inpassibilis autem semper beatus est, quia neque nouit tristitiam neque suspicatur posse se contristari. nam et natura hominum, quamuis per laborem beatitudinem consequatur, non erit tamen intacta neque deerunt ei cicatrices. qui enim fieri potest ut saepe congressa et aliquotiens uicta non sit uulnerata? inpassibilis autem semper intacta inlaesa inuiolabilis manet.","english":"This, therefore, is the difference between the substance of God and that of man: the substance of God is always blessed with the security of its invincible eternity; but the substance of man becomes blessed in another way, through labor. And it is necessary that one blessedness be impassible, and another that of one who is worn down by tribulations, so that he may at some time rejoice. For impassible blessedness is always in a state of being blessed, but passible blessedness, after great exertions, rejoices to have escaped death. Therefore it is saddened, so that it may rejoice, and is not perpetually secure because of the passibility of its nature; but the impassible is always blessed, because it neither knows sadness nor suspects that it could be saddened. For the nature of men, even if it attains blessedness through labor, will not, however, be untouched, nor will scars be absent from it. For how can it be that one who has often engaged in conflict and has sometimes been defeated is not wounded? But the impassible always remains untouched, unharmed, inviolable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":302,"ref":"p302","source":"Igitur non minimus diceretur Abraham ad Melchisedech, nisi potior esset natura Melchisedech quam Abraham. nam haec quae diximus ingenii esse forte uidentur; si autem legem respiciamus, plurima adhuc et potiora dicentur. hic enim Melchisedech rex Salem, sacerdos dei summi, qui obuiauit Abrahae regresso a caede regum, qui et benedixit eum, primum quidem interpretatur rex iustitiae, deinde rex Salem, quod est rex pacis, sine patre, sine matre et sine genealogia neque initium dierum nec finem uitae habens; similatus autem filio dei manet sacerdos in perpetuum. et ut haec locis quibus significauerat commendaret, de eo adiecit: uidetis, ait, quantus sithic, cuidecimas dedit Abraham de primitiuis princeps patrum. ut enim qua potentia et quanta Melchisedech sit ostendat, laudat Abraham dicens quia princeps patrum est, hoc est ceteris omnibus melior Abraham, sed minimus ad Melchisedech.","english":"Therefore, Abraham would not be called the least in relation to Melchisedech unless the nature of Melchisedech were more powerful than that of Abraham. For these things we have mentioned may seem to be matters of intellect; but if we look to the law, many more and more powerful things will be said. For this Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and who blessed him, is first interpreted as king of righteousness, then king of Salem, which is king of peace, having no father, no mother, and no genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; and being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. And to commend these things by the passages in which he had signified them, he added concerning him: \"You see,\" he says, \"how great he is, to whom Abraham gave tithes from the firstfruits, the prince of the patriarchs.\" For to show by what power and how great Melchisedech is, he praises Abraham, saying that he is the prince of the patriarchs, that is, better than all others is Abraham, but the least in relation to Melchisedech.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":303,"ref":"p303","source":"Nonne manifestum est hunc hominem non esse, sed meliorem? quid est enim quod dicit de eo, quia rex pacis est et rex iustitiae? propius accedite et uidete. de longe enim solem uidentes lucernam putatis et argentum aspicientes aestimatis stannum. potest aliquis hominum dici rex pacis adque iustitiae? pax enim hominibus praedicatur, similiter et iustitia; hic autem ideo rex pacis et iustitiae dicitur, ut ab eo iustitia et pax originem habere noscatur. non enim super ipsum esse dici potest, quod ab ipso regitur. nam homines iustitia magistra et pace erudiuntur ad deum promerendum. haec ergo, quae hominum magistra est, Melchisedech habet regem. quantum ergo melior est homine Melchisedech, quando gubernatrix hominum sub ipso est! hoc est regem esse regum.\n\nItaque cum rex iustitiae et pacis dicitur, auctor eorum esse significatur. ut quo modo dominus Iesus auctor uitae est, ita et Melchisedech auctor iustitiae et pacis, quia qui per Christum uiuunt, hi dispensante iustitia et pace reguntur. cordibus enim seruorum dei iustitiam infundit et pacem ad exornandam disciplinam dominicam. scriptum legimus in psalmo octogesimo quarto, quia iustitia et pax complexae sunt se et ueritas de terra orta est, et, ut de qua. iustitia diceret ostenderet, ait quia iustitia de caelo prospexit.","english":"Is it not clear that this man is not a man, but something better? For what is it that it says about him, that he is king of peace and king of justice? Draw nearer and see. For from afar, seeing the sun, you think it a lamp, and looking at silver, you judge it to be tin. Can any human being be called king of peace and justice? Peace is proclaimed for men, and likewise justice; but he is called king of peace and justice for this reason, that justice and peace may be known to have their origin from him. For it cannot be said that what is ruled by him is above him. For men are instructed by justice as a teacher and by peace to merit God. Therefore, Melchisedech has as king these things which are the teacher of men. How much better, then, is Melchisedech than a man, when the governess of men is under him! This is to be king of kings.\n\nTherefore, when he is called king of justice and peace, he is signified to be their author. So that just as the Lord Jesus is the author of life, so also Melchisedech is the author of justice and peace, because those who live through Christ are governed by the dispensing of justice and peace. For he pours justice and peace into the hearts of the servants of God to adorn the Lord's discipline. We read written in the eighty-fourth psalm that justice and peace embraced each other and truth arose from the earth, and, to show of which justice it spoke, it says that justice looked down from heaven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":304,"ref":"p304","source":"hoc de tempore saluatoris scriptura ostendit, quo iustitia dei data est mundo per Christum in cognitione mysterii dei unius, quod ante promiserat — iustum est enim scire creaturam ueritatem creatoris sui -., quae iustitia manifestata in terris sublata discordia, quae de iniustitia fuerat generata incogniti dei, pacificos fecit discordes, dum diuersos dudum in una fide constituit. sic (se complexae sunt iustitia et pax et ueritas unius dei de terra orta est' magistra iustitia. incarnatio enim Christi ostendit quae esset de ipso deo ueritas cognoscenda. igitur haec certe iustitia dei est. similiter et pax dicente apostolo: ipse autem deus pacis conteret satanan. :':\n\nQuo modo hoc possit discerni, non aduerto, ut, cum deus pacis pater sit domini nostri Iesu Christi nec non et ipse Christus - dicit enim : pacem meam do uobis —, de Melchisedech dicatur quia rex iustitiae et pacis est; qua ratione secernatur, non intellego. puto enim nihil differre, quantum ad rem pertinet, regem pacis a deo pacis. quia enim in mundo quisquam deus dici non debuit, ut uni soli, ex quo sunt omnia, reseruaretur hoc nomen, regem tamen qui imaginem eius haberet instituit, qui excepto dei nomine omnem potestatem eius haberet. sed quia terrenus est, hominum rex est, non tamen pacis et iustitiae, quia etiam ipse ducem habet iustitiam, quam non illi licet contemnere. iustitia enim deus illi est.","english":"This the Scripture shows concerning the time of the Savior, when the justice of God was given to the world through Christ in the knowledge of the mystery of the one God, which He had previously promised — for it is just that the creature should know the truth of its creator —, which justice, manifested on earth, removed the discord that had been generated from the injustice of the unknown God, and made the discordant peaceful, while it established those long divided in one faith. Thus justice and peace and the truth of the one God embraced each other, and from the earth arose justice as teacher. For the incarnation of Christ showed what truth about God Himself was to be known. Therefore this is certainly the justice of God. Similarly also peace, as the apostle says: \"But the God of peace Himself will crush Satan.\"\n\nHow this can be distinguished, I do not perceive, so that, while the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and also Christ Himself — for He says: \"I give you my peace\" —, it is said of Melchizedek that he is king of justice and peace; by what reasoning this is distinguished, I do not understand. For I think there is no difference, as far as the matter is concerned, between a king of peace and a God of peace. For because in the world no one ought to be called God, so that this name might be reserved for the one alone from whom all things come, He nevertheless instituted a king who would have His image, who, except for the name of God, would have all His power. But because he is earthly, he is king of men, not however of peace and justice, because he himself also has justice as his leader, which he is not permitted to despise. For justice is God to him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":305,"ref":"p305","source":"res enim dei est iustitia et qui praeuaricatur eam, reus fit dei iudicio. Melchisedech autem, sicut datur intellegi, non more hominum rex appellatur, quia sub se habet iustitiam, quae regibus dominatur. nemo etenim potest habere sub se iustitiam, nisi eius naturae sit, ut peccare non possit. sub ipso autem esse ideo dicitur, quia ab eo inuenta est modo legis, per quam gubernentur, qui possunt peccare. igitur rex iustitiae moderator est uerborum a se inuentorum, quibus bene beateque et uiui possit et credi.\n\nDiu multumque laboramus et adhuc minus de Melchisedech dicimus, nisi reuertamur ad scripturam, quae et ipsa diu pulsat et clamitat, ut pressos graui somno excitet ad intellectum non noctis, sed diei. dicit ergo quia sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia' est Melchisedech et, ne aliter intellegeretur quam dignum est, adiecit: neque initium dierum nec finem uitae habens. per quod ostendit neque natum neque mortuum esse Melchisedech. quid ad haec tam manifesta humana argumentatur subtilitas? quae est tam uersuta ingenii calliditas, quae audet resistere manifestis, ut non sensum capiat ex lectione, sed sensum tribuat lectioni? uis infertur scripturis dominicis, ita ut etiam hos inimicos sentiat, qui auctoritati eius se inclinare uidentur.","english":"Justice is a matter of God, and whoever transgresses it becomes guilty in God’s judgment. Melchisedech, however, as can be understood, is not called king in the manner of men, because he has justice under him, which rules over kings. For no one can have justice under him unless he is of such a nature that he cannot sin. But it is said to be under him because it was discovered by him in the manner of a law, by which those who can sin are governed. Therefore, the king of justice is the moderator of the words discovered by him, by which one can live and believe well and blessedly.\n\nWe labor long and hard, and still we say too little about Melchisedech, unless we return to the scripture, which itself long knocks and cries out, to rouse those pressed down by a heavy sleep to an understanding not of night, but of day. It says, therefore, that Melchisedech is without father, without mother, without genealogy, and, lest it be understood otherwise than is fitting, it added: having neither beginning of days nor end of life. By this it shows that Melchisedech was neither born nor died. What does human subtlety argue against such clear things? What craftiness of ingenuity is so cunning that it dares to resist the manifest, so as not to grasp the sense from the reading, but to impose a sense upon the reading? Violence is done to the Lord’s scriptures, so that they feel even those as enemies who seem to bow to their authority.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":306,"ref":"p306","source":"dicunt enim quidam non ita de Melchisedech debere credi, ut relatum est scripturis, ac per hoc ad sensum suum scripturas conuertunt; quibus melius esset aperte non recipere scripturas, quam dolose agere contra illas, ut sub nomine pacis paretur bellum et sub tegmine amicitiae lateat hostis.\n\nDicunt ergo non ad generositatem pertinere Melchisedech, sed ad humilitatem generis eiusdem, quia sine patre et matre legitur fuisse. hoc enim ideo aiunt sic scriptum esse, ut ostenderetur ex alienigenis fuisse, non ex tribu qua ortus est Abraham, quia genus eius non inuenitur in lege. 'unde et adiecit,' inquiunt, (et sine genealogia, ut intellegeretur penitus origo eius in lege descripta non esse, ut ex parentibus qualibuscumque per se ipsum uir bonus factus credatur'. porro autem tam incauta est scriptura, ut omnia per ordinem digesta causae necessaria ponat! primum enim dicit: sine patre, sine matre. uideamus si ceterorum matres significantur in lege; quae fuerit uxor Nachor, auia Abrahae, mater Thare non legitur neque. quae fuerit mater Abrahae, ut de ceteris taceam. numquid hi sine matribus fuisse dicendi sunt? si dixisset: 'sine patre', nonne fuerint t color? quia omnium, qui fuerunt, patres habentur in lege, addit: et sine genealogia.","english":"Some say that one should not believe about Melchisedech as it is reported in the scriptures, and through this they twist the scriptures to their own meaning; it would be better for them not to receive the scriptures openly than to act deceitfully against them, so that under the name of peace war is prepared and under the cover of friendship an enemy lies hidden.\n\nThey say, therefore, that it does not pertain to the nobility of Melchisedech, but to the lowliness of his lineage, because he is read to have been without father and mother. For they claim that this was written thus in order to show that he was from foreigners, not from the tribe from which Abraham arose, because his lineage is not found in the law. 'Whence also it added,' they say, 'and without genealogy, so that it might be understood that his origin was not described in the law at all, so that he might be believed to have become a good man through himself, from whatever parents.' But the scripture is so incautious that it sets down everything arranged in order necessary for the case! For first it says: without father, without mother. Let us see if the mothers of others are mentioned in the law; the wife of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, the mother of Thare is not read, nor what was the mother of Abraham, to say nothing of the rest. Are these to be said to have been without mothers? If it had said 'without father,' would that not have been a color? Because all who existed have fathers recorded in the law, it adds: and without genealogy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":307,"ref":"p307","source":"si ideo haec dixit, ut ostenderet generationem eius in lege non esse, suffecerat dixisse: 'sine patre', quia cuius patrem nemo nouit, multo magis auum.\n\nAd manifestationem dicit: neque initium dierum neque finem uitae habens: dic, quisquis es uiolentus, quo modo istud interpretaris? quid est initium dierum non: habere neque finem uitae? suffecerat certe dixisse generationem eius in lege scriptam non esse, ac per hoc origo eius ex allophylis esset credenda. potest dici 'translatum* hunc sicut Enoch ideo non mortuum esse. esto. quid est initium dierum uitae non habere? forte dicas, quia dies natalis eius scriptus non est. cuius enim scriptus est in lege? et haec ratio est, ut, cuius natalis dies scriptus non est, initium dierum uitae negetur habere? potuit ergo et de ceteris eadem dici. et si ut homo translatus fuisset, non tamen sine uitae erat fine, quia, quidquid sub spe mortis est, finem habet._,.","english":"If he said this in order to show that his genealogy is not in the Law, it would have sufficed to say 'without a father,' because for one whose father no one knows, his grandfather is all the more unknown.\n\nFor the sake of clarity he says: 'having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life.' Tell me, whoever you are who are violent, how do you interpret this? What does it mean to have neither a beginning of days nor an end of life? It would certainly have sufficed to have said that his genealogy is not written in the Law, and on this account his origin would have to be believed to be from among the foreigners. It can be said that he was 'translated' like Enoch and therefore did not die. Granted. What does it mean to have no beginning of the days of life? Perhaps you will say, because his birthday is not written. For whose birthday is written in the Law? And is this a reason, that for one whose birthday is not written, it is denied that he has a beginning of the days of life? So the same could be said about the others as well. And even if he had been translated like a man, he would still not be without an end of life, because whatever is under the hope of death has an end.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":308,"ref":"p308","source":"Desine, quisquis es contentioni studens. expedit enim ueris uinci quam uincere uera per falsa. perdere est enim, non uincere, quia, si in homine perdere uideretur ueritas, apud deum tamen uincit, quia ratio eius inuincibilis est. itaque animus a lege uinci debet, ut hoc sentiat quod a lege significatur, non ut ipse legi sensum det suo arbitrio, ut legem se uiolenter legi exhibeat. et audi Zorobabel, qui: super omnia, ait, uincit ueritas.\n\nIam Melchisedech futurum mysterium incarnationis et passionis domini ostendit, dum Abrahae primum quasi patri fidelium tradidit eucharistiam et corporis et sanguinis domini. ut praefiguraretur in patre, quae in filiis futura erat ueritas. qui si homo putatur sacerdos eo more, quo fuit Aaron aut nunc sunt, ostendatur aut legatur locus habitationis eius aut si fuit templum aliquod aut synagoga, in qua congregabat populum et offerebat eorum sacrificia, uel qui populus conueniebat ad illum. si enim sacerdos in terris erat, sine dubio habuit populum. et ante Abraham utique uel tempore eius erat populus, qui seruiret deo. et quo modo Abraham quasi caput factus est . fidei, ut ex eo populus haberet notitiam dei? similiter enim. si Melchisedech erat, qui doceret unius dei timorem in terris, frustra electus est Abraham, ut ex ipso plebs dei nuncuparetur. potuerat enim inter eos esse, qui conueniebant ad Melchisedech.","english":"Stop, whoever you are who are eager for contention. For it is better to be conquered by the truth than to conquer the truth through falsehoods. For it is to lose, not to conquer, because, even if truth seems to be lost among men, it nevertheless conquers before God, since its rationale is invincible. Therefore, the mind ought to be conquered by the Law, so that it perceives what the Law signifies, not so that it imposes its own meaning on the Law by its own judgment, violently subjecting the Law to itself. And listen to Zorobabel, who says: \"Truth conquers all.\"\n\nNow Melchisedech prefigures the future mystery of the incarnation and passion of the Lord, when he first gave to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord. So that what was to be the truth in the sons might be prefigured in the father. If he is thought to be a human priest in the manner in which Aaron was or priests now are, let the place of his habitation be shown or read, or if there was some temple or synagogue in which he gathered the people and offered their sacrifices, or what people came to him. For if he was a priest on earth, he undoubtedly had a people. And before Abraham, or at his time, there was surely a people who served God. And how was Abraham made the head of the faith, so that from him the people would have knowledge of God? For similarly, if Melchisedech existed, who would teach the fear of the one God on earth, Abraham was chosen in vain, so that the people of God would be named from him. For they could have been among those who gathered to Melchisedech.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":309,"ref":"p309","source":"Et ubi est illud quod legitur in cantico Deuteronomii, quia cum diuideret, inquit, altissimus gentes, quem ad modum dispersit filios Adae, statuit fines gentium secundum numerum angelorum dei et facta est pars domini populus eius Iacob ? igitur si in mundo plebs non erat dei exceptis filiis Abrahae, qua ratione alia plebs putatur fuisse, quae ex doctrina descenderat Melchisedech negante profeta? quando enim nominat omnes gentes, quae in muudo sunt, et non dicit populum dei esse nisi filios Abrahae, quid superest nisi ut exceptis his negetur ceteros dei habuisse notitiam, quia notus in Iudaea deus? Melchisedech autem 'sacerdos dei summi' ad benedicendum Abraham apparuit ad praesagium futurorum sanctorum, quia benedictio danda erat in futurum plebi dei per antestitem fere dei, quem dicimus sacerdotem. hic ergo Melchisedech praecursor apparuit sacramenti futuri filii dei, quia praecedit ad obsequium, qui ordine sequens est. non ergo admiranda sint quae diximus de Melchisedech, quando. scriptura ad confusionem obstrepentium plus addat et dicat. post omnia enim laude digna, ut confundat maliuolos: similatus autem, inquit, filio dei manet sacerdos in perpetuum.","english":"And what of that which is read in the Song of Deuteronomy, that when the Most High divided the nations, as he scattered the sons of Adam, he established the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and the people of him, Jacob, became the portion of the Lord? Therefore, if there was no people of God in the world except the sons of Abraham, by what reasoning is it thought that there was another people, which had descended from the teaching of Melchizedek, the prophet denying? For when he names all the nations that are in the world and says that the people of God are only the sons of Abraham, what remains except that, except for these, it is denied that the rest had knowledge of God, because God is known in Judea? But Melchizedek, 'priest of the Most High God,' appeared to bless Abraham as a presage of future saints, because the blessing was to be given in the future to the people of God through the priest of God, whom we call a priest. Therefore, this Melchizedek appeared as a precursor of the future sacrament of the Son of God, because he who is subsequent in order precedes in service. Therefore, what we have said about Melchizedek should not be wondered at, when Scripture, to confound the clamorous, adds more and says: after all things worthy of praise, to confound the malicious: 'But he, being made like the Son of God, remains a priest forever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":310,"ref":"p310","source":"Iam uide de quo male sentire contendis et, si hunc non uereris, uel Christum metue, cui similis scripturae auctoritate refertur. per ordinem enim paulatim ad naturale eius meritum uenit, ut, si quos dicta superiora mouercnt, quibus rex iustitiae et pacis significatus est, et quia in carne uisus neque patrem neque matrem habuit, hoc est ingenitus apparuit neque ortum neque occasum habens ex his, quae ultima subiecit, superiora credibilia demonstraret. quis enim audeat dicere nisi uesanus haec omnia, quae sublimia dicta sunt, incongrua esse illi, qui dei filio similis designatus est manens sacerdos in perpetuum? similis autem dei filio non potest esse, nisi sit eiusdem naturae. et quid incredibile uidetur, si Melchisedech ut homo apparuit, cum intellegatur tertia esse persona? si enim Christus, qui secunda personaest, frequenter uisus est in habitu hominis, quid ambigitur de iis quae dicta sunt? legimus etenim in psalmo, quia tu es, inquit. sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. hoc nemo nostrum dubitat ad Christi pertinere personam, quia eodem genere sacerdos est Christus in aeternum, quo et Melchisedech, sed summus sacerdos Christus est, Melchisedech secundus. nam si homo est Melchisedech, quo modo conuenit ut secundum ordinem eius Christus sacerdos sit in aeternum? ideo enim ambo similes esse leguntur et unius esse dispensationis, quia unius sunt et naturae.","english":"Now see what you are contending to think ill of, and if you do not fear this one, at least fear Christ, to whom he is reported as similar by the authority of Scripture. For step by step it comes to his natural merit, so that, if the earlier statements moved anyone—by which he was signified as king of justice and peace, and because he was seen in the flesh and had neither father nor mother, that is, he appeared unbegotten, having neither rising nor setting—he would demonstrate the earlier statements to be credible by those things which he set down last. For who would dare to say, except a madman, that all these things, which have been spoken sublimely, are incongruous for him who is designated as similar to the Son of God, remaining a priest forever? But one cannot be similar to the Son of God unless he is of the same nature. And what seems incredible, if Melchisedech appeared as a man, when he is understood to be the third person? For if Christ, who is the second person, has frequently been seen in the form of a man, what is there to doubt about those things which have been said? For we read in the Psalm: \"You are,\" it says, \"priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.\" No one of us doubts that this pertains to the person of Christ, because Christ is a priest forever in the same manner as Melchisedech, but Christ is the high priest, Melchisedech the second. For if Melchisedech is a man, how does it befit that Christ is a priest forever according to his order? For both are read to be similar and to be of one dispensation, because they are also of one nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":311,"ref":"p311","source":"Quoniam autem omni modo unius dei auctoritas conseruanda est, idcirco secunda et tertia persona subiciuntur paterno nomini. Christus autem uicarius patris est et antestes ac per hoc dicitur et sacerdos. similiter et spiritus sanctus missus quasi antestes sacerdos appellatus est excelsi dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt, quia, quamuis unius sint substantiae Christus et sanctus spiritus, unius cuiusque tamen ordo seruandus est. sacerdotes igitur uel legati ideo dicuntur, quia illum in se ostendunt cuius legati sunt; sunt enim eius imago. ac per hoc Christus et sanctus spiritus naturaliter habentes dei imaginem sacerdotes eius dicuntur. in ipsis uidetur deus, sicut dicit dominus: qui me uidit, uidit et patrem; et si in gestis domini uisus est deus, gesta autem spiritus sancti sunt opera signante domino, quia ego in spiritu dei eicio daemonia, et in spiritu sancto uisus est deus.","english":"Since the authority of the one God must be preserved in every way, for that reason the second and third persons are subjected to the paternal name. Christ, however, is the vicar of the Father and the antistes, and for this reason he is also called priest. Similarly, the Holy Spirit, sent as a kind of antistes, has been called the priest of the Most High God, not the high priest, as our people presume in the offering, because, although Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, the order of each must nevertheless be preserved. They are therefore called priests or legates because they show forth in themselves the one whose legates they are; for they are his image. And for this reason Christ and the Holy Spirit, naturally possessing the image of God, are called his priests. In them God is seen, as the Lord says: He who has seen me has seen the Father also; and if in the deeds of the Lord God was seen, the deeds of the Holy Spirit are the works, the Lord signifying, because I cast out demons in the spirit of God, and in the Holy Spirit God was seen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":312,"ref":"p312","source":"CX. DE PSALMO PRIMO.\n\nCum profeta Dauid per speciem carnalium spiritalem rationem significaret, diuersi generis ac meriti psalmos ad dei laudem et sacramentum alacri mente pronuntians primum psalmum nullo uelamine texit neque alicui adsignauit, sed generalem instituit, ut horum sit, qui a malis segregati bonorum se societate munierint. nec debuit enim principium et maxime huius gratiae in obscuritate cantari — ante enim lux quam tenebrae et caput unius cuiusque rei in manifesto est — nec inde fit quaestio, sed de subiectis, unde sic orsus est dicens: beatus uir qui (non) ab.iit in consilio impiorum. consilium impiorum est conspiratio malignorum multifarie intellegenda. idcirco impii a peccatoribus distant — impietas enim grauissimum peccatum est —, quia omnis impietas peccatum, non tamen omne peccatum impietas. quo modo ergo quis abit in consilium impiorum? cum a se uocatur certe. hoc enim dicens ostendit quia, quamdiu quis a natura non exit, non incurrit peccatum. propter hoc 'beatus', inquit, qui non abiit in consilium impiorum'. impietas enim a diabolo coepta adsentientibus satellitibus eius inlicit homines, ut participes eos suae impietatis efficiat. ipse enim prior in deum peccans, dum uult sibi principatum per tirannidem usurpare, deiectus de sacris sedibus hoc solacium aestimauit, si perditioni suae adquireret plurimos socios.","english":"CHAPTER 110. ON THE FIRST PSALM.\n\nWhen the prophet David signified spiritual meaning through the medium of carnal things, he proclaimed psalms of various kinds and merit for the praise of God and for the sacrament with an eager mind. He covered the first psalm with no veil and assigned it to no one, but established it as a general one, so that it might belong to those who, separated from the wicked, have fortified themselves by association with the good. For the beginning, and especially of this grace, ought not to have been sung in obscurity—for light comes before darkness, and the head of each thing is manifest—nor does a question arise from that, but from the subjects. Hence he began, saying: \"Blessed is the man who has not gone into the council of the impious.\" The council of the impious is the conspiracy of the wicked, to be understood in many ways. For this reason the impious differ from sinners—for impiety is the gravest sin—because every impiety is a sin, but not every sin is impiety. How then does one go into the council of the impious? Certainly when one is called by it. For by saying this he shows that, as long as one does not depart from nature, he does not incur sin. For this reason, he says, \"Blessed is the man who has not gone into the council of the impious.\" For impiety, begun by the devil with the consent of his satellites, entices men, so that it makes them participants in his impiety. For he himself, having first sinned against God while wishing to usurp primacy for himself through tyranny, was cast down from his sacred seats and considered this a consolation: if he could acquire as many companions as possible for his own perdition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":313,"ref":"p313","source":"ideoque 'beatus', inquit, uir qui non abiit in consilium impiorum'. illi enim semper inliciunt homines, qui sub hoc principe agentes nobis inimici sunt dicente apostolo: non est enim, ait, conluctatio uobis aduersus carnem et sanguinem, sed aduersus principes et potestates, et in altera epistula de tyranno eorum ait inter cetera: ita ut in templo dei sedeat ostendens se quasi sit deus. quia enim peccare dulce uidetur et non sentitur malum nisi fuerit iactura — ac per hoc fallentes non apparent quamdiu capiant, sed cum deceperint tunc cognoscuntur —, propterea beatum dicit illum qui inlectus non fuerit in consilium impiorum, ut eat in contubernium impietatis illorum.\n\nPrima ergo impietatis causa haec est, qua rebelles in deum maligna conspiratione esse coeperunt, qua imitatione coepit idolatria. in supernis enim coepta praeuaricatio descendit ad terras. dum (enim) contenti non sunt uni deo et creatori esse subiecti, impii extiterunt maiestatem eius aliis partiendo, ut spreto eo alios sibi ad culturam eligerent. haec est enim prima causa offensionis humani generis, ex qua neglecti a deo diuersis inlecebris et passionibus inludendi traduntur secundum fidem apostoli Pauli. quid enim inuiolatum opus manet, quod non agnouit auctorem?","english":"Therefore, he says, \"Blessed is the man who did not go into the counsel of the impious.\" For they always entice men, those who, acting under this prince, are our enemies, as the apostle says: \"For your struggle,\" he says, \"is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers,\" and in another epistle he says of their tyrant, among other things: \"so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.\" For because sin seems sweet and evil is not felt until there is loss—and through this, deceivers are not apparent as long as they are ensnaring, but when they have deceived, then they are recognized—for that reason, he calls blessed the man who was not enticed into the counsel of the impious, so as to go into the fellowship of their impiety.\n\nThe first cause of impiety, therefore, is this, by which rebels against God began to exist in a malignant conspiracy, by which imitation idolatry began. For the prevarication begun in the heavens descended to the earth. For while they were not content to be subject to one God and creator, they became impious by dividing his majesty among others, so that, having spurned him, they chose others for themselves to worship. This is indeed the first cause of offense to the human race, from which, neglected by God, they are handed over to be mocked by various enticements and passions, according to the faith of the apostle Paul. For what inviolate work remains that has not acknowledged its author?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":314,"ref":"p314","source":"inde iam seminatum malum consuetudinem renuit et in multas partes uelut propago palmites tendit, ut qui deo non pepercerant in parentum contumeliam et necem facilius prosilirent, quia — ut de ceteris taceam dicente apostolo: quo enim mihi de his qui foris sunt iud-ieare? — Ruben in contumeliam patris stuprum in concubinam eius admisit et Absalon contra fas regnum praesumpsit, ut patrem suum imperio et uita priuaret.\n\nHabet adhuc et alias partes impietas, quia et in periculo despicere rogantem cum prodesse possit impietas est et in re aspera et maligna, ut impleri possit, consilium dare tam t huius rei nec ad praesens euasit, et talia quae in hunc sensum poterant reperiri. non inmerito ergo beatus uir est qui non abiit in consilium impiorum. magna enim pernicies est homini et incurabile uulnus post cognitionem dei his erroribus sociari. deterius enim tractetur necesse est qui post uerum conuertitur ad falsum et beatus uir est qui ueri cognitione percepta impiorum fugit consilia, quia caput erroris impietas est.","english":"Then the evil that had been sown renounced its custom and, like a shoot, spread its branches into many parts, so that those who had not spared God more readily rushed into insult and murder of their parents—for, to say nothing of others, as the apostle says: \"For what concern is it of mine to judge those who are outside?\"—Reuben committed adultery with his father's concubine to his father's shame, and Absalom unlawfully usurped the kingdom, seeking to deprive his father of both rule and life.\n\nImpiety also has other aspects, for it is impiety to disregard someone who asks for help when one could be of use in a time of danger, and to give counsel in a harsh and wicked matter so that it may be carried out—nor did this sort of thing escape even at the present time, along with other things that could be found along these lines. Therefore, it is not without reason that the man is blessed who did not go into the counsel of the impious. For it is a great peril to a man and an incurable wound, after the knowledge of God, to be joined to these errors. For one who, after having received true knowledge, turns to falsehood must necessarily be treated worse; and the man is blessed who, having obtained the knowledge of truth, flees the counsels of the impious, because the head of error is impiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":315,"ref":"p315","source":"Et sequitur: et in uia peccatorum non stetit, quoniam inpossibile est non peccare, sicut possibile impium non esse, quia grauissimum peccatum potest euitari, cetera autem de non est qua subrepant. ipsa enim humana conuersatio frequenter. dum peccare non cogitat, ex inprouiso incurrit ut peccet. ac per hoc beatus est qui in consilium impiorum non uadit; hoc est nec incipere malum. peccatum autem quia non potest non incipi, sicut dixi, beatum dixit qui non permanet in eo; hoc est in uia peccatorum non stare. uia enim peccatorum est conuersatio in peccatis. male enim ambulare dicitur, qui ad hoc procedit, ut quaerat peccare. dum enim mens eius non stat in dei lege, sed euagatur, in uia peccatorum dicitur ambulare, quia euagatio haec quaerit peccare. ideoque 'beatus est qui non stat in uia peccatorum', id est, qui paenitentia subsequente circumuentum se dolet et recedit a (con)spiratione hominum peccatorum. igitur sicut beatus est qui non abiit in consilium impiorum, sic inemendabilis erit, si abiit, dicente Solomone quia «pes impiorum peribit et: beatus uir qui in uia peccatorum non stetit. si autem steterit, non iam beatus, sedreus dignus plagis. ad emendationem aliquam enim uidetur habere spem, quia non impius, sed peccator est. si autem unus fuerit qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in uia peccatorum non stat, duplici genere beatus est.","english":"And it follows: \"and he did not stand in the way of sinners,\" because it is impossible not to sin, just as it is possible not to be impious, since the gravest sin can be avoided, but the others creep in of necessity. For human intercourse itself frequently, while it does not think of sinning, unexpectedly incurs sin. And thus blessed is he who does not go into the counsel of the impious; that is, he does not even begin evil. But because sin cannot but be begun, as I said, he declared blessed the one who does not persist in it; that is, he does not stand in the way of sinners. For the way of sinners is a life lived in sins. For one is said to walk badly who proceeds to the point of seeking to sin. For while his mind does not stand in God's law, but wanders, he is said to walk in the way of sinners, because this wandering seeks to sin. And therefore, \"blessed is he who does not stand in the way of sinners,\" that is, who, with subsequent repentance, grieves that he was ensnared and withdraws from the conspiracy of sinful men. Therefore, just as he is blessed who did not go into the counsel of the impious, so he will be incorrigible if he did go, as Solomon says: \"The foot of the impious will perish\" and: \"Blessed is the man who did not stand in the way of sinners.\" But if he has stood, he is no longer blessed, but guilty and worthy of blows. For he seems to have some hope of correction, because he is not impious, but a sinner. But if there is one who neither went into the counsel of the impious nor stands in the way of sinners, he is blessed in a twofold manner.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":316,"ref":"p316","source":"nec potest enim esse beatus, si in consilium impiorum non eat et in uia peccatorum stet, quia, si non perditioni, poenae tamen obnoxius est.\n\nDehinc adiecit: et in catedra pestilentiae non sedit. hanc dicit beatitudinem esse, quae his tribus gradibus constat et triplici ratione munitur, id est, ut neque in consilium impiorum eatur neque in uia peccatorum stetur neque in catedra pestilentiae sedeatur. sed cum duo genera tantum habeantur, impiorum et peccatorum, in reprehensione, quae supra memorata sunt, hoc tertium cui adscribi uoluit, quod adiecit dicens: et in catedra pestilentiae non sedit? impiorum aut peccatorum? sed uideamus, quid sit catedram pestilentiae sedere, et tunc cui generi hoc adscribat intellegemus. hanc dicimus catedram pestilentiae, quae extra dei ordinationem est, quae ad hoc utique inuenta est, quae, ut iniqua inde exeant iudicia, propterea pestilentiae catedra dicta est, quae est corruptio quae parit mortem, sicut et iniquitas damnationem. non est ergo a deo quae est catedra mortis; nam Moyses accepit catedram uitae. ad hoc enim data est, ut auctoritas in ea sit iusti iudicis uel creatoris dei. unde dicit dominus: super catedram Moysi sederunt scribae et Farisaei; et apostolus: non est, inquit, potestas nisi a deo; quae enim sunt, a deo ordinatae sunt-","english":"For neither can he be blessed, if he does not go into the council of the impious and stand in the way of sinners, because, if not to perdition, he is nevertheless subject to punishment.\n\nThen he added: \"and he did not sit in the chair of pestilence.\" He says that this is blessedness, which consists of these three grades and is fortified by a threefold reasoning, that is, that one should neither go into the council of the impious, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the chair of pestilence. But since only two kinds are held, of the impious and of sinners, in the reproach which were mentioned above, to which did he wish to assign this third, which he added saying: \"and he did not sit in the chair of pestilence\"? Of the impious or of sinners? But let us see what it is to sit in the chair of pestilence, and then we will understand to which kind he assigns this. We call that the chair of pestilence which is outside the ordination of God, which was invented for this purpose, that unjust judgments might issue from it; for that reason it is called the chair of pestilence, which is a corruption that begets death, just as iniquity begets damnation. Therefore, the chair of death is not from God; for Moses received the chair of life. For it was given for this purpose, that authority might be in it of a just judge or of the creator God. Whence the Lord says: \"Scribes and Pharisees sat upon the chair of Moses\"; and the Apostle says: \"There is no power,\" he says, \"except from God; for those that exist are ordained by God\"—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":317,"ref":"p317","source":"Unde dicit ad principem plebis: tu quidem sedes iudicans secundum legem et contra legem iubes me percuti?. quod dixit 'secundum legem', iustam et salutarem catedrae auctoritatem significauit. illud autem quod ait: contra legem iubes me percuti, illum ipsum iniustum iudicem ostendit, ut in dei catedra sedens iudicaret iniuste. hinc est unde et Danihel: dei est, ait, regnum et cui uult dabit illud. sicut ergo terreni imperatoris auctoritas currit per omnes. ut in omnibus eius sit reuerentia, ita deus instituit, ut ab ipso rege dei auctoritas incipiat et currat per cunctos. quamuis frequenter mundus hoc non intellegat et alii se subiciat in potestate positus quam debet, tamen institutio est ut unus sit, qui timeatur. ubi ergo haec institutio non est, ibi catedra pestilentiae repperitur. nusquam unius dei auctoritas abnuitur, nisi apud eos, qui multorum deorum praedicant metum et reuerentiam. hi sunt qui in catedra pestilentiae sedent, quia quod pontifices eorum praedicant mors est. hoc enim docent, ut cultores unius dei quasi stulti et inimici aut obprobrio sint aut de hac uita tollantur. haec ipsa materia impietatis est, quae etiam in ceteras partes extenditur, per quas impietatis suae leges ostendat.","english":"He says to the leader of the people: \"You indeed sit judging according to the law, and contrary to the law you order me to be struck.\" What he said, \"according to the law,\" signified the just and salutary authority of the chair. But that which he said, \"contrary to the law you order me to be struck,\" shows that very same unjust judge, so that, sitting in the chair of God, he would judge unjustly. Hence it is that Daniel also says: \"The kingdom is God's, and He gives it to whom He wills.\" Therefore, just as the authority of an earthly emperor runs through all, so that reverence for him is in all, so God has established that the authority of God begins from the king himself and runs through all. Although the world often does not understand this and, placed in power, submits itself to another than it ought, nevertheless the institution is that there is one who is feared. Where, therefore, this institution is not, there the chair of pestilence is found. Nowhere is the authority of the one God denied, except among those who preach the fear and reverence of many gods. These are those who sit in the chair of pestilence, because what their pontiffs preach is death. For they teach this, that the worshippers of the one God, as if foolish and enemies, are either to be held in contempt or removed from this life. This very matter is impiety, which also extends into other parts, through which it displays the laws of its impiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":318,"ref":"p318","source":"nam iussu Iezabel antestites iniquitatis in catedra pestilentiae sederunt, qui aduersus innocentem Nabuthae, cum iudices non essent, praua meditantes subornatis falsis testibus mortis tulerunt sententiam. unde in alio psalmo dicit: et cum impiis non sedebo. hoc enim iudicium eius est, cuius et catedra pestilentiae. itaque si in dei catedra sedentes innocentes opprimant, iniustum erit iudicium, non catedra. ubi enim catedra pestilentiae est, non potest iudicium non esse iniquum, quamuis quaedam adplicent sibi uelut uelamina, quibus impietatem contegant, ut uidentes fallantur. non potest enim sola impietas proponi, quia non inuenit emptorem, et, ubi lex diaboli est, si ipse nominetur, horretur.\n\nSicut ueneno admiscetur per quod lateat, ita et legi diaboli quaedam iusta admiscent et nomen adplicant ueritatis, sed unius cuiusque sensus est iudicandus, quia ideo aliquando aliquid uerum ostendit, ut fallat, ut, cum maligna praedicat, bona putentur. quoniam catedram pestilentiae non esse de dei ordinatione adseuerauimus, etiam eorum qui extra ecclesiam uel contra ecclesiam sedes sibi instituerunt, catedram pestilentiae esse dicimus. qui enim inconcessa praesumit, reus est: quanto magis si et corrumpat traditionem eius, cuius sedem usurpat!","english":"For by the command of Jezebel, the priests of iniquity sat in the seat of pestilence, who, though they were not judges, devising wicked schemes against the innocent Naboth with suborned false witnesses, pronounced a sentence of death. Hence in another psalm it says: \"And I will not sit with the impious.\" For this judgment is of the same nature as the seat of pestilence. Therefore, if those sitting in the seat of God oppress the innocent, the judgment will be unjust, not the seat. For where the seat of pestilence is, the judgment cannot but be iniquitous, although some apply to themselves certain veils, as it were, with which they conceal their impiety, so that onlookers are deceived. For impiety cannot be presented on its own, because it finds no buyer; and where the law of the devil is, if he himself is named, he is abhorred.\n\nJust as poison is mixed with something through which it is concealed, so too do they mix certain just things with the law of the devil and apply the name of truth; but the sense of each individual is to be judged, because sometimes it shows something true in order to deceive, so that when it preaches evil things, they are thought to be good. Since we have asserted that the seat of pestilence is not from God's ordinance, we also say that the seats of those who have established sees for themselves outside the Church or against the Church are the seat of pestilence. For whoever presumes upon what is not granted is guilty; how much more so if he also corrupts the tradition of the one whose seat he usurps!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":319,"ref":"p319","source":"nam et ordinem ab apostolo Petro coeptum et usque ad hoc tempus per traducem succedentium episcoporum seruatum perturbant ordinem sibi sine origine uindicantes, hoc est corpus sine capite profitentes; unde congruit etiam eorum sedem catedram pestilentiae appellare. nec enim ideo impune erit, quia sub dei nomine haec agunt. constat enim suas illos causas sub dei nomine agere. non enim zelo dei haec agunt, sed sibi locum uolentes defendere, cum sciamus Chore et CCL uiros per praesumptionem deo offerentes hiatu terrae absortos esse et Oziam regem, cum deo inlicite obtulisset, lepra in fronte percussum.\n\nQuoniam claruit catedram pestilentiae ad impietatem supra dictam pertinere, reliqua prosequamur. adiecit enim: sed in lege domini uoluntas eius. eius uoluntatem in lege domini dicit esse, qui spretis impiis et desertis peccatoribus abnuens pestilentiae catedram uoluntatem suam in dei lege statuit. quam ob rem 'beatum' hunc dixit.","english":"For the order begun by the apostle Peter and preserved up to this time through the succession of bishops is disturbed by those who claim an order for themselves without origin, that is, professing a body without a head; hence it is fitting also to call their seat the chair of pestilence. Nor, indeed, will it go unpunished because they do these things under the name of God. For it is evident that they conduct their own causes under the name of God. For they do not do these things out of zeal for God, but wishing to defend their own position, when we know that Korah and the two hundred fifty men, offering to God through presumption, were swallowed up by a gap in the earth, and that King Uzziah, when he unlawfully offered to God, was struck with leprosy on his forehead.\n\nSince it has become clear that the chair of pestilence pertains to the impiety mentioned above, let us proceed with the rest. For he added: \"but his will is in the law of the Lord.\" He says that the will of him who, having spurned the impious and abandoned sinners, refusing the chair of pestilence, establishes his will in the law of God, is in the law of the Lord. For this reason he called this man 'blessed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":320,"ref":"p320","source":"Et sequitur: et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte. manifestum est, quia liber ab omnibus inlecebris et inmunis ab his, quae dei legi aduersa sunt, nihil aliud quam in dei lege exercitium facit. sacramentis filii dei confirmatus in die bonis operibus insistit et nocte orationibus. hic est enim de quo dicit in Canticis Canticorum, quia dormit et cor eius uigilat.\n\nUnde ait: et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est iuxta decursus aquarum. quis ambigit eum, qui legem dei meditatur, spem habere ad praemium capiendum? quia, sicut lignum iuxta aquam plantatum sterile esse non potest, ita et qui frequenti usu legi dei studet, non potest eius operis minime habere effectum.\n\nEt adiecit: quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo. omnis plantatio bene gubernata fructum dat tempore conpetenti: sic et hic, qui legi dei obtemperat, fructum habebit tempore praefinito. tunc enim huius deuotionis mercedem accipiet, cum coeperit dominus Iesus Christus sedere ad iudicandum uiuos et mortuos.","english":"And it follows: “and he will meditate on his law day and night.” It is clear that someone free from all enticements and immune to those things which are contrary to the law of God does nothing other than practice the law of God. Strengthened by the sacraments of the Son of God, by day he persists in good works and by night in prayers. For this is the one of whom it says in the Song of Songs, that he sleeps and his heart keeps watch.\n\nHence it says: “and he will be like a tree that is planted beside the courses of waters.” Who doubts that he who meditates on the law of God has hope of receiving a reward? Because, just as a tree planted near water cannot be sterile, so too he who with frequent practice studies the law of God cannot fail to have the effect of his work.\n\nAnd it added: “which will give its fruit in its time.” Every well-tended planting gives fruit at the appropriate time: so also this one, who obeys the law of God, will have fruit at the appointed time. For he will receive the reward of this devotion when the Lord Jesus Christ begins to sit in judgment of the living and the dead.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":321,"ref":"p321","source":"Dehincsubiecit: et folium eius non defluet. manifestum est in arbore, cuius folia non decidunt, uitam significasse. umore enim decurrentis aquae uegetatum lignum folia continet sua. nam et dominus Iesus: si in umido, ait, ligno haec faciunt, in arido quid fiet? in ligno umido uitam significauit et fructum. sicut lignum ergo auxilio decurrentis aquae siccitatem non patitur, ita et hic, qui legi dei studet, accedente temptatione praesidio dei tutus non amittit, sed adquirit salutem dicente apostolo: quia per tribulationes oportet nos intrare in regnum dei.\n\nEt sequitur: et omnia, quaecumque fecit, prosperabuntur. apertum est quod dicit, quia qui legi dei fidem seruat cupidus mandatorum eius, felix fit in omnibus actibus suis; sicut et Iosef, propter quod timorem dei praesenti uitae praeposuit, omnia quae agebat prospera faciebat deus in manibus eius.","english":"Then he added: “and its leaf will not fall off.” It is clear that in a tree whose leaves do not fall, life is signified. For wood nourished by the moisture of running water keeps its leaves. Indeed, the Lord Jesus says: “If they do this in moist wood, what will happen in dry wood?” In moist wood he signified life and fruit. Just as wood, therefore, with the help of running water does not suffer dryness, so also here, one who studies the law of God, when temptation approaches, is safe by the protection of God and does not lose but gains salvation, as the apostle says: “because we must enter the kingdom of God through tribulations.”\n\nAnd it follows: “and all things that he has done will prosper.” What he says is clear: because one who keeps faith in the law of God, being eager for its commandments, becomes fortunate in all his actions; just as Joseph, because he preferred the fear of God to the present life, God made all things he did prosper in his hands.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":322,"ref":"p322","source":"Et subiecit: non sic impii, non sic. iteratio sermonis non aliter omnino futurum significat quam promittit, quia impiis nihil prosperum erit in futurum, sed omnia aduersa usque ad interitum eorum.\n\nUnde ait: sed tamquam puluis, quem proicit uentus a facie terrae. eodem modo dicit impios interire, sicut puluerem, quem spiritus proicit a facie terrae ut pereat. sublatus enim a substantia sua per aera dispersus paulatim deperit: ita et impii ministris angelis proiecti a facie auctoris dei, sine quo non potest uiui, interibunt.\n\nEt sequitur: ideo non resurgunt impii in iudicio. dignum est quod dicit ut quid enim in iudicio resurgant, qui nullum negotium dei credi sibi maluerunt, cuius redderent rationem? spernentes enim dei legem et negantes non est unde praestent rationem, ut in iudicio interrogati iuxta legem sibi creditam praestent causas. adrogantes ergo et rebelles in deum inuenti ad hoc resurgent, ut uideant uerum esse quod credere noluerunt, ut pereant, quia deum mendacem iudicarunt.","english":"And he added: “Not so the impious, not so.” The repetition of the statement signifies that the future will be in no way other than what he promises, because for the impious nothing will be prosperous in the future, but all things adverse, even to their destruction.\n\nWhence he says: “But like dust, which the wind casts from the face of the earth.” In the same way he says the impious perish, like dust, which the wind casts from the face of the earth so that it perishes. For, lifted from its substance, scattered through the air, it gradually disappears: so also the impious, cast out by the angelic ministers from the face of the author God, without whom one cannot live, will perish.\n\nAnd it follows: “Therefore the impious do not rise in the judgment.” What he says is fitting: for why should the impious rise in judgment, who preferred to entrust no business of God to themselves, for which they would render an account? For, despising God’s law and denying it, there is no basis on which they could render an account, so that, questioned in judgment according to the law entrusted to them, they might present their cases. Therefore, the arrogant and those found rebellious against God will rise for this purpose: that they may see that it is true what they refused to believe, so that they may perish, because they judged God a liar.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":323,"ref":"p323","source":"Et adiecit: neque peccatores in consilio iustorum. in hoc psalmo tria genera hominum significat: impiorum et peccatorum et iustorum, quo ordine coeptus est error. sed impii ab his alieni sunt, quia sub dei decreto, sicut dixi, uiuere noluerunt; peccatores autem sub dei lege agentes ante tribunal Christi sistendi sunt segregati a iustis, ut acceptae legis praestent rationem, emendandi in quibus operam non dederunt, ut plus haberent laudis quam uituperationis; iusti uero ualde propensiores in exercitio implendae legis inuenti remunerandi sunt.\n\nEt subiecit: quoniam scit dominus uiam iustorum. hos scire dicitur deus, qui memores praeceptorum eius bonis operibus insistunt, ut iusti habiti coronentur. his autem, qui inmemores eius circa curam animae neclegentes sunt, sic dicit: recedite a me; nescio uos, operarii iniquitatis.\n\nEt sequitur: et iter impiorum peribit. unde psalmus coeptus est et terminatus, ut causa impiorum tractata nulli alii quam perditioni docerentur obnoxii. sicut enim dixi, idcirco dicitur deus scire uiam iustorum, quia in lege eius ambulant; iter autem impiorum, quia extra dei legem est, peribit, quia omnes uiae impiorum tenebrosae, dicit Solomon, piorum autem clarissimae duce Christo domino nostro.","english":"And he added: “Nor the sinners in the council of the just.” In this psalm he signifies three kinds of men: the impious, the sinners, and the just, in the order in which the error began. But the impious are alien to these, because they refused to live under God’s decree, as I have said; the sinners, however, acting under God’s law, are to be brought before the tribunal of Christ, separated from the just, so that they may render account of the law they received, being corrected in those matters in which they did not apply themselves, so that they might have more praise than blame; the just, indeed, found to be very zealous in the exercise of fulfilling the law, are to be rewarded.\n\nAnd he subjoined: “Because the Lord knows the way of the just.” God is said to know these, who, mindful of his precepts, persist in good works, so that, being considered just, they may be crowned. But to those who, forgetful of him, are negligent concerning the care of the soul, he speaks thus: “Depart from me; I do not know you, workers of iniquity.”\n\nAnd it follows: “And the path of the impious will perish.” Whence the psalm was begun and ended, so that the case of the impious, having been treated, might be shown to be subject to nothing other than perdition. For as I have said, God is said to know the way of the just for this reason, because they walk in his law; but the path of the impious, because it is outside God’s law, will perish, because all the ways of the impious are dark, says Solomon, but those of the pious are very bright, with Christ our Lord as guide.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":324,"ref":"p324","source":"CXI. DE PSALMO XXIII.\n\nTitulus psalmi rationem eius insinuat. de Christi enim domini nostri sacramento locuturus dominicum diem significauit dicens: huic Dauid prima sabbati. cum enim dicitur: huic Dauid, ad eum pertinet, cuius hic Dauid habet imaginem, de quo dicit profeta: et puer meus Dauid pascit illos. prima autem sabbati prima feria est. post sabbatum enim primus dies dominicus est adfirmante euangelio et dicente: prima autem sabbati uenit Maria Magdalene et altera Maria ad sepulcrum, et cetera. in dominico ergo die saluatoris sacramentum significauit. sed ut per rationem ordinis psalmus exponeretur, a persona dei et patris initium fecit, ut ueritatis sacramentum non sine ordine manifestaretur hominibus. qui enim causam aliquam insinuare uult, nisi eius caput et originem teneat, non poterit proprietatem eius ostendere neque quae sit eius ueritas edocere.","english":"CXI. On Psalm 23.\n\nThe title of the psalm indicates its rationale. For, about to speak concerning the sacrament of our Lord Christ, he signified the Lord’s day by saying: “To this David, the first of the sabbath.” For when it is said “To this David,” it pertains to him whose image this David bears, of whom the prophet says: “And my servant David feeds them.” Now “the first of the sabbath” is the first day. For after the sabbath, the first day is the Lord’s day, as the Gospel affirms, saying: “Now on the first of the sabbath, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the tomb,” and so forth. Therefore, on the Lord’s day he signified the sacrament of the Savior. But so that the psalm might be expounded according to the rationale of order, he made a beginning from the person of God the Father, that the sacrament of truth might be revealed to men not without order. For one who wishes to set forth some matter, unless he grasps its head and origin, will not be able to show its property nor to teach what its truth is.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":325,"ref":"p325","source":"Itaque sic orsus est profeta et ait: domini est terra et plenitudo eius. fidem rerum tenuit dicens: domini est terra et plenitudo eius. auctoritatem enim ueterum sanctorum secutus est, qui terram et quae sunt in ea ad dominium domini dei pertinere dixerunt.\n\nEt adiecit: orbis terrarum et omnes qui habitant in eo. ne forte minus aliquid significasse putaretur, quia dixerat domini esse terram et plenitudinem eius, sensum suum aperuit dicens: orbis terrarum et uniuersi qui habitant in ea, ut doceret omnem omnino terram domini esse et quae sunt in ea, ut nihil esset exceptum quod non eius sit, sicut putant quidam heretici, qui secundum dictum apostoli Petri dominium deo abnegant, quorum ad condemnationem cuncta dei esse profetica oracula docuerunt.\n\nEt sequitur: ipse super maria fundauit eam, hoc est, quod in alio psalmo significauit dicens: terram super aquas tu firmasti. ut fidem testimonium sequeretur, ostendit quo modo fecerit. dum enim confusio esset rerum et neque terra neque aqua propriam haberent speciem, iussu dei adunata est terra et firmata est super aquas, ut et terra et aqua haberent originis suae proprietatem. unde in Regnorum uox est dei dicentis: nonne aquas ego feci?","english":"Thus the prophet began and said: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” He held to the truth of the matter, saying: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” For he followed the authority of the ancient saints, who declared that the earth and all that is in it belong to the dominion of the Lord God.\n\nAnd he added: “The whole world and all who dwell in it.” Lest it be thought that he had signified something less because he had said that the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord, he opened up his meaning by saying: “The whole world and all who dwell in it,” so as to teach that every single land entirely belongs to the Lord, and all that is in it, so that nothing is excepted which is not His—contrary to what certain heretics think, who, according to the saying of the apostle Peter, deny dominion to God, and to whose condemnation the prophetic oracles have taught that all things are God’s.\n\nAnd it follows: “He Himself founded it upon the seas,” that is, what he signified in another psalm, saying: “You established the earth upon the waters.” So that testimony might follow faith, he shows how He did it. For while there was a confusion of things, and neither earth nor water had their own form, by the command of God the earth was gathered together and fixed upon the waters, so that both earth and water might have the property of their origin. Hence in the books of Kings there is the voice of God saying: “Did I not make the waters?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":326,"ref":"p326","source":"Et subiecit: et super flumina praeparauit illam. sic super flumina praeparata est, dum intra se aquas conditas habet, quae quasi per uenarum fistulas fluitantes praestant ei densitatem, ne penitus sicca fragilis esset et inutilis ad culturam. radicibus enim nascentium uitalem praestant effectum simulque locis aridis siti auxilio sunt.\n\nEt ut professionem sine bona uita non ualde proficere ostenderet, ait: quis ascendet in montem domini aut quis stabit in loco sancto eius? proponit qualis debeat esse qui deum creatorem profitetur, ne, quia puniendos ostendit, qui, sicut dixi, dominium deo abnegant, hi qui confitentur inmunes se a poena scirent non esse, si recte minime uersarentur. montem ergo domini dicens caelum significauit. unde in alio psalmo dicit: leuaui oculos meos ad montes, unde ueniet auxilium mihi. locus autem domini est ubi apparet. dicitur autem ad Iesu Naue, cum dominus ei apparuisset: et locus, in quo tu stas, terra sancta est, et Iacob, ubi dominum uidit: hic est, ait, domus dei.","english":"And he added: “And over the rivers he prepared it.” Thus it is prepared over the rivers, while it holds within itself waters stored up, which, flowing as if through the channels of veins, provide it with density, lest it be utterly dry, brittle, and useless for cultivation. For they supply a vital effect to the roots of growing things and at the same time are of help to arid places as an aid against thirst.\n\nAnd to show that profession without a good life is not very profitable, he says: “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord, or who will stand in his holy place?” He sets forth what sort of person one ought to be who professes God the Creator, lest, because he showed that those who deny dominion to God are to be punished, those who confess might know that they are not immune from punishment if they do not conduct themselves rightly. Therefore, by saying “the mountain of the Lord,” he signified heaven. Hence in another psalm he says: “I lifted my eyes to the mountains, whence help would come to me.” But “the place of the Lord” is where he appears. Moreover, it is said to Joshua son of Nun, when the Lord had appeared to him: “And the place where you stand is holy ground,” and to Jacob, where he saw the Lord: “This,” he says, “is the house of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":327,"ref":"p327","source":"Et sequitur: innocens manibus et mundus corde. tunc dicit dignum esse ascendere in montem domini, id est in caelum, aut stare in loco sancto eius, si quis innocens fuerit operibus et mundum cor habeat in causa dei, id est fidei. huius modi enim potest in caelum ascendere et stare in loco sancto eius. defuncta enim hac uita ascendit b caelum. deinde cum ciuitate Hierusalem in aduentu domini descendet de caelo dignus stare ubi iudicaturus est dominus de uiuis et mortuis quasi innocens; impii autem et peccatores indigni erunt stare in loco sancto iudicii dei, qui resurgent, impii ad perditionem, peccatores ad poenam. nam si uultum Moysi glorificatum descendentis de monte filii Israhel peccati causa uidere non poterant, quanto magis ipsum gloriae dominum in throno maiestatis sedentem conscientia delictis obnoxia formidabit aspicere! audient enim: non noui uos, operarii iniquitatis.","english":"And it follows: “innocent in hands and pure in heart.” Then it says that one is worthy to ascend the mountain of the Lord, that is, into heaven, or to stand in his holy place, if one has been innocent in works and has a pure heart in the matter of God, that is, of faith. For a person of this kind can ascend into heaven and stand in his holy place. For when this life is ended, he ascends into heaven. Then, with the city of Jerusalem, at the coming of the Lord he will descend from heaven, worthy to stand where the Lord is to judge the living and the dead, as an innocent person; but the impious and sinners will be unworthy to stand in the holy place of God’s judgment; they will rise again, the impious to destruction, the sinners to punishment. For if the children of Israel, because of sin, could not see the glorified face of Moses descending from the mountain, how much more will a conscience burdened by sins dread to look upon the Lord of glory himself, seated on the throne of majesty! For they will hear: “I do not know you, workers of iniquity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":328,"ref":"p328","source":"Et adiecit: qui non accepit in uano animam suam. nunc ipsa genera peccatorum tangit. primo enim in loco hic est innocens et mundum cor habet, qui a fornicatione idolatriae inmunis est. ipsa est enim uanitas, cui qui se inclinat animam suam subiugat corruptioni.\n\nEt sequitur: nec iurauit proximo suo in dolum. duas causas memorauit, quae sunt principales, dei et proximi, quia qui in his idoneus fuerit, sine dubio et in ceteris probatus habebitur dicente domino: diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex omni uirtute tua. hoc est primum mandatum. et secundum simile illi: diliges proximum tibi tamquam teipsum. inhisduobus mandatis tota lex pendet et profetae. quis ergo ex toto corde dominum diligens legem eius non seruet? aut quis habens proximi caritatem peccatis studeat, quippe cum causa timoris dei diligat proximum?\n\nEtsubiecit:hic accipiet benedictionem a domino et misericordiam a deo salutari suo. nunc quodmeritum eius sit, qui in causa dei et hominis*, creatoris et proximi, fidem habuerit et dilectionem, ostendit, quia et benedicetur a domino,. ut commendatus appareat, et in his misericordiam consequetur, quae implere non potuit.","english":"And he added: “who has not taken his soul in vain.” Now he touches upon the kinds of sins themselves. For in the first place, one is innocent and has a pure heart who is immune from the fornication of idolatry. For that itself is vanity, and whoever inclines himself to it subjects his soul to corruption.\n\nAnd it follows: “nor has he sworn deceitfully to his neighbor.” He has mentioned two causes, which are principal: of God and of neighbor, because whoever has been fit in these will without doubt be considered approved also in the rest, as the Lord says: “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. And a second similar to it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments the whole Law and the Prophets depend. Therefore, who, loving the Lord with his whole heart, would not keep his law? Or who, having charity for his neighbor, would devote himself to sins, especially since he loves his neighbor because of the fear of God?\n\nAnd he subjoined: “This one will receive a blessing from the Lord and mercy from God his savior.” Now he shows what the merit is of one who has had faith and love in the cause of God and of man, of the Creator and of the neighbor, because he will both be blessed by the Lord, so that he appears commended, and will obtain mercy in those things which he could not fulfill.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":329,"ref":"p329","source":"nec enim tam circumspectus potest aliquis esse, ut nusquam erret, sed quia in magnis sollicitus et fidelis inuentus est, in minimis misericordiam accipiet a deo suo, qui ideo salutaris dicitur, quia non uult morientis mortem, sed ut reuertatur et uiuat.\n\nEt sequitur: haec est generatio requirentium illum, quaerentium faciem dei Iacob. unam dixit esse generationem requirentium deum et quaerentium faciem dei Iacob, quod non est otiosum. quamuis enim utrumque bonum sit, duos tamen gradus his dictis significauit. bonum est requirere deum, plenum autem est bonum quaerere faciem dei Iacob. digniores enim sunt, qui ante faciem iudicis sunt. horum ergo meritorum haec est generatio. quia, ut ad hoc ueniatur, innocentia facit et puritas cordis, sicut iterum, ut ad malum possit uenire, praecurrit iniustitia adque iniquitas, quia duae generationes sunt, una ex parte iniquitatis, quae est mater Cain, alia ex parte iustitiae, quae est mater Abel. haec in fide consistit et bona conuersatione, illa in perfidia et obliquis operibus. istae sunt duae leges, boni et mali, dei et diaboli, et quam secutus quis fuerit, eius appellabitur filius. ac per hoc requirentium deum generatio haec est: fides in deum et dilectio in proximum, sicut supra diximus.","english":"For no one can be so circumspect as never to err, but because one is found to be diligent and faithful in important matters, he will receive mercy from his God in the smallest things, who is called the Savior because he does not desire the death of the dying, but that he should return and live.\n\nAnd it follows: “This is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.” He said that the generation of those who seek God and those who seek the face of the God of Jacob is one, which is not without significance. For although both are good, he indicated two grades by these words. It is good to seek God, but it is the full good to seek the face of the God of Jacob. For those who are before the face of the judge are more worthy. This, therefore, is the generation of these merits. Because, in order to arrive at this, innocence and purity of heart are necessary, just as, again, in order to be able to come to evil, injustice and iniquity precede, because there are two generations, one on the side of iniquity, which is the mother of Cain, the other on the side of justice, which is the mother of Abel. This one consists in faith and good conduct, that one in faithlessness and crooked works. These are the two laws, of good and evil, of God and the devil, and whichever one a person has followed, he will be called its son. And through this, the generation of those who seek God is this: faith in God and love for one’s neighbor, as we said above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":330,"ref":"p330","source":"qui enim fidem habet in deum, semper eius quaeret auxilium; nec hominibus iniustum se praebeat, qui uult deum habere propitium, cuius signum hoc est cum dicitur: (deus Iacob', quia notus Iudaea deus. et quare faciem dei quaerere dicantur, cum audierit Moyses, quia non, inquit, uidebitur tibi facies mea? si ergo et Moyses faciem dei quaesiuit et uidere non potuit, frustra hi quaerere dicuntur, quia meliores Moysi non sunt. sed nemo frustra faciem dei quaerere dicendus est, quia ideo faciem dei dicuntur quaerere, ut sciatur, quem quaerunt quia digni sunt et uidere. omnis enim qui quaeritur, tunc cognoscitur, si facies eius uideatur. sed quoniam a mortalibus facies dei uideri non potest, significatio haec pro facie est, cum dicitur: 'deus Iacob'.\n\nDIAPSALMA. Diapsalma hoc in loco personae inmutationem significat. post enim illa, quae ad patris dei personam pertinent, subiungit ea quae ad filii dei pertinent sacramentum, ut ordo integer conseruetur patris et filii. nam lex data est per Moysen, ut quasi pedagogus esset hominibus erudiens eos et praeparans magistra iustitia, ut digni fierent ad excipiendum annum domini et diem retributionis, ut, qui sub spe futuri Christi fideles fuissent, susciperent eum et possent Adae peccatum effugere de suis securi, quia aduentus eius, quem sperauerant, daturus illis esset misericordiam de his, in quibus subreptum est illis ut delinquerent.","english":"For he who has faith in God will always seek his help; nor should he show himself unjust to men, who wishes to have God propitious, whose sign this is when it is said: 'the God of Jacob', because the God of Judaea is known. And why are they said to seek the face of God, when Moses heard, because, he says, my face will not be seen by you? If therefore even Moses sought the face of God and could not see it, these are said to seek it in vain, because they are not better than Moses. But no one is to be said to seek the face of God in vain, because they are said to seek the face of God for this reason, that it may be known whom they seek, because they are worthy also to see. For everyone who is sought is then recognized, if his face is seen. But since the face of God cannot be seen by mortals, this signification stands for the face, when it is said: 'the God of Jacob'.\n\nDIAPSALMA. Diapsalma in this place signifies a change of person. For after those things which pertain to the person of God the Father, it subjoins those which pertain to the sacrament of God the Son, so that the complete order of Father and Son is preserved. For the law was given through Moses, so that he might be like a tutor to men, instructing them and preparing them by the teaching of justice, that they might become worthy to receive the year of the Lord and the day of retribution, so that those who had been faithful under the hope of the future Christ might receive him and be able to escape the sin of Adam, secure in themselves, because his coming, which they had hoped for, would give them mercy concerning those things in which they were overtaken so as to transgress.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":331,"ref":"p331","source":"hoc est quod superius memorauit dicens: accipiet misericordiam a deo salutari suo.\n\nDicit ergo: tollite portas principis uestri. haec uox sanctorum est angelorum, de quibus dicit in euangelio, quia accesserunt, inquit, angeli et ministrabant ei. hi ergo dicunt ad principes et potestates, aduersus quos nobis conluctationem esse dicit apostolus, ut tollant portas principis sui, id est diaboli, qui est princeps principum in errore constitutorum, per quas itur in gehennam. hae portae perfidia est et fallacia idolatriae.\n\nEt sequitur: et eleuamini, portae aeternales. fides et spes cum caritate portae sunt aeternales, quia non potest aboleri quod per ueritatem praedicatur. illae autem portae, quas dixi perfidiam esse et fallaciam idolorum, temporales sunt, quia omne mendacium non pertinet; manifestata enim ueritate interibit. docentur ergo ut tollant portas principis sui, id est, ut amoto multorum deorum errore unius dei fides introducatur in Christo. hoc est quod se apostolus edocere missum testatur, ut ostendat non solum hominibus, sed et principibus et potestatibus in caelestibus mysterium dei unius in Christo.","english":"This is what he mentioned above, saying: he will receive mercy from his saving God.\n\nTherefore he says: lift up the gates of your prince. This is the voice of the holy angels, of whom it is said in the Gospel: and the angels came, it says, and ministered to him. These, then, speak to the princes and powers, against whom the apostle says we have a struggle, that they lift up the gates of their prince, that is, the devil, who is the prince of princes among those established in error, through which one goes into gehenna. These gates are the perfidy and deceit of idolatry.\n\nAnd it follows: and be lifted up, eternal gates. Faith and hope with charity are eternal gates, because what is preached through truth cannot be abolished. But those gates, which I said are the perfidy and deceit of idols, are temporal, because all falsehood does not endure; for when truth is revealed, it will perish. Therefore they are taught to lift up the gates of their prince, that is, that with the error of many gods removed, the faith of one God be introduced in Christ. This is what the apostle testifies he was sent to teach, to show not only to men, but also to princes and powers in the heavens, the mystery of the one God in Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":332,"ref":"p332","source":"Et subiecit: et introibit rex gloriae. tollendas dicit fallaces portas diaboli subtilitate conpositas, quae sunt praesumptio, per quam deum se aestimauit, ut introeat rex gloriae, qui est Christus Iesus dominus noster. nullius enim mentem dei fides ingreditur, nisi tulerit a se errorem diaboli praeuaricatione inuentum, et principes supra memorati non possint in unius dei fidem Christum regem recipere, nisi proiecerint a se traditionem, per quam uni deo inportatur calumnia, non solum terrenam, sed et eam, quae in caelestibus usurpata est principe principum satana, quia illic errorem, quem inter se conspirarunt, ut auctore diabolo deos se dicerent, etiam hic in terra disposuerunt, ut hic error illius imago sit.\n\nEt sequitur: quis est iste rex gloriae? ne superuacue forte regem Christum gloriae dicere putaretur, interrogantis ponit personam et dicentis: quis est iste rex gloriae? qui quasi admiretur aut doceri se uelit, si uerum est et condignum dicere Christum regem gloriae.","english":"And he added: “and the king of glory will enter.” He says that the deceitful gates, constructed by the subtlety of the devil, are to be removed; these gates are presumption, through which he [the devil] esteemed himself a god, so that the king of glory, who is Christ Jesus our Lord, may enter. For the faith of God enters no one’s mind unless he has removed from himself the error of the devil, invented through prevarication; and the aforementioned princes cannot receive Christ the king into the faith of the one God unless they have cast off from themselves the tradition by which calumny is brought upon the one God—not only the earthly tradition, but also that which was usurped in the heavens by the prince of princes, Satan, because the error which they conspired among themselves, with the devil as author, to call themselves gods, they also established here on earth, so that this error might be an image of that one.\n\nAnd it follows: “Who is this king of glory?” Lest it be thought that he called Christ the king of glory superfluously, he assumes the person of one asking and saying: “Who is this king of glory?”—as if he marvels or wishes to be taught whether it is true and fitting to call Christ the king of glory.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":333,"ref":"p333","source":"Ideoque respondetur ei: dominus fortis et potens, dominus potens in proelio, ut hoc subiecto non nudis uerbis, sed cum testimonio regem gloriae Christum addisceret. uirtus enim et potentia qua subegit et pressit diabolum cum satellitibus eius, haec ostendunt illum regem esse gloriae.\n\nEt adiecit: tollite portas principis uestri et eleuamini, portae aeternales. hoc est, quoniam uirtutis testimonio, cui contradici nefarium est, didicistis dignum esse Christum dici regem gloriae, auferte errorem de mentibus uestris.\n\nEt ait: et introibit rex gloriae. ostenditur enim quia non possunt participari cum fide Christi, nisi emundauerint corda sua ab omni inmunditia idolatriae. nisi enim innouatus fuerit homo, non intrabit spiritus sanctus in eum.\n\nEt sequitur: quis est iste rex gloriae? iteratio ista confirmationem facit. omne enim, quod nouum auditur, non concipitur corde, nisi iteretur. admiratio enim stuporem facit, cum dicitur quod auditum est numquam.","english":"Therefore, it is answered to him: \"The Lord is strong and mighty, the Lord is powerful in battle,\" so that, with this subject introduced, he might learn not through bare words but with testimony that Christ is the King of Glory. For the virtue and power by which he subdued and crushed the devil along with his satellites—these show him to be the King of Glory.\n\nAnd he added: \"Take away the gates of your prince and raise yourselves up, eternal gates.\" That is, since by the testimony of virtue, which it is impious to contradict, you have learned that it is fitting for Christ to be called the King of Glory, remove the error from your minds.\n\nAnd he says: \"And the King of Glory will enter.\" For it is shown that they cannot share in the faith of Christ unless they have cleansed their hearts from all the filth of idolatry. For unless a man has been renewed, the Holy Spirit will not enter into him.\n\nAnd it follows: \"Who is this King of Glory?\" This repetition creates confirmation. For everything that is heard anew is not conceived in the heart unless it is repeated. For wonder causes astonishment when what has never been heard is spoken.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":334,"ref":"p334","source":"Et adiecit: dominus uirtutum ipse est rex gloriae. eadem repetendo docet rite dici hunc regem gloriae. qui sit dominus uirtutum. non inmerito enim rex gloriae appellatur, qui uirtutibus dominatur. unde apostolus: si enim intellexissent, ait, numquam dominum maiestatis cruci fixissent.\n\nCXII. DE PSALMO L.\n\nQuinquagensimus hic psalmus positus est non pro temporis in ordine, sed ratione. titulus enim eius non numero, sed rationi subiectus est. quantum enim ad historiam pertinet, anterior est quam tertius. prius enim a profeta Nathan delicti causa correptus est, quam insurgeret contra illam filius eius Abessalon, ut eum uellet et uita et regno priuare. haec ergo causa est ut quinquagensimus poneretur, quam constat ex lege descendere. illic enim cautum est quinquagensimum numerum remissionem habere. est enim post septem septimanas primus typum habens dominici diei, quia, sicut post septem dies primus dies ipse est, qui initio factus est, qui semper finita septimana primus est, ita et post septem septimanas quinquagensimus numeratus in mysterio primus est, qui duplici genere (dominicus dies* appellatur, primum quia in initio factus a domino est, qui semper in se conuersus per curricula impleta septimana primus est, deinde, quia in eo resurrexit triumfata morte, dominicus dies nuncupatur.","english":"And he added: \"The Lord of hosts is Himself the King of glory.\" By repeating the same thing, he teaches that it is rightly said that this one is the King of glory, who is the Lord of hosts. For not undeservedly is He called King of glory, who rules over the virtues. Whence the Apostle says: \"For if they had understood,\" he says, \"they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty.\"\n\nCXII. ON PSALM 50.\n\nThis fiftieth psalm is placed not according to the order of time, but according to reason. For its title is subject not to number, but to reason. For as far as history is concerned, it is earlier than the third. For the prophet Nathan first rebuked him on account of a fault, before his son Absalom rose up against him, wishing to deprive him both of life and of kingship. This, therefore, is the reason why it was placed as the fiftieth, which is known to derive from the Law. For it is provided there that the number fifty has remission. For it is after seven weeks the first, having the type of the Lord's day, because, just as after seven days the first day itself is the one which was made at the beginning, which is always the first when the week is finished, so also after seven weeks the fiftieth, counted in mystery, is the first, which is called the Lord's day in a twofold manner: first, because it was made by the Lord at the beginning, which, always turning back upon itself through completed cycles of the week, is the first; then, because on it He rose again, having triumphed over death, it is called the Lord's day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":335,"ref":"p335","source":"non inmerito ergo in quinquagensimo numero, quem - in mysterio primum significatum aduertimus, remissio continetur. denique lex quinquagensimo die data est. a profectione enim filiorum Israhel ex Aegypto quadragensimo et octauo die ablui iubentur, ut biduo purificati tertio die parati essent ad legem accipiendam. quae ablutio quid aliud indicat quam remissionem factam in quinquagensimo die, ut purificati legem acciperent, ex quo de cetero praeteritis obliteratis actus sui redderent rationem secundum creditam sibi legem? hac etiam ratione possessionem emtam quinquagensimo anno remitti debere praecepit lex. hinc est ergo unde et psalmus hic quinquagensimus titulatus est.\n\nIn hoc enim rex Dauid remissionem postulat secundum supra dictum sensum; unde ait: misereremei, deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. sciens rex Dauid grauiter se peccasse sic postulat dicens: miserere mei, deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. magna enim misericordia tunc est, cum grandia ignoscit peccata.","english":"Not undeservedly, therefore, is remission contained in the fiftieth number, which we note is signified first in the mystery. Finally, the law was given on the fiftieth day. For from the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, on the forty-eighth day they are ordered to be washed, so that, purified for two days, on the third day they would be ready to receive the law. This washing indicates nothing other than the remission made on the fiftieth day, so that, purified, they might receive the law, from which point, with past things blotted out, they would render an account of their deed according to the law entrusted to them. By this same reasoning, the law also commands that a purchased possession should be remitted in the fiftieth year. Hence, therefore, it is that this psalm is entitled the fiftieth.\n\nIn this psalm, King David seeks remission according to the sense mentioned above; hence he says: \"Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy.\" Knowing that he has sinned gravely, King David thus petitions, saying: \"Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy.\" For great mercy is then, when it forgives great sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":336,"ref":"p336","source":"Et adiecit: et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum dele iniquitatem meam. ut manifestaret acerbe se deliquisse, peccatum suum iniquitatem appellat, quia iniquitas non leue peccatum est, et qui delet iniquitatem, hoc est non inputat, miseratione abundat. nihil ergo in causa sua excusare nititur, ut non solum animum sibi iudicis mitiget, sed et faciat condolere. commouetur enim animus ad misericordiam, quando uidet reum sic sua confiteri! peccata, ut ostendat dolere sibi quia peccauit. cui enim non dolet, inridere uidetur iudicem, quia ideo precatur, ut euadat interim postea eadem facturus.\n\nEt sequitur: usque quaque, inquit, laua me ab iniustitia mea et a delicto meo munda me. quoniam multam miserationem dei praedicat, penitus se mundari precatur, ut nihil remaneat delicti aut iniustitiae in eo, unde suspectus sit.\n\nEt ut hoc ipsum obtinere possit uel impetrare, adiecit: quoniam iniquitatem meam ego agnosco et delictum meum contra me est semper. quoniam grauiter scit se peccasse, sollicitus est ne non totum ei remittatur. considerans enim magnitudinem peccatorum suorum timet sciens grauia peccata non facile ignosci; ac per hoc cum fletibus confitetur peccatum suum ante oculos habens. ut ex omni parte propitium sibi faciat iudicem. scit enim scriptum esse: dic prior iniquitates tuas, ut iustificeris.","english":"And he added: \"And according to the multitude of your mercies, blot out my iniquity.\" To make clear that he had sinned grievously, he calls his sin \"iniquity,\" because iniquity is not a light sin, and one who blots out iniquity—that is, does not hold it against him—abounds in mercy. He therefore attempts no excuse in his own case, so as not only to soften the mind of the judge but also to make him feel compassion. For the mind is moved to mercy when it sees the accused confessing his sins in such a way that he shows he grieves that he sinned. For one who does not grieve seems to mock the judge, because he prays in order to escape for the moment, only to do the same things afterward.\n\nAnd it follows: \"Wash me thoroughly,\" he says, \"from my injustice, and cleanse me from my offense.\" Since he proclaims the great mercy of God, he prays to be cleansed completely, so that nothing of offense or injustice remains in him, on account of which he might be suspect.\n\nAnd in order to be able to obtain or secure this very thing, he added: \"Because I acknowledge my iniquity, and my offense is always against me.\" Since he knows that he has sinned gravely, he is anxious lest not everything be remitted to him. For, considering the magnitude of his sins, he fears, knowing that grave sins are not easily forgiven; and through this, he confesses his sin with tears, keeping it before his eyes, so as to make the judge propitious to him in every respect. For he knows that it is written: \"First declare your iniquities, that you may be justified.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":337,"ref":"p337","source":"Et sequitur: tibi soli peccaui et malum coram te feci. nunc ex alia parte causae suae medellam prospicit, ut ad effectum postulationem deducat. hac enim prosecutione in prima causa innocentem se dicit, quia qui alteri deo peccat inimicus est auctoris dei. in locum enim eius alterum eligit, cui auctoritatem eius adscribat. unde hic ab hac se iniquitate alienum ostendens: tibi, ait, soli peccaui et malum coram te feci, hoc est: 'quia tibi et nulli alii, quem deum per errorem dicerem, peccaui, minor mea causa est quam ceterorum, qui sunt perditioni obnoxii. non enim impius sum, sed peccator, quia non in te, sed in lege tua peccaui, nec te negaui, sed te deum et dominum confitens in homine peccaui. ergo quia in illa, quae tua propria causa est, reus non sum, ignosce quod in conseruum peccaui. sic enim peccaui, ut honorificentiam nominis tui nec negarem nec alteri darem'. fuit itaque unde commoueretur ad misericordiam iudex. cum enim multi in illum peccent, quos etiam hortatur ad se conuerti, dum hi, qui non in illum peccant, ex aliis tamen causis ueniam postulant, libenter admittit. semper enim dominus ad auxilium suum uult confugere seruos suos.","english":"And he continued: \"I have sinned against you alone and done evil before you.\" Now from another aspect of his case he looks to his remedy, so as to bring his petition to effect. For by this plea in the first cause he declares himself innocent, because one who sins against another god is an enemy of the author God. For he chooses another in his place, to whom he ascribes his authority. Hence, showing himself free from this iniquity, he says: \"I have sinned against you alone and done evil before you,\" that is: 'Because I have sinned against you and no other, whom I would mistakenly call god, my case is less serious than that of others who are liable to perdition. For I am not impious, but a sinner, because I have sinned not against you, but against your law, and I have not denied you, but, confessing you as God and Lord, I have sinned as a man. Therefore, since I am not guilty in that which is your own proper cause, forgive me for having sinned against a fellow servant. For I have sinned in such a way that I neither denied the honor of your name nor gave it to another.' So there was reason for the judge to be moved to mercy. For since many sin against him, whom he even urges to turn to him, while those who do not sin against him, but seek pardon for other reasons, he readily admits. For the Lord always wants his servants to flee to his aid.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":338,"ref":"p338","source":"Unde adiecit: ut iustificeris in sermonibus tuis et uincas, cum iudicaris. misericordiam postulans deum iustitiam suam non inmutare precatur, cum soleat media esse iustitia, ut non peccantibus et peccantibus aequa sit, id est, ut uni cuique reddat secundum opera sua. sed non ignorat quid postulet uir innocens in dei sacramento. sciens enim dominum frequenter in lege dixisse, quia misericors, inquit, sum ego dominus deus uester, inde rogat ut haec fides maneat et in sermonibus suis deus iustificetur, dum in eo permanet, quod locutus est, nec peccatis hominum uincitur, ut non misereatur. scientes enim qui peccant, quae promisit deus bene uiuentibus, et quia in eo perdurant, iudicant illum mendacem. non enim credunt male uiuendo uera esse quae promisit. idcirco petit rex Dauid ut uincat hoc deus, quod putant homines, et det quae promisit, ut erubescant qui, dum non seruant mandata, iudicant illum non daturum.","english":"Therefore he added: \"So that you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged.\" Begging for mercy, he prays that God not change his justice, since justice is usually impartial, so that it is equal for those who do not sin and those who sin, that is, that it renders to each according to his works. But the innocent man in the sacrament of God does not fail to know what he asks. For knowing that the Lord frequently said in the Law, \"For I am merciful,\" says the Lord your God, he therefore asks that this faith remain and that God be justified in his words, while he persists in what he has spoken, and is not overcome by the sins of men so as not to show mercy. For those who sin, knowing what God promised to those who live well, and because they persist in sin, they judge him a liar. For by living wickedly they do not believe that what he promised is true. Therefore King David asks that God overcome this, what men think, and give what he promised, so that those who, while not keeping the commandments, judge that he will not give, may be put to shame.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":339,"ref":"p339","source":"Et sequitur: ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. nunc hoc adiecto causam et infirmitatem humani generis memorat — quia facile est homini peccare —, ut examen circa se iudicis mitiget. primae enim causae facit mentionem, ex qua praeuaricando Adam genus hominum obnoxium fecit peccato. suasu enim et fallacia inimici iniquitatem concipiendo omne semen suum iniquitati subiecit, ut ex eo omnes per traducem geniti peccato essent obnoxii.\n\nPropterea adiecit: et in delictis concepit me mater mea, ut ab Adam deriuatio facta peccati conceptis et natis inpedimento esset ad bonam uitam agendam; ac per hoc supplici non negandam misericordiam, quia insertum habet hostem, qui ei suadet ut peccet. peccatum enim, qui est diabolus, subiecto sibi primo homine potestatem accepit carni eius se inserere et delictorum quadam subtilitate oblectamenta suggerere, per quod captum hominem spoliat uita. quam rem magister gentium memorans: uideo autem, inquit, aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis. meae, ut hoc contuens iudex dolenti circumuentum se porrigat manum.","english":"And it follows: \"Behold, for I was conceived in iniquities.\" Now by this addition he recalls the cause and weakness of the human race—because it is easy for man to sin—so that he may soften the judge's scrutiny concerning himself. For he makes mention of the first cause, from which Adam, by transgressing, made the human race liable to sin. For by the persuasion and deceit of the enemy, in conceiving iniquity, he subjected all his seed to iniquity, so that from him all born through the line of descent would be liable to sin.\n\nTherefore he added: \"And my mother conceived me in sins,\" so that the derivation of sin made from Adam would be an impediment to those conceived and born for living a good life; and through this, mercy should not be denied to the suppliant, because he has an enemy implanted within him, who persuades him to sin. For sin, which is the devil, having subjected the first man to himself, received the power to insert himself into his flesh and to suggest enticements through a certain subtlety of sins, by which he despoils the captured man of life. The teacher of the Gentiles, recalling this matter, says: \"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,\" so that the judge, beholding this, may extend a helping hand to the one who is distressed and ensnared.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":340,"ref":"p340","source":"Et sequitur: ecce enim ueritatem dilexisti. (quia ergo ueritatem diligis', inquit, 'subueni roganti et quem scis uera pectoris sui inpedimenta exponere cuique reo olim motus misericordia subuenire decreuisti, ut errorem admissum in terra caelestis prouidentia emendaret).\n\nPropter quod subiecit: incerta et occulta cordis manifestasti mihi. 'incerta et occulta cordis'haec significat, quae deus ad praesidium humani generis procurauit, sicut et apostolus: quod oculus, inquit, non uidit nec auris audiuit nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparauit deus diligentibus se. qui sunt qui diligunt deum, nisi qui legi eius consentiunt non celando nec excusando peccata? haec ergo occulta cordis manifestata sunt diligentibus deum et, quia dolebant delictis se circumueniri nec correpti negabant sibi et origini suae inputantes, in auctorem deum transferentes quae peccabant, corda eorum inluminata sunt spiritali corusco, ut uiderent dei prouidentiam in Christo, quia uenturus erat ad damnandum peccatum, quod ex praeuaricatione Adae humano generi imperabat. hoc ergo orat rex Dauid, ut, quod decreuerat deus in futurum uidens genus hominum laborare, sibi prius subueniret in eadem necessitate constricto, in qua omnibus se decreuerat subuenturum, ut donum, quod gratuitum futurum erat et ante tempus dari non poterat, huic pro prece et lacrimis concederetur.","english":"And it follows: \"Behold, for you loved truth.\" (Therefore, because you love truth, he says, come to the aid of one who prays, and to one whom you know to lay bare the true impediments of his heart, and for whom, as a guilty man, you once resolved, moved by mercy, to come to his aid, so that an error committed on earth might be corrected by heavenly providence.)\n\nOn account of this he subjoined: \"You have revealed to me the uncertain and hidden things of the heart.\" By \"the uncertain and hidden things of the heart\" he means those things which God provided for the protection of the human race, just as the Apostle says: \"What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man,\" which things God prepared for those who love him. Who are those who love God, if not those who consent to his law, not concealing nor excusing sins? Therefore these hidden things of the heart have been revealed to those loving God, and because they grieved that they were ensnared by their faults and, when corrected, did not deny them, imputing them to themselves and their origin, transferring to God the author what they sinned, their hearts were illuminated by a spiritual flash, so that they might see God's providence in Christ, because he was to come to condemn sin, which from the transgression of Adam held sway over the human race. Therefore King David prays that what God had decreed for the future, seeing the human race laboring, might first come to his aid, constrained as he was in the same necessity in which God had decreed he would come to the aid of all, so that the gift, which was to be free and could not be given before its time, might be granted to him in return for his prayer and tears.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":341,"ref":"p341","source":"Quod quo modo fiat, non tacet dicens: asparges me hysopo et mundabor. recte asparsione hysopi petit se mundari. de hoc enim filii Israhel postes suos sanguine linierunt, ut tuti praestarentur a morte; ita et hic asparsione hysopi orat mundari se a peccatis, ne tangatur a morte.\n\nEt sequitur: lauabis me et super niuem dealbabor. manifestum est, quia factum dei distat a facto hominis. ideo super niuem, inquit, dealbabor, quia quod deus fecit multo melius est quam fecit homo. propterea asparsione hysopi petit se mundari, ut, sicut carnale corpus aqua abluitur, ita et per hysopi significationem spiritali ratione animarum maculae abluantur. asparsio enim hysopi inlustratio quaedam est, ut per id, quod uisibile est, inuisibiliter emundetur.\n\nEt sequitur: auditui meo dabis gaudium et laetitiam. dubium non est, quia uox praedicantis remissionem gaudium praestat peccatoribus. quis enim non laetetur, cum audit dari indulgentiam? cui enim deus remittit, et in praesenti et in futuro securus est.","english":"How this is done, he does not conceal, saying: \"You will sprinkle me with hyssop, and I will be cleansed.\" Rightly does he seek to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop. For with this the sons of Israel smeared their doorposts with blood, so that they might be kept safe from death; and so here too, by the sprinkling of hyssop, he prays to be cleansed from sins, lest he be touched by death.\n\nAnd it follows: \"You will wash me, and I will be made whiter than snow.\" It is clear that the work of God differs from the work of man. Therefore he says, \"I will be made whiter than snow,\" because what God has made is far better than what man has made. For this reason he seeks to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop, so that, just as the carnal body is washed by water, so too through the signification of hyssop the stains of souls may be washed away by spiritual reason. For the sprinkling of hyssop is a kind of illumination, so that through what is visible, one may be cleansed invisibly.\n\nAnd it follows: \"You will give joy and gladness to my hearing.\" There is no doubt that the voice of one preaching remission brings joy to sinners. For who does not rejoice when he hears that indulgence is given? For one to whom God grants remission is secure both in the present and in the future.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":342,"ref":"p342","source":"Propterea exultabunt ossa humiliata. duplici genere sunt ossa humiliata, quia et ut peccaret humiliatus est — nemo enim peccans exaltatur — et ut postea subplex ueniam imploraret. nam utique in cilicio et cinere uolutatus misericordiam precabatur, quam obtinens eleuatus est mentis exultatione et corporis refectione.\n\nEt subiecit: auerte faciem tuam a peccatis meis et omnes iniquitates meas dele. hac forma remissionem postulat, sicut constitutum erat in futurum per fidem Christi, ut saluator, qui ei specialiter promissus ab ipso inciperet cuncta conuersis donare peccata. cuius enim non respiciuntur peccata et omnes delentur iniquitates, non habet unde reus constitui et inimicorum eius ora clauduntur. qui enim non respicit peccata, non illa inputat. hoc est enim auertere faciem a peccatis alicuius, accusationem contra eum non recipere. et quid est hoc, ut, cum de duobus peccatis correptus sit, hic addat de multis se accusando? et cum audierit a profeta Nathan quia ignotum erat ei, quare sic postulat sedula prece, ut possit ad ueniam peruenire, nisi quia non suam solius causam agit, sed sub occasione peccati sui totius populi miserias narrat? sibi enim reformationem precatur, quia cui ignoscitur non est sine rubore, nisi loco suofuerit redditus, ut dignitas loci ruborem excuset; ceteris autem beneficium dei, quod ad cuncta peccata abluenda futurum erat in Christo, significauit.","english":"Therefore the humbled bones will exult. The humbled bones are of two kinds, because he was humbled both to sin—for no one who sins is exalted—and afterwards to humbly beg for pardon. For indeed, having rolled in sackcloth and ashes, he begged for mercy, and upon obtaining it, he was lifted up with exultation of mind and restoration of body.\n\nAnd he subjoined: \"Turn your face away from my sins and blot out all my iniquities.\" In this form he requests remission, just as it was established for the future through faith in Christ, that the Savior, who was specially promised to him, would begin to grant all sins to those who are converted. For one whose sins are not regarded and all whose iniquities are blotted out has no ground on which to be held guilty, and the mouths of his enemies are closed. For he who does not regard sins does not impute them. For this is what it means to turn the face away from someone's sins: not to accept an accusation against him. And what is this, that, when he has been rebuked for two sins, he here adds by accusing himself of many? And when he heard from the prophet Nathan—because it was unknown to him—why he so earnestly prays with such a petition that he might attain pardon, is it not because he is not pleading his own cause alone, but under the occasion of his own sin he recounts the miseries of the whole people? For he prays for reformation for himself, because one who is forgiven is not without shame unless he has been restored to his place, so that the dignity of the place excuses the shame; but for the others, he signified the benefit of God, which was to come in Christ for washing away all sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":343,"ref":"p343","source":"Et sequitur: cor mundum crea in me, deus, et spiritum iustum dedica in uisceribus meis; hoc est bona mente misericordiam deprecari. non solum autem de praeteritis rogat, sed et de futuris sollicitus est ne peccet, ut ostendens odisse peccare se adiuuetur a deo per spiritum iustitiae, quem orat dedicari in uisceribus suis, id est, ut nouus ad hoc ponatur in eo, ut custodiat eum a peccatis, ne cogatur facere quod scitur nolle. cor autem mundum sic potest habere, si neque intus neque foris delinquat, hoc est neque in opere neque in cogitatione. quod quia prope inpossibile est ut in omnibus seruetur, uel in dei causa seruandum est, quae principalis est, ut mundum cor in sacramento dei et Christi custodiatur, dum fides eorum inuiolata seruatur, quia in alio psalmo ait: quis gloriabitur mundum se habere cor aut inmunem esse a peccatis? denique rex Dauid mundum cor habuit-in causa dei, quia neque auxilium aliquando a uanitate quaesiuit, quae est idolatria, neque aliquid sibi a deo praeceptum non impleuit.","english":"And it follows: \"Create a pure heart in me, O God, and dedicate a righteous spirit in my innermost being\"; that is, to beseech mercy with a good mind. He prays not only about past deeds, but is also anxious about the future, lest he sin, so that, showing he hates to sin, he may be helped by God through the spirit of righteousness, which he prays to be dedicated in his innermost being—that is, that it be placed anew in him, to guard him from sins, so that he is not compelled to do what he is known to be unwilling to do. He can have a pure heart, however, if he offends neither within nor without—that is, neither in deed nor in thought. Because this is nearly impossible to maintain in all things, it must be maintained at least in matters concerning God, which is paramount, so that a pure heart is preserved in the sacrament of God and Christ, while their faith is kept inviolate, since in another psalm he says: \"Who will boast that he has a pure heart or is free from sins?\" Finally, King David had a pure heart—in matters concerning God—because he never sought help from vanity, which is idolatry, nor did he fail to fulfill anything commanded him by God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":344,"ref":"p344","source":"Uideris de ceteris. et adiecit: ne proicias meafacie tua et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me. hic sensus est, quem supra memoraui, quia securus de uenia sollicitus est de reformatione. cui enim ignoscitur solum, solet a facie domini secerni. quamuis enim non in illum uindicetur. in animo tamen domini uel iudicis facinus eius deletum non est. ideo orat, ut penitus peccatum eius deleatur et dignus sit accedere ad faciem domini et iterum profetare, quod et factum. hoc est enim quod dicit: et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me. hic est spiritus profetarum.\n\nEt sequitur: redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui et spiritu principali confirma me. laetitiam dari sibi postulat, quae promissa erat in Christo, ut omnibus maculis ablutus et reparatus laetus esset in salute quaesita, nec amotus, sed confirmatus in regno spiritu sancto, quem ideo principalem dixit, quia super omnem creaturam est, per quem reges regnant.","english":"You see about the rest. And he added: \"Do not cast me from your face, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me.\" This is the sense I mentioned above, because, though secure about forgiveness, he is anxious about restoration. For one who is merely pardoned is usually separated from the master's face. For although no vengeance is taken against him, still, in the mind of the master or judge, his crime has not been erased. Therefore he prays that his sin be completely wiped away and that he be worthy to approach the face of the Lord and to prophesy again, which indeed happened. For this is what he means when he says: \"And do not take your Holy Spirit from me.\" This is the spirit of the prophets.\n\nAnd it follows: \"Give me back the joy of your salvation, and confirm me with the principal spirit.\" He asks that joy be given to him, which had been promised in Christ, so that, washed clean of all stains and restored, he might be joyful in the salvation he sought, and not removed, but confirmed in the kingdom by the Holy Spirit, whom he called \"principal\" because he is above every creature, through whom kings reign.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":345,"ref":"p345","source":"Et subdidit: doceam, inquit, iniquos uias tuas et impii ad te conuertentur. hoc dicit, ut in eo discant iniqui pietatem dei, qua confitentes sibi suscipit peccatores et promouet, nec impios conuersos neclegit, sed hortatur, dum aliis miseretur.\n\nEt sequitur: libera me de sanguine, deus, deus salutis meae. hoc dicto ostendit peccatum suum morte dignum, ut dei misericordiam, quanta sit, praedicet. per hoc enim etiam alios prouocat confugere ad dei clementiam.\n\nUnde subiecit: exultabit lingua mea iustitiam tuam, domine. gaudere se dicit in iustitia domini, quia in eo permanet quod promisit dicens: misericordiam autem meam non amouebo ab eis. laetus ergo Dauid rex et securus in hac parte dei sui iustitiam praedicat.\n\nEt sequitur: labia mea aperies et os meum adnuntiabit laudem tuam. sic labia eius aperit, dum subiectum illum esse non sinit causa peccati. liberati enim os patet, peccatoris enim clausum est os; pudore enim et metu correptus loqui non audet; absolutus autem uel liberatus tripudians praedicat laudem iudicis. nam et apostolus, sicut ipse testatur, propter quod ab omnibus liber esset: os nostrum, ait, patet ad uos, o Corinthii.","english":"And he added: \"Let me teach, he says, the wicked your ways, and the impious will turn to you.\" He says this so that the wicked may learn in him the piety of God, by which God receives sinners who confess to him and advances them, nor does he neglect the impious when they turn, but encourages them, while he shows mercy to others.\n\nAnd it follows: \"Free me from blood, God, God of my salvation.\" By this statement he shows that his sin is worthy of death, so as to proclaim how great God's mercy is. For through this he also provokes others to take refuge in God's clemency.\n\nHence he subjoined: \"My tongue will exult in your justice, Lord.\" He says he rejoices in the Lord's justice, because it persists in what it promised, saying: \"But I will not remove my mercy from them.\" Therefore, King David, joyful and secure in this matter, proclaims the justice of his God.\n\nAnd it follows: \"You will open my lips, and my mouth will announce your praise.\" He opens his lips in this way, because he does not allow him to be subject by reason of sin. For the mouth of a freed man is open; the mouth of a sinner, however, is closed; for, seized by shame and fear, he dares not speak; but one acquitted or freed, rejoicing, proclaims the praise of the judge. For even the apostle, as he himself testifies, because he was free from all: \"Our mouth,\" he says, \"is open to you, O Corinthians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":346,"ref":"p346","source":"Et adiecit: quoniam si uoluisses sacrificium, dedissem utique. hoc de conperto loquitur sciens sanctum Samuhel dixisse ad Saul regem, cum peccatum suum non dolore mentis neque lacrimarum miseratione, sed sacrificii oblatione oblitterari putaret: nou uult, inquit, deus sacrificium magis quam audiri uocem suam, quia huius modi sacrificia damnum possunt facere, non tamen deum placare. deus enim sic placatur, si anima peccati sui memor tribulatione et maerore cordis defleat quod peccauit.\n\nEt sequitur: holocaustis non delectaberis. non delectatur holocaustis deus, sed in huius modi causis. ipse enim animus pro se satis facere debet, non se de foris redimere. nam ista adiutorium praestare possunt, animus autem, quo modo oblectatus est in peccatis, sic tribulari debet in paenitentia et tunc delectabit deum delere eius peccata.\n\nUnde subiecit: sacrificium deo spiritus contribulatus; cor contritum et humiliatum deus non despicit. ostendit quale sacrificium pro peccatis deus suscipit, quia non poterit deum placare, nisi qui laetatus est contra salutem contribulatus fuerit corde, ut reparetur ad uitam. denique omnis inquietus uel indisciplinatus frequenter incurrit, ut membra corporis laedat, quae utique non sine dolore possunt sanitatis recipere medicinam: sic et peccatores non possunt peccata sua redimere, nisi dolorem senserit animus qui peccauit.","english":"And he added: \"For if you had wanted a sacrifice, I would have given it indeed.\" He speaks this from knowledge, knowing that the holy Samuel said to King Saul, when he thought his sin could be obliterated not by grief of mind nor by the compassion of tears, but by the offering of a sacrifice: \"God does not want,\" he says, \"a sacrifice more than he wants his own voice to be heard, because sacrifices of this kind can cause loss, but they cannot appease God.\" For God is appeased in this way: if the soul, mindful of its sin, laments through tribulation and grief of heart what it has sinned.\n\nAnd it follows: \"You will not take delight in burnt offerings.\" God does not take delight in burnt offerings in cases of this kind. For the mind itself must make satisfaction for itself, not redeem itself from outside. For these things can provide assistance, but the mind, just as it took delight in sins, so it ought to be afflicted in penance, and then it will delight God to blot out its sins.\n\nHence he subjoined: \"A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit; a contrite and humiliated heart God does not despise.\" He shows what kind of sacrifice God accepts for sins, because he who rejoiced against his own well-being cannot appease God unless he has been troubled in heart, so that he may be restored to life. Finally, every restless or undisciplined person frequently incurs injury to the members of his body, which certainly cannot receive the medicine of health without pain: so also sinners cannot redeem their sins unless the soul that sinned has felt pain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":347,"ref":"p347","source":"hoc enim iustum est, ut, quia contra rationem gauisus est, secundum rationem patiatur maerorem.\n\nEt sequitur: benigne fac, domine, in bona uoluntate tua Sion. Sion dicens ecclesiam significat, ut adseueratio nostra non inprobabilis uideatur, cui, ut impleat deus promissum suum, suggerit sciens se tunc plenam remissionem accepturum, cum, quod decreuit deus, in Christo impleuerit, id est, ut ab omni peccato liberentur sperantes in salute promissa, quia non solum a propriis, sed et ab Adae peccato, quod per traducem in omnes peruenit, liberabuntur per Christum.\n\nEt adiecit: et aedificentur muri Hierusalem. quid est ut dicat: 'et aedificentur muri Hierusalem'? numquid destructi fuerant? sed muros Hierusalem dicens ecclesiam significat per fidem, quae in Christo disposita erat, construendam, cuius muri sancti esse homines intelleguntur docente nos Apocalypsi Iohannis apostoli, quia et Hierusalem ciuitas et muri eius dei serui sunt intellegendi. sciens ergo per Christum rex Dauid promissum, quod futurum erat ad liberationem seruorum dei, orat ut impleatur, id est, ut per fidem aedificetur ecclesia et liberentur sperantes de hac fide salutem.","english":"For this is just: that because he rejoiced contrary to reason, he should suffer grief according to reason.\n\nAnd it follows: \"Do kindly, O Lord, in your good will, to Sion.\" By saying Sion, he signifies the Church, so that our assertion may not seem improbable; he suggests to God that he fulfill his promise, knowing that he will then receive full remission when what God has decreed is fulfilled in Christ—that is, that those hoping for the promised salvation be freed from every sin, because not only from their own sins, but also from the sin of Adam, which through transmission came to all, they will be freed through Christ.\n\nAnd he added: \"And let the walls of Jerusalem be built.\" What does it mean that he says, \"And let the walls of Jerusalem be built\"? Were they destroyed? But by saying the walls of Jerusalem, he signifies the Church to be built through faith, which was arranged in Christ, whose walls are understood to be holy men, as the Apocalypse of the Apostle John teaches us, because both the city of Jerusalem and its walls are to be understood as servants of God. Therefore, knowing through Christ the promise of King David, which was to come for the liberation of the servants of God, he prays that it be fulfilled—that is, that through faith the Church be built and that those hoping for salvation from this faith be freed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":348,"ref":"p348","source":"Et sequitur: tunc acceptabis sacrificium iustitiae, oblationes et holocausta. hoc dicit, quia oblationes et holocausta tunc accepto ferri haberent, cum ecclesia esset aedificata, et non passim aut secundum consuetudinem, sed sacrificium, inquit, iustitiae acceptabis. iustum est sacrificium, cum condignum munus offertur; porro autem nihil tam iustum est et condignum, nisi ut nos ipsos offeramus deo. quia enim deus spiritus est, spiritalia illi offerenda sunt sacrificia, ut uiuo uiua hostia offeratur. quia enim dixerat in causa peccati sacrificiis carnalibus deum minime delectari, ostendit futurum, quia spiritaliter deo offerendum erat et acceptaret, quia haec deo digna sunt sacrificia, hoc est, in praeteritum minora fuerunt quasi carnalia, nunc maiora, quia spiritalia.\n\nEt adiecit: tunc inponent super altare tuum uitulos. si cessantibus pristinis sacrificiis spiritalia successura sacrificia significauit, quid est ut diceret: 'tunc inponent super altare tuum uitulos*, nisi quia per haec corporalia spiritalia significat, quippe cum dixerit, quia carnalibus non delectatur? uitulos ergo dicens populum nouellum significauit Christi fide renatum, cuius deuotio cottidie super altare domini delibatur. qui enim de ecclesia intellegitur locutus, sacrificia quoque eius spiritalia significasse debet intellegi.","english":"And it follows: \"Then you will accept the sacrifice of righteousness, the offerings and the holocausts.\" He says this because the offerings and holocausts were to be accepted when the Church had been built, and not indiscriminately or according to custom, but, he says, \"you will accept the sacrifice of righteousness.\" A sacrifice is righteous when a worthy gift is offered; moreover, nothing is so just and worthy as that we offer ourselves to God. For because God is spirit, spiritual sacrifices are to be offered to him, so that a living offering is presented to the living one. For because he had said that in the case of sin God is not at all pleased by carnal sacrifices, he shows what would happen: that spiritually it was to be offered to God and he would accept it, because these sacrifices are worthy of God—that is, in the past they were lesser, as it were carnal, now greater, because spiritual.\n\nAnd he added: \"Then they will place calves upon your altar.\" If, with the former sacrifices ceasing, he signified that spiritual sacrifices would succeed them, why is it that he would say: \"Then they will place calves upon your altar,\" except that through these corporeal things he signifies spiritual things, especially since he said that he is not pleased by carnal things? Therefore, by saying \"calves\" he signified a new people reborn in the faith of Christ, whose devotion is daily offered upon the altar of the Lord. For since he is understood to have spoken concerning the Church, he must be understood to have signified also its spiritual sacrifices.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":349,"ref":"p349","source":"CXIII. CUR FILIUS DEI MISSUS SIT ET NON ALIUS.\n\nQuamquam omne, quod facit deus, rationabiliter et prouidenter factum credendum sit, melius tamen puto, si post fidem etiam causa facti possit aduerti, ut quod creditur non ignoretur. unde dominus ait: haec est autem uita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum et uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. primum enim credi debet, sicut a profeta dictum est, deinde sciri quod creditur, quia iam fidelem et in hac re diligentem adiuuat spiritus sanctus, ut cognoscens intellegat fidei rationem. tunc enim plenum habet gaudium credulitatis suae, si quod credit intellegat. hoc est enim fidei robur, hoc inmobile fundamentum, credulitatis addiscere sacramentum. ubi enim sola fides est, non est tam mera deuotio et potest aditum habere subreptio.\n\nUnde uas electionis ideo laborat, ut credentes fidei suae rationem ediscant. cum enim cognouerint, quantus sit cui se crediderunt et quae sit eius potentia, nullo pacto, nulla ratione ab eius spe traduci se patientur. unde dictum legimus: gustate et uidete, quam suauisestdominus, ut data opera cognoscant diuinitatis eius saporem intellegentes nihil sapientius esse quam in Christum credere. quam ob rem ipse magister gentium inter cetera ait: in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi, et iterum: nam scio, inquit, cui credidi, quia potens estdepositummeum custodire.","english":"CXIII. Why the Son of God Was Sent and Not Another.\n\nAlthough everything that God does must be believed to have been done rationally and providentially, I nevertheless think it better if, after faith, the reason for the deed can also be understood, so that what is believed is not unknown. Hence the Lord says: \"This, however, is eternal life: that they may know you alone and the true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent.\" For first one must believe, as it was said by the prophet; then one must know what is believed, because the Holy Spirit already aids the faithful and diligent person in this matter, so that by understanding he may grasp the reason for the faith. For then he has full joy in his belief, if he understands what he believes. For this is the strength of faith, this is the immovable foundation: to learn the mystery of belief. For where there is only faith, devotion is not so pure, and deception can find an entrance.\n\nHence the chosen vessel labors so that believers may learn the reason for their faith. For when they have come to know how great is the one to whom they have entrusted themselves and what his power is, they will by no means, for any reason, allow themselves to be led away from hope in him. Hence we read: \"Taste and see how sweet the Lord is,\" so that by deliberate effort they may come to know the savor of his divinity, understanding that nothing is wiser than to believe in Christ. For this reason the teacher of the Gentiles himself says among other things: \"In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,\" and again: \"For I know,\" he says, \"to whom I have entrusted myself, because he is able to guard my deposit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":350,"ref":"p350","source":"igitur hic scit fidei suae rationem et non dubitat de potentia eius, qui intellegit omnes thesauros sapientiae et scientiae in sacramento natiuitatis et passionis et resurrectionis Christi esse absconditos.\n\nManente ergo fide diu mecum contuli, ut scirem cur dominus noster de sacris et caelestibus sedibus ad terram incarnandus uenisset et non alius ex his, quos ipse dominus sanctos angelos uocat. incongruum enim uidetur personae eius hoc opus subisse, nisi causa facti noscatur. denique hoc est quod mouet multos. nam potuit dei patris prouisio per alteram personam hoc negotium gerere, ut et hominibus in errore constitutis ostenderet ueritatem et diabolum praesumtorem et salutis inuidum cum satellitibus eius conprimeret et expoliaret deuictum, quia peruicacia et inreuerentia nequissimorum seruorum ministris famulis fuerat conpescenda, et non dominus omnium rem sibi indignam experiretur.","english":"Therefore, he knows the reason for his faith and does not doubt the power of the one who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the mystery of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ.\n\nWith faith remaining, I have long pondered with myself why our Lord came from the sacred and heavenly abodes to be incarnated on earth, and not another of those whom the Lord Himself calls holy angels. For it seems incongruous to His person to have undertaken this work, unless the reason for the deed is known. Indeed, this is what disturbs many. For the providence of God the Father could have conducted this business through another person, so as both to show the truth to men living in error and to suppress and despoil the devil—the presumptuous one and the envier of salvation—along with his satellites, since the obstinacy and irreverence of the most wicked servants had to be curbed by ministers and servants, and the Lord of all would not have experienced something unworthy of Himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":351,"ref":"p351","source":"Neque enim tanta uis et potentia est satanae, ut per alteram potestatem eiusdem condicionis superari minime potuisset, cum constet dei auxilio istum etiam ab hominibus uinci. nam quamuis impar sit, si ex terrenis sumamus exempla, tamen ex aliqua parte conueni ent rationi. seruum enim contra Dauid regem rebellantem Ioab conseruus eius missus est persequi et trucidare et contra Abessalon in patrem impium seruis iniuncta res est: quanto magis ad tyrannidem diaboli uincendam sancti angeli unius de multis suffecerat efficacia, quippe cum legamus quia repugnans contra Michahel angelum perdurare non potuit, sed proiectus in terram est!\n\nHaec ergo mecum saepe reputans hoc solum sciebam, quia ideo ipse a patre missus est, ne ad iniuriam eius pertineret, si opus per eum factum per alterum reformaret. sed hoc scire minimum erat; non enim satis fiebat ad tam magnam et admirabilem causam, nisi et aliud conprehenderetur, quod proficeret ad arcanum intellectum. sic factum est, ut animaduerterem causam hoc poposcisse, ut hic ueniret qui uenit. ipsum enim ratio tangebat, ut ad eum conprimendum ueniret, qui dignitatem eius et meritum usurpasset. post deum enim patrem diabolus deus dici uoluit, quod etiam nunc usque contendit, cum utique non illum res contingeret, sed esset hoc filii dei, qui post patrem deum secundus est non natura, sed ordine.","english":"For neither is the force and power of Satan so great that he could not have been overcome by another power of the same condition, since it is established that, with God’s help, he is also conquered by men. For although it is unequal, if we take examples from earthly matters, yet it is in some part consistent with reason. For a servant, Joab, was sent against the rebellious King David to pursue and slaughter him, and against the impious Absalom, a task was enjoined upon servants against their father. How much more, for overcoming the tyranny of the devil, would the efficacy of one holy angel out of many have sufficed, especially since we read that, fighting against the angel Michael, he could not endure, but was cast down to earth!\n\nTherefore, often pondering these things with myself, I knew only this: that he himself was sent by the Father, lest it pertain to his injury if the work done through him were reformed through another. But this knowledge was minimal; for it did not suffice for so great and admirable a cause, unless something else were also grasped that would advance the hidden understanding. Thus it happened that I perceived the cause demanded that the one who came should come. For the matter itself concerned him, so that the one who had usurped his dignity and merit should come to suppress him. For after God the Father, the devil wished to be called god, which he still contends even now, although the matter did not pertain to him, but this was the role of the Son of God, who is second after the Father not by nature, but by order.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":352,"ref":"p352","source":"Ad hanc ergo causam agendam non alium oportuit uenire nisi Christum dominum nostrum, quia non tantum ad conprimendum diabolum uenit, sed et manifestare se ipsum omni creaturae, ut reprobata persona diaboli hunc esse cognoscerent, cuius principatum et maiestatem praesumserat satanas, et de cetero cognita ueritate relinquerent errorem pro certo habentes Christum esse dei filium, qui solus deus de deo sit et caput siue principium eorum omnium, quae in caelo sunt siue in terra, quia uirtute et potentia, qua superauit tyrannum satanan, manifestatus est ipse esse, cuius imperium praesumserat impius diabolus, qui est satanas.\n\nDum enim uult inique deus dici, ut dominaretur potentiis spiritalibus — unde increpatur a profeta dicente: tu enim, inquit, dixisti incordetuo:ponam aedem meaminnubibus et ero similis altissimo —, multos decepit, quorum conspiratione princeps erroris est factus, qui in psalmo commonentur, ut reicientes mendacium suscipiant ueritatem. dicitur enim eis: tollite portas principis uestri et eleuamini, portae aeternales, et introibit rex gloriae. nisi enim tollatur error de mentibus incredulorum, non poterunt suscipere fidem unius dei in Christo. hoc enim edocentur, ut sublatis portis, per quas itur ad mortem secundam, quae sunt perfidia a diabolo coepta, suscipiant fidei sacramenta, per quae itur ad uitam.","english":"For this cause, therefore, it was necessary that no one other than Christ our Lord should come, because he came not only to suppress the devil, but also to manifest himself to every creature, so that the rejected person of the devil might recognize him whose primacy and majesty Satan had usurped, and that henceforth, with the truth known, they might abandon error, holding for certain that Christ is the Son of God, who alone is God from God and the head or beginning of all those things which are in heaven or on earth, because by the virtue and power with which he overcame the tyrant Satan, he was revealed to be the one whose dominion the impious devil, who is Satan, had usurped.\n\nFor while the devil wickedly desires to be called God, so that he might rule over the spiritual powers—whence he is rebuked by the prophet saying: \"For you, indeed, said in your heart: I will set my abode in the clouds and will be like the Most High\"—he deceived many, by whose conspiracy he was made the prince of error, who are admonished in the psalm to reject falsehood and receive truth. For it is said to them: \"Lift up the gates of your prince and raise yourselves up, eternal gates, and the king of glory will enter.\" For unless error is removed from the minds of the unbelieving, they will not be able to receive the faith of the one God in Christ. For they are taught this, that with the gates lifted up, through which one goes to the second death—which are the perfidy begun by the devil—they may receive the sacraments of faith, through which one goes to life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":353,"ref":"p353","source":"ista sunt enim, quae significat in aeternalibus portis, quia ueritas fidei aeternitas est, perfidia autem temporalis eat, quia mendacium adinuentio diaboli est. diabolus enim coeptam praeuaricationem in caelis , seminauit in terris multorum deorum suadens culturam, inter quos principatum haberet. caput enim et principium uoluit esse ceterorum, quod non ei debebatur, sed saluatori. unde persequitur eum usque ad terram, ut conprimens eum ostendat erroris eius praeuaricationem manifestata in se ueritate. unde dictum est: ueritas de terra orta est. proiectus enim de caelis confugit ad terras, ut meditatam deitatem in supernis expleret in inferioribus. unde dicit apostolus: ita ut in templo dei sedeat ostendens se quasi sit deus. quoquo enim modo desiderium suum implere uult et damnari; furore enim plenus minus putat esse damnari, quam non explere auiditatem erroris.","english":"These things, therefore, are what is signified by the eternal gates: that the truth of faith is eternity, but faithlessness is temporal, because falsehood is the invention of the devil. For the devil, having begun his prevarication in the heavens, sowed it on earth, persuading the worship of many gods, among whom he himself would hold the chief place. For he wished to be the head and beginning of the others, which was not due to him, but to the Savior. Hence he pursues him all the way to the earth, so that, by suppressing him, he might display the prevarication of his own error, the truth being manifested in himself. Whence it is said: \"Truth has arisen from the earth.\" For, cast out of the heavens, he fled to the earth, so that the divinity he had meditated upon in the higher realms he might fulfill in the lower. Whence the apostle says: \"So that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.\" For in whatever way he wishes to fulfill his desire and to be condemned; for, filled with rage, he considers it a lesser thing to be condemned than not to satisfy the eagerness of his error.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":354,"ref":"p354","source":"CXIIII. ADUERSUS PAGANOS.\n\nQua ratione pagani aduersus nos audeant congredi aut fidem nostram inpugnare se putent, absolutum esse non uideo, quippe cum nulla habeant adsertionum suarum documenta, superstitionis suae dicam quam religionis. nam quae cauta non habent proferunt, ut ipsi potius nouarum rerum auctores et defensores habeantur. primo enim in loco deos se adserunt colere, quorum nulla insignia, nulla dant testimonia. illos enim deos appellant, qui se ausi non sunt hoc nomine nuncupare, ut homines deorum auctores habeantur, cum deus auctor debeat esse hominibus; ac per hoc uana et inanis adsertio est. quicquid enim sine deo est, stabile esse non potest. manifesta enim esse quae dico probant libri eorum, in quibus nihil diuinum, nihil deo iubente legitur constitutum, sed singulos uiros propter quas- . dam causas diuersa adserunt instituisse numinum sacrificia, et hos, qui nullius meriti uiderentur, ut quae statuerant digne statuisse probarentur. quando ergo quos deos appellant nihil horum mandasse leguntur, qua auctoritate hi faciunt aut accepto ferri putant, quod non probant mandatum, cum, si etiam mandatum probaretur, examinandum prius fuerat, si dignum esset aut debitum his oboedire, quorum nulla signa aut prodigia ad commendationem diuinitatis in rebus gestis exsisterent?","english":"114. Against the Pagans.\n\nI do not see how it can be clear on what basis the pagans dare to attack us or think they can assail our faith, especially since they have no proofs for their assertions—I should say of their superstition rather than their religion. For they put forward things that are not well-founded, so that they themselves are rather to be regarded as the authors and defenders of novelties. First of all, they claim to worship gods, of whom there are no distinguishing marks, no testimonies. For they call those gods who do not dare to call themselves by this name, so that men are considered the authors of the gods, whereas God ought to be the author for men; and on this account the assertion is empty and vain. For whatever is without God cannot be stable. That what I say is manifest is proved by their books, in which nothing divine, nothing established by God’s command is read, but they assert that various men instituted sacrifices to divinities for certain reasons, and these men, who seemed to be of no merit, so that what they had established might be proven to have been established worthily. Therefore, when those whom they call gods are not read to have commanded any of these things, by what authority do these men act, or do they think it is accepted, what they do not prove to have been commanded, when, even if it were proven to have been commanded, it ought first to have been examined whether it was worthy or proper to obey those of whom no signs or portents to commend their divinity existed in their deeds?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":355,"ref":"p355","source":"Sed solent ab his exclusi ad elementa confugere dicentes haec se colere, quorum gubernaculis regitur uita humana. a quibus, ut supra, requirimus, si mandatum est aut iussum a deo, quem etiam ipsi magnum et summum fatentur et neglegunt eum. si enim fieri debet, ab illo mandari oportuit, qui auctor eorum dicitur. si autem ab illo mandatum non est, praesumptio est et ad poenam proficiet, non ad praemium, quia ad contumeliam pertinet conditoris, ut contempto domino colantur serui et spreto imperatore adorentur comites. quo modo istud inpunitum erit, quod etiam in hac uita uindicari, et quidem acerbius, uideamus?\n\nSed forte ab his ipsis elementis dicant mandatum. ostendant alicubi praeceptum, legant aliquando aliquid illos locutos. quod si non ostendunt, qua poena digni sunt, qui auctores praesumptae et confictae religionis deteguntur? libera sunt ex hac impietate elementa. ipsa enim luminaria mundi accusabunt illos aput iudicem deum, quia in hac consilii uanitate minime se auctores ostendunt. similiter et illi, quos, cum constet homines fuisse, deos nuncupant, cum coeperint pro peccatis suis cruciari, in hac parte minime se reos esse defendent in hos crimen hoc retorquentes, quibus cum non mandassent, ut deos illos colere coeperunt.","english":"But those who are excluded from this usually take refuge in the elements, saying that they worship these, by whose governance human life is ruled. From them, as above, we ask whether a command or order has been given by God, whom even they themselves acknowledge as great and supreme, yet neglect. For if it ought to be done, it should have been commanded by Him, who is said to be their author. But if it has not been commanded by Him, it is presumption and will lead to punishment, not to reward, because it pertains to the insult of the creator, that the master is despised while the servants are worshipped, and the emperor is spurned while his companions are adored. How will this be unpunished, which we see is avenged even in this life, and indeed quite harshly?\n\nBut perhaps they say that a command was given by these very elements themselves. Let them show a precept somewhere, let them read at some time that they spoke anything. But if they do not show it, what punishment do they deserve, who are exposed as the authors of a presumed and fabricated religion? The elements are free from this impiety. For these very lights of the world will accuse them before the judge God, because in this vanity of counsel they show themselves to be in no way the authors. Similarly, those whom, although it is established that they were men, they call gods, when they begin to be tormented for their sins, will in this respect defend themselves as not being guilty, turning this crime back onto those who, when they had not commanded it, began to worship them as gods.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":356,"ref":"p356","source":"Igitur quo pudore fidem nostram reprehendendam aut ridendam putant, quorum legem uirtutum testimoniis fultam uident nec non et ipsius domini ac dei nostri relegunt uocem dicentis: ego sum deus et non est alius praeter me? quod si nudis uerbis diceret, non erat ei credendum, ne similes paganis uideremur, qui nulla deorum suorum signa maiestatis uidentes colere eos coeperunt et, quod peius est, inhoneste. turpia enim illic aguntur, quae pudoris est reuelare, et prudentes se appellant, quia lege sua sicut a samardaco inluduntur.\n\nPorro autem deus noster teste uirtute coli se mandauit et, ut nihil suspicionis relinqueret, legem ipsam honestam et sanctam et, ut deo dignum est, tradidit. nos uero, qui stulti a paganis dicimur, deo nostro non credidimus, nisi nobis satis fecisset testimoniis uirtutum, nec legem eius suscepissemus, si non illam puram et ipsi professioni condignam cognouissemus..","english":"Therefore, with what shame do they think our faith is to be reproached or ridiculed, when they see that their own law is supported by the testimonies of miracles, and they also read again the voice of our Lord and God himself saying: \"I am God, and there is no other besides me\"? For if he were saying this in bare words, he ought not to have been believed, lest we appear similar to the pagans, who, seeing no signs of majesty from their gods, began to worship them and, what is worse, in a dishonorable manner. For shameful acts are performed there, which it is a matter of modesty to reveal, and they call themselves wise, because they are mocked by their own law as if by a Samardacus.\n\nMoreover, our God, by the testimony of miracles, commanded that he be worshipped, and, so as to leave no room for suspicion, he handed down the law itself, honorable and holy, and as is worthy of God. We, however, who are called fools by the pagans, did not believe in our God until he had satisfied us with the testimonies of miracles, nor would we have accepted his law if we had not recognized it as pure and worthy of the profession itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":357,"ref":"p357","source":"Hinc est unde nihil apud nos in tenebris, nihil occulte geritur. omne enim, quod honestum scitur, publicari non timetur; illud autem, quod turpe et inhonestum est, prohibente pudore non potest publicari. quam ob rem pagani mysteria sua in tenebris celebrant, uel in eo prudentes. erubescunt enim palam inludi; turpia enim, quae illic uice legis aguntur, nolunt manifestari, ne qui. prudentes se dicunt hebetes his uideantur, quos stultos appellant.\n\nSed M forte hinc illis stulti uideamur, quia lex nostra castitatem, misericordiam, continentiam praedicat. apud illos enim hace stulta sunt, quia omnis bonus malo malus est et prudens stulto insensatus est. nam in tantum castitatem exsecrantur, ut etiam cinedis delectentur magisterio eorum subiecti, qui nisi tales fuerint, idonei BOA erant ipsi, si dicendum est,. religioni. propterea enim absciduntur et habitum inmutant, ut de uiris quasi feminae fiant et contra naturam subiecti muliebria patiantur, ut tunc demum apti et digni sint ministri superstitionis illorum. numquid accusari potest huius modi, quem lex facit talem? ideo enim amisso uiri et actu et habitu in mulierem transformatur, ut licenter muliebria patiatur.","english":"This is why nothing among us is done in darkness, nothing in secret. For everything that is known to be honorable is not afraid to be made public; but that which is base and dishonorable cannot be made public, because shame forbids it. For this reason the pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness, or in that they are prudent. For they blush to be openly mocked; for the shameful things which are done there in place of law, they do not wish to be revealed, lest those who call themselves prudent appear dull to those whom they call fools.\n\nBut perhaps we seem foolish to them for this reason, because our law preaches chastity, mercy, and continence. For among them these things are foolish, because every good man is bad to the evil man, and every prudent man is senseless to the fool. For they so abhor chastity that they even delight in catamites, being subject to the teaching of those who, unless they are such, were not suitable, if it must be said, for their religion. For this reason they are castrated and change their attire, so that from men they become, as it were, women and, contrary to nature, being subjected, they suffer womanly things, so that then at last they are fit and worthy ministers of that superstition. Can a man of this sort be accused, whom the law makes such? For indeed, having lost both the action and the habit of a man, he is transformed into a woman, so that he may licitly suffer womanly things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":358,"ref":"p358","source":"Quae ergo putantur esse mysteria, ubi dehonesto inhonestum fit et de incorrupto corruptum, cum hic sit uere cultus reli. gionis, ut de turpibus honestos faciat et de indisciplinatis modestos? quo modo cultores eius aemuli possunt esse bonae uitae, quando mysteria legis eorum sine cinedis celebrari non possunt? si ergo lex eorum his delectatur, peccator erit et stultus quisquis non fuerit tatis. ideoque stultos nos appellant. colentes enim haec turpia prudentes ab his iudicantur, euitantes autem et fugientes stulti. quod quidem callide et astute ab ipsis uidetur aptatum. idcirco enim legi suae adplicant nomen prudentiae, ut contegant reprehensibilia eius, quia, ubi prudentia, reprehensio nulla est. nostram autem legem stultam dicunt, ut prohibeant ab ea. sed sublatis nominibus prudentiae et stultitiae et submota omni inuidia, quam parit defensio ambarum partium, ipsae leges inter se confligant, ut appareat ubi sit prudentia et ubi stultitia. sed praesente signo crucis obmutescit paganitas et, si adest, quam uocant stultum, prudentia illa, saera illorum respondere non audent; reprimitur enim exta illorum et occultatur reuerentia Christianae maiestatis. magna res, ut illa, quam uocant prudentiam, metuat illam, quam appellant stultitiam.","english":"Therefore, what are thought to be mysteries, where the dishonorable is made from the honorable and the corrupt from the incorrupt, when here is the true worship of religion, to make the honorable from the base and the modest from the undisciplined? How can its worshippers be emulators of a good life, when the mysteries of their law cannot be celebrated without effeminate dancers? If, therefore, their law delights in these things, then anyone who is not of that sort will be a sinner and a fool. And for that reason they call us fools. For those who cultivate these base things are judged prudent by them, while those who avoid and flee them are judged fools. This indeed seems cleverly and cunningly devised by them. For they apply the name of prudence to their law in order to conceal its reprehensible aspects, because where prudence is, there is no reproach. But they call our law foolish, in order to deter people from it. But with the names of prudence and foolishness removed, and all the ill will which the defense of both sides produces set aside, let the laws themselves contend with each other, so that it may appear where prudence is and where foolishness is. But in the presence of the sign of the cross, paganism falls silent, and if what they call foolish is present, that prudence of theirs, their sacred rites dare not respond; for their entrails are suppressed and the reverence of Christian majesty is concealed. It is a great thing, that what they call prudence fears what they call foolishness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":359,"ref":"p359","source":"Conferamus nunc tenorem legum. pagani deos deasque colere se etiam literis profitentur; et uerum est quod dicunt, quia et masculos colunt et feminas. Ianus enim et Saturnus, Iouis et Mercurius et Apollo et ceteri, item Minerua et Isis. et Frui illa et Uenus et Flora meretrix cum ceteris dii deaeque sunt, sicut historiae tam Graecorum quam Romanorum testantur. Christiani autem, utpote pauperes, quos stultos uocant, unum deum colunt in mysterio, ex quo sunt omnia, nec aliquid, quod ab eo conditum est, uenerantur. ipsum enim solum sufficere sibi et abundare sciunt ad salutem non ignorantes quia. si gloriam et nomen eius aliis deputauerint, offendent eum, quia nullus imperator permittit ut nomine eius tribuni et comites adorentur.\n\nConferantur nunc leges, ut uideatur ubi sit prudentia: qui creatorem colit aut qui creaturam, qui dominum aut qui seruos? potest fieri ut in aliqua domo praeter unum alius dominus appelletur, ut pagani litteris forensibus instructi, qui sibi prudentes uidentur, in uno mundo ab uno deo condito multos deos deasque uenerantur. procuratores enim et actores mundi domini et dei nomine nuncuparunt, cum inprouidi detegantur. illud autem asserere, quod perniciem pariat, inprouidi est et stulti, quoniam necesse est deum iniuriam suam uindicare in eos, qui conseruis suis domini dei nomen et gloriam partierunt.","english":"Let us now compare the character of the laws. The pagans profess even in their writings that they worship gods and goddesses; and what they say is true, because they worship both males and females. For Janus and Saturn, Jupiter and Mercury and Apollo and the rest, likewise Minerva and Isis and that Frui and Venus and Flora the prostitute, along with the others, are gods and goddesses, as the histories of both the Greeks and the Romans testify. Christians, however, being poor folk, whom they call fools, worship one God in mystery, from whom all things come, and they venerate nothing that was created by Him. For they know that He alone is sufficient for Himself and abounds for salvation, not being ignorant that if they assign His glory and name to others, they will offend Him, because no emperor permits that tribunes and counts be adored in his name.\n\nLet the laws now be compared, so that it may be seen where wisdom lies: does he who worships the creator or he who worships the creature, he who worships the master or he who worships the slaves? Can it happen that in some household, besides the one, another is called master, as the pagans, instructed in forensic letters, who seem wise to themselves, in one world created by one God venerate many gods and goddesses? For they have called the stewards and agents of the world by the names of lord and god, while they are revealed as improvident. But to assert that which brings ruin is the mark of the improvident and foolish, since it is necessary that God avenge His injury upon those who have distributed the name and glory of lord and god to their fellow slaves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":360,"ref":"p360","source":"Dehinc considerentur praecepta. lex nostra, quos stultos uocant, antestites et ministros sine crimine sanctos et inreprehensibiles praecipit ordinari; e contra autem paganorum traditio antestites et ministros idoneos sibi esse non posse, nisi . ei uiris transfigurentur in feminas, ut licenter et publice muliebria patiantur et discussis in aqua inhoneste crinibus mollem quassatamque uocem et turpem emittant. quod si publice facerent, ab omni populo lapidarentur. et Cynocefalus ille, qui nutabundus per omnia se circumfert loca quaerens membra adulteri Osiris, uiri Isidis: ecce quibus ministris sine magistris pagani prudentiae sibi nomen adsciscunt, cum . non solum inprudentiae sit, sed et criminis! obscena enim et probrosa diligere funestum est. illud autem quale est, quod in speleo uelatis oculis inluduntur? ne enim horreant turpiter dehonestari se, oculi illis uelantur. alii autem sicut ales alas percutiunt uocem coracis imitantes; alteri uero leonum more fremunt; alii autem ligatis manibus intestinis pullinis proiciuntur super foueas aqua plenas accedente quodam cum gladio et inrumpente intestina supra dicta, qui se liberatorem appellet.","english":"Next, let the precepts be considered. Our law, which they call foolish, commands that overseers and ministers be ordained without crime, holy, and irreproachable; on the contrary, however, the tradition of the pagans holds that their overseers and ministers cannot be suitable for themselves unless men are transformed into women, so that they may licitly and publicly suffer womanly things and, with their hair disheveled in water, emit a soft, quavering, and shameful voice. If they were to do this in public, they would be stoned by the whole people. And that Cynocephalus, who, tottering, carries himself through every place, seeking the members of the adulterer Osiris, the husband of Isis: behold, with what ministers, without teachers, do the pagans claim for themselves the name of wisdom, when it is not only a matter of imprudence, but of crime! For it is deadly to love obscene and shameful things. But what of that which is done in the cave, where they are mocked with veiled eyes? Lest they be horrified at being disgracefully dishonored, their eyes are veiled. Others, like birds, beat their wings, imitating the voice of a raven; others, in turn, roar like lions; still others, with their hands bound with chicken guts, are thrown over pits full of water, while someone approaches with a sword and breaks through the aforementioned guts, calling himself the liberator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":361,"ref":"p361","source":"Sunt et cetera inhonestiora. ecce quantis modis turpiter inluduntur, qui se sapientes appellant! sed quia haec in tenebris patiuntur, putant posse nesciri. ista enim omnia, quae a malis et turpibus inuenta et ordinata sunt in occulto, sancta Christiana fides prodidit et detexit. praedicata enim fide considerantes qui audiebant, quid boni et sanctitatis publice promitteretur, contulerunt se ad fidem occulta illa inhonesta et turpia relinquentes et quo modo per ignorantiam inlusi sunt confitentes. tunc enim iam pridem omnes prope in hoc uertebantur errore et idcirco sibi prudentes uidebantur, quia qui reprehenderet non erat. nam quamquam omnes errarent sub uno fallaciae nomine, idolatriae unus quisque tamen iuxta mores suos et conuersationem ordinauit culturam, ut unus error diuersitatem haberet ex turpitudine et conuersatione auctorum. denique sacra, quae Liberi uocant, inhonesta et uanissima sunt et plena furoris; difficile enim inpurus non iracundus est. denique ubique cum Priapo pictus uidetur, cum quo inhoneste uiuebat.","english":"There are also other, more shameful things. Behold in how many ways those who call themselves wise are disgracefully mocked! But because they suffer these things in darkness, they think they can be unknown. For all these things, which were invented and established in secret by evil and shameful men, the holy Christian faith has betrayed and exposed. For when the faith was preached, those who heard considered what good and holiness was publicly promised, and they betook themselves to the faith, abandoning those secret, dishonest, and shameful things, and confessing how they had been deceived through ignorance. For at that time, almost everyone had already turned to this error, and they seemed prudent to themselves for this reason, because there was no one to reprove them. For although all erred under the single name of falsehood, idolatry, yet each one, according to his own habits and manner of life, arranged his worship, so that one error had diversity arising from the shamefulness and the manner of life of its authors. Finally, the rites which they call those of Liber are dishonest, most vain, and full of madness; for it is difficult for an impure man not to be irascible. Finally, he is everywhere seen depicted with Priapus, with whom he lived dishonestly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":362,"ref":"p362","source":"Hoc modo sunt et cetera sacra eorum; sed, ut posteri his inuentionibus caperentur, subtilitate et astutia factum est satanae. quamquam non sine consilio illius ista inuenta sunt, inuentis tamen singulis aspersit quaedam praestigia, per quae inliceret homines ad errorem, et sic factum est ut per traducem antiquitatis commendaretur fallacia et excusaretur turpis inuentio. per consuetudinem enim coepit turpe non uideri, quod turpe erat nam cum dehonestantur aliqui, primo erubescunt; postea uero blandiente consuetudine recedit pudor mutata fronte, praeterea si multos uideat tales. nam quaestus turpitudinis tunc est, quando hi, qui nobiles dicuntur, dehonestari uidentur; facile enim imitatores inuenit dehonestata nobilitas.\n\nSi ergo porro iam pridem propter hoc prudentes sibi uidebantur, quia, cui foeda inuentio haec displiceret, non erat, nunc, quia dei misericordia inlustratum est genus humanum et declaratum crimen esse quod pro lege cedebat, stultum autem quod putabatur prudenter inuentum, uel ab hac appellatione cessare deberent permanere uolentes in detecto crimine, cognoscentes nomen sapientiae a se alienum esse.","english":"In this way are also their other sacred things; but, so that posterity might be caught by these inventions, it was done by the subtlety and cunning of Satan. Although these things were not discovered without his counsel, yet he sprinkled each of the discoveries with certain prestiges, by which he would lure men into error, and thus it came about that through the tradition of antiquity the deceit was commended and the shameful invention excused. For by custom, what was shameful began not to seem shameful; for when some are dishonored, they first blush; but afterwards, with custom flattering, shame recedes, the countenance changed, especially if they see many such. For the profit of shamefulness is then, when those who are called noble are seen to be dishonored; for dishonored nobility easily finds imitators.\n\nIf, therefore, long ago on account of this they seemed wise to themselves, because there was no one to whom this foul invention was displeasing, now, because the mercy of God has illuminated the human race and it has been declared a crime what was passing for law, but foolish what was thought to be wisely invented, they ought to cease even from this appellation, if they wish to remain in a detected crime, recognizing that the name of wisdom is alien to them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":363,"ref":"p363","source":"Sed ut addant ad cumulum confessionis suae, in stultitia deprehensi fatuos uocant, a quibus conuincuntur. sed fidem nostram et posteritatem accusant, in praeceptis autem non negant nihil posse reprehendi. qui fidem nostram accusant, non magis contra nos, sed contra auctorem nostrum suscipiunt nos enim stultos, qui quasi rei fatuae fidem dederimus, illum autem mendacem et circumuentorem nec non et malitiosum pronuntiant, qui fidem traderet, per quam deciperentur credentes. igitur prius non nos stulte credidisse probemus, deinde causam acturi auctoris.\n\nCum in errore degeremus, in quo nunc manent pagani, nullis uirtutum signis adtracti, sed nudis uerbis quae sacra uocant percepimus prodesse putantes, non quod diuinitas commendarat, sed quod uetus consuetudo tradiderat, in qua — quod non latet - diuersis inlusi uanitatibus nullam spem salutis agnouimus, quid enim poterat prodesse res ab hominibus inuenta? ut autem ad fidem dei accederemus et filium eius incarnatum et cruci fixum crederemus, non uerbis suasum est nobis, sed rebus. uidimus enim mortuos excitatos, leprosos mundatos, caeco nato oculos restitutos, demonia eiecta et simul omnes infirmitates curatas.","english":"But to add to the heap of their confession, when caught in foolishness they call those who refute them fools. Yet they accuse our faith and posterity, while in the precepts they do not deny that nothing can be faulted. Those who accuse our faith take up the case not so much against us as against our author; for they call us fools, who have given credence to a foolish thing, as if guilty, but they pronounce him a liar, a deceiver, and also malicious, who handed down a faith by which believers would be deceived. Therefore, let us first prove that we did not believe foolishly, and then we will plead the case of the author.\n\nWhile we lived in error, in which the pagans now remain, we were drawn by no signs of virtues, but we received with bare words what they call sacred, thinking it beneficial, not because divinity had commended it, but because ancient custom had handed it down—in which, as is not hidden, deceived by various vanities, we recognized no hope of salvation. For what could a thing invented by men avail? But to approach the faith of God and to believe in his Son incarnate and crucified, we were not persuaded by words, but by deeds. For we saw the dead raised, lepers cleansed, eyes restored to the man born blind, demons cast out, and all infirmities healed at once.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":364,"ref":"p364","source":"Nunc quando stulti fuimus iudicetur: cum nudis uerbis credidimus, aut cum rebus ? sine dubio enim res ante uerba sunt, quippe cum ad res significandas inuenta sint si ergo traditioni humanae nulla suadente uirtute, quae ad inludendas mentes hominum inuenta est, fidem dedimus, quanto magis huic, quam diuinam et deificam omnia signa, quae deum inuocant, contestantur! nonne digne stulti iudicaremur, si uirtutibus non crederemus, qui sermonibus credideramus ? nonne rationabiliter inprouidi et inconsulti notaremur, si aduocantem spem non sequeremur, qui desperationi fueramus obnoxii ?\n\n'Sed', aiunt e contra, 'stultum est quod creditur; non enim ratione subsistit deum habere filium neque emortua et dissoluta corpora rursus reparari ad uitam). omnes philosofi et sectarum inuentores diuersis disputationibus inuicem se confoderunt, nullus ad alterum transiens, quia unus quisque in quo imbutus fuerat permanebat per id quod enim uerba contradictioni obnoxia sunt, nullus alterum superabat; non enim erat unde se quis uictorem ostenderet, sed inuicem contradictionibus se fatigantes minime alter alteri persuadebat.","english":"Now let it be judged when we were foolish: when we believed with bare words, or with deeds? For without doubt deeds come before words, since words were invented to signify deeds. Therefore, if we gave faith to human tradition, invented with no compelling power of virtue to mock the minds of men, how much more to this tradition, which all signs that invoke God attest as divine and deifying! Would we not rightly be judged foolish if we did not believe in the powers, when we had believed in words? Would we not reasonably be marked as improvident and imprudent if we did not follow a hope that summons us, when we had been subject to despair?\n\n'But,' they say in reply, 'what is believed is foolish; for it does not rest on reason that God has a son, nor that dead and dissolved bodies are restored to life.' All philosophers and founders of sects have cut each other down with various disputations, none passing over to another, because each one remained in what he had been imbued with. For since words are subject to contradiction, no one overcame another; for there was no means by which anyone could show himself victor, but they wearied each other with contradictions, and least of all did one persuade another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":365,"ref":"p365","source":"Hinc factum est ut dei prouidentia, cuius sensus inuestigari non potest, praedicationi suae uirtutem adiungeret, ut ueritas praedicationis uirtutis testimonio probaretur, ut, qui uerbis contradicere parati erant, uidentes uirtutem contradicere non auderent. quae enim maior poterit esse testificatio ueritatis, quam est operatio uirtutis?\n\nSi quis autem opera uirtutum deneget accusans scripturas, quo modo poterit stultam fidem nostram dicere denegans scripturas? ubi enim scriptum est de Christo quod filius dei credendus est, eodem loco uirtus testis inuenitur. et si cui absurdum uidetur legenti Christum dei filium cruci fixum, reuoluat et inueniet resurrexisse eum a mortuis et intellegat non otiose eum mortuum este neque inuitum, qui potuit resurgere, sed esse mysterium. quicumque ergo est ille, aut tacebit de cruce - quia, si dixerit stultam crucem, non poterit dicere stultam resurrectionem; excusat enim resurrectio crucem — aut, si locutus fuerit de cruce, non poterit negare prouidentiam esse in ea, quam uidet testimonio resurrectionis firmari; aut.utrumque enim accipitur aut utrumque refellitur, ut, qui non defendet, nec audeat accusare.,","english":"Hence it came about that divine providence, whose purpose cannot be fathomed, joined power to its own preaching, so that the truth of the preaching might be proved by the testimony of power, and that those who were ready to contradict the words, seeing the power, would not dare to contradict. For what greater testimony of truth could there be than the working of power?\n\nBut if anyone denies the works of power while accusing the scriptures, how can he call our faith foolish while denying the scriptures? For where it is written that Christ is to be believed as the Son of God, in the same place power is found as a witness. And if it seems absurd to anyone reading that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified, let him turn the page and find that he rose from the dead, and understand that he did not die idly nor unwillingly—he who was able to rise again—but that it is a mystery. Therefore, whoever that person is, he will either keep silent about the cross—because, if he calls the cross foolish, he cannot call the resurrection foolish; for the resurrection excuses the cross—or, if he speaks of the cross, he cannot deny that there is providence in it, which he sees confirmed by the testimony of the resurrection. For either both are accepted or both are rejected, so that he who will not defend, dare not accuse either.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":366,"ref":"p366","source":"Quare autem cruci figi se permiserit cognatis, mysterium reseruandum est. mortem autem hanc in tantum commendauit, ut clarificari se per eam testatus sit. nam et ait: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et: potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. non ergo coactus est mori, qui potestatem habuit et mori et resurgere. hanc qui abnuit, non poterit dicere uiolenter illi mortem inlatam. si enim istam negat, nec mortuum illum poterit adseuerare, quia haec illic continentur, ubi morti traditus legitur. nemo enim ex superioribus postrema aut ex postremis superiora condemnat, quia contrarium non est quod unius corporis est.\n\nDe mortuis autem quod resurgant, dolo dicunt stultum credere. uident enim exempla quibus credibile iudicetur. omnia enim semina usibus necessaria, nisi dissoluta fuerint, renasci rursus non poterunt. si haec in mundo hominum causa decreuit, cur illorum ipsorum corporibus si haec praestaturus credatur, stultum putant, nisi quia ipsi stulti sunt, qui plus deo non dant, quam potest mundus? uirtutum tamen gestarum nunc usque apparet umbra. quia enim tempus non est faciendarum uirtutum — initio enim fieri oportuit, ut semen fidei per hanc crementum faceret —, tamen etiam modo demonia nominata cruce Christi terrentur et, si inpensius fiat, fugantur et di paganorum formidine et metu nominatae crucis responsa dare non possunt.","english":"But why he allowed himself to be crucified by his relatives is a mystery that must be reserved. He so commended this death, however, that he testified that he was glorified through it. For he also says: \"I have the power to lay down my soul\" and \"I have the power to take it up again.\" Therefore, he who had the power both to die and to rise again was not compelled to die. He who denies this will not be able to claim that death was violently inflicted upon him. For if he denies that, he will not be able to assert that he died, because these things are contained where he is recorded as having been handed over to death. For no one condemns the latter from the former, or the former from the latter, because what belongs to one body is not contradictory.\n\nBut concerning the dead, that they rise again, they say it is foolish to believe, out of deceit. For they see examples by which it is judged credible. For all seeds necessary for use, unless they have been dissolved, cannot be reborn again. If the world has decreed these things for the sake of men, why, if it is believed that this is granted to the bodies of those same men themselves, do they think it foolish, except because they themselves are foolish, who do not grant more to God than the world can? Yet the shadow of deeds performed still appears even now. For because it is not the time for performing deeds—for it was necessary at the beginning, so that the seed of faith might grow through this—nevertheless, even now demons are terrified at the naming of the cross of Christ, and if it is done more insistently, they are put to flight, and the oracles of the pagans, from dread and fear of the named cross, cannot give responses.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":367,"ref":"p367","source":"Si obprobrium est mors Christi, quare terrori est? res enim, quae ex crimine uenit, non timeri debet, sed contemni. quis enim timeat hominem pro crimine suo occisum? ac si innocens fuerit, timeri tamen non potest, sed doleri. itaque nisi sentirent demonia uel di paganorum sacramentum esse crucem Christi, nominata ea non terrerentur et, ut proprius dicam, nisi rei essent, non timerent. hi enim omnes, qui ex parte diaboli sunt, consenserunt in mortem Christi. unde cuncta demonia siue di gentium nominata cruce Christi terrore concutiuntur. omnis enim qui in alicuius innocentis morte reus est, cum nomen eius fuerit memoratum, timor adprehendit cor eius. recordatione enim habita delicti reum ae uidet: quanto magis demonia uel di gentium, qui rei sunt necis domini et saluatoris mundi!\n\nSed pagani antiquitatis causa uerum se tenere contendunt, quia 'quod anterius est', inquiunt, 'falsum esse non potest', quasi antiquitas aut uetus consuetudo praeiudicet ueritati. possent enim homicidae aut molles aut adulteri uel -ceteri criminosi per hoc inlicita sua defendere, quia antiqua sunt et ab ipso mundi initio coepta, cum hinc magis intellegere deberent errorem suum, quia quod reprehensibile et turpe eat male coeptum probatur, quod autem honestum et sanctum est digne colitur; nec posse turpe et reprehensibile ante sanctum esse et inreprehensibile.","english":"If the death of Christ is a disgrace, why is it a terror? For a thing that arises from crime ought not to be feared, but despised. For who fears a man killed for his own crime? Even if he were innocent, he still cannot be feared, but mourned. Therefore, unless the demons or the gods of the pagans perceived that the cross of Christ is a sacred mystery, they would not be terrified when it is named, and, to speak more precisely, unless they were guilty, they would not fear. For all these, who are on the side of the devil, consented to the death of Christ. Hence all demons or gods of the Gentiles are shaken with terror when the cross of Christ is named. For everyone who is guilty of the death of an innocent person, when that person’s name is recalled, fear seizes his heart. For by the recollection of the crime, he sees himself as guilty: how much more so the demons or gods of the Gentiles, who are guilty of the slaying of the Lord and Savior of the world!\n\nBut the pagans contend that they hold the truth because of antiquity, saying, “What is earlier cannot be false,” as if antiquity or old custom prejudges the truth. For murderers, or the effeminate, or adulterers, or other criminals could defend their unlawful acts on this ground, because they are ancient and began from the very beginning of the world, whereas from this they ought rather to understand their error, because what is reprehensible and base is proven to have been badly begun, while what is honorable and holy is worthily venerated; nor can what is base and reprehensible be prior to what is holy and irreproachable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":368,"ref":"p368","source":"Et ad postremum paganorum traditio ab homine inuenta negari non potest; quia autem nostra lex a deo data est, euidens res est. in monte enim apparuit maiestas dei ad dandam legem hominibus et, ut huic fides possit haberi, praemisit signa multa et prodigia facta in Aegypto, quod hodieque libri testantur a Ptolomeo reconditi in bybliotecam Alexandriae. sic ergo legem dignatus est dare, ut nemo ambigeret deum esse qui tradidit. palam enim et manifeste uisa est omnibus maiestas dei in tanto fulgore et terrore, ut et praeter eum nemo alius deus crederetur et, quod iubebat, omni obseruatione dignum haberetur.\n\nEt ut omnia deificae rationi conueniant, inspiciatur tradita lex, si quid in ea iniustum, si quid inhonestum, si quid ridiculosum. sic oportuit deum innotescere, non ut in angule per inposturam appareret, qui claudi non potest, neque in speleo, ubi aliud est quam cernitur operante inlecebrosa fallacia, neque ea seruanda traderet, quae, propter quod inhonesta essent, in tenebris gererentur.","english":"And finally, the tradition of the pagans, invented by man, cannot be denied; but that our law was given by God is an evident thing. For on the mountain the majesty of God appeared to give the law to men, and, so that faith might be given to this, it sent ahead many signs and wonders performed in Egypt, which even today the books deposited by Ptolemy in the library of Alexandria attest. Thus he deigned to give the law, so that no one would doubt that it was God who delivered it. For the majesty of God was seen openly and manifestly by all in such great splendor and terror, that besides him no other god was believed in, and what he commanded was held worthy of every observance.\n\nAnd so that everything might accord with divine reason, let the delivered law be examined, whether there is in it anything unjust, anything dishonorable, anything ridiculous. Thus it was necessary for God to become known, not as in a corner through imposture, he who cannot be confined, nor in a cave, where something else is perceived than what is seen, with seductive deceit at work, nor would he deliver precepts to be observed which, because they were dishonorable, would be carried out in darkness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":369,"ref":"p369","source":"Cum enim unius dei notitia oblitterata esset in mundo consuetudine delinquendi, quia mendacium uelamen praestiterat ueritati, clemens et misericors deus nolens opus suum perditioni obnoxium fieri uisitare dignatus est genus humanum, non sic apparens sicut hi, qui falso di appellari uoluerunt, sed, sicut est ueritas dei, ita se manifestauit, ut errorem adimeret, qui falsorum deorum praedicatione mundi sensum corruperat. denique supra sescenta milia hominum egressa de Aegypto uidentes et cognoscentes dominum hunc esse supra omne ex apparentia ineffailis gloriae proximare ad eum timuerunt, sed longe curuato genu adorauerunt postea prosequentibus aliis signis, quam quae fecerat in Aegypto in omnibus mirabilibus, manifestatus est unus esse deus.\n\nHaec omnibus prope innotuerunt linguis, haec uicinis gentibus terrori fuerunt. quid tale in diis gentium? cui genti, cui populo gloriam suam ostenderunt? quae signa aut uirtutes ad diuinitatis suae testimonium fecerunt? ubi aut quando locuti probantur?.","english":"For when the knowledge of the one God had been obliterated in the world by the habit of sinning, because falsehood had provided a veil for the truth, the merciful and compassionate God, not wishing his work to be subject to ruin, deigned to visit the human race, not appearing as those who falsely wished to be called gods, but, as is the truth of God, so he manifested himself, so as to remove the error which had corrupted the world's understanding through the preaching of false gods. Finally, more than six hundred thousand men who had come out of Egypt, seeing and recognizing that this was the Lord above all, from the appearance of ineffable glory, feared to approach him, but from afar, with bended knee, they worshipped him; afterwards, through other signs that followed, more than those he had performed in Egypt, in all his wonders, he was manifested to be the one God.\n\nThese things became known to nearly all peoples in their languages; these things were a terror to neighboring nations. What such thing is there among the gods of the nations? To which nation, to which people did they show their glory? What signs or powers did they perform as testimony of their divinity? Where or when are they proven to have spoken?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":370,"ref":"p370","source":"Sed inrationabilis uulgus aut apparentes umbras aut demonia aut simulacra mortuorum ut deos colere coeperunt; quae res in consuetudinem uetustatis deducta arbitratur rationis sibi ueritatem posse defendi, cum ueritatis ratio non ex consuetudine neque ex uetustate, sed ex deo sit, qui non uetustate deus probatur, sed aeternitate. quam ob rem fides non coepta res, sed sine initio est. in deum enim credere nostrum incipere est; nam quod creditur, aeternum est. quo modo ergo anteriores se putant pagani, cum quando quod colunt post deum est? numquid non opus post opificem est? pagani colunt opera, nos opificem; illi creaturam, nos creatorem. certe deus fecit mundum: age, facto notitiam suam non ostendit? aut fecit hominem et noluit se ab eo coli, quem fecit? sed absurdum est.\n\nFactus ergo homo coepit uenerari suum conditorem, quia et dignum est et causa hoc exigit. quod cum per desidiam hominum obsoleuisset, reparauit istud deus in Abraham, ut cognitio dei, quae fuerat in Adam, inciperet rursus in Abraham, ut ab eo geniti sub hac cognitione educarentur et per traducem non deficeret neque deesset, qui coleret deum, aduocatis etiam exterae gentis hominibus ad istam dei cognitionem. qui ergo cognoscit, sub initio est; qui autem cognoscitur, super initium est. qua igitur ratione pagani legem suam ante dicunt fuisse quam nostram? si mundus ante deum est — quod absit!","english":"But the irrational mob began to worship either visible shadows or demons or the images of the dead as gods; this practice, brought into the custom of antiquity, supposes that it can defend the truth of reason for itself, although the reason of truth is not from custom nor from antiquity, but from God, who is proven to be God not by antiquity but by eternity. For this reason, faith is not a thing that has begun, but is without beginning. For believing in God is our beginning; but what is believed is eternal. How then do pagans consider themselves prior, when what they worship is after God? Is not the work after the craftsman? Pagans worship works, we the craftsman; they worship creation, we the creator. Certainly God made the world: come now, did he not reveal his knowledge through his work? Or did he make man and not wish to be worshipped by the one he made? But that is absurd.\n\nTherefore man, once made, began to venerate his creator, because it is both fitting and the cause demands it. When this had fallen into disuse through the negligence of men, God restored it in Abraham, so that the knowledge of God, which had been in Adam, might begin again in Abraham, so that those born from him might be raised under this knowledge and, through transmission, it might not fail nor be lacking, and that there might be someone to worship God, with men even from foreign nations being summoned to this knowledge of God. Therefore, he who knows is under a beginning; but he who is known is above a beginning. On what basis, then, do pagans say that their law existed before ours? If the world is before God—which God forbid!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":371,"ref":"p371","source":"—, sic potest et paganitas anteponi Christianitati.\n\nNemo miretur de nomine Christianitatis. est enim colere unum deum in mysterio trinitatis, quia, si nomen Christi putatur ei crisma, nominis tamen ratio ante creaturam est. apud maiores enim nostros, qui in reges ungebantur, christi uocabantur habentes imaginem uenturi Christi, qui natus de deo patre in regem non inmerito Christus appellatur, quia, quod istis crisma, illi dedit natiuitas. quem, quamdiu ignorant pagani, reprobant, cum autem cognouerint, diligentius excolunt gaudentes quia de malo transierunt ad bonum. qui enim in re tam friuola et inepta pertinaces fuerunt, quam fortiores et uehementiores erunt cognita ueritate! qualis ergo Christus noster est, qui cum nescitur oditur, cum cognoscitur amatur! nam omnis malus, cum nescitur, amatur, cognitus oditur. quanti retro oderunt Christum, qui nunc amant quique dolent odisse se, quod nescierant! inprudentis enim est odisse quem nescias, quia probandum est an odio digna res sit. denique qui hodie aduersantur, crastino defendent paenitentiam agentes tarde se cognouisse quod uerum est. quodsi odio digna res esset aut aliquid haberet fallaciae, cottidie ex Christianis fierent pagani.","english":"Thus, paganism can be placed before Christianity.\n\nLet no one be surprised at the name \"Christianity.\" For it is to worship one God in the mystery of the Trinity, because, even if the name of Christ is thought to be derived from chrism, the rationale of the name is nevertheless prior to creation. For among our ancestors, those who were anointed as kings were called \"christs,\" bearing the image of the future Christ, who, born of God the Father as king, is not undeservedly called Christ, because what chrism is to them, birth gave to him. As long as pagans are ignorant of him, they reject him; but when they have come to know him, they worship him more diligently, rejoicing that they have passed from evil to good. For those who were stubborn in such a frivolous and foolish matter, how much stronger and more vehement will they be when the truth is known! What a Christ we have, who, when unknown, is hated, but when known, is loved! For every evil person, when unknown, is loved, but when known, is hated. How many in the past hated Christ, who now love him and regret that they hated him, because they did not know him! For it is the mark of a fool to hate what you do not know, because it must be tested whether the thing is worthy of hatred. Indeed, those who oppose him today will defend him tomorrow, repenting that they were late in recognizing what is true. For if the thing were worthy of hatred or contained any deceit, pagans would be made from Christians every day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":372,"ref":"p372","source":"porro autem, quoniam haec est ueritas, cottidie omni hora sine intermissione deserentes Iouem, inter quos sofistae et nobiles muadi, qui eum deum cosfinxerant, confugiunt ad Christum, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum.\n\nCXV. DE FATO.\n\nNihil tam contrarium Christiano, quam si arti matheseos adhibeat curam. haec enim inimica dinoscitur dei legi. si enim nascuntur qui mali sint et e contra qui boni sint, frustra lex data dicetur, et non solum hoc, sed et iniustus habebitur legis lator. qui enim lege data cogit homines contra id quod nati sunt facere sciens non posse mutari naturam, ad hoc utique legem dedisse uidetur, ut haberet occasionem, qua crudelitatem suam de nece hominis satiaret. ut quid enim prohibet, quod scit auerti non posse? aut quemammodum damnat hominem qui non fecit, quod facere non potuit?\n\nSi autem iustus uidetur, ut est — quia istud de deo sentire nefarium est —, recte et salutari ratione legem dedit, scius posse hominem continere se ab id quod prohibet lex. igitur quia iuste legem dedit, non est utique inicus, cum uindicat.","english":"Moreover, since this is the truth, daily, every hour, without interruption, those who had fabricated Jupiter as a god—among them sophists and nobles of the world—are abandoning him and fleeing to Christ, to whom is honor and glory forever and ever.\n\nCXV. ON FATE.\n\nNothing is so contrary to a Christian as to devote attention to the art of astrology. For this is known to be hostile to the law of God. For if some are born evil and others good, the law will be said to have been given in vain, and not only this, but the giver of the law will be considered unjust. For he who, having given a law, compels men to act against what they were born as, knowing that nature cannot be changed, seems to have given the law for this purpose: to have an occasion to satisfy his cruelty through the death of a man. For why does he forbid what he knows cannot be turned aside? Or how does he condemn a man who did not do what he could not do?\n\nBut if he seems just, as he is—because it is wicked to think this about God—he gave the law rightly and with salutary reason, knowing that man can restrain himself from what the law forbids. Therefore, because he gave the law justly, he is certainly not unjust when he punishes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":373,"ref":"p373","source":"Itaque si legi dei fides commodanda est, quia iuste probatur data, ars matheseos euitanda et fugienda est. hanc enim astutia et subtilitas inuenit diaboli. quia enim aperte repugnare non audet auctori, tergiuersatione id agit, ut et deo iniuriam faciat et hominem legi inimicam ©onstitueDS morte multet secunda.\n\nQui ergo dei auctoritati cedit et factum eius retractari nefarium ducit, legi ab illo datae obtemperat die noctuque studiis eius insistens, nec aliquid aduersum respicit non dubitans quia potens est homo praecepta eius seruare. nam bi, qui peccare gestiunt, occasiones quaerunt quo modo peccata sua a se faciant aliena, ut, dum naturae quasi inputanda peccata sunt, inmunis esse uideatur a poena peccator. hoc propositum horum est, qui desperatione promissae uitae praesenti desiderant frui uoluptate.\n\nAt hi, qui freti fiducia fidei spem futurorum expectant, hoc implere contendunt, quod in primordio renascibilitatis polliciti sunt, ut abrenuntiarent pompis et uoluptatibus satanae. quanta ergo subtilitate usus est satanas, ut promtiorem hominem faceret ad peccandum, per quod inuidiae suae expleret nequitiam!","english":"Therefore, if faith is to be given to the law of God, because it is justly proven to have been given, the art of mathematics is to be avoided and shunned. For the cunning and subtlety of the devil discovered this. Because he does not dare to openly oppose the author, he acts through tergiversation, so that he both does injury to God and condemns the man, who is hostile to the law, to a second death.\n\nWhoever, therefore, yields to the authority of God and considers it nefarious to call into question his work, obeys the law given by him, applying himself to its studies day and night, and looks back at nothing contrary, not doubting that man is able to keep his precepts. For those who yearn to sin seek occasions to make their sins alien to themselves, so that, as if sins are to be imputed to nature, the sinner may seem immune from punishment. This is the purpose of those who, in despair of the promised life, desire to enjoy the pleasure of the present.\n\nBut those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of future things, strive to fulfill what they promised at the beginning of rebirth: to renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. How great, then, is the subtlety that Satan used to make man more ready to sin, through which he would satisfy the wickedness of his envy!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":374,"ref":"p374","source":"dum enim audit sic se natum esse, ut peccet, et deum non ignorat esse iustissimum, credit se inpune peccare, quia, qui iustus iudex est, non damnat eum, qui imperante natura peccauit, nec quidem eius peccatum dicendum est, quod alius egit per illum, si deceptus est homo; peccatis enim pressus factus est morti obnoxius. igitur tollit omne hominis bonum, qui tollit et malum. si enim peccator non habet poenam, nec iustus coronam; et quid laudantur boni et reprehenduntur mali? si enim huius naturae est ut peccare non possit, quid laudas in illo, quod non est eius? et ut quid condemnas in peccatore delictum, cum scias non eius esse, quod peccat, nisi quia iniustus erit, qui bonum laudat et malum accusat?\n\nSed forte dicatur e contra: 'bonam naturam in homine laudo et malam condemno, quia et uinum bonum laudatur, cum per naturam bonum sit, et malum recusatur, cum adaeque natura hoc praestet). si ita esset, nihil erat reprehensionis in causa, ut sic laudaretur iustus, ne corona dignus iudicaretur, neque ita accusaretur iniustus, ut poena dignus diceretur. porro autem et in praesenti et in futuro iustos remunerari scimus et legimus et iniustos poenis subditos concremari, quod iniustum utique uideretur, si iste, qui naturae suae rem gesserat, igne ultore poenas pateretur aut alius adaeque naturae suae rem exsequens praemiis adficeretur.","english":"For when he hears that he was born in such a way that he sins, and he does not ignore that God is most just, he believes he can sin with impunity, because the one who is a just judge does not condemn him who sinned under the compulsion of nature, nor indeed is it to be called his sin, which another committed through him, if the man was deceived; for, weighed down by sins, he became subject to death. Therefore, whoever takes away evil also takes away every good of man. For if the sinner does not suffer punishment, neither does the just man receive a crown; and why are the good praised and the wicked blamed? For if it is of such a nature that it cannot sin, why do you praise in him what is not his? And why do you condemn the fault in the sinner, when you know that his sinning is not his own, unless it is because the one who praises good and accuses evil will be unjust?\n\nBut perhaps it may be said on the contrary: 'I praise the good nature in man and condemn the bad, because even wine is praised when it is good by nature, and bad wine is rejected, when nature equally provides this.' If it were so, there would be nothing of reproach in the matter, so that the just man would be praised in such a way that he would not be deemed worthy of a crown, nor would the unjust man be accused in such a way that he would be said to be worthy of punishment. Moreover, however, we know and read that in the present and in the future the just are rewarded and the unjust, subjected to punishments, are burned, which would certainly seem unjust if he who had done what was of his nature were to suffer penalties by avenging fire, or another, equally carrying out what was of his nature, were to be granted rewards.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":375,"ref":"p375","source":"Si autem laudandus est bonus, quia quod naturae suae erat fecit, laudari debet et malus, quia et ipse similiter quod naturae suae erat gessit, ut unus quisque permanens in eo, quod factus est, laudetur, quia, si in quo factus est manens uituperabilis habetur, auctorem tangit uituperatio, qui talem nasci fecit, qui displiceret.\n\nQuodsi iure remunerandus est iustus et condemnandus iniustus, iam non naturae respondetur, sed uoluntati, quia natura libera est, uoluntas autem in causa est, quae sensibus accessus patitur et recessus, ut iniustus uidens coronari iustum, se autem damnari, sibi inputet, qui contra legem sensibus credens malum fecit, cum potuit facere bonum. numquid potest accusari sol, quia urit, aut aqua, quia infrigidat? aut numquid remuneranda est aqua, quia siti adfectos homines recreat, uel praemiis adficietur sol, quia reficit homines calore suo post frigorem? quod enim naturae suae est faciunt, unde nec condemnantur nec laudantur; aliud enim facere nesciunt.","english":"If, however, the good man is to be praised because he did what was of his nature, the evil man also ought to be praised, because he likewise did what was of his nature, so that each one, remaining in what he was made, is praised; because if, remaining in what he was made, he is considered blameworthy, the blame touches the author, who caused to be born such a one as would displease.\n\nBut if the just man is rightly to be rewarded and the unjust man condemned, then it is no longer a matter of nature, but of will, because nature is free, but will is the cause, which admits of approach and withdrawal of the senses, so that the unjust man, seeing the just man crowned and himself condemned, should blame himself, who, believing the senses contrary to the law, did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be accused because it burns, or water because it cools? Or is water to be rewarded because it refreshes men afflicted with thirst, or is the sun to be honored with rewards because it revives men with its heat after cold? They do what is of their nature, for which they are neither condemned nor praised; for they know not how to do otherwise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":376,"ref":"p376","source":"Sed quoniam non ita est, ut aestimant stellarum speculatores, ratio actuum probat. nemo enim inueniri potest, qui bene faciat semper aut male. tunc enim uideretur sic natus, ut bene ageret, si inreprehensibilis permaneret; et ita digne aestimaretur, ut esset malus, si in eo duraret ut male faceret semper. at cum et illum, quem bonum putas natum, aliquotiens uideas male agere et hunc, quem malum natum dicis, non numquam cernas facere bonum, quo modo hoc uerum probas, ut malus malus sit et bonus bonus, nisi quia hoc magis certissimum est, quia, ubi animum quis dederit, in eo proficit? nam et causae sunt, quae generant peccata, ut aut inuideat aut litiget aut inimicus existat.\n\nIlla autem, quae a lege prohibentur, non palam neque manifeste, sed occulte admittunt. quare, nisi quia reuerentur legem ? sin uero, ita ut adserunt, ad hoc nati essent ut male facerent, non quaererent latibula neque aliquam legi reuerentiam exhiberent, sed passim ea facerent, quae cogeret natura. sed cum uideas procurari peccatis et excogitari ubi possint latenter admitti — et loca enim et personas et tempora eligunt, ut mali propositi impleant uoluntatem —, simili modo etiam boni iudicio quodam bona opera sua decernunt, ut pro tempore et causa alicuius bonum suum distribuant, quod utique non iam naturae inputandum est, sed, quae in natura est, uoluntati. si autem naturale esset, cessaret iudicium.","english":"But since it is not as the astrologers suppose, the reasoning of actions proves this. For no one can be found who always does good or always does evil. For then it would seem that he was born to do good, if he remained blameless; and he would be judged worthy to be called evil, if he persisted in always doing evil. But when you see that the one you think was born good sometimes does evil, and the one you say was born evil you sometimes perceive doing good, how do you prove this true, that the evil man is evil and the good man is good, except that this is most certain: that where a man has applied his mind, there he makes progress? For there are also causes which generate sins, so that he either envies or quarrels or becomes an enemy.\n\nBut those things which are forbidden by law are not committed openly or manifestly, but secretly. Why, unless because they respect the law? But if, as they assert, they were born to do evil, they would not seek hiding places nor show any respect for the law, but would do openly whatever nature compelled. But when you see that sins are provided for and contrived as to where they can be committed secretly—and they choose both places and persons and times to fulfill the will of their evil purpose—in like manner also good men decree their good works by a certain judgment, so that according to the time and cause of someone they distribute their good, which certainly is not to be attributed to nature, but to the will which is in nature. For if it were natural, judgment would cease.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":377,"ref":"p377","source":"Nam si rem plenius discutiamus, qui nunc iusti sunt, iniustos illos prius fuisse ostendemus, data autem opera inmutati sunt. ipse etenim Abraham per fidem iustus factus legiturante ergo non fuit, quippe cum patre suo duce idola coluisse intellegatur - et Zacheus utique, cui post uulgarem uitam testimonium perhibet dominus, et uas electionis, qui istud etiam fatetur dicens: eramus et nos natura filii irae, sicut et ceteri. quia cedit uoluntas pro natura — ex uoluntate enim quis iudicatur, non ex natura —, sine dubio et omnes martyres et iustificati sunt boni, quia non fideles nati, sed renati sunt. et quantos scimus turpis uitae fuisse et prodigos cultores luxoriae, qui nunc continentes et sancti sunt! accedente enim timore dei uincuntur uitia, quae prius dominabantur.\n\nQuantum autem possit timor legis, hinc aduertamus. ante Iuliani edictum mulieres uiros suos dimittere nequibant accepta autem potestate coeperunt facere quod prius facere non poterant; coeperunt enim cottidie licenter uiros suos dimittere. ubi latuit fatum tantis temporibus? timore, credo, legis occultabat se. .","english":"For if we examine the matter more fully, we will show that those who are now just were previously unjust, but were changed by taking pains. For Abraham himself is read to have been made just through faith; therefore he was not just before, since he is understood to have worshipped idols under the guidance of his father—and Zacchaeus as well, to whom the Lord bears witness after a common life, and the vessel of election, who also admits this, saying: \"We too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest.\" Because will takes the place of nature—for a person is judged by will, not by nature—without doubt all martyrs too have been justified and are good, because they were not born believers, but reborn. And how many we know were of shameful life and prodigal devotees of luxury, who are now continent and holy! For with the fear of God approaching, the vices that previously held sway are overcome.\n\nNow how much the fear of the law can do, let us note from this. Before Julian's edict, women could not divorce their husbands; but once they received the power, they began to do what they previously could not do; for they began daily to divorce their husbands licentiously. Where did fate lie hidden for so long? By fear of the law, I believe, it concealed itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":378,"ref":"p378","source":"Illud autem quo modo subintrauit, quod tradidit Moyses? dormientibus, credo, fatis. tanta enim tradita sunt illis seruanda et talia qualia nulla gens habet praecepta. et ne hoc aliquis ad plagam caeli referendum putet, in omnem prope orbem dispersi mandata legis suae custodiunt. haec praecepta contra fata sunt non enim fuerunt forte tribus milibus annis et -supra a constitutione mundi; postea autem data permanent usque ad finem. quod ergo tot milibus annis non fuit, quo modo coepit? stellarum enim cursus a constitutione mundi est..\n\nEt quid illud est, ut, cum tanta multitudo Iudaeorum sit per totum mundum, nemo inmutetur ex his ut fiat gentilis, cum uideamus ex paganis, licet raro, fieri Iudaeos? ecce, quantum pertinet ad ritum Iudaeorum, exclusum est fatum, quia et extra fatum esse coeperunt et in eo permanent.\n\nQuid uidetur de Sodoma et Gomorra, quorum qualis fuerit exitus, uindictae obtutibus adiacet? sic fuit, ut omnes spurcitiae infamia adspersi diuino igne consumi mererentur. in cataclismo omnes unius fati fuerunt, ut una morte et eodem tempore cuncti perirent excepta domo Noe. et omnis exercitus Pharaonis uno decreto natus dicetur, ut ineptus error matheseos uindicetur, quia demersi sunt in Rubrum Mare cum suo rege? et alia quanta exempla sunt, quae praetermittimus, quia ad satisfactionem sufficiunt duo exempla, quanto magis tria!","english":"But how did that which Moses handed down come in? By the fates sleeping, I believe. For such great precepts were handed down to them to be kept, and of such a kind as no other nation has. And lest anyone think this is to be referred to a clime of the sky, they are scattered throughout almost the whole world, keeping the commandments of their law. These precepts are against the fates; for they were not there, by chance, for three thousand years and more from the foundation of the world; but afterwards they were given and remain until the end. How, then, did that which was not there for so many thousands of years begin? For the course of the stars is from the foundation of the world.\n\nAnd what of this, that, although there is such a great multitude of Jews throughout the whole world, no one among them is changed so as to become a Gentile, while we see that from pagans, though rarely, Jews are made? Behold, as far as pertains to the rite of the Jews, fate is excluded, because they both began to be outside fate and remain in that state.\n\nWhat is seen concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, whose end was of such a kind as lies before the eyes of vengeance? It was so, that all, bespattered with the infamy of every filth, deserved to be consumed by divine fire. In the flood, all were of one fate, so that all perished by one death and at the same time, except for the house of Noah. And will the whole army of Pharaoh be said to have been born by one decree, so that the inept error of mathematics is avenged, because they were drowned in the Red Sea with their king? And how many other examples there are, which we pass over, because two examples suffice for satisfaction, how much more three!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":379,"ref":"p379","source":"Nam et cunctae gentes diuersa habent instituta et, quod alibi licet, hic non licet et iterum, quod hic licet, alibi non licet. hic enim in urbe Roma et finibus eius, quae sacratissima appellatur, licet mulieribus uiros suos dimittere, cum cautum sit in lege diuina, ne quidem uiri ut hac potestate uterentur, excepta fornicationis causa. ecce in hac re meliores sunt barbari! quod et hic seruari posse non inpossibile est, quia prius seruatum docetur. mutatum est ergo fatum, quia coepit licere, quod ante prohibitum erat.\n\nEt eunuchos in regno Romano fieri non licet, apud alios licet quia autem et hic possent fieri, in absoluto est; nam factum, licet occulte, probatur. si autem cessaret timor, publice fieret. metus ergo prohibet fatum; uincitur enim, si, quod uult facere, non facit.\n\nEt Persae mulierum more inaures habent, quod hic inhonestum et inlicitum est, quia autem et hic possit fieri, testantur antestites Matris, quae appellatur Magna — et re uera magna fuit, sed meretrix; sed in eo distat, quia isti cinedi sunt, illi uiri — et quid dicemus? in omni orbe terrarum hi soli hoc fato nascuntur, ut abscisi in mulieres transformentur, ut in toto mundo isti pauculi inueniantur, quos constat miseros circumueniri et promissis praemiis ad hunc dolorem et dedecus cogi? si autem ad hoc nati essent, non cogerentur.","english":"For all nations have diverse institutions, and what is permitted in one place is not permitted here, and again, what is permitted here is not permitted elsewhere. For here in the city of Rome and its territories, which is called most sacred, it is permitted for women to divorce their husbands, although it is provided in the divine law that not even men should use this power, except in the case of fornication. Behold, in this matter the barbarians are better! And that this could be observed here is not impossible, because it is taught that it was formerly observed. Therefore fate has changed, because what was previously forbidden began to be permitted.\n\nAnd it is not permitted for eunuchs to be made in the Roman kingdom, but among others it is permitted; and that they could also be made here is certain; for it is done, albeit secretly, and is proven. But if fear ceased, it would be done publicly. Therefore fear prohibits fate; for it is overcome if one does not do what one wishes to do.\n\nAnd the Persians wear earrings in the manner of women, which here is dishonorable and unlawful; and that this could also be done here is attested by the priests of the Mother, who is called Magna—and indeed she was great, but a prostitute; but in this they differ, because these are effeminates, those are men—and what shall we say? In the whole world, only these few are born by fate to be castrated and transformed into women, so that in the entire world these few are found, who are known to be deceived and compelled by promised rewards to this pain and disgrace. But if they were born for this, they would not be compelled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":380,"ref":"p380","source":"Persae licitum habent cum filiabus suis conuenire, quod et hic fieri posse ostenditur, per id quod a quibusdam factum probatur. sed quia uindicta interuenit, metu correpti sunt, ne facerent, quod potest fieri, sed non licet. omne enim, quod prohibetur, ideo prohibetur, ne, quia potest fieri, fiat; si autem fati esset, non posset fieri neque prohiberetur. nam si non est fati et prohibetur, posse fieri quod fati non est significatur. et quae prudentia est prohibere quod non potest fieri? aliquis prohibeat, ne quis de urbe Roma transuolet in Hispaniam, aut ne quis umeris montem transferat? illa autem, quae possunt fieri, cum non debeant, prohibentur.\n\nMos Maurorum est, ut inaures etiam in naribus habeant feminae. numquid fati est? si fati esset, huc translatae sic manerent, quia, si fatum est, unus quisque secum habet fatum suum; sed quia non est fati, omnes inde hic inmutantur uidentes turpe istic uideri, quod illic decorum putatur.","english":"The Persians consider it lawful to have intercourse with their own daughters, which is shown to be possible here as well, by the fact that it is proven to have been done by some. But because punishment intervenes, they are restrained by fear from doing what can be done, but is not lawful. For everything that is forbidden is forbidden precisely so that, because it can be done, it may not be done; if it were a matter of fate, it could not be done, nor would it be forbidden. For if it is not a matter of fate and is forbidden, it signifies that what is not of fate can be done. And what prudence is there in forbidding what cannot be done? Let someone forbid that anyone fly from the city of Rome to Spain, or that anyone carry a mountain on his shoulders? But those things which can be done, when they ought not to be, are forbidden.\n\nThe custom of the Moors is that women wear earrings even in their noses. Is that a matter of fate? If it were a matter of fate, women brought here would remain the same, because, if it is fate, each person carries his own fate with him; but because it is not a matter of fate, all who come here are changed, seeing that what is considered seemly there is considered shameful here.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":381,"ref":"p381","source":"Certe apud omnes gentes numerus numerus est et terra terra est et aqua aqua est et aer aer est et ignis ignis est. numquid potest alicubi repperiri terra, quae non arida sit, aut aer, qui palpabilis sit, aut aqua, quae non fluxa aut frigida sit, uel ignis, qui frigidus sit? sic ubique Iuppiter Iuppiter est et Saturnus Saturnus est et Uenus Uenus est; eodem modo et cetera signa. ars enim ista una ratione ubique tractatur.\n\nSed, quia apud omnes gentes instituta manent non fatorum ratione, quae ubique una est, sicut tractant, sed hominum excogitatione — quidquid enim alicui, qui primus putatus est apud suos, ratione dignum uisum est et aptum decori, statuit quibus praeerat —, inde una quaeque regio uel gens propria habet quae seruet, sicut Solon et Licurgus multa statuerant, quae a Graecis legis more seruarentur, quae paulatim deficiente regno eorum oblitterata sunt.","english":"Certainly among all peoples, number is number, and earth is earth, and water is water, and air is air, and fire is fire. Can earth be found anywhere that is not dry, or air that is tangible, or water that is not fluid or cold, or fire that is cold? Thus everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter, and Saturn is Saturn, and Venus is Venus; and likewise the other signs. For that art is treated by a single rationale everywhere.\n\nBut because among all peoples the institutions remain not by reason of the fates—which, as they treat it, is one everywhere—but by human contrivance—for whatever seemed to someone who was considered foremost among his own people to be reasonable and fitting to propriety, he established for those over whom he ruled—hence each particular region or people has its own customs to observe, just as Solon and Lycurgus established many things which were observed by the Greeks in the manner of law, but which, as their kingdom gradually declined, were obliterated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":382,"ref":"p382","source":"Nam regibus Iudaeorum mulae placuerunt ad sessum; Romanorum autem non mulae, sed equi; Garamantis autem, qui supra Tripolim Afrorum sunt, regibus tauri placent ad sessum; Persarum uero reges in lectulis feruntur — nam ueteres reges Persarum nec uidebantur a populis —; et reges Madiam caipelis delectantur ad sessum, ita ut colla illorum aureis exornent torquibus; et per Africam asinis magis uolunt sedere quam equis. -.\n\nCum omnia ubique sint, non tamen omnibus omnia gratiosa sunt, quia unus quisque eligit, quid magis apud illum habeat gratiam. nam et nobis ipsis diuersa uoluntas est et in uestibus et in cibis et in cetero usu et in ipsa sententia. quod ne fati dicatur - quia multorum diuersa adserunt fata — haec res prohibet, quia frequenter mutatur in nobis uoluntas. quod enim diu amamus, postea despicimus et diligere incipimus, . quod prius non libenter habebamus, et facta consuetudine inmutati manemus.","english":"For the kings of the Jews, mules were pleasing for riding; for the Romans, however, not mules but horses; for the Garamantes, who are above Tripoli in Africa, bulls are pleasing to their kings for riding; the kings of the Persians, moreover, are carried on litters—for the ancient kings of the Persians were not even seen by the peoples—; and the kings of Midian delight in camels for riding, so that they adorn their necks with golden torques; and throughout Africa people prefer to ride on donkeys rather than on horses.\n\nAlthough all things are everywhere, yet not all things are pleasing to all, because each individual chooses what has more favor with him. For even among ourselves there is a diversity of will, both in clothing and in foods and in other usage and in judgment itself. That this not be called fate—because many assert diverse fates—this fact prevents it: that will is frequently changed in us. For what we long love, we later despise, and we begin to cherish what previously we did not gladly have, and by force of habit we remain changed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":383,"ref":"p383","source":"Ordinem autem sic dicunt esse fatorum, ut sit quid quibus efficiant temporibus per interualla recurrentia pristina, ut puta quod hodie faciunt, iterum faciant post tempus.. non enim in uno dicuntur manere; nam per disciplinam et consuetudinem uincuntur.\n\nMulieribus etenim Romanorum multis temporibus uini usus incognitus fuit. disciplina enim facta consuetudine confirmauit sensum suum, ut retineret quod prodesse didicerat. numquid illis temporibus haec fata fuerunt et postea mortua sunt, ut cessaret res bene inuenta? sed non fata hoc, sed disciplina inuenerat. adubi autem recessum est a consuetudine, periit disciplina.\n\nEt ueteres Romanorum tantae continentiae fuerunt, ut etiam oblata munera refutarent bonam famam diuitias arbitrantes et uirtutem uoluptatibus praeponentes. et his fatis successum est aut obierunt; sed non fati fuit, sed disciplinae, quae etiam ipsius fati pedagogus est. quo modo enim posset fati esse, quod neque ante tempus habuit neque nunc habet?","english":"The order of the fates is said to be such that there is a time when certain things are brought about by recurring intervals of the past, so that, for example, what they do today, they do again after a time. For they are not said to remain in one state; for they are overcome by discipline and custom.\n\nFor among Roman women, the use of wine was unknown for many times. For discipline, having been made into custom, confirmed its own sense, so that it retained what it had learned to be beneficial. Were these fates present in those times and later died, so that a well-discovered thing ceased? But it was not fate that discovered this, but discipline. However, when there was a departure from custom, discipline perished.\n\nAnd the ancient Romans were of such great continence that they even rejected offered gifts, considering good reputation as riches and preferring virtue to pleasures. And did success or death come to these fates? But it was not of fate, but of discipline, which is even the pedagogue of fate itself. For how could it be of fate, which neither had a time before nor has one now?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":384,"ref":"p384","source":"Et quid est, nescio, ut tantam inuidiam fato faciant, ut in omnibus gestis ipsum dicant auctorem, cum sit et non sit? ubi enim disciplina est, non est et, ubi consuetudo est, non est et, ubi casus est, non est. ubi autem uidetur esse, timore legis uincitur; et libido enim metu conpescitur et quaestus pecuniae propter deum promerendum repudiatur. in hac ergo parte negari non potest, quia non potest non esse, quod uincitur, et tamen recte potest dici et in eo ipso non esse, quia caret auctoritate, quod uincitur.-\n\nItaque dei legem qui sequitur et consuetudinem tenet bonae uitae, huic cedunt omnia quae dicuntur fata. tantum enim potest consuetudo, ut etiam bestias mitiget. nam male uiuere uolentes ipsi sibi fata constituunt. per luxoriam enim et uoluptatem fit intemperantia et inquietudo, quae parit incontinentiam et iracundiam. et scientes istud poena dignum, ut inmuues se faciant, pudorem passi fatis hoc adscribunt, cum de hac re cogitantibus adiutorium faciant demones: qui ad hoc stant, ut male cogitantibus tribuant effectum, istos fata appellant non intellegentes, quia sunt hominis inimici.","english":"And what is this, I do not know, that they heap such great envy upon fate, so that in all deeds they call it the author, when it both is and is not? For where there is discipline, it is not; where there is custom, it is not; where there is chance, it is not. But where it seems to be, it is overcome by fear of the law; for lust is checked by fear, and the pursuit of money is rejected for the sake of propitiating God. In this part, therefore, it cannot be denied that it cannot not be, that which is overcome, and yet it can rightly be said that even in that very thing it is not, because that which is overcome lacks authority.\n\nTherefore, he who follows the law of God and holds to the custom of a good life—to him all things that are called fate give way. For custom has such power that it even tames wild beasts. For those who wish to live wickedly set up fate for themselves. For through luxury and pleasure come intemperance and restlessness, which beget incontinence and wrath. And knowing that this is worthy of punishment, to make themselves blameless, having suffered shame, they ascribe this to fate, when demons, who stand ready to grant effect to those who think wickedly, give assistance to those pondering this matter; these they call fate, not understanding that they are enemies of man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":385,"ref":"p385","source":"Nam si per sensus non subintrarent peccata ad animam, sed de intus nascerentur, recte omne, quod delinquitur, lato... rum esse diceretur. at cum uideant autem per uisum et auditum et per reliquos sensus nasci concupiscentiam peccatorum adiutantibus inimicis, qui suggerunt faciendum. quod contrarium est et non putatur, quamdiu fiat — dulce enim uidetur, cum fit aut antequam fiat; perfectum autem apparet esse amarum —, quid fatis inputant?\n\nQuia autem potest uinci, hinc aduertimus. cogitantibus etenim nobis et de aliqua re sollicitis silent inimici et conquiescit libido; non enim possunt suggerere occupatis nobis. numquid aliquis ad aliquam rem alicui dedito aliud suggerit? non facit sciens aut non se audiri aut aporiari quasi inportune suggerentem. ita et inimici, quos constat esse demones; hi sunt enim dii paganorum, qui, si uiderint diuinis rebus nos occupatos, non se ingerunt ad contraria suggerenda, sed in insidiis sunt quaerentes occasionem, qua se inmergant.","english":"For if sins did not enter the soul through the senses, but were born from within, then rightly everything that is done wrong would be said to belong to fate. But when they see that through sight and hearing and the other senses the desire for sins arises, with the help of enemies who suggest that it be done—which is contrary and is not thought to be so as long as it is done (for it seems sweet when it is done or before it is done, but when completed it appears bitter)—why do they impute it to fate?\n\nBut that it can be overcome, we perceive from this. For when we are thinking and are occupied with some matter, the enemies are silent and lust subsides; for they cannot make suggestions to us when we are busy. Does anyone suggest something else to someone who is devoted to a particular matter? He does not do so, knowing either that he is not heard or that he is being importunate, as if making an untimely suggestion. So too the enemies, who are known to be demons—for these are the gods of the pagans—if they see us occupied with divine matters, do not intrude to suggest contrary things, but lie in ambush, seeking an opportunity to ensnare us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":386,"ref":"p386","source":"Munimenta ergo sunt animorum meditatio assidua legis dei et operatio, quia, si otiosos nos uiderint a rebus diuinis, exsuscitantur ad sollicitandos nos. ipsi sunt enim qui per carnem et sanguinem seminant concupiscentias. quamuis enim habeat caro proprium motum originis suae, quia non est otiosa carnalis natiuitas, tamen in hac re accedit ad necem hominum adiutorium demonum.\n\nDiuersa enim sunt demonia et disparem habentia uoluntatem. quaedam autem sunt, quae, cum perturbant animos, elidunt corpora; quaedam uero admiscentia se sanguini generant animis desideria; alia autem cordi hominis se copulantia suggerunt cum blanditiis contraria; nonnulla autem sunt, quae sola corpora obligant infirmitatibus, sicut et illam filiam Abrahae, quam dominus curauit.\n\nHaec omnia ignorantes pagani fatum appellant, cum diuersae sint causae et ista ab inimicis procurentur, ut quacumque ex causa inretitus homo subiciatur passionibus. sedfatum bonum appellant, cum bene temperata sunt corpora aut affabilitate commendantur habentia gratiam quandam; malum autem fatum esse, si plus caloris habeat aut umoris, aut si non sit aspersus gratia, sed magis ad detrimenta paratus, quos infortunatos uocant.","english":"The supports of the mind, therefore, are the constant meditation on the law of God and its practice, because if they see us idle with respect to divine matters, they are roused to trouble us. For they themselves are the ones who, through flesh and blood, sow desires. For although the flesh has its own motion from its origin, because carnal birth is not idle, yet in this matter the assistance of demons is added to the destruction of men.\n\nFor demons are diverse and have a disparate will. Some, indeed, when they disturb the minds, dash the bodies to the ground; others, by mingling with the blood, generate desires in the minds; still others, by attaching themselves to a man's heart, suggest contrary things with flattery; and there are some which bind only the bodies with infirmities, as also that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord healed.\n\nAll these things the pagans, being ignorant, call fate, although the causes are diverse and these things are brought about by enemies, so that man, ensnared by whatever cause, is subjected to passions. But they call it good fate when bodies are well-tempered or when they are commended by affability, possessing a certain grace; and bad fate, if there is an excess of heat or moisture, or if one is not endowed with grace, but rather prone to misfortunes, whom they call unlucky.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":387,"ref":"p387","source":"Fac uera esse. uidemus enim haec etiam in animalibus, ut plus habeant caloris; sed animalia non sunt rationabilia sicut homo, ut possint adhibita cura corpus suum temperare. ideo enim imperator est corporis animus, ut gubernet eum retinaculis legis diuinae. ea enim, quae siue inpulsu carnis siue ab inimico suggeruntur, non esse utilia lex ostendit diuina, quam ideo adiutorio dedit deus, ut dictantem inimicum mala quasi bona respicientes legis praecepta intellegamus illum esse seductorem, quia aliud suadet quam docet lex.\n\nSic ergo frenatur corpus, ut, quia feruet, minus illi detur et a deliciis retineatur. sicut enim corpus febricitans si accipiat escam aut potum, increscit illi calor, ita et huius modi corpora, quae sanguinis feruore uruntur, uehementius exardescent, nisi fuerint gubernata. igni enim si non des escam, sopitur.\n\nAnimi est ducere corpus; si autem dimiserit eum, ut eat quo uult, praecipitat eum, sicut equus frenosus neclegentem sessorem. et quia corporis feruor plus exardescit agentibus inimicis ad deceptionem animae, quia non corpus desiderat, sed calore suo generat animae desideria, dei nostri tuitio imploranda est ad tutelam, ut prohibeat eos — quia non est nobis conluctatio aduersus carnem et sanguinem, sed aduersus principes et potestates —, quibus amotis facile erit carnis et sanguinis motum conprimere.","english":"Make them true. For we see these things also in animals, that they have more heat; but animals are not rational as man is, so that they can, with care applied, temper their own body. For this reason the mind is the commander of the body, so that it may govern it with the reins of divine law. For divine law shows those things which are suggested either by the impulse of the flesh or by the enemy to be not useful; and God gave this law as an aid so that, when we look upon the evil things which the dictating enemy suggests as if they were good, we may understand him to be a deceiver, because he urges something other than what the law teaches.\n\nThus, therefore, the body is reined in, so that, because it is hot, less is given to it and it is held back from pleasures. For just as a feverish body, if it takes food or drink, its heat increases, so also bodies of this kind, which burn with the heat of blood, will blaze up more violently unless they have been governed. For if you do not give fuel to fire, it is quenched.\n\nIt is the mind's role to lead the body; but if it lets it go, to go where it wishes, it hurls it headlong, like a bridled horse does a careless rider. And because the heat of the body blazes up more with the enemies acting to deceive the soul—since the body does not desire, but by its heat generates desires for the soul—the protection of our God must be implored for defense, so that he may restrain them—because our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers—and with them removed, it will be easy to suppress the motion of flesh and blood.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":388,"ref":"p388","source":"extinguitur, enim incendium, si desit materia per quam uiuat.\n\nIllis autem eueniunt quae a mathematicis. dicuntur, qui credunt futurum quod dicunt. id enim agitur subtilitate demaniorum, ut ea efficiant, quae antestites illorum dixerint futura, ne falsi detecti prodantur. circa eos uero, qui responsis illorum non commodant fidem, non praeualet effectus eorum, quia neque ipsi tam intenti sunt, ut satisfaciant eis, qui illis non credunt, neque patitur deus facere illos per quod seducantur fidentes de deo et non credentes diabolo. omnia enim sic deus constituit, ut secundum unius cuiusque fidem eueniat ei, ut arbitrium liberum maneat uoluntatis. ac per hoc qui deo credit ad auxilium eius confugiens, nibil ei poterit praeualere; certus est enim in potestate eius esse, quae fecit, et non audere contra eum, quem uidet deum communem habere propitium.","english":"is extinguished, for the fire ceases if the material through which it lives is lacking.\n\nBut those things happen to them which are spoken of by the astrologers, who believe that what they say will come to pass. For it is brought about by the subtlety of demons that they bring to pass what their leaders have said will happen, lest they be exposed as false when detected. But concerning those who do not lend credence to their responses, their effect does not prevail, because neither are they themselves so intent on satisfying those who do not believe them, nor does God permit them to do that by which they might seduce those who trust in God and do not believe in the devil. For God has so ordered all things that, according to each one's faith, it happens to him, so that free choice of will remains. And for this reason, whoever believes in God, fleeing to his aid, nothing will be able to prevail against him; for it is certain that he is in the power of the one who made these things, and that they dare not act against him whom they see having God, their common Lord, as propitious.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":389,"ref":"p389","source":"Certe deus fecit mundum et solem et lunam et stellas creauit constituens eis cursus, quibus gubernatur genus hominum. numquid non habet potestatem imperare illis. ut aliquando aliud faciant, quam decretum habent? sic enim ea condidit, ut uoluntati eius subiaceant et tunc demum cursus decretos exsequantur, si aliud minime fuerit praeceptum: ut, si rogatus ab his fuerit quibus ministrant, per id quod aut inportunae sint pluuiae aut nimia siccitate steriles fructus appareant, iubeat temperari tempus aut, si forte, ut adsolet, irato. deo uiuant homines, dum per luxoriam et uanitatem oberrantes non faciunt quod placet deo, diutissime suspensa pluuia, ut factum legimus sub Helia et Heliseo, famem excitet super terram, satisfactione placatus adnuat, ut imbres iungent aridam.\n\nEodem enim modo ratio. mundi est, ut imperium sae* culare. quo modo enim quidam pressi a rectoribus prouinciarum ad auxilium imperatorum decurrunt ut erigantur, ita et homines, si aduersa sibi uiderint tempora, supplices se praebeant deo, in cuius potestate sunt omnia.","english":"Certainly God made the world and created the sun and moon and stars, establishing for them courses by which the human race is governed. Does he not have the power to command them, so that at some time they do something other than what they have as their decree? For he founded them in such a way that they are subject to his will and then carry out their decreed courses only if nothing else has been ordered: so that, if he is entreated by those whom they serve, because either the rains are untimely or the fruits appear barren due to excessive drought, he may order the weather to be moderated, or, if perhaps, as often happens, men live under an angry God, while through luxury and vanity they go astray and do not do what pleases God, and the rain is suspended for a very long time, so that, as we read happened under Elijah and Elisha, it stirs up famine upon the earth, then, when appeased by satisfaction, he grants that the rains may moisten the dry land.\n\nFor the order of the world is the same as that of a secular empire. For just as some men, oppressed by the governors of provinces, have recourse to the aid of the emperors in order to be raised up, so also men, if they see adverse times, should present themselves as suppliants to God, in whose power all things are.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":390,"ref":"p390","source":"Sed hoc mathematicis non uidetur. aliud enim fieri inquiunt non posse, quam ut sidera decretas sibi impleant causas; et neque reuocari neque ad aliud inpelli possunt, sed semel statuta seruant officia. haec mathematicorum. adseueratio est, ut dicant fata inmutari non posse neque precibus aliquid impetrari, quia semel deum dicunt statuisse totius mundi rationem et ministris sideribus tradidisse, quae neque retro neque ante ferri possunt.\n\nHic est error mathematicorum, quo etiam deum pulsant. per hanc enim adseuerationem negant, aliquid posse fieri extra ordinem mundi, ut omnia, quae in mundo a deo facta leguntur, si a mundi lege discordant, negent credenda, illa autem asserant, quae iuxta statuta mundi facta dicuntur, ut neque. uirgo peperisse dicatur neque uirga Aaron floruisse et fructum adtulisse neque Sarra anus peperisse. haec enim mundi ratio non habet, quia extra mundi ordinem a deo facta leguntur. et quid mirum, si auctor mundi fecit quod non potest mundus?","english":"But this does not seem so to the astrologers. For they assert that it cannot happen otherwise than that the stars fulfill the causes decreed to them; and they can neither be recalled nor driven to something else, but they preserve the offices once established. This is the assertion of the astrologers, that they say the fates cannot be changed nor anything obtained by prayers, because they say that God once established the entire rationale of the world and entrusted it to the ministering stars, which can be moved neither backward nor forward.\n\nThis is the error of the astrologers, by which they also assail God. For by this assertion they deny that anything can happen outside the order of the world, so that they deny that all things which are read to have been done in the world by God, if they disagree with the law of the world, are to be believed; but they assert those things which are said to have been done according to the statutes of the world, so that it is said that neither did a virgin give birth, nor did Aaron's rod blossom and bear fruit, nor did the aged Sarah give birth. For the rationale of the world does not contain these things, because they are read to have been done by God outside the order of the world. And what wonder, if the author of the world did what the world cannot do?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":391,"ref":"p391","source":"'Sed transgressus uidetur', aiunt, 'rationem quam statuit, ut aliter ipse fecisse dicatur, quam mundo decreuit'. age uero, mundo legem statuit faciendi aut generandi: numquid sibi? et humilitas eius erat, si sic faceret, sicut ab eo conditus mundus. et unde ab eo factum intellegeretur, si mundi lege fecisset quod fecit? ut autem intellegeretur a deo factum, non a mundo, alio ordine factum est.\n\nCerte soli decreuit ut incessabiliter impleat statuta spatia nec habeat licentiam standi: numquid, quia hanc legem ei statuit, nec ipsi licebit statuere illum?\n\nCerte iudicibus statutum est, ne liceat illis in reum datam sententiam reuocare: numquid et ipse imperator sub hac erit lege? nam ipsi soli licet reuocare sententiam et reo mortis ignoscere: quanto magis deo licere debet, quod mundo concedi non debuit, quia creatoris sui est famulus! denique mundus per legem sibi traditam occidere potest, uiuificare non potest. per intemperantiam caecum creare potest, oculos illi reformare non potest; inbecillem et aegrum facere potest, curare illum non potest, hoc enim deus sibi reseruauit, unde appareat eum omnium esse dominum. ad subruendum enim fatum pertinet, quia mortui resurrexerunt, caeco nato oculi reformati sunt, aegri et paralitici confirmati sunt et cetera, quae facta sunt talia, ut confugientibus ad deum, si quid fati esse potest, inpedimentum adferre non possit.","english":"But he seems to have transgressed the rule he established,\" they say, \"so that he himself is said to have acted otherwise than he decreed for the world.\" But indeed, did he establish a law for the world of acting or generating—did he do so for himself? And it would have been a mark of his lowliness if he had acted as the world he created does. And how would it be understood that it was done by him, if he had done what he did according to the world's law? But in order that it be understood as done by God, not by the world, it was done in a different order.\n\nCertainly, he decreed for the sun that it should unceasingly fulfill its appointed courses and have no license to stand still: does it follow, because he established this law for it, that he himself is not permitted to make it stand still?\n\nCertainly, it is established for judges that they are not allowed to revoke a sentence passed against a defendant: is the emperor himself under this law? For he alone is permitted to revoke a sentence and pardon a condemned man. How much more must it be permitted to God, what could not be conceded to the world, because the world is the servant of its creator! Indeed, the world, through the law given to it, can kill, but it cannot bring to life. Through intemperance it can create a blind man, but it cannot restore his eyes; it can make a man weak and sick, but it cannot cure him—for God has reserved this for himself, whereby it appears that he is the lord of all. For it pertains to the overthrow of fate that the dead have risen, the eyes of a man born blind have been restored, the sick and paralyzed have been strengthened, and other such things have been done, so that for those who flee to God, if there can be any fate, it cannot present an obstacle.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":392,"ref":"p392","source":"dicit enim Iohannes apostolus: maior est, inquit, qui in uobis est, quam qui in hoc mundo.\n\nRogatus enim deus etiam quae statuit amouet. nam utique statuit in peccatores uindicandum et tamen deprecantibus ignoscit, quia ipsi soli licet ligare et soluere. unde cum soli statio concessa non sit, sub Iesu Naue iussus est stare et oboediuit eius imperio, contra id quod sibi in ratione mundi fuerat praeceptum. sub Ezechia autem amplius factum legitur, quia, ut Ezechias, quod sibi promissum erat, uerum esse non dubitaret, signum tale accepit, quod nouum esset et humanis auribus inauditum. non enim, sicut prius, soli iussum est ut staret, sed ut reuerteretur retro, quod uidens Ezechias certum haberet posse sibi eum quindecim annos addere ad uitam. qui de nona hora fecerat sextam. et quia contra mathematicos est quod Ezechiae concessum est — negant enim posse addi ad uitam —, signum iterum in hac re, quod contra mathematicos esset, accepit. inpossibile enim asserunt aliud astra facere quam habent constitutum.","english":"The apostle John says: \"Greater,\" he says, \"is he who is in you than he who is in this world.\"\n\nFor when God is entreated, he also removes what he has established. For he certainly established that sinners should be punished, and yet he forgives those who pray, because it is permitted to him alone to bind and to loose. Hence, when the sun was not granted a stationary position, under Joshua the son of Nun it was ordered to stand still and it obeyed his command, contrary to what had been prescribed to it in the order of the world. Under Hezekiah, moreover, something greater is read to have been done, because, so that Hezekiah would not doubt that what had been promised to him was true, he received such a sign as was new and unheard of by human ears. For it was not, as before, ordered that the sun should stand still, but that it should go backward, which Hezekiah, seeing, would be certain that fifteen years could be added to his life. He who had made the ninth hour into the sixth. And because what was granted to Hezekiah is contrary to the astrologers—for they deny that years can be added to life—he again received a sign in this matter, which was contrary to the astrologers. For they assert that it is impossible for the stars to do anything other than what they have been appointed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":393,"ref":"p393","source":"Certe fati esse dicunt seruum habere aut non habere. esto. ab initio mundi haec fata ubi fuerunt? usque ad diluuium enim et infra multa serie annorum transacta non fuit haec condicio seruitutis. aut numquid ex Nini temporibus haec fata coeperunt, qui primus dicitur finitimis bella inferre coepisse et captos facere seruituti obnoxios P uides ergo postea hoc inuentum et non esse fati, sed actus demonum, quia, si fati fuisset, ab initio mundi fuisset. ipsa enim sunt sidera, quae facta sunt in initio, et in eo manet cursus eorum.\n\nEt antea uita hominum agrestis erat nec diuitiis studebatur: quo modo nunc astrologi per astra dicunt diuites et, pauperes fieri? numquid mutata sunt astra, aut uersutia et praestigium est satanae, ut ea per stellas dicat fieri, quae angelis suis ministris operatur? accedente enim tempore, quo interitus ei adpropinquat, maiora adinuenit, per quae peccetur.","english":"Certainly, they say that it is a matter of fate to have a slave or not to have one. Very well. From the beginning of the world, where were these fates? For up to the flood and beyond, through many series of years that passed, this condition of servitude did not exist. Or did these fates begin from the times of Ninus, who is said to have been the first to wage war on neighboring peoples and to make captives subject to servitude? You see, therefore, that this was discovered later and is not a matter of fate, but of the deeds of demons, because, if it were a matter of fate, it would have existed from the beginning of the world. For the stars themselves were made in the beginning, and their course remains the same.\n\nAnd formerly, human life was rustic, and wealth was not pursued. How is it that astrologers now say, through the stars, that people become rich or poor? Have the stars changed, or is it the cunning and trickery of Satan, so that he makes happen through the stars what he works through his ministering angels? For as the time approaches when his destruction draws near, he devises greater means through which sin is committed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":394,"ref":"p394","source":"Ecce scimus fame laborasse Italiam et Africam, Siciliam et Sardiniam: dicant mathematici, si omnes hi unum fatum habuerunt, cum inter centum nec duorum sibi fata conuenire posse dicantur. erubescant et taceant et deo subplices manus tendant, in cuius potestate sunt omnia. sed in hoc forte subreptum est fatis: quid dicemus de Pannonia, quae sic erasa est, ut remedium habere non possit?.\n\ninfirmitas eorum, qui fide pendula Christianos se profitentur! dum enim de promissis dubitant, nec de his quae facta sunt cogitant. si enim ea quae a profetis et apostolis gesta sunt considerarent, numquam fabulas mathematicorum admitterent. scirent enim omnia in dei esse potestate nec terrerentur, quando bonis mala accidunt, quia in futuro iudicio remunerabuntur, memores apostoli dicentis: quia per tribulationes, inquit, oportet nos intrare in regnum dei. contentus enim et dei sui exspectans iudicium remuneratus etiam uindicabitur. si enim in praesenti uindicari desiderat aut omni auiditate praesentibus frui copiis, dubitat de promissa uita ac per hoc in futuro inter perfidos deputatus poena dignus habebitur.","english":"Behold, we know that Italy and Africa, Sicily and Sardinia have suffered from famine: let the astrologers say whether all these people had one fate, since it is said that among a hundred people not even two fates can coincide. Let them blush and be silent and stretch out suppliant hands to God, in whose power all things are. But perhaps in this case fate was caught off guard: what shall we say of Pannonia, which has been so utterly devastated that it cannot be restored?\n\nThis is the weakness of those who profess themselves Christians with wavering faith! For while they doubt the promises, they do not even think about those things which have happened. For if they considered what was done by the prophets and apostles, they would never admit the fables of the astrologers. For they would know that all things are in God's power, and they would not be terrified when evils befall the good, because they will be rewarded in the future judgment, mindful of the apostle saying: \"For through tribulations,\" he says, \"we must enter the kingdom of God.\" For one who is content and awaits the judgment of his God will be rewarded and also avenged. For if he desires to be avenged in the present, or to enjoy present abundance with all eagerness, he doubts the promised life, and on that account, in the future, counted among the faithless, he will be considered worthy of punishment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":395,"ref":"p395","source":"mundum enim deus propter exercitium fecit et omnibus copiis honestauit duas causas proponens, praesentem et futuram, caelestem et terrenam, ut ad probationem essent hominum, ut qui spreta futura uita praesentem elegeret carni deputaretur, qui uero praesenti futuram anteponeret spiritalibus dignus haberetur, et qui iniuste pressus potentia iniustorum querellas deo deponeret uel reseruaret in futuro iudicio releuatus spiritali gloria honoraretur. unde nullus sanctorum in mundo gloriosus apparuit neque praesentes dilexit delicias. hinc apostolus: habentes, inquit, uictum et uestimentum his contenti simus. sed queritur Christianus et dolet, si quis felix uideatur in saeculo, cum Christianorum dignitas et felicitas non in terris promissa sit, sed in caelis: quo modo ergo Christianum se dicit, qui non illic gloriari uult, ubi promissum est, sed hic, ubi prohibitum est? si enim expediret praesentibus frui, non utique haec contemnentibus caelestia promitterentur.","english":"For God made the world for the sake of exercise and adorned it with all resources, setting forth two causes, the present and the future, the celestial and the earthly, so that they might serve as a test for men: that he who, spurning the future life, chose the present one would be assigned to the flesh; that he who, on the other hand, preferred the future to the present would be deemed worthy of spiritual things; and that he who was unjustly oppressed by the power of the unjust would lay his complaints before God or reserve them for the future judgment, and, raised up, would be honored with spiritual glory. Hence none of the saints has appeared glorious in the world, nor has he delighted in present pleasures. Hence the Apostle says: “Having food and clothing, let us be content with these.” But the Christian complains and grieves if someone seems fortunate in this world, when the dignity and happiness of Christians have been promised not on earth, but in heaven. How then does he call himself a Christian who wishes to glory not where it is promised, but here, where it is forbidden? For if it were expedient to enjoy present things, then heavenly things would certainly not be promised to those who despise these.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":396,"ref":"p396","source":"Qua igitur spe Christiani mathematicis aures commodant, cum audiant Iohannem apostolum clamantem et dicentem: nolite diligere hunc mundum neque ea, quae in mundo sunt? itaque si haec sunt fidei uel legis nostrae praecepta, ne mundus diligatur neque ea, quae in mundo sunt, quid est ut quidam nostrum querantur contristati de aliorum felicitate quae est in mundo, quae apud deum forte infelicitas est, cum magis gaudere deberent, quia non illis mundus praestat, per quae obligati teneantur humanis rebus obnoxii?\n\nFelicitas enim ista securitatis facultate accepta diuinorum caret sollicitudine. indiligens enim sit necesse est circa diuina oracula, qui omnibus necessariis refertus, unde sit sollicitus, non habet. alia enim sollicitudine incipere solent laborare huius modi, ut amplificentur in saeculo, quod sine peccato non potest fieri. si propius autem aspiciatur, uidebitur inimicus magis illorum esse mundus, quos beatos dicitur facere, uix enim aliquis illorum caelestia cogitat.","english":"With what hope, then, do Christians lend their ears to astrologers, when they hear the apostle John crying out and saying: Do not love this world nor the things that are in the world? Therefore, if these are the precepts of our faith or law—that the world is not to be loved nor the things that are in the world—why is it that some of our people complain, saddened by the good fortune of others which is in the world, which before God is perhaps misfortune, when they ought rather to rejoice because the world does not provide them with those things by which they might be held bound, subject to human affairs?\n\nFor that good fortune, once the means of security is received, lacks concern for divine matters. For a person who is filled with all necessities, having no source of worry, must necessarily be negligent regarding divine oracles. Such persons usually begin to labor under another kind of concern, that they may increase in the world, which cannot be done without sin. If, however, one looks more closely, the world will appear to be more the enemy of those whom it is said to make happy; scarcely any of them think of heavenly things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":397,"ref":"p397","source":"Gaudendum ergo Christianis est, dum recte conuersantes premuntur in saeculo. hic enim uicit saeculum, qui contentus quo modo illi euenerit in saeculo deo suo gratias agit, a quo, si qua hic denegata uidentur temporalia, reddi speret aeterna. ut quid enim deus futurum iudicium statuit, nisi ut qui iniuste deprimuntur ad tempus, in uita aeterna (exaltentur) conpressis his, qui per potentiam contemnentes aut non credentes futurum dei iudicium inpunitatem esse scelerum arbitrati sunt?\n\nSed fatorum adsertores negant futurum iudicium. si enim nascuntur qui boni sint et e contra qui mali sint, quid laudas aut accusas, quando neque bonus congressus laborauit, ut uinceret, neque malus neclegens fuit, ut perderet? istas quidem inter priuatos fabulas uenditant. nam iudiciis oblati peccatores numquam ausi - sunt crimina sua fatis excusare, sed semet ipsos reos confitentes iure se sententiam excipere non negant. itaque legis auctoritas rationem calcat fatorum ita, ut ne nominari quidem possit, cum se commouerit lex.","english":"Christians ought therefore to rejoice when, living rightly, they are oppressed in this world. For he has conquered the world who, content with whatever lot befalls him in the world, gives thanks to his God, from whom, if certain temporal things seem denied here, he hopes they will be restored in eternity. For why did God establish a future judgment, unless so that those who are unjustly oppressed for a time might be exalted in eternal life, while those who, through power, despising or not believing in God’s future judgment, thought there would be impunity for their crimes are crushed?\n\nBut the advocates of fate deny a future judgment. For if some are born good and others, on the contrary, bad, why do you praise or accuse, when neither has the good man striven to conquer, nor has the bad man been negligent so as to lose? These tales they peddle among private individuals. For when criminals are brought before the courts, they have never dared to excuse their crimes by fate, but confessing themselves guilty, they do not deny that they justly receive the sentence. Thus the authority of the law tramples upon the reasoning of fate, so that it cannot even be named when the law is set in motion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":398,"ref":"p398","source":"Quo modo autem euasuros se in perpetuum credunt, qui nequiter uersati legis seueritatem studio quodam ad tempus effugiunt non cogitantes auctorem legis hinc dissimulare non posse? nam hic imago legis est, illic ueritas, et qui inludit imaginem, ueritatem inludere non potest. numquid est aliquis locus sine deo aut aliquis manus eius effugiat? putant autem blandientes sibi, quia qui hic euadit iam securus sit. et quo modo hoc iustum aestimant, ut aliis in talibus causis damnatis isti euadant?\n\nCerte deus mundum constituit et qua lege uteretur ostendit. diligens enim opus suum ostendit ei uiam, qua itur ad uitam, ordinatis quibus ducibus uterentur, quia est et uia quae ducit ad mortem. numquid non ergo requirere debet, si hi, quos ministros regni sui posuit, eo iure, quo constituit, populum eius gubernarunt, aut si populus edictum eius suscepit, ut et ministri fideles inuenti laude digni sint aut infideles poenis subditi, similiter et populus lege seruata laudetur aut contempta damnetur? hoc iustum est, hoc causa ex?oscit.","english":"How, then, do they believe they will escape forever, those who, having acted wickedly, evade the severity of the law for a time by some studied effort, not considering that the author of the law cannot dissemble in this matter? For here is the image of the law; there is the truth, and one who mocks the image cannot mock the truth. Is there any place without God, or does anyone escape his hand? But they flatter themselves, thinking that because they escape here, they are already safe. And how do they consider it just that, while others are condemned in such cases, these should escape?\n\nCertainly, God established the world and showed by what law it would be governed. For, loving his work, he showed it the way that leads to life, appointing guides by whom they would be led, because there is also a way that leads to death. Should he not, therefore, inquire whether those whom he placed as ministers of his kingdom have governed his people by that right which he established, or whether the people have received his edict, so that either faithful ministers are found worthy of praise or unfaithful ones are subjected to penalties, and likewise the people are praised for keeping the law or condemned for despising it? This is just; this is the cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":399,"ref":"p399","source":"Quo modo ergo quibusdam displicet futurum iudicium credere? sed hoc mathematicorum inuenit amentia. quo modo enim possent futurum accipere iudicium, qui praesenti repugnant, quia iudicium in natiuitate esse contendunt? et quia ueritas, cum putatur premi, resurgit, ipsi, qui quodam iudicio naturali bonos et malos non fieri, sed adserunt nasci, peccantibus retribuunt nec patiuntur inulta esse peccata. uirgis enim pistrino uinculis intus corripiunt, quos foris inemendabiles adserunt natos. aliquis prudentium corripit quem scit emendari non posse? quod quidem aut stulti est aut iniqui.\n\nSed ne hoc ipsum fato dicant fieri, quia qui sub fato est non facit quod uult, ut etiam ipsi naturale habeant ut uindicent in eos, quos sciunt inconuertibiles manere naturaliter, et uere, quia sic dicendum est, ut quidquid fati esse dicitur stultitiae deputetur. quam enim stultum est ut* cum dicant aliquem malum natum, nec illum bonum probent quem adserant bonum natum! quo modo enim potest bonus iudicari, qui rem iniquam facere deprehenditur? quid enim tam iniquum, quam ut caedatur, qui negatur aliud potuisse facere quam fecit?","english":"How, then, do some find it displeasing to believe in a future judgment? But this is the madness of the astrologers that has devised it. For how could they accept a future judgment, who resist the present one, because they contend that judgment lies in birth? And because truth, when it is thought to be suppressed, rises again, they themselves, who assert by some natural judgment that good and evil men are not made but are born, nevertheless punish those who sin and do not suffer sins to go unavenged. For they beat with rods, the mill, chains, and prison those whom they assert were born incorrigible. Does any prudent man chastise someone he knows cannot be corrected? That is indeed either the act of a fool or of an unjust man.\n\nBut let them not say that even this happens by fate, because he who is under fate does not do what he wills, so that they themselves naturally have it in them to take vengeance on those whom they know remain incorrigible by nature, and truly, for it must be said thus, that whatever is said to be of fate is to be ascribed to folly. For how foolish it is that, although they say someone is born evil, they do not even prove that man good whom they assert is born good! For how can he be judged good who is caught doing an unjust thing? For what is so unjust as that a man should be beaten who is said to have been unable to do otherwise than he did?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":400,"ref":"p400","source":"Et si omnia fato fiunt, quo modo lex subintrauit, quae non sinat fieri quod fati est? si enim tollatur lex, passim publice inlicita fient nec potentes poterunt ferri nec erit libertas, quia et qui nunc non cogitat malum sublato timore incipiet malus esse. denique legimus legem malorum causa datam.\n\nSed et hoc ipsum fati forte fuit, ut lex daretur. et qua ratione fata subsistunt, si generant a quo destruantur, quia quod fati est contra dixit lex fieri debere? carent ergo ratione, si contraria sibi generant, et iniqua sunt, quia nasci faciunt homines ad damnationem, et si iniqua sunt, auctoritatem habere non debent, quia omne iniquum punitioni obnoxium est. ,\n\nAut ne forte legem nihil prodesse dicant, quia qui sic natus est, ut malus sit, per legem non potest inmutari? quod si est, superflue lex data est; et quo modo fata rem superfluam nasci fecerunt, quia 'nihil sine fato'? itaque fata et pro se et contra se faciunt. quod si ita est, stare non potest quod per inconstantiam rationis non tenet firmitatem.","english":"If everything happens by fate, how did law come in, which does not allow what is fated to happen? For if law is removed, unlawful acts will be committed openly everywhere, the powerful will not be able to be endured, nor will there be freedom, because even he who now does not think of evil will begin to be evil when fear is removed. Indeed, we read that law was given because of evil men.\n\nBut perhaps this very thing was fated, that law should be given. And on what principle do fates subsist, if they generate that by which they are destroyed, because what is fated law has spoken against, saying it ought not to be done? Therefore they lack reason, if they generate things contrary to themselves, and they are unjust, because they cause men to be born for condemnation; and if they are unjust, they ought to have no authority, because everything unjust is liable to punishment.\n\nOr perhaps they say that law is of no use, because he who is born such that he is evil cannot be changed by law? If that is so, law was given in vain; and how did the fates cause something superfluous to be born, since 'nothing happens without fate'? Thus the fates act both for themselves and against themselves. If that is so, it cannot stand, because it holds no firmness through inconsistency of reason.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":401,"ref":"p401","source":"Sed ne propter hoc legem fata esse uoluerunt, ut quos malos fata faciunt nasci a lege damnentur, ut conueniat fatis et legi ad horum punitionem? ad hoc quid erit quod dicatur, nisi quia et leges et fata proprio iudicio condemnari merentur, si pari iniustitia hoc elaborant, ut occidantur qui non sponte, sed fatis agentibus mala fecerunt? ad haec lex contra dicit, quia fata propria professione damnanda sunt. non enim negant eos qui mali sunt fati esse quod mali sunt. lex autem usque adeo aduersa est fatis, ut neget malos fati esse quod mali sunt, sed uoluntatis illorum; quam ob rem reos illos rite constituet. nihil ergo legi et fatis commune est, quando a lege negatur quod a fatis adseritur.\n\nQua autem ratione nati dicentur, qui mathematicos urbe Roma prohibuerunt, quod ius seruatum non ignoratur et certe pagani fuerunt? quo modo fato fiunt quae contra fatum sunt? sed si est fatum, non facit contra se: isti non habent fatum, qui faciunt contra fatum, et si hi non habent fatum, non est fatum.","english":"But lest for this reason they have wanted law to be fate, so that those whom fate makes evil at birth are condemned by law, so that fate and law may agree for the punishment of these persons? What will be said to this, except that both laws and fate deserve to be condemned by their own judgment, if with equal injustice they strive that those who did evil not of their own will but by the agency of fate be put to death? To this, law speaks against it, because fate is to be condemned by its own profession. For they do not deny that those who are evil are evil by fate. But law is so opposed to fate that it denies that the evil are evil by fate, but by their own will; for which reason it rightly holds them guilty. Therefore, there is nothing in common between law and fate, since what is asserted by fate is denied by law.\n\nBut by what reasoning will those who banished astrologers from the city of Rome be said to be born, whose preserved right is not unknown, and they were certainly pagans? How do things happen by fate which are against fate? But if fate exists, it does not act against itself: these men do not have fate, who act against fate, and if these men do not have fate, fate does not exist.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":402,"ref":"p402","source":"(Sed est', inquiunt, 'fatum uni cuique praestans qua morte moriatur'. quod si ita est, non est accusandus homicida. nam et duplici genere se defendet, quia et ipse fatis agentibus hoc fecit et ille agentibus fatis occisus est. sed inter haec lex pulsatur, quia punit oblatum homicidam. simili quoque modo nascitur qui adulter sit et quae adultera et cui fiat adulterium. quod si et hoc sic se habet, etiam nunc lex tangitur, quae punit adulteros, quod si uere fati esset, etiam ille puniendus erat, qui tale habet fatum, ut adulterium patiatur. et ipse enim particeps inuenitur, quia fatum eius admisit ut fieret adulterium. aequum ergo erat ut aut simul damnarentur aut simul absoluerentur; inter haec iniusta lex uidetur.\n\nIdeoque si a deo sunt fata, lex non erit dei, quia hoc non solum deo, sed nec prudenti conuenit homini id damnare quod fecit. sed quoniam nemo umquam contra legem ausus est dicere uel a deo hanc esse negare, fata ex deo dici esse non poterunt, quia ista deus punit per legem. quando enim damnatur quod fit inpellentibus fatis, sine dubio fata damnantur.","english":"But,\" they say, \"fate determines for each person by what death he dies.\" If this is so, the murderer is not to be accused. For he will defend himself on two grounds: because he did this under the compulsion of fate, and the slain man was also killed under the compulsion of fate. But in the midst of this, the law is assailed, because it punishes the murderer who is brought before it. In a similar way, a man is born who is to be an adulterer, and a woman who is to be an adulteress, and a person with whom adultery is to be committed. If this is also the case, then again the law is affected, which punishes adulterers. But if it were truly a matter of fate, then that person who has such a fate as to suffer adultery ought also to be punished. For he too is found to be a participant, because his fate allowed adultery to occur. It would therefore be fair either that they be condemned together or acquitted together; in the midst of this, the law seems unjust.\n\nTherefore, if fate comes from God, the law will not be from God, because it is fitting neither for God nor for a prudent man to condemn what he himself has made. But since no one has ever dared to speak against the law or to deny that it is from God, fate cannot be said to be from God, because God punishes these things through the law. For when what is done under the compulsion of fate is condemned, without doubt fate itself is condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":403,"ref":"p403","source":"'Sed animae', aiunt, 'malae ad hoc nascuntur, ut male faciant'. esto. sed non deberent tali fato nasci innocentes, ut ab his possent occidi. si enim illae malae animae essent, nasci non deberent, sed puniri, ne occiderent innocentes. sed non animae, quas malas fingunt, innocentes occidunt, sed fata, quae sic faciunt nasci homines, ut occidantur. ac per hoc non animae, sed iniqua sunt fata et, si iniqua sunt, a deo non sunt: ergo a diabolo sunt simul cum illo damnanda.\n\nEt quoniam decernere dicuntur singulis, quo modo moriantur, aut ferro aut laqueo aut praecipitio aut naufragio uel aliter, multis eadem praestant. nemo enim potest solus ab omnium fatis discrepare. quod si quis inuentus fuerit discrepare, iam non est fati, sed euentus; et si in unius morte euentus est, erit et in multorum et iam non erit fati. Anaxagoras in pilam coniectus iussu regis contusus expirauit, quod contigit nulli hominum. et Sisarae regi allofylorum mulier palum in tempora fixit et ita reddidit spiritum. hoc modo nemo est mortuus. et antea cruci homines figebantur, quod postea edicto prohibitum manet. si fati erat, quo modo desiit? quando enim quod fati est prohibetur et non fit, uin. citur fatum. aut si non erat fati, non fato homines cruci fige. bantur, sed iudicio legis. et ita est ut non fato homines damnentur, sed conuicti malis operibus suis. :..","english":"But souls,\" they say, \"are born evil in order to do evil.\" Granted. But then innocent people ought not to be born under such a fate that they could be killed by them. For if those souls were evil, they ought not to be born, but to be punished, so that they would not kill the innocent. But it is not the souls, which they imagine as evil, that kill the innocent, but the fates, which cause people to be born in such a way that they are killed. And through this, it is not the souls, but the fates that are unjust; and if they are unjust, they are not from God: therefore they are from the devil and are to be condemned along with him.\n\nAnd since they are said to decree for each individual how they die, whether by the sword or the noose or a fall or shipwreck or otherwise, they provide the same for many. For no one can differ from the fates of all. But if someone is found to differ, it is no longer a matter of fate, but of chance; and if in one person's death there is chance, there will also be chance in the deaths of many, and then there will be no fate. Anaxagoras, thrown into a ball by order of the king, was crushed and died, which happened to no other man. And Sisara, king of the Philistines, had a woman drive a stake into his temples, and thus he gave up his spirit. No one has died in this way. And previously men were crucified, which afterward remained prohibited by edict. If it was a matter of fate, how did it cease? For when what is fated is prohibited and does not happen, fate is overcome. Or if it was not a matter of fate, men were not crucified by fate, but by judgment of the law. And so it is that men are not condemned by fate, but convicted by their own evil deeds.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":404,"ref":"p404","source":"Apud Etruscos natus dicitur quidam tam formosus facie, qualis numquam fuit, et quia uir bonus erat, ne cui in suspicionem ueniret, quia etiam honestarum mulierum oculos inlicebat, faciem sibi septem plagis uulnerauit, ut pulcritudinem, quae ab omnibus desideratur, damnaret. ecce quo modo, si fata sunt, superata sunt! sed forte dicatur: 'naturae fuit ut formosus nasceretur, fati uero, ut species eius uulneraretur). quod si ita est, iam non nascitur fatum, sed accidens causa est; et si accidens res est, non erit fati, sed consilii aut certe euentus, quantum ad reliquas pertinet partes.\n\nNam quid aliud est uincere fatum, nisi inmutare naturam? quod si a deo utique esset, nec inmutari posset nec uinci. legitur namque cautum in quodam iuris libello aliquando mulierem quinque peperisse: quo modo subreptum est fatis, ut huic soli hoc natura decerneret, quod non erat fati? quod ei fati fuisset, aliquantae hac sorte oneratae fuissent. et cum quidam ad peregrina loca proficisceretur, uxorem suam amico, quem fidelem sciuit, commendauit, non utique puero, sed maturae aetatis, qui, ut diligentior custos eius esset, abscidit se, ut cum ea sine cuiusquam suspicione caute dormiret. quid putamus: fati fuisse aut consilii? sed quo modo fati fuit quod contrarium est? qui uincit enim quod natum in eo est, hic inanit fatum.","english":"Among the Etruscans, a certain man is said to have been born so beautiful of face as had never been seen before; and because he was a good man, lest he come under suspicion from anyone—since he also enticed the eyes of respectable women—he wounded his face with seven blows, so as to condemn the beauty that is desired by all. Behold how, if there are fates, they have been overcome! But perhaps it will be said: \"It was of nature that he was born beautiful, but of fate that his appearance was wounded.\" If that is so, then fate is not born, but an accident is the cause; and if it is a matter of accident, it will not be of fate, but of choice or certainly of outcome, as far as the remaining parts are concerned.\n\nFor what else is it to overcome fate, if not to change nature? But if it were from God, it could neither be changed nor overcome. For it is read that it was recorded in some legal document that a woman once gave birth to five children: how was it stolen from the fates that nature should decree for this woman alone what was not of fate? If it had been of fate for her, some others would have been burdened with this same lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign places, he entrusted his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful—not a boy, but a man of mature age—who, in order to be a more careful guardian of her, castrated himself, so that he might sleep cautiously with her without anyone's suspicion. What do we think: was this of fate or of choice? But how was it of fate, when it is contrary? For he who overcomes what is born in him renders fate empty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":405,"ref":"p405","source":"Et in studiis certe fatorum uertitur causa, ut sciat quis aliquid aut non possit conprehendere. omnes ergo senatores unum habent fatum — nullus enim senatorum sine litteris est — et gentes, quae sine litteris sunt, unum habent fatum et omnes serui unius sunt fati; nemo enim seruorum est senator.\n\nSed si quod nascitur dicitis fatum, quidquid accesserit extra fatum erit. aut si quod accedit ex fato uenit, quare per laborem uenit? tunc enim fati diceretur, si inuito homini eueniret. quod enim imminet sine prouidentia, fatorum dicitur; quod enim excogitatur et diu pensitatur et exercitiis mediis adquiritur, cur fati esse dicatur?\n\nEunuchus aliquis natus est, alii fiunt: ubi erit fatum? in illo, credo, qui natus est; qui fiunt, quid dicendum de his est? diuersum est enim. aut si hi fato facti eunuchi sunt, ille contra fatum natus est eunuchus. et quare tam raro eunuchus nascitur, ut incredulum uideatur? quaedam fuit mulier in urbe Roma, quam constat undecim maritos habuisse, et alius uir, qui duodecim habuit uxores: quae fata sunt, quae his hoc decreuerunt? nam tempore imperatoris Constantii manifestum est puellam in parte Campaniae inmutatam in masculum et Romam perductum: quae hoc fata fecerunt? alia, ut opinor, quae uos nescitis..","english":"And in the studies of the fates, the matter is certainly turned so that someone either knows something or cannot grasp it. Therefore, all senators have one fate—for no senator is without letters—and the peoples who are without letters have one fate, and all slaves are of one fate; for no slave is a senator.\n\nBut if you say that what is born is fate, then whatever comes afterward will be outside fate. Or if what comes about comes from fate, why does it come through labor? For it would be called fate only if it happened to a man unwillingly. For what befalls without providence is said to be of the fates; but what is thought out, long pondered, and acquired through intermediate exertions, why should it be said to be of fate?\n\nA eunuch is born; others are made: where will fate be? In the one, I believe, who is born; as for those who are made, what is to be said of them? For it is different. Or if these are made eunuchs by fate, then that one was born a eunuch contrary to fate. And why is a eunuch so rarely born that it seems unbelievable? There was a certain woman in the city of Rome who is known to have had eleven husbands, and another man who had twelve wives: what fates were these that decreed this for them? For in the time of the Emperor Constantius, it is evident that a girl in the region of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates did this? Others, I think, which you do not know.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":406,"ref":"p406","source":"si de hoc nomine taceretis et aliqua euentui et casibus remitteretis, quaedam prouidentiae concederetis! nam tantum potest uirtus et industria animorum, ut non solum naturae resistat, uerum etiam se ipsam emendet aut inemendet, quia habet iudicium sui.\n\nTraduntur enim mulieres Scytarum, quae Amazonae dictae sunt, quia, cum uiri earum occupati bello longinquo diu abessent, propter sobolem seruis se miscuisse et omnem marem natum necauisse relictis feminis ita, ut nulla lanificio operam daret, sed ab ineunte aetate palestra et armis inbuerentur. harum tanta uirtus et industria in rebus gestis fuit, ut per multam annorum seriem regnantes nonnullas gentes subigerent Asiamque omnem sub tributo ponentes. quid ad haec poterit dici? numquid haec fati fuerunt, quae per tot annos sic gesta sunt, ut omnia, quae tati putantur esse. inanirent? primum ut contra naturam mulieres spretis uiris regnarent; deinde quod seruis mixtae sunt propriis; tertio ut omnes nati masculi necarentur, feminae uiuificarentur tanta eas prosperitate secuta, ut sine uiris regnum coeptum magnis copiis et temporibus propagarent. certe hoc factum a mundi constitutione est numquam, nisi in Scytia tantum: ne forte dicerent, quia, cum mundus innouatur post annos mille quadringentos sexaginta, sic haec ueniunt, quippe cum mundus iam sexto millesimo anno agitur.","english":"If you were silent about this name and attributed something to outcome and chance, you would be conceding something to providence! For the power of virtue and industry of minds is so great that it not only resists nature, but even corrects or fails to correct itself, because it possesses judgment of itself.\n\nFor the women of the Scythians, who are called Amazons, are reported to have, when their husbands were occupied in a long war and were absent for a long time, for the sake of offspring mingled with slaves and killed every male born, sparing the females, so that none of them gave attention to wool-working, but from an early age were trained in the wrestling-ground and in arms. Their virtue and industry in their achievements was so great that, ruling for a long series of years, they subdued several nations and placed all Asia under tribute. What can be said to this? Were these things of fate, which were done over so many years, so that everything that is thought to be of fate would be emptied? First, that contrary to nature women, spurning men, ruled; next, that they mingled with their own slaves; third, that all males born were killed, females were given life, and such great prosperity followed them that, without men, they extended the kingdom they had begun with great forces and over long periods. Certainly this deed has never happened since the foundation of the world, except in Scythia only: lest they should say that, since the world is renewed after one thousand four hundred and sixty years, these things come thus, especially since the world is now in its six-thousandth year.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":407,"ref":"p407","source":"t quamdiu quod imitatus quis fuerit facit. nam M. Crassus (Agelatus) dictus est, quia semel traditur in uita risisse; et C. Iunius (Brutus) est cognominatus, quia sagaci consilio stultum se simulauit, ne a Superbo rege propter pecuniae suae magnitudinem occideretur; et temporibus Constantini morionem se XXX annis finxit, qui Samsucius uocabatur, ut imperatorem, sicut ipse postea dixit, a taediis suis auocaret. ubi est ratio fatorum, quando unus quisque quod uult facit? exclusa est.\n\nIllud autem quale est, quod fatorum adsertores subplicationibus sunt deuoti, cum sint his aduersae? nam et annos suos commendant et de nuptiis et de profectione quaerunt et de emptionibus et de dignitatibus. quod si fati est, quid oras, quid supplicas, quod etiam te inuito futu rum est? 'sed quaero', inquit, 'si debeam emere'. ergo non in fato consistit quod tunc facere debere te dicis, si didiceris expedire. nam si fati est, frustra quaeris, quod, uelis nolis, quaeras non quaeras, facturus es.","english":"as long as one does what one has imitated. For Marcus Crassus was called Agelatus because it is recorded that he laughed only once in his life; and Gaius Junius was surnamed Brutus because with shrewd counsel he pretended to be stupid, lest he be killed by the proud king on account of the size of his wealth; and in the time of Constantine, a man who was called Samsucius pretended to be a fool for thirty years, in order to divert the emperor, as he himself later said, from his own weariness. Where is the principle of fate, when each person does what he wishes? It is excluded.\n\nBut what of this, that the advocates of fate are devoted to supplications, when these are opposed to fate? For they commend their years and inquire about marriages and journeys and purchases and offices. But if it is a matter of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate, when that which is to come will happen even against your will? 'But I ask,' he says, 'whether I ought to buy.' Therefore it does not depend on fate that you say you ought to do something then, if you have learned that it is expedient. For if it is a matter of fate, you seek in vain what, whether you wish it or not, whether you seek it or not, you are going to do.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":408,"ref":"p408","source":"Quia autem nec apud eos ipsos fixa est ista adseueratio, idcirco incerti temptant, ne aliud uerum inueniant quam tractaut. sed prudentiores qui inter eos uidentur: 'non propter fata' inquiunt, 'supplicamus, cum ea minime inmutari sciamus, sed horum causa, quae iuxta fata sunt, ne faciant nobis aliquid aduersum). age uero, si nescio quis bonum fatum habeat et iuxta se sit aliquid quod uideatur contrarium, quid poterit esse, cum fatum bonum inmutari negetur, sicut et malum? certe hoc, quod iuxta fatum est, ne noceat supplicatur — nocebit enim nisi fuerit supplicatum —: quo modo ergo illud fatum inmutari negatur, quando hoc, quod uicinum est, timetur? nec enim hoc timeretur, nisi illud inmutari posse crederetur. sed quia in eo magis causa consistit, ne fatum mutari dicatis, sine dubio sine causa supplicatis.\n\nUidete autem ne et hoc fati sit quod supplicatis, quia sine sale solet esse quidquid fato adsignatis. certe non mala resest supplicare: cur ergo non fati esse dicatur? si ergo fati erit quod supplicat, cuius erit supplicare et non impetrare? quia, si fati erat, impetrare deberet quod supplicat. si autem fati est supplicare et non impetrare, stultum est fatum, quia supplicare facit hominem, quem scit non impetrare.","english":"But because even among them this assertion is not fixed, they therefore make uncertain attempts, lest they find something true other than what they have treated. But those who seem wiser among them say: 'We do not supplicate on account of the fates, since we know they can least of all be changed, but for the sake of those things which are near the fates, lest they do something adverse to us.' But truly, if someone has a good fate and near him there is something which seems contrary, what will be possible, since the good fate is denied to be changeable, just as the evil one? Certainly this, that which is near the fate, is supplicated lest it harm—for it will harm unless supplication is made—: how then is that fate denied to be changeable, when this, which is near, is feared? For this would not be feared unless that were believed able to be changed. But because the cause lies more in this, that you say fate cannot be changed, you supplicate without doubt without cause.\n\nBut see whether this too is of fate, that you supplicate, because whatever you assign to fate is usually without salt. Certainly it is not a bad thing to supplicate: why then is it not said to be of fate? If therefore it will be of fate that one supplicates, whose will it be to supplicate and not to obtain? Because, if it were of fate, one ought to obtain what one supplicates. But if it is of fate to supplicate and not to obtain, fate is foolish, because it makes a man supplicate, whom it knows will not obtain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":409,"ref":"p409","source":"quod si nescit an possit impetrare, quod illum facit supplicare, inprouidum erit fatum et carens ratione, quia omnis ignorantia insipientia est, insipientia uero stultitia est. in hanc partem cadit omnis tractatus paganorum. uiderint pagani, qui circumfusa caligine non uident lumen. antiquo enim errore circumuenti ueritati, quae prius latebat, aures accommodare detractant.\n\nQuid de Christianis quibusdam dicimus, qui in solo nomine mutati pristini erroris uindicant uanitatem in tantum hebetati, ut ipsum dominum sub fato egisse contendant dicentes: (ipse dixit: nondum uenit hora mea', ut hora haec non uoluntatis, sed fatalis condicionis fuisset necessitas, cum ille uoluntatis suae horam significauerit, qua se pati permisit denique ait: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. cessat ergo fatalis necessitas, ubi potestas est uoluntatis.","english":"If he does not know whether he can obtain what makes him supplicate, then fate will be improvident and lacking in reason, because all ignorance is folly, and folly is stupidity. Into this category falls the entire discourse of the pagans. Let the pagans see to it, who, surrounded by darkness, do not see the light. For, ensnared by ancient error, they refuse to lend an ear to the truth, which formerly lay hidden.\n\nWhat shall we say about certain Christians, who, changed in name only, defend the vanity of their former error, having become so dull that they contend that the Lord Himself acted under fate, saying: 'He Himself said: \"My hour has not yet come,\"' so that this hour was not a matter of will, but a necessity of fatal condition, whereas He signified the hour of His own will, in which He permitted Himself to suffer. Finally, He says: 'I have the power to lay down my soul, and I have the power to take it up again.' Therefore, fatal necessity ceases where there is the power of will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":410,"ref":"p410","source":"Et quo modo saluator appellatur a nobis, si fati sunt quae agimus uel accidunt nobis? quia ideo saluator dicitur, quoniam ostendit nobis uiam salutis. itaque si ab hoc ostensa est, non fati fuit, quia et prius latuit et quod fati esse dicitur ex inprouiso euenire contendunt. hic enim fidei meritum est, quae non potest dici ex fato, quia quod creditur aliis saeculis auditum non fuit; fata enim hoc dicunt praestare, quod in conuersatione hominum uertitur.\n\nHoc autem qua ratione praestare posse dicuntur, quod ignorare deprehenduntur? hinc est unde apostolus ait: quem nemo principum huius saeculi cognouit. hi sunt principes et potestates habentes sub se malos angelos, qui sub nomine fatorum uoluptates suas efficiunt, prout eis libitum fuerit, sicut adsolent malefici confiteri. sunt enim quos diligunt, alios non amant, quosdam oderunt. et uni cuique hoc suggerit unus quisque quod diligit, quia et ipsi diuersas habent uoluptates: aliis libidinem diuersi stupri, aliis in una re, aliis uoluptatum petulantiam, aliis iram, quibusdam auari. tiam, aliis lucra, aliis damna procurant, aliis charisma, aliis odia nec non et impedimenta. et aliquando certis temporibus satiati quiescunt in otio, aliquando uero ratione aliqua occupatae menti non se ingerunt, quia non dominantur, sed subrepunt oportunitatem quaerentes qua capiant.","english":"And how is the Savior invoked by us, if the things we do or that happen to us are from fate? For he is called Savior because he shows us the way of salvation. Thus, if this way was shown by him, it was not from fate, because it was previously hidden, and what is said to be from fate is claimed to happen unexpectedly. Here, indeed, lies the merit of faith, which cannot be said to come from fate, because what is believed was unheard of in other ages; for fates are said to provide what occurs in human affairs.\n\nBut by what reasoning are they said to be able to provide what they are found to be ignorant of? This is why the apostle says: \"Whom none of the princes of this age knew.\" These are the princes and powers having under them evil angels, who under the name of fates bring about their own pleasures, as they please, just as sorcerers are accustomed to confess. For there are some they love, others they do not love, and some they hate. And to each one, each of them suggests what he loves, because they themselves have diverse pleasures: some procure lust for various kinds of debauchery, others for a single kind, some procure wantonness of pleasures, others anger, some avarice, others gains, others losses, some charisma, others hatreds, and also hindrances. And sometimes, when sated at certain times, they rest in idleness; at other times, when the mind is occupied with some reason, they do not intrude, because they do not dominate, but creep in, seeking an opportunity by which they may ensnare.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":411,"ref":"p411","source":"ideo uoluntatis arbitrium liberum est, sed dum quadam desidia neclegentes circa nos ipsos efficimur, sollicitantes suadent nobis aduersa; maxime si cogitare nos aliquid, quod legis non est, inuenerint, uenient in eo ipso adiutantes ut impleamus quod prohibet lex. nam si timor dei in animo sit, neque caro neque sanguis neque principes et potestates praeualent, quia dei amminiculis compescuntur, ut non cum labore uincantur.\n\nSi autem potestatis nostrae non essemus, quo modo diceret dominus: petite et dabitur uobis; omnis enim qui petit accipiet? si ergo qui uult petere accipiet, iam non est illud quod solet dici: (non quae uolumus, sed quae data sunt', quia uoluntas a saluatore incitatur, ut petat et accipiat quod petierit. fati autem hoc esse dicunt, ut siue petat siue non petat, fati tamen quod aut malum aut bonum est consequatur. dominus autem hoc excludens ait: filia, fides tua te saluam fecit, ut non iam fati sit, quando fides percipit beneficium. et iterum: si credis, ait, omnia possibilia sunt credenti: in uoluntate utique posuit meritum, quia fidei bonum est, non naturae. fides autem res accedens est. quae excitat ad exercitium uoluntatem, ut, quia in natura non est, uoluntas, quae in natura est, suscepta fide meritum ei conlocet apud deum.","english":"Therefore the will's choice is free, but when through some negligence we become careless about ourselves, those who tempt us urge adversities upon us; especially if they find us thinking something that is not of the law, they come in that very matter to assist us so that we fulfill what the law forbids. For if the fear of God is in the mind, neither flesh nor blood nor princes and powers prevail, because they are restrained by God's aids, so that they are overcome without effort.\n\nBut if we were not in our own power, how would the Lord say: \"Ask, and it will be given to you\"; for everyone who asks will receive? Therefore, if he who wishes to ask will receive, then that which is commonly said—\"not what we wish, but what is given\"—no longer holds, because the will is incited by the Savior to ask and to receive what it has asked. But they say that this is of fate, so that whether one asks or does not ask, nevertheless what is either evil or good from fate follows. The Lord, however, excludes this by saying: \"Daughter, your faith has saved you,\" so that it is no longer of fate when faith receives the benefit. And again: \"If you believe,\" he says, \"all things are possible for the believer\": he placed the merit in the will, of course, because it is a good of faith, not of nature. Faith, however, is an adventitious thing, which stirs the will to exercise, so that, because it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, having taken up faith, establishes merit for it with God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":412,"ref":"p412","source":"ita est enim natura hominum sicut lapis, qui, cum ignem non habet in substantia, habet tamen in potentia, ut opere creet quod non uidetur habere, quia non existit, sed quasi in semine. ita est in potentia, ut per exercitium generetur et, si defuerit exercitium, non sit, quia et semen nisi exerceatur non generat, sed ipsum solum manet. accessio ergo facit ut generet. ita et homo fidem non habet in natura, sed semen fidei, quod nisi fuerit prouocatum et exercitatum, fructum non dabit, id est fidem non habebit. mathematicorum enim fabulis credentes fidei semen exterminant, quod et creatori et iustitiae eius testimonium perhibet. opus enim opificem agnoscit et aequo iure amare quae fecit testatur.\n\nIgitur fugiendum omnibus modis ab hac arte monemus. curiosi enim eius et inimici dei sunt et sine sollicitudine numquam sunt; semper enim suspensi expectant quod incertum sciunt. nos autem, qui de deo omnia prospera credimus et, si qua aduersa exstiterint, eius nutu conprimi, simpliciter uiuamus securi de eius protectione, nec tamen nescii quia, et si quid aduersum bene nobis agentibus euenerit, toleratum proficiet ad. coronam.","english":"For the nature of human beings is like a stone, which, though it does not have fire in its substance, nevertheless has it in potentiality, so that by operation it creates what it does not appear to have, because it does not exist, but is as if in a seed. Thus it is in potentiality, so that through exercise it is generated, and if exercise is lacking, it is not, because even a seed, unless it is exercised, does not generate, but remains alone. Therefore, an addition causes it to generate. So too, a human being does not have faith in his nature, but the seed of faith, which, unless it has been provoked and exercised, will not give fruit, that is, he will not have faith. For those who believe in the fables of the mathematicians destroy the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the creator and to his justice. For the work acknowledges the craftsman and testifies that he loves what he has made with equal right.\n\nTherefore, we warn that this art is to be fled by all means. For those who are curious about it are both enemies of God and are never without anxiety; for they are always in suspense, waiting for what they know to be uncertain. But we, who believe that all things are prosperous from God and that, if any adversities arise, they are suppressed by his will, let us live simply, secure in his protection, yet not unaware that, even if something adverse happens to us while we are acting well, it will, when endured, contribute to a crown.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":413,"ref":"p413","source":"CXVI. RATIO PASCHAE.\n\nPascha, dilectissimi fratres, a passione appellatum est, sicut docet nos traditionis huius praefiguratio, quae facta est - in Aegypto per famulum dei Moysen dicente scriptura: immolatio pascha hoc domini est. quae igitur ratio est ut mysterium sacrum per sanguinem sit celebratum et reparatio uitae per mortem, ut, cum mors augmentum facere se putaret, accepto sanguine saluatoris minorata deflueret et, cum uirtute operatam se hoc aestimaret, infirmata interiret? morti enim mors per opus eius diuina procuratione inuenta est ut, quia semper male uult, cederetur illi ad tempus, ut in iustitia opere suo destructa regnum sibi ablatum queri non possit. quamuis enim omnia possit deus, nihil tamen facit quod sit rationi absurdum. iustitiam enim quam exigit, hanc et facit non praesumens de potestate.\n\nMagna est igitur prouidentia erga genus humanum, ut iustitiam seruans sic ea quae iuste decreta erant solueret et hominem a morte erueret, quamquam non inmerito teneretur. sed quia inuidia deceptus fuerat diaboli, iustum fuit huic subueniri. dei enim sententia tenebatur, sed hoc operatus fuerat satanas. unde sicut iustum uisum est hunc eruere, ita iniustum erat per potentiam hoc facere neclecta iustitia. uictus enim homo suadente diabolo, ut misericordiam acciperet, quasi accusator diabolus contradicebat.","english":"CXVI. THE RATIONALE OF PASCHA.\n\nPascha, most beloved brothers, is named from the passion, as the prefiguration of this tradition teaches us, which was made in Egypt through the servant of God Moses, the scripture saying: “The sacrifice of this pascha is the Lord’s.” What, then, is the rationale that the sacred mystery was celebrated through blood and the restoration of life through death, so that, when death thought it would make an increase, it was diminished and flowed away upon receiving the Savior’s blood, and when it judged itself to have acted with power, it perished enfeebled? For death’s death was found through its own work by divine providence, so that, because it always wills evil, it was yielded to for a time, so that, destroyed by its own work in justice, it could not complain that the kingdom had been taken from it. For although God can do all things, He does nothing that is absurd to reason. For the justice which He demands, He also performs, not presuming upon His power.\n\nGreat, therefore, is the providence toward the human race, that, preserving justice, He might thus release those who had been justly condemned and rescue man from death, although he was held not undeservedly. But because he had been deceived by the envy of the devil, it was just that he be aided. For he was held by God’s sentence, but Satan had wrought this. Hence, just as it seemed just to rescue him, so it was unjust to do this through power, neglecting justice. For man, conquered by the persuading devil, was receiving mercy, as though the accuser devil were contradicting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":414,"ref":"p414","source":"unde id actum est, ut iste, qui in peccato hominis gloriabatur, peccans deprehenderetur, ut tunc demum reus factus contradicere non auderet. sic factum est ut dei filius homo nasceretur et iustitiam praedicans diabolum incitaret, propter quod homines a uitiis eius prohiberet, ita ut et occideret eum qui peccatum nesciebat.\n\nTunc peccasse et grauius quidem, quam homo quem accusabat, inuentus eat. cum enim ex dei decreto propter peccatum hominem sibi uindicaret, quia qui peccat ex parte diaboli est, inuentus est plus peccasse, quando eum qui non peccauerat interfecit, ut sibi usurparet per mortem ergo morti interitus subintrauit et, ut sanguis recuperaretur, sanguis effusus est, quia, ut dixi, mors, qui est diabolus, quoniam peccasse in mortem saluatoris inuentus est, sanguinem eius cum omnium nostrum amisit, quia, sicut per unum Adam peccantem omnes in morte tenebat, ita per unum non peccantem omnes amisit igitur sanguis saluatoris fusus iniuste hoc praemii nomine consecutus est, ut originis suae sanguinem cum triumpho recuperans ad pristinum statum reuocaret meliorata substantia. uicta enim mors ei qui illa uicerat non potuit contradicere. beatum itaque paschae mysterium, quod per sanguinem nostrum redemit morte per mortem deuicta, sicut assolet uenenum ueneno superari.","english":"Therefore it came about that he who gloried in man's sin was caught sinning, so that at last, having been made guilty, he would not dare to contradict. Thus it happened that the Son of God was born a man and, by preaching justice, provoked the devil, because he was turning men away from his vices, so that he even killed him who knew no sin.\n\nThen he was found to have sinned, and more gravely indeed, than the man he was accusing. For when, by God's decree, he claimed man for himself because of sin—since he who sins is partly of the devil—he was found to have sinned more, when he killed the one who had not sinned, so that he might usurp him for himself through death. Therefore, into death came destruction, and so that blood might be recovered, blood was shed, because, as I said, death, which is the devil, since he was found to have sinned in the death of the Savior, lost his blood along with that of all of us. For just as through one sinning Adam he held all in death, so through one not sinning he lost all. Therefore, the blood of the Savior, unjustly shed, obtained this as the reward of its price: that, recovering the blood of its origin with triumph, it recalled it to its former state, with its substance improved. For death, having been conquered, could not contradict the one who had conquered it. So blessed is the mystery of Pascha, which redeemed our blood through death, death having been vanquished by death, just as poison is customarily overcome by poison.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":415,"ref":"p415","source":"CXVII. DE ABRAHAM.\n\nHuius patriarchae fides tam praecipua et admirabilis fuit, ut ceteri omnes iusti patrem hunc credulitatis dei iudicio fateantur nec sit aliquis deo dignus et carus, nisi eius filius fuerit appellatus. praerogatiua enim honoris eius ac meriti fides est, quam cum rebus incredibilibus dare non ambigit, inter cetera etiam saluatorem uidere dignus exstitit in specie tunc futurae incarnationis dicente et probante domino ad Iudaeos: Abraham pater uester cupiuit, ut uideret diem meum, et uidit et gauisus est. qui enim merito pater fidei factus est, dignum fuit ut futurorum filiorum suorum spem praeuideret, quae propitio et prouido deo hereditatis gratia ab humano et pio patre in filios obsequentes redundaret.\n\nUideamus nunc quid credidit fides haec, ut ad tantum honorem et gloriam diuino iudicio perueniret. fidem enim laudauimus, sed quid credidit, nondum diximus. educens etenim hunc dominus ostendit ei stellas caeli et dixit: si potes numerare eas? sic erit semen tuum. et credidit Abraham deo et deputatum eat illi ad iustitiam, non magnum esset credidisse deo, nisi quia quod credidit mundus non credendum et stultum iudicat, quia istud in spe rerum naturae non est. unde Abraham unus e mundo, quia hoc credidit, segregatus a mundanis iustificatus est.","english":"CXVII. ON ABRAHAM.\n\nThe faith of this patriarch was so exceptional and admirable that all other righteous men acknowledge him, by God’s judgment, as the father of this belief, and there is no one worthy and dear to God unless he has been called his son. For the prerogative of his honor and merit is faith, which, when he does not hesitate to give it to unbelievable things, he among other things also proved worthy to see the Savior in the form of the future incarnation at that time, as the Lord says and proves to the Jews: “Your father Abraham desired to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” For he who by merit became the father of faith, it was fitting that he should foresee the hope of his future sons, which, by the grace of a propitious and provident God, would flow down as an inheritance from a humane and pious father to obedient sons.\n\nLet us now see what this faith believed, so that it might attain such honor and glory by divine judgment. For we have praised the faith, but what it believed we have not yet said. For the Lord, leading him out, showed him the stars of the sky and said: “If you can count them, so will your seed be.” And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; it would not be a great thing to have believed God, except that what he believed the world judges as not to be believed and foolish, because this is not in the hope of nature. Hence Abraham, one from the world, because he believed this, was separated from worldly men and justified.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":416,"ref":"p416","source":"Hoc ergo credidisse perfidia mundanae sapientiae magnum facit, contra cuius spem hoc credidisse maximi meriti est. desperatio enim mundanorum meritum est et spes Christianorum. bonorum enim praemium causa facit malorum; fortior namque et plenior fides est, cum se incredibilibus magis committit. homo enim iam aridus et de uxore anicula semen se credidit habiturum, quod prae copia numerari non possit, non hoc magis respiciens quod ostensum est, sed illum qui ostendit mentiri posse non aestimans. ideoque deputatum est ei ad iustitiam. nam rem absurdam et quae inpossibilis scitur hebetis est credere, nisi persona sit, quae credi istud suadeat. unde Abraham et admirabilis fidei est et cordis periti, dum et illud credit quod incredibile est et huic se committit, cui non credere et stultum est et periculosum est.\n\nFidem enim nostram hoc probat rationabilem, quia non de alio quam de deo credit posse eum quod promittit. hoc ergo fidei propugnaculum est, hic triumphus. quod quidem perspicientes mundi sapientes rerum naturam, quia hoc non potest, stultum aiunt credere ignorantes, quia secundum apostolum quod stultum est dei, sapientius est hominibus. iuste enim stultos nos iudicarent, si hoc de rerum natura crederemus, quod probatur non posse. porro autem ea, quae rerum natura non potest, nos deum credimus posse facturum, si promiserit. quae in hac re potest stultitia deprehendi?","english":"Therefore, having believed this makes the wisdom of the world seem great in its faithlessness, but against its hope, having believed this is of the greatest merit. For the despair of worldly things is the merit and hope of Christians. For the cause of good things makes the reward of evil things; for faith is stronger and fuller when it entrusts itself more to unbelievable things. For a man already withered and with an elderly wife believed he would have offspring, which could not be counted due to abundance, not so much looking at what was shown, but deeming that the one who showed it could not lie. And therefore it was assigned to him as righteousness. For it is foolish to believe an absurd thing and one known to be impossible, unless there is a person who persuades one to believe it. Hence Abraham is of both admirable faith and skilled judgment, while he believes what is unbelievable and entrusts himself to one whom it is both foolish and dangerous not to believe.\n\nFor this proves our faith reasonable, because it believes not about another but about God that he can do what he promises. Therefore this is the bulwark of faith, this is the triumph. Indeed, perceiving this, the wise men of the world, because the nature of things cannot do this, say it is foolish to believe, not knowing that according to the apostle, what is foolish of God is wiser than men. For they would justly judge us foolish if we believed this about the nature of things, which is proven impossible. Moreover, however, those things which the nature of things cannot do, we believe God can do and will do, if he has promised. What foolishness can be detected in this matter?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":417,"ref":"p417","source":"si autem indignum deo est opus, quod posse creditur, recte fides hebetudini conparatur; quod si dignum est, per id quod creaturae inpossibile est, cur non laudanda fides est, quae tantum dat creatori, quantum creatura posse negatur?\n\nMagnus igitur et admirabilis Abraham, qui contra mundi sententiam deo credere non dubitauit, quia potens est facere quod promittit. natura Chaldeus magister credulitatis apparuit: quamuis astrologiae peritus, deum tamen praeposuit humano consilio dignum aestimans, si hoc credatur de deo, quod quo modo fiat inuestigari non possit. infirmitatem enim suam dei potentia confirmauit, quia ad maiestatis suae unicam magnitudinem protestandam facere disponeret quae inpossibilia et inaudita sunt mundo, quo facto ostenderet se dominum creaturae et creatura subiceret se ei, cuius opus ceteris omnibus inpossibile uideretur, quorum incredulitate plus sublimatur fidelissimus Abraham. fides enim eius incredulorum poena est et incredulorum perfidia gloria eius est; nam fidelium pater est et infidelium iudex. huius enim exemplo et boni aeterna uita donantur et mali aeterna dabunt subplicia. illo enim tempore, quo adhuc mundus scientia paruulus erat et nec signis ac prodigiis, quae ad fidem adtraherent, inlustratus, deo contra scientiam suam fidem non denegauit.","english":"But if the work is unworthy of God, which is believed to be possible, then faith is rightly compared to dullness; but if it is worthy, by reason of what is impossible for creation, why should faith not be praised, which attributes as much to the Creator as creation is denied the power to do?\n\nGreat and admirable, therefore, is Abraham, who did not hesitate to believe God against the judgment of the world, because He is able to do what He promises. A Chaldean by birth, he appeared as a teacher of credulity: although skilled in astrology, he nevertheless placed God above human counsel, deeming it worthy that this be believed of God, which cannot be investigated as to how it comes about. For he confirmed his own weakness by the power of God, because He intended to do, in order to attest to the unique greatness of His majesty, those things which are impossible and unheard of in the world, by which act He would show Himself to be the lord of creation, and creation would subject itself to Him, whose work would seem impossible to all others, by whose unbelief the most faithful Abraham is all the more exalted. For his faith is the punishment of unbelievers, and the perfidy of unbelievers is his glory; for he is the father of the faithful and the judge of the unfaithful. By his example, indeed, the good are granted eternal life, and the evil will be given eternal punishments. For at that time, when the world was still small in knowledge and not yet illuminated by signs and wonders which would draw to faith, he did not deny faith to God against his own knowledge.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":418,"ref":"p418","source":"Sanctus igitur Abraham exemplum generi humano datus est fidelissimus. in ipso enim praefiguratae sunt omnes gentes . in salutem uenire per fidem, cuius ut superabundans crementum fidei nosceretur, temptatur ac iubetur filium suum deo immolare, quod factum erat numquam, et nec rei nouitate turbatur nec disputat an fieri debet deo iubente parricidium, qui homicidium ne fieret comminatus est. sic de dei uoluntate intrepidus et securus non cunctatur prouidum esse, quod iubet deus, et hunc filium, quem duo senes ex promissione susceperant, praemium fidei, meritorum indicem et in quo omnis spes ex promissione futuri seminis habebatur. quod ut omni deuotione impleret, matri eius non indicauit, ne quod dicationi' eius impedimentum adferret, sciens circa adfectum filiorum procliuiores in amore esse matres; ideoque celauit eam non ambigens impleri debere quod iubet deus, ut hoc exemplo doceremur omni cura dei facere mandata.","english":"Therefore, the holy Abraham was given as the most faithful example to the human race. For in him all nations were prefigured as coming to salvation through faith. So that the superabundant growth of his faith might be known, he is tested and ordered to sacrifice his own son to God—something that had never been done—and he is neither disturbed by the novelty of the matter nor does he argue whether a parricide ought to be committed at God's command, when God had commanded that homicide not be committed. Thus, fearless and secure in God's will, he does not hesitate that what God commands is provident—even this son, whom two elders had received by promise, the reward of faith, the sign of merits, and in whom all hope of future offspring by promise was held. To fulfill this with complete devotion, he did not inform the boy's mother, lest she cause any hindrance to his dedication, knowing that mothers are more prone to affection for their children; therefore he concealed it from her, not doubting that what God commands must be fulfilled, so that by this example we might be taught to carry out God's commands with all care.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":419,"ref":"p419","source":"Si enim fidelissimus Abraham in re tam graui et aspera oboediens inuenitur, quanto magis nos, quibus illa praecipiuntur quae possunt portari! o fides deo dicata et spes in domino firma, quae tam cara et suauis est, ut parentum ac filiorum affectibus praeponatur dicente scriptura: gustate et uidete, quam suauis est dominus!\n\nPatriarcha autem noster, fidelissimus Abraham, quia profeta erat, scit quid sequi deberet. ideo secundum quod dominus nunc dixit, tunc ille fecit, ut filio quamuis carissimo deum in dilectione praeferret dicente domino: si quia diligit patrem aut matrem aut filios super me, non est me dignus. unde patriarcha, ut domino prae ceteris dignus exsisteret, etiam occidere filium non recusauit.\n\nCXVIII. DE IOB.\n\nMagna dilectio est, fratres dilectissimi, omnipotentis dei erga genus humanum, quae intellecta quidem perducit ad regna caelestia, non intellecta autem deducit ad inferos. deus enim beneficium suum gratum uult esse et fructiferum, ut et nobis proficiat et illum misereri delectet.","english":"If indeed the most faithful Abraham is found obedient in such a grave and harsh matter, how much more so we, to whom those things are commanded which can be borne! O faith dedicated to God and hope firm in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet that it is set above the affections for parents and children, as Scripture says: taste and see how sweet the Lord is!\n\nOur patriarch, however, the most faithful Abraham, because he was a prophet, knew what he ought to follow. Therefore, according to what the Lord now said, he then did, so that he might prefer God in love to his son, however beloved, as the Lord says: if anyone loves father or mother or children more than me, he is not worthy of me. Hence the patriarch, in order to be worthy of the Lord above all others, did not even refuse to kill his son.\n\nCXVIII. ON JOB.\n\nGreat is the love, most beloved brothers, of almighty God toward the human race, which, when understood, indeed leads to the heavenly kingdoms, but when not understood, leads down to the underworld. For God wishes his benefit to be welcome and fruitful, so that it may profit us and that it may delight him to show mercy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":420,"ref":"p420","source":"Igitur quoniam bonus est et omnes homines saluos uult fieri, exemplum nobis iustitiae in Iob famulum suum demonstrauit, sicut praesens lectio contestatur, quod secuti et malo carere et ad bonum uenire possimus non solum a poena liberi, sed et remunerati.\n\nQuam ergo admirabilis est sanctissimus Iob, qui ante legem litteris editam operibus suis exemplar legis ostendit nulla in hac causa alicuius documenta addiscens, sed natura ipsa duce, cui deus iustitiae semina naturaliter inesse decreuit, creatori reuerentiam pia deuotione seruauit!\n\nQuanta igitur laude dignus est et quibus uerbis facta eius debeant extolli, cui neque ante legem neque post legem parem possumus inuenire? quamuis si quis posset gesta eius mirari, non iam cum eo conferendus erat neque ei similis iure diceretur. non enim suum erat quod talis exstiterat, quia exemplum secutus fuerat alienum. sanctus autem lob, cum nihil tale uidisset neque uoluminibus lectitasset, talem se praestitit, ut nullius aliquid in se conlatum haberet, sed ipse ceteris conferret formam praebens mirabilium gestorum ad dominum promerendum. quare et domini testimonio commendatur dicentis: animaduertisti ad puerum meum Iob? non est enim similis ei quisquam in terris uerus dei cultor.","english":"Therefore, because He is good and wishes all men to be saved, He demonstrated to us an example of justice in His servant Job, as the present reading attests, so that by following it we may be able both to lack evil and to attain good, not only free from punishment but also rewarded.\n\nHow admirable, then, is the most holy Job, who before the law was published in writing showed by his works the pattern of the law, learning no documents in this matter, but with nature itself as guide—to which God decreed that the seeds of justice should be innately present—he preserved reverence for the Creator with pious devotion!\n\nHow worthy of praise, then, is he, and with what words ought his deeds to be extolled, since we can find no one equal to him either before the law or after the law? Although if anyone could marvel at his deeds, he would not be comparable to him nor rightly be called his like. For it was not his own that he had so excelled, because he had followed another's example. But holy Job, since he had seen nothing of the sort nor read it in books, presented himself in such a way that he had nothing of another's conferred upon himself, but rather conferred form upon others, providing a pattern of marvelous deeds for meriting the Lord. Wherefore he is also commended by the Lord's testimony, saying: \"Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a true worshiper of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":421,"ref":"p421","source":"Qui tantum potuit mereri, cui tale testimonium dominus perhibet, nisi huic, qui non imitator inuenitur, sed auctor eorum quae gessit? unde et uerus dei cultor adseritur. nulla enim potest simulatio commenticiae ueritatis in eo uideri, qui ante se non habet talem. omnis enim qui fingit, hoc fingit quod cernitur imitari.\n\nEt his tamen omnibus adhuc potiora sunt quae dicantur. in his enim laudibus nulla probamenta tribulationum fuerunt, sed propositum deo dicatum in exercitio et obseruationibus constitutum, quod quia ad coronam meritorum temtatori non uisum est plenum, petit ut permitteretur ei diuersis temtationibus probare eius iustitiam, ut in multis constrictus alicubi haereret et posset modum excedere, quia ad hoc solent peccantibus diuersae poenae inferri, ut, quia nemo omnia potest ferre tormenta, aliquod illorum eliciat ei ueritatis confessionem.","english":"He who was able to merit so much, to whom the Lord bears such testimony, unless it be this man, who is found not as an imitator but as the author of those things which he did? Hence he is also declared a true worshiper of God. For no simulation of feigned truth can be seen in him who has no such predecessor. For everyone who feigns, feigns that which is observed to be imitated.\n\nAnd yet, beyond all these things, still greater are the things which are said. For in these praises there were no proofs of tribulations, but a purpose dedicated to God, established in exercise and observances. And because this did not seem sufficient to the tempter for a crown of merits, he asked that he be permitted to test his righteousness through various temptations, so that, constrained in many ways, he might somewhere become entangled and be able to exceed the limit, since diverse punishments are customarily inflicted upon sinners for this reason: that, because no one can bear all torments, some one of them might draw forth from him a confession of the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":422,"ref":"p422","source":"Itaque permissum est temtatori omnia eius exterminare et perdere usque ad mortem filiorum, ut, si damnum ferret boum, ouium non ferret; aut si et ouium ferret, camelorum amissionem non ferret neque seruorum aut totius substantiae; aut si, quia grandis animi erat et satis merae deuotionis, his omnibus non uinceretur, certe uel affectu caritatis cogente frangeretur morte simul omnium filiorum. sed quia ante legem editam legem in corde suo scriptam habebat, nulla damna neque orbitates minorem illum in dei deuotione fecerunt, ut formam daret deum ex toto corde super omnia diligendum. quanta ergo dignus est gloria, qui ante legem legem seruauit, ut lex, quae futura erat, quo modo custodienda erat, demonstraret non in uerbis, sed actor in factis!\n\nEt quia temtator inreuerens est nec haec gloria satis ei uisa est ad probationem uiri iusti, nisi aliud aduersus eum machinaretur, quod sciret ab homine ferri non posse, petit iterum, ut illum ipsum saeuo uulnere percuteret a capite usque ad ungues. et cum hoc permissum esset, quia fides ei haberi non debet, praeceptum est ei, ut animam eius seruaret propter arbitrium, ne quid uiolenter auderet in eum, quem rationis iure superare non poterat.","english":"Therefore it was permitted to the tempter to destroy and lay waste everything of his, even to the death of his children, so that if he bore the loss of cattle, he would not bear the loss of sheep; or if he bore the loss of sheep as well, he would not bear the loss of camels, nor of slaves, nor of his entire substance; or if, because he was of great spirit and of sufficiently pure devotion, he were not overcome by all these things, then surely, compelled by the force of affection and love, he would be broken by the simultaneous death of all his children. But because, before the law was given, he had the law written in his heart, no losses nor bereavements diminished him in his devotion to God, so that he might give an example that God is to be loved with one's whole heart above all things. How great a glory, then, does he deserve, who kept the law before the law, so that he might demonstrate, not in words but as an agent in deeds, how the law, which was to come, was to be observed!\n\nAnd because the tempter is irreverent, and this glory did not seem sufficient to him for testing the just man, unless he should contrive something else against him which he knew could not be borne by a man, he asks again that he himself might strike him with a savage wound from head to foot. And when this was permitted, because faith ought not to be given to him, it was commanded to him that he should preserve his soul for the sake of free will, lest he dare to do anything violent against him whom he could not overcome by the right of reason.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":423,"ref":"p423","source":"accepta igitur potestate recrudescente in se crudelitatis saeuitia percussit uirum iustum plaga magna nimis, ut nihil esset in corpore quod inmune esset a uulnere, quod nemo hominum tolerare posset, nisi solus Iob, qui uincere potuit satanan. et cum nec sic nequitia diaboli aliquid contra deum uiro iusto eliceret, memor fuit pristinae calliditatis suae, qua decepit Adam, si posset et istum per mulierem decipere, quia facile quis decipitur per domesticum.\n\nEt in his omnibus nihil proficiens, immo detrimentum faciens inpudentissimus satanas non solum inmobilem inuenit dei seruum, sed et magistrum. in ipsa enim necessitate positus non tantum in dei timore durauit, uerum etiam uxorem contraria suggerentem increpans docuit omnia, quae deo permittente accidunt, fortiter toleranda. quod ad duplicem poenam pertinet inprouidi satanae, quia nec huic suasit quod uoluit et, cum huic inuidet, alios fecit discere quod nec hunc scire uolebat.","english":"Having thus received the power, the cruelty of his savagery, growing fierce again within him, struck the just man with a very great plague, so that there was nothing in his body that was immune from a wound—something no man could endure except Job alone, who was able to overcome Satan. And when even thus the devil’s wickedness could elicit nothing from the just man against God, he remembered his former cunning, by which he deceived Adam, to see if he could also deceive this man through his wife, because a person is easily deceived through a member of his own household.\n\nAnd in all these things, making no progress—indeed, suffering loss—the utterly shameless Satan found the servant of God not only unmoved, but also a teacher. For placed in such necessity, he not only persisted in his fear of God, but also, rebuking his wife who was suggesting the contrary, taught that all things that happen by God’s permission must be endured bravely. This redounds to the double punishment of the improvident Satan, because he neither persuaded this man of what he wished, and while envying him, he caused others to learn what he did not even want this man to know.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":424,"ref":"p424","source":"Quantum ergo prosit temptatio dei seruis et obsit dia-10 bolo, hac lectione plenius edocemur. cum enim putat se nocere eis, promouet eos et, cum unum persequitur, multos prouocat. uidentes enim auxiliis dei hunc protegi multi imitatores eius exsistunt. lucrum ergo uolens facere perdidit; semper enim furor eius damnosus est ei. nam dum non patitur iustos esse ne remunerentur, digniores eos facit et, cum zelatur sanctum Iob, duplicauit ei meritum in caelis et in terra, quia et hic auctus est et in caelos cum saluatore receptus, ut ista omnia ad sanctorum proficiant gloriam, ad diaboli uero poenam.\n\nCXVIIII. DE TOBIA.\n\nTanta prouidentia est domini dei circa nos, ut errare nos nolens et legem et exempla bonorum operum daret, quibus modesta et tranquilla agi possit uita cum dei timore. qui enim auctor uitae est, non uult utique opus suum morti esse obnoxium. quamuis natura ipsa legis non expers sit, tamen quia dominus bonus et misericors est, ut maior notitia eorum esset quae sequenda et illorum quae uitanda sunt, litteris et exemplis ostendit, sicut praesens lectio contestatur.","english":"How much, therefore, temptation by God benefits his servants and harms the devil, we are more fully taught by this reading. For when he thinks he is harming them, he advances them, and when he persecutes one, he provokes many. For seeing that this man is protected by God’s help, many become his imitators. Thus, wishing to make a gain, he lost; for his fury is always damaging to him. For while he does not allow the just to exist lest they be rewarded, he makes them more worthy, and when he envies the holy Job, he doubled his merit in heaven and on earth, because he was both increased here and received into the heavens with the Savior, so that all these things redound to the glory of the saints, but to the punishment of the devil.\n\nCXVIIII. ON TOBIAS.\n\nSo great is the providence of the Lord God concerning us, that, not wishing us to err, he gave both the law and examples of good works, by which a modest and tranquil life can be conducted with fear of God. For he who is the author of life certainly does not wish his own work to be subject to death. Although nature itself is not without the law, yet because the Lord is good and merciful, so that there might be greater knowledge of those things which are to be followed and of those which are to be avoided, he shows them by writings and examples, as the present reading attests.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":425,"ref":"p425","source":"Dei ergo famulus sanctus Tobias post legem exemplum nobis datus est, ut quae legimus quo modo fiant sciamus et, si temptationes aduenerint, a dei timore non recedamus neque auxilium aliunde quam ab eo speremus memores scriptum esse: pusillus fui et senui et numquam uidi iustum derelictum neque semen eius quaerens panem.\n\nNumquam ergo decipi potest, qui tota mente sperat in deo. licet ad tempus tribulationes ortae fuerint per insidias satanae, exempla nos docent sanctorum uirorum non haec a deo permitti, nisi ad crementum meritorum nostrorum, quia, si aequo animo fuerint baiulatae, hic nobis dabitur consolatio cum effectu et in futuro uita aeterna cum gloria. deus enim noster, quia iustus est, et personarum acceptio apud illum non est, temptari nos permittit, quia diligit nos, ut post laborem possit nobis praemia dare amplissima. denique apostolo, ut temptationes ab eo cessarent, deprecanti dominus ait: sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam uirtus in infirmitate perficitur. hinc subsecutus ait: cum infirmor, tunc fortior sum, et: gaudeo, inquit, in tribulationibus meis, ut inhabitet ia me uirtus Christi.","english":"Therefore, the holy servant of God Tobias is given to us as an example after the Law, so that we may know how what we read is to be carried out, and if temptations arise, we do not withdraw from the fear of God nor hope for help from elsewhere than from Him, mindful that it is written: I was small and I grew old, and I never saw a righteous man abandoned nor his seed seeking bread.\n\nTherefore, he who hopes with his whole mind in God can never be deceived. Although tribulations may arise for a time through the snares of Satan, the examples of holy men teach us that these are not permitted by God except for the increase of our merits, because, if they are borne with an even mind, consolation with effect will be given to us here, and in the future, eternal life with glory. For our God, because He is just, and there is no favoritism with Him, permits us to be tempted, because He loves us, so that after the labor He can give us the most ample rewards. Finally, when the Apostle was praying that temptations cease from him, the Lord said: My grace is sufficient for you; for virtue is perfected in weakness. Hence he added: When I am weak, then I am stronger, and: I rejoice, he says, in my tribulations, so that the virtue of Christ may dwell in me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":426,"ref":"p426","source":"Quam ergo laudabilis sit sanctus Tobias, scriptura docemur, cuius deuotionem nec captiuitas minuit nec oculorum amissio quo minus deum benediceret persuasit, neque exhausta substantia a uia iustitiae et ueritatis auertit. necessitas enim probat iustum et in egestate aequitatem seruare uera ac perfecta iustitia est. unde enim quorundam deuotio minuitur, inde augmentum fecit laude dignus Tobias. inopia enim, inquit, humiliat uirum; et qui humiliatur non potest seruare iustitiam. sancti autem Tobiae erectus ad deum animus nec captiuitate fractus est nec inopia humiliatus, quia et contra interdictum occisorum corpora sepulturae mandabat et de dei largitione securus de ipso exiguo misericors erat sciens hanc magis deo placere misericordiam quae de exiguo fit, sicut et uidua illa fecit, quam dominus in euangelio conlaudauit. hic enim uere fidelis est, hic non dubitat de promissis dei, qui de paruo largitur.","english":"How praiseworthy the holy Tobias is, we are taught by Scripture, whose devotion neither captivity diminished nor the loss of his eyes persuaded him to bless God any the less, nor did his exhausted substance turn him from the path of righteousness and truth. For necessity tests the just man, and to preserve equity in poverty is true and perfect justice. For where the devotion of some is diminished, there the praiseworthy Tobias made increase. For poverty, it says, humbles a man; and one who is humbled cannot preserve justice. But the mind of the holy Tobias, raised up to God, was neither broken by captivity nor humbled by poverty, because even against the prohibition he gave burial to the bodies of the slain, and, secure in God’s bounty, he was merciful even from his own meager store, knowing that mercy pleases God more when it is made from little, just as that widow did whom the Lord praised in the Gospel. For this man is truly faithful, this man does not doubt God’s promises, who gives generously from little.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":427,"ref":"p427","source":"Spe ergo futurorum animum suum consolans deo dicatus Tobias in temptatione robustus et fortis inuentus est ostendens in necessitate plus in dei timore uigilandum, quia si necessitas ad dei auxilium non inpellit, quanto magis securitas! certi ergo sancti uiri, quod deus iudicium sibi eorum omnium quae in hoc mundo fiunt exceperit, tribulationes et damna et reliqua exitia uel contumelias non aegre tulerunt, sed et gratanter acceperunt, sicut et nostri apostoli, qui caesi gauisi sunt, quia digni habiti sunt pro nomine dei contumeliam pati. indicia enim meritorum futurorum exitia sunt, quae iniuste fiunt fidelibus siue in tribulationibus siue in contumeliis.\n\nItaque in tantum deo placuit iustus Tobias, ut duplici genere meritorum suorum consequeretur mercedem. et in praesente enim quae amiserat ministro angelo recuperauit lumina, ditatus etiam copiis, quae ad praesentem pertinent uitam, et in futuro heres regni caelorum est factus, ut in hoc doceremur quia, qui toto corde dei legi obtemperat nec de promissis dubitat, et in saeculo curam eius agit deus et in futuro donat illum uita aeterna.","english":"Therefore, consoling his spirit with hope for the future, Tobias, devoted to God, was found robust and strong in temptation, showing that in necessity one must be more vigilant in the fear of God, because if necessity does not impel one to seek God’s help, how much more does security! Therefore, certain holy men, because God has reserved for Himself the judgment of all those things that happen in this world, bore tribulations, losses, and other calamities or insults not with difficulty, but even received them gratefully, just as our apostles did, who rejoiced when beaten, because they were deemed worthy to suffer insult for the name of God. For the calamities that unjustly befall the faithful, whether in tribulations or in insults, are signs of future merits.\n\nThus, the just Tobias pleased God so much that he obtained a reward for his merits in a twofold manner. For in the present, through the ministry of an angel, he recovered the eyesight he had lost and was also enriched with resources that pertain to the present life, and in the future he was made an heir of the kingdom of heaven, so that we might be taught by this that whoever obeys God’s law with his whole heart and does not doubt the promises, God both takes care of him in this world and grants him eternal life in the future.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":428,"ref":"p428","source":"Est etiam aliud quod nos inuitat ad diuina obsequia. sanctus enim Tobias non solum iustitiae suae merita consecutus est, quia accedit ad cumulum gloriae eius etiam ex eorum bonis qui imitatores eius exsistunt. in imitatoribus enim exempla laudantur, quod nobis quoque poterit prouenire, si sic uixerimus, ut dignum sit et nos imitatores habere.\n\nCXX. DE IEIUNIO.\n\nCongruum est, fratres carissimi, deuotissime dei sacerdotem et praepositum plebis Christi exortari populum sub cura sua positum in doctrina sana, sicut mandat apostolus, ut opus fidei pro temporis obseruatione omni cura diligentiaque alacri et deuoto animo faciamus. ieiunia etenim, quae nunc inminente die festo paschae celebranda sunt, quid proficiant, quamuis non lateat, taceri tamen non debet. incitatur enim deuotio, quando ea quae, licet non ignorantur, recensentur tamen. tale est enim ingenium naturae nostrae, ut torpescat, si usus destiterit lectionis, quia sicut ferrum, nisi usum fecerit, eruginem generat, ita et anima, nisi se frequentius diuinis exercuerit lectionibus, nascentur illi peccata. hinc est unde in psalmo hunc dicit beatum, qui die noctuque legem domini meditatur.","english":"There is also another thing which invites us to divine observances. For the holy Tobias not only attained the merits of his own righteousness, because there is added to the summit of his glory also that which comes from the good of those who exist as his imitators. In imitators, indeed, examples are praised, which may also come to us, if we have lived in such a way that it is worthy for us also to have imitators.\n\nCXX. ON FASTING.\n\nIt is fitting, dearest brothers, that the most devoted priest of God and overseer of the people of Christ should exhort the people placed under his care in sound doctrine, as the apostle commands, so that we may perform the work of faith for the observance of the season with all care and diligence, with a cheerful and devoted spirit. For the fasts which are now to be celebrated as the feast of Easter draws near—what they profit, although it is not hidden, still ought not to be passed over in silence. For devotion is stirred up when those things which, though not unknown, are nevertheless reviewed. For such is the nature of our character, that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading ceases, because just as iron, unless it has been used, generates rust, so also the soul, unless it has more frequently exercised itself in divine readings, sins arise in it. Hence it is that in the psalm it calls blessed the one who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":429,"ref":"p429","source":"Denique quamuis nota sint diuina eloquia, tamen cum fuerint sacris uoluminibus memorata, sic illa deuotum pectus suscipit quasi noua. exsuscitatur enim desiderium animae erga opera salutaria. unde apostolus ad Timotheum inter cetera: ut resuscites, inquit, gratiam dei quae est in te. igitur necessaria nobis ieiunia sunt, sicut uulneribus medicina. medellam enim conferunt uitae perpetuae, ita tamen ut duarum rerum testimonio commendentur, id est oratione et misericordia.\n\nIeiunia ergo intemperantiam corporis mitigant, motus aduersos reprimunt, pressuram animae auferunt, sicut ait dominus: nolite dediti esse in esca et in crapula, ne grauentur corda uestra. cum enim anima ab esca et potu fuerit liberata, tunc se melius recognoscit. sicut enim in speculo sordido non se talem homo aspicit qualis est, ita et, si esca et crapula fuerit grauatus, alterum ae sentit quam est. tunc exsuscitatur libido, accenditur ira, inflammatur superbia, generatur luxoria. unde apostolus: nolite, ait, in e b ri a ri uino, in quo est luxoria. quod si temperatum fuerit corpus interposito ieiunio, cognitione sui recepta anima intellegit qua deuotione obsequi debeat redemtori.","english":"Finally, although the divine utterances are known, yet when they are recalled in the sacred volumes, the devout heart receives them as if new. For the soul's desire for salutary works is aroused. Hence the Apostle, among other things, says to Timothy: \"to rekindle,\" he says, \"the grace of God which is in you.\" Therefore, fasts are necessary for us, just as medicine is for wounds. For they confer the remedy of eternal life, yet in such a way that they are commended by the testimony of two things, namely prayer and mercy.\n\nFasts, therefore, mitigate the intemperance of the body, repress adverse motions, and remove the oppression of the soul, just as the Lord says: \"Do not be given over to food and gluttony, lest your hearts be weighed down.\" For when the soul has been freed from food and drink, then it recognizes itself better. For just as in a dirty mirror a man does not see himself as he is, so also, if he has been weighed down by food and gluttony, he feels himself other than he is. Then lust is aroused, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, and luxury is generated. Hence the Apostle says: \"Do not,\" he says, \"get drunk on wine, in which there is luxury.\" But if the body has been disciplined by the interposition of a fast, the soul, having recovered self-knowledge, understands with what devotion it ought to obey the Redeemer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":430,"ref":"p430","source":"Magna ergo ex parte ieiunia sunt necessaria. sub Hester etenim regina, cum Iudaicus populus in periculo esset positus, ieiuniis suffragantibus liberatus est. et Nineuitae, cum euersionis suae praescriptum diem a profeta audissent, ieiunio indicto euadere meruerunt. et iusti ac profetae nostri, quando a deo aliquid impetrare uolebant, ieiunio se humiliabant dicente Dauid: in ieiunio humiliabam animam meam. nam et saluator, cui opus non erat, ut nobis exemplum daret, ieiunauit.\n\nItaque nulli dubium est prodesse ieiunia. sic enim ostendet uelle se impetrare quod postulat, cum se adfligit ieiunio. unde dictum est: bona est oratio cum ieiunio. ut accepta ergo possit esse oratio, solacium uult eam habere ieiunii et, quia nihil horum sine pietate firmum est, adiecit: et elemosyna, ait, cum iustitia, ut elemosyna seruata iustitia commendet orationem cum ieiunio. denique orationem et ieiunium Corneli misericordia commendauit. ipse enim abundans copiis ieiunabat, sed et non habentes pascebat, ut illorum saturitas ieiunium eius faceret acceptabile. nonnullis ergo indiget et nonnullis carere debet ieiunium, ut possit mereri quod postulat","english":"Fasts are therefore for the most part necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people were placed in danger, they were delivered by the support of fasts. And the Ninevites, when they heard from the prophet the prescribed day of their destruction, merited escape by imposing a fast. And our righteous men and prophets, when they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves by fasting, as David says: \"I humbled my soul by fasting.\" For even the Savior, who had no need, fasted in order to give us an example.\n\nThus there is no doubt that fasts are beneficial. For in this way a person shows that he wishes to obtain what he requests, when he afflicts himself by fasting. Whence it is said: \"Prayer with fasting is good.\" So that prayer may be acceptable, it desires the support of fasting; and because none of these things is firm without piety, it added: \"and almsgiving,\" it says, \"with justice,\" so that almsgiving, preserving justice, commends prayer with fasting. Finally, the mercy of Cornelius commended prayer and fasting. For he himself, abounding in resources, fasted, but also fed those who had nothing, so that their fullness made his fast acceptable. Therefore, some need fasting, and some must lack it, so that it may merit what it requests.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":431,"ref":"p431","source":"CXXI. LAUS ET GLORIA PASCHAE.\n\nO sanctum et salutarem diem paschae et omni laude praedicandum, quo mors deuicta est, diabolo regnum ablatum; sacramentum dei manifestatum, decretum quod aduersum nos erat euacuatum; tartari ianuae confractae, uincti soluti, clausi remissi, caeci inluminati, inperiti scientia donati, impii facti misericordes, iniqui iusti; peccatorum data remissio, inimicorum reconciliatio, erroris emendatio, ueritatis declaratio; deo filii ex perditis adquisiti; superbia depressa, humilitas exaltata; pauperes ditati, diuites exhausti; montes deplanati, ualles repletae, colles prostrati; inpudentia calcata, uerecundia confota; animabus ad caelum data facultas, libertas reddita, disrupta ac resoluta captiuitas; torpuerunt tenebrae, confusa est malitia, purificatus squalor; satanas deiectus, inanitus infernus, dominus noster Christus Iesus uerus dei filius adprobatus, caro ad confusionem prudentium mundi in caelos sublata, caelestia terrestria et inferna unius dei et domini demonstrata!.","english":"O holy and salutary day of Pascha, to be proclaimed with every praise, on which death was conquered, the kingdom taken from the devil; the sacrament of God was made manifest, the decree that was against us was annulled; the gates of Tartarus were broken, the bound were freed, the confined were released, the blind were enlightened, the ignorant were granted knowledge, the impious were made merciful, the unjust just; remission was given to sinners, reconciliation of enemies, correction of error, declaration of truth; sons of God were acquired from the lost; pride was cast down, humility exalted; the poor were enriched, the rich drained; mountains were leveled, valleys filled, hills laid low; shamelessness was trampled, modesty fostered; the faculty for souls to go to heaven was given, liberty restored, captivity broken and dissolved; darkness grew numb, malice was confounded, squalor purified; Satan was cast down, hell emptied, our Lord Christ Jesus, true Son of God, approved, flesh, to the confusion of the wise of the world, borne up into the heavens, the celestial, terrestrial, and infernal realms shown to belong to one God and Lord!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":432,"ref":"p432","source":"Itaque, fratres karissimi, hunc diem festum colere ac uenerari debemus deuoti deo cum modestia uitae et animi laetitia turpia et inhonesta uitantes, ut ad fructum paschae uenire mereamur per Christum dominum nostrum, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum. amen.\n\nCXXII. DE PRINCIPIO.\n\nIn principio erat uerbum. quid est 'in principio'? quoniam legimus et in ueteribus libris: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram, et in epistula eius, cuius euangelium est, de cuius principio aliquid conamur edicere, eodem sensu significatum est; ait enim: quod erat ab initio. epistula ergo et euangelium unum habent sensum. aliud est enim quod in uetere ait: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram, et aliud cum dicit: in principio erat uerbum, et: quod erat ab initio. (in principio' enim esse et (ab initio' esse unum significat, quia ab initio quod erat non coepit esse. quod enim incipit esse ab initio non erat et ideo subicitur 'initio', ut dicatur: coepit esse in initio', id est, ut inter cetera in ordine primus sit, quia ipse in initio factus alios coepit post se habere, qui post illum sunt facti, sicut legimus, quia in principio fecit deus caelum et terram.","english":"Therefore, dearest brothers, we ought to celebrate and venerate this festal day, devoted to God, with modesty of life and joy of spirit, avoiding shameful and dishonorable things, so that we may merit to attain the fruit of Pascha through Christ our Lord, to whom is honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.\n\nCXXII. ON THE BEGINNING.\n\nIn the beginning was the Word. What is \"in the beginning\"? Because we read also in the old books: \"In the beginning God made heaven and earth,\" and in the epistle of him whose gospel it is, concerning whose beginning we attempt to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: \"that which was from the beginning.\" Therefore the epistle and the gospel have one sense. For it is one thing that it says in the Old: \"In the beginning God made heaven and earth,\" and another when it says: \"In the beginning was the Word,\" and: \"that which was from the beginning.\" For \"in the beginning\" to be and \"from the beginning\" to be signify one thing, because that which was from the beginning did not begin to be. For that which begins to be was not from the beginning and therefore is subject to \"beginning,\" so that it is said: \"it began to be in the beginning,\" that is, so that among other things it is first in order, because it itself, made in the beginning, began to have others after itself, which were made after it, as we read, because in the beginning God made heaven and earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":433,"ref":"p433","source":"non dixit: (in principio erat caelum et terra', quia, cum non essent et disponeret deus facere mundum, in principio', hoc est inter cetera, quae ad mundi fabricam profecerunt, primum fecit caelum et terram', quia principium initium est inchoantis aliquid, quod sit primum in ordine.\n\nIllud autem quod dicitur, quia in principio erat, id est uerbum, ante inchoationem creaturae supernae et infernae significatur fuisse, ut non utique inter haec quae creata sunt prius factum intellegeretur, quia in principio erat, cum deus disponeret facere creaturam. ergo si in principio erat, id est ante omnia erat, semper erat ideoque et uerbum erat..\n\ntbi?apuddeum, inquit, ut non indigne initio subiectum minime aestimaretur, quod semper erat apud deum. conuenit enim ut quod ante omnia apud deum erat nuili subiciatur initio.\n\nUnde et adiecit: et deus erat uerbum. nunc ostendit aperte quia quae supra dicta sunt congruunt uerbo, quia deus est, inquit, uerbum et de deo aliter non oportet sentiri, quam ut semper dicatur fuisse. si enim coepit, creatura est; si creatura est, deus non est quidquid enim est, aut dens est aut creatura ac per hoc dei nomen non conpetit creaturae. sed quia non coepit esse — erat enim —, digne dicitur deus.","english":"He did not say: \"In the beginning were heaven and earth,\" because, when they were not and God was planning to make the world, \"in the beginning,\" that is, among the other things which contributed to the construction of the world, he first made \"heaven and earth,\" since a beginning is the start of something that is beginning, which is first in order.\n\nBut that which is said, that in the beginning was, that is, the Word, is signified to have existed before the commencement of supernal and infernal creation, so that it would not be understood as having been made first among those things which were created, because it was in the beginning, when God was planning to make creation. Therefore, if it was in the beginning, that is, before all things, it always was, and therefore it was also the Word.\n\n\"It was with God,\" he says, so that it might not be unworthily considered subject to a beginning, since it always was with God. For it is fitting that what was with God before all things be subject to no beginning.\n\nHence he also added: \"And the Word was God.\" Now he shows clearly that what was said above pertains to the Word, because \"the Word is God,\" he says, and concerning God one ought not to think otherwise than that he is said to have always existed. For if he began, he is a creature; if he is a creature, he is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature, and for this reason the name of God does not befit a creature. But because he did not begin to exist—for he was—he is rightly called God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":434,"ref":"p434","source":"Apud deum autem ideo dicitur semper fuisse, quia non ex se, sed ex deo-deos est. quam ob rem et nomen eius dicitur 'uerbum dei', sicut fides eiusdem euangelistae in Reuelatione sua demonstrat; ait enim inter cetera: e t nom en e ius est uerbum dei. ut enim non ipse, ex quo sunt omnia, significaretur, sed per quem sunt omnia, id est non pater sed filius, uerbum dei' appellatus est, ut, quia deus sine uerbo esse non potest, hic, qui 'uerbum dei* dicitur, semper apud deum fuisse credatur et, quia uerbum non est extra eum cuius uerbum est, uerbum hoc, quod apud deum erat, non aliunde, sed de deo esse significatum intellegatur et, quia de deo est, non absurde deus dicatur.\n\nItaque non duos deos facit deum fuisse apud deum. si enim essent duo, diuersi essent natura nec unius uoluntatis. si enim nos homines, cum unius sumus naturae, diuersae tamen sumus uoluntatis, quanto magis, ubi diuersa est et natura! et nec deus apud deum esse diceretur. deus enim, qui apud deum erat et est, non ex se habet quod deus est; si quo minus, nec apud deum deus esse diceretur neque dei uerbum' deus uerbum appellaretur, sed quia quod de deo est non aliud significat esse quam deus est, uerbum dei* deus est nuncupatus, ut, quia 'uerbum dei' dicitur, ad alterum deum non referretur, quod autem deus uocatur, ne ad iniuriam dei proficeret, si quod de deo erat deus minime diceretur.","english":"Now, as for God, it is said to have always existed because it is not from itself, but from God it is God. For this reason its name is said to be 'Word of God,' as the faith of the same evangelist demonstrates in his Revelation; for he says among other things: \"and his name is the Word of God.\" For, so that not He Himself, from whom all things are, might be signified, but He through whom all things are—that is, not the Father but the Son—He was called 'Word of God,' so that, because God cannot be without the Word, this one, who is called 'Word of God,' might be believed to have always been with God, and, because the Word is not outside the one whose Word it is, this Word, which was with God, might be understood to be signified as not from elsewhere but from God, and, because it is from God, it is not absurdly called God.\n\nThus, it does not make two gods that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will. For if we humans, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more so where the nature is also different! And not even would God be said to be with God. For God, who was and is with God, does not have from itself that it is God; if it were otherwise, it would neither be said to be God with God nor would 'Word of God' be called God the Word, but because what is from God signifies nothing other than being what God is, the 'Word of God' has been named God, so that, because it is called 'Word of God,' it might not be referred to another God, but that it is called God, lest it redound to the injury of God if what was from God were not at all called God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":435,"ref":"p435","source":"igitur et unitas dei seruata est et debita honorificentia reddita, quando non in propria gloria receptus est hic, qui de deo deus est, sed in eius, de quo deus est.\n\nPropterea de uerbo incipit loqui euangelium, priusquam de deo loquatur patre, quia quaestiones non de deo fiunt, sed de uerbo dei. nemo enim dubitat de deo, sed de eo, qui de deo deus est. omnia enim lingua caelestium et terrestrium fatetur unum deum, sed in sacramento unius dei turbatur. trepidat enim audiens deum') dici uerbum dei; corporalibus enim modis pulsatur, quia uerbum hominis homo dici non potest. cum utique deus natura sit simplex, non membris conpositus neque qui intus habeat et foris, neque ante et post, aut summum et imum, sed, si potest dici, totus per omnia idem, numquam uarius aut absimilis — una autem claritas eius est inmensa; nam si ignis non habet anteriora et posteriora aut intus et foris, quanto magis creator eius! —, itaque, quia omne quod deus est totum unum est, non discrepat, cum quod de deo est dicitur deus.","english":"Therefore, both the unity of God is preserved and due honor is rendered, when the one who is God from God is received not in his own glory, but in the glory of the one from whom he is God.\n\nFor this reason, the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father, because the questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. For no one doubts God, but rather doubts the one who is God from God. Every tongue of heavenly and earthly beings confesses one God, but is troubled in the mystery of the one God. For it trembles upon hearing that the Word of God is called 'God'; it is assailed by corporeal modes of thinking, because a human word cannot be called a human. Since God is by nature simple, not composed of parts, nor having an inside and outside, nor before and after, nor top and bottom, but—if it can be said—entirely the same through all things, never varying or dissimilar—and his one glory is immense; for if fire has no front and back or inside and outside, how much more so its creator!—therefore, because everything that is God is wholly one, it is not inconsistent when that which is from God is called God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":436,"ref":"p436","source":"Ex parte ergo humano exemplo, ex parte non humano dei filius, qui est uerbum dei, deus est. ea enim ratione, qua filii hominum homines sunt, dei filius deus est. sed quia ex conmixtione filii hominum homines sunt, non hoc exemplo filius dei deus est, quia ex simplici deo simpliciter natus est. et quemadmodum uerbum nostrum ex nobis est, hoc exemplo intellegitur dei uerbum esse de deo, sed, quia uerbum nostrum non est hoc quod nos sumus, non hac ratione uerbum dei de deo est, quia uerbum dei res est, non sonus qui deperit\n\nNec enim quia communia uocabula nobis et deo sunt, una ratio erit nobis et deo in rerum effectu. nam legimus: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram. quo modo fecit? numquid, sicut nos facimus, manu opere? et in subiectis: et dixit, inquit, deus: fiat lux; et facta est lux, quo modo putamus locutum esse deum, quia non utique homini locutus est, sed ei qui posset facere, qui etiam hominem facturus erat, sicut fecit? sicut nos loquimur, organo corporali? absit. uides ergo quia uocabula quidem nobis et deo communia sunt, sed discrepant in effectu; aliter enim deus facit quam . facimus nos, et loqui dicitur, sed non more nostro.","english":"In part, therefore, by human example, and in part not by human example, the Son of God, who is the Word of God, is God. For by that reasoning by which the sons of men are men, the Son of God is God. But because the sons of men are men through mixture, the Son of God is not God by this example, because he was born simply from the simple God. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from God, but because our word is not what we are, the Word of God is not from God by this reasoning, because the Word of God is a thing, not a sound that perishes.\n\nFor it is not because the words are common to us and to God that there will be one and the same reasoning for us and for God in the effect of things. For we read: \"In the beginning God made heaven and earth.\" How did he make? Surely not as we make, by manual work? And in the following: \"And God said,\" it says, \"Let there be light; and light was made.\" How do we think God spoke, since he certainly did not speak to a man, but to one who was able to make, who was also going to make man, as he did? As we speak, by a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, therefore, that the words are indeed common to us and to God, but they differ in effect; for God makes otherwise than we make, and he is said to speak, but not in our manner.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":437,"ref":"p437","source":"Sic et uerbum dei non tale uerbum est, sicut nostrum, quod postquam fit non est; illud autem manet, quia tale uerbum est, quod et audit et loquitur et operatur. non solum autem 'uerbum dei' est, sed et *uirtus et sapientia dei' hic est filius dei, qui, quantum ad effectum pertinet, filius dicitur dei; quantum autem ad adlocutionem, qua nos adloquitur deus per ipsum, uerbum dicitur dei; quantum uero ad sapientiam, qua nos deus per ipsum docet sacramentum suum, sapientia dicitur dei; quantum autem ad operationem, quia per ipsum omnia fecit et facit deus, uirtus dicitur dei.\n\nHaec nulli alii possent conpetere nisi filio dei. propter quod enim ex deo deus est, omnia dei dicitur. nascendo enim omnia consecutus est dei. nec enim conueniens erat degener dici uerbum dei et uirtutem et sapientiam dei; hoc est enim deus: uerbum uirtus sapientia. Christus autem, quia totus de toto est deo deus, et sapientia dicitur dei et uirtus et uerbum dei, hoc est deum esse de deo et apud deum.","english":"And the Word of God is not such a word as ours, which after it is spoken is no more; that one endures, because it is a word which both hears and speaks and works. Moreover, it is not only the 'Word of God,' but also the 'power and wisdom of God.' This is the Son of God, who, as far as effect is concerned, is called the Son of God; but as far as the address by which God addresses us through him, he is called the Word of God; but as far as wisdom, by which God teaches us his mystery through him, he is called the wisdom of God; but as far as operation, because through him God has made and makes all things, he is called the power of God.\n\nThese could belong to none other than the Son of God. For because he is God from God, he is called all things of God. For by being born, he has obtained all things of God. Nor was it fitting that the Word of God and the power and wisdom of God be called degenerate; for this is God: word, power, wisdom. Christ, however, because he is wholly from the whole God, God from God, is also called the wisdom of God and the power and the Word of God, that is, to be God from God and with God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":438,"ref":"p438","source":"Propter quod ait: hoc erat in principio apud deum, ad euincendas enim incredulorum mentes coacta scriptura erupit, ut ostenderet Christum esse deum; cum omni loco propter unitatem dei intellegi uult Christum esse deum, nunc autem aperta uoce dixit esse eum deum et semper fuisse apud deum. sacramentum patefaciens dei, ne omnino solitarius putaretur, declarauit non propterea unum dici deum, ut solitarius aestimetur, sed licet duo uel tres, ex uno tamen, non praeiudicare unitati, quia quod de uno est ad illud ipsum refertur, quia unus est.\n\nQuamuis omnia dicantur ex deo, sed aliud est quod proprie exstitit de deo et aliud quod nutu. de foris creatum est dei; hoc est, aliud est quod de substantia eius processit et aliud quod, cum nullo modo esset, uoluntate eius creatum est, quia quod de substantia dei processit numquam fuit per substantiam, quod uero creatum est tunc coepit in substantiam, cum creatum est, ac per hoc initium non habet trinitas sola.","english":"Therefore it says: \"This was in the beginning with God.\" For the Scripture was compelled to break forth in order to refute the minds of unbelievers, so as to show that Christ is God. Although in every place, on account of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God, now, however, it has declared with an open voice that He is God and was always with God, revealing the mystery of God, lest He be thought to be utterly solitary. It declared that God is not called one for the reason that He is considered solitary, but that although there are two or three, yet from one, they do not prejudice unity, because what is from one is referred back to that same one, since He is one.\n\nAlthough all things are said to be from God, yet it is one thing that properly came forth from God, and another that was created by God's command from outside. That is, it is one thing that proceeded from His substance, and another that, when it was in no way at all, was created by His will. For what proceeded from the substance of God never was not through substance; but what was created then began to be in substance when it was created. And by this, the Trinity alone has no beginning.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":439,"ref":"p439","source":"Declaratio igitur mysterii merita fidei minorauit, quia, quanto occultius est quod creditur, tanto magis propensior credentis est merces et minor poena diffidentis. declaratio autem mysterii, sicut minora fecit mereri credentes, ita maiores exsuscitauit diffidentibus poenas. manifestior enim lex plus facit reum.\n\nNam suffecerat testatio saluatoris, qua sibi proprium patrem dixerat deum. quis enim credentium dubitaret nihil a patre differre in substantia filium? sed quia hereticorum peruersitas infidelitatis commentis fidei iura pulsare coeperat aliter accipiendo filium dei quam praedicatur, additum est ad faciendam manifestationem hunc ante omnia apud deum fuisse et deum esse, ut declararet quod filii ueri ratio mystice continebat, per quod diuina clementia humanae infirmitati prouidisse uidetur, ut aperiret quod clausum potioris fidei meritis reseruauerat.","english":"Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery diminished the merit of faith, because the more hidden what is believed, the greater the reward of the believer and the lesser the penalty of the unbeliever. But the disclosure of the mystery, just as it made believers merit less, so it stirred up greater penalties for unbelievers. For a more manifest law makes one more guilty.\n\nFor the testimony of the Savior had sufficed, by which he had called God his own father. For who among the believers would doubt that the Son differs in no way in substance from the Father? But because the perversity of heretics, through the fabrications of their unbelief, had begun to assail the laws of faith by understanding the Son of God otherwise than as he is proclaimed, it was added, to make a clear demonstration, that he was with God before all things and is God, so that it might declare what the true nature of the Son mystically contained, by which divine clemency seems to have provided for human weakness, so as to open what it had reserved, closed, for the merits of a stronger faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":440,"ref":"p440","source":"Unde adiecit dicens: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. ut si quis ex superioribus in aliquo ambigeret, quia angusta est intellegentia hominum ad diuinas res capiendas, ex his capax fieret, cum audit: omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ut non utique facturam ipsum putaret, quia omnia per ipsum audit facta a deo. si autem et ipse esset factura, non omnia per ipsum facta a deo dixisset; nec enim ipse per se fiebat.\n\nQuod ut adhuc absolutius traderet, adiecit: et sine ipso, inquit, factum est nihil. hoc dicens exclusit omnem controuersiam et argumenta terrena. quamuis de non sint qui diffidant, tamen, quando sine ipso nihil factum ostendit, nullo modo illum facturam esse suspicari debere edocuit. quo modo enim potest dici ipse esse factura, cum nihil dicatur deus sine ipso fecisse? si enim fecit, mentitur scriptura. sed absit, quia fidelis est scriptura, quae,. ut errorem amputet, quanta potest utitur manifestatione ad salutem hominum redimendam.","english":"Hence he added, saying: all things were made through him. So that if anyone from the preceding might doubt in some respect, because human understanding is narrow for grasping divine matters, he would become capable from these things, when he hears: all things were made through him, so that he would not at all think him a creature, because he hears that all things were made through him by God. But if he himself were also a creature, he would not have said that all things were made through him by God; for he himself was not made through himself.\n\nThat he might convey this even more clearly, he added: and without him, he says, nothing was made. By saying this he excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are those who distrust, nevertheless, when he shows that nothing was made without him, he taught that one should by no means suspect him to be a creature. For how can it be said that he himself is a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without him? For if he made, the Scripture lies. But far be it, because the Scripture is faithful, which, to cut off error, uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human salvation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":441,"ref":"p441","source":"Denique subiecit: quod factum est, inquit, in ipso uita est. (in ipso', id est in uerbo, quod factum est, uitam esse significat. sicut et ipse dominus ait: sicut habet pater uitam in semet ipso, ita dedit et filio uitam habere in semet ipso, non quia uerbum sine uita erat et postea aut data aut facta est in illo uita, sed ipsum uerbum uitam uult intellegi esse. si de patre deo potest dici quia aliud ipse est et aliud in se habet, ita et de filio eius, quia (sicut habet pater uitam in semet ipso, ita dedit et filio uitam habere in semet ipso'.\n\nHumana enim eloquia non sunt idonea ad res explicandas diuinas; ideo uitiosum uidetur quod dicitur, ut, cum factura non sit dei filius, factum in ipso dicatur. et si dixisset: 'quod genitum est in ipso', et sicuitiosum uidebatur. sed ut substantiuam generationem eius ostenderet, opus in eam factum, quali uti potuit sermone, per quod exsisteret, demonstrauit, quia generatio eius uitam in se habet.","english":"Then he added: “What was made,” he says, “in him is life.” (“In him,” that is, in the Word, indicates that what was made is life. Just as the Lord himself says: “As the Father has life in himself, so he gave also to the Son to have life in himself,” not because the Word was without life and later life was either given or made in him, but because the Word itself is to be understood as life. If it can be said of God the Father that he himself is one thing and has another in himself, so also of his Son, because “as the Father has life in himself, so he gave also to the Son to have life in himself.”)\n\nHuman speech is not adequate for explaining divine matters; therefore what is said seems defective, so that, although the Son of God is not a creature, it is said that “what was made” is in him. And if it had said “what was begotten in him,” that too would have seemed defective. But in order to show his substantial generation, he demonstrated that a work was made in it, using whatever speech he could, through which it came into existence, because his generation has life in itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":442,"ref":"p442","source":"Nos enim uiuimus quidem, sed non possumus aliis dare uitam, quippe cum nec in potestate nostra sit eadem uita; ille autem ideo dicitur uitam in se habere, quia potens est uiuificare et creare quae uult, ut sint et uiuant. ad hoc enim natus dicitur, ut omnia possit facere quae facit pater, quia sic habet uitam in se sicut habet et pater, hoc est omnia per ipsum et in ipso fecisse, sic eum genuisse, ut haberet in se uitam, per quam omnia possit facere. non quia ipse aliud est quam uita, sed dum hoc potest uita eius, ut et uiuat et alia possit creare quae uiuant, uitam dicitur habere in semet ipso. nos enim uiuimus, sed non habemus sic uitam in nobis ipsis, ut et aliis demus uitam. quem sensum et apostolus Paulus memorat inter cetera dicens: qui est imago inuisibilis dei, primogenitus ante omnem creaturam, quoniam in ipso condita sunt omnia in caelis et in terra, uisibilia et inuisibilia, siue sedes siue dominationes siue principatus siue potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipsum creata sunt.","english":"We indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that life is not even in our power; but He is said to have life in Himself because He is able to vivify and create what He wills, so that they may exist and live. For He is said to have been born for this purpose: that He might be able to do everything that the Father does, because He has life in Himself just as the Father has, that is, that the Father made everything through Him and in Him, and begot Him in such a way that He would have life in Himself, through which He could do everything. Not because He Himself is something other than life, but because His life has this power, that it both lives and can create other things that live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we live, but we do not have life in ourselves in such a way that we can give life to others. The Apostle Paul also recalls this meaning among other things, saying: \"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature, because in Him all things were founded in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through Him and in Him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":443,"ref":"p443","source":"Conueniunt euangelia duorum apostolorum Iohannis et Pauli; eadem enim dicunt, quia filius dei ante omnem creaturam genitus est, ut crearet potentias spiritales et mundum et quae in eo sunt uisibilia. quod enim dixit Iohannes, quia quod factum, in ipso uita est, hoc idem significauit et Paulus dicens, quia in ipso condita sunt omnia in caelis et in terra.\n\nEt in subiectis: omnia per ipsum et in ipsum creata sunt 'per ipsum' creauit, quia in substantia idem deus est, hoc est pater in filio; (in ipsum' uero, quoniam sic generauit filium, ut haberet potentiam faciendi omnia uisibilia et inuisibilia. hoc fuit fecisse in illo uitam, ut et uiueret et uitam aliis praestaret uiuendi agendi intellegendi et ceteris animantibus, secundum quod uoluit quasi imago dei.\n\nDum enim imago dicitur dei, ad utrumque refertur, quia et per expressam natiuitatem plenam in se habet similitudinem patris et potest quidquid potest et pater, ut uerum sit patrem uideri in filio, qui est imago inuisibilis dei.","english":"The Gospels of the two apostles John and Paul agree; for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers and the world and the visible things in it. For what John said, that in that which was made, life is in him, Paul also signified the same thing, saying that in him all things in the heavens and on earth were established.\n\nAnd in the following: all things were created through him and in him. 'Through him' he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; 'in him' indeed, because he so begot the Son that he would have the power to make all visible and invisible things. This was to have placed life in him, so that he might both live and provide life to others for living, acting, understanding, and to other living beings, according to what he willed, as the image of God.\n\nFor when he is called the image of God, this refers to both, because both through an expressed nativity he has in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is true that the Father is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":444,"ref":"p444","source":"Numquid quia patrem inuisibilem dixit filium uisibilem fecit, cum utique hoc sit filius per naturam quod et pater? et cum creatura caelestis inuisibilis sit, quanto magis creator eorum! sed hoc significauit quod in caelis est, non quod in terra, quia, quamuis et filius inuisibilis sit, illic tamen, id est in caelestibus, uidetur apostolis -uel ceteris talibus, de quibus dixit: pater, uolo ut ubi ego sum et isti sint mecum et uideant claritatem meam; etalio loco: beati, inquit, mundo corde, quia ipsi deum uidebunt, hoc est patrem in filio, deum in imagine, quod est deum in deo.\n\nSicut corporalis corpus imago est, ita et dei deus imago est, quia exemplum est pater, filius uero exemplum de exemplo, quod communicat spiritui sancto: quia de meo, inquit, accipiet t. ideoque in filio uidetur deus quasi in sua imagine. sicut enim nemo dignus inuentus est aperire librum et signacula eius nisi uerbum dei, ita et deum patrem nemo uidere dignus est neque natura neque meritis, nisi uerus filius eius. nihil enim medium est, quod obstet inter patrem et filium ipso nobis teste qui ait: nec enim patrem uidit quisquam, nisi qui est a deo, hic uidit deum.","english":"Did he, because he called the Father invisible, make the Son visible, when indeed the Son is by nature what the Father is? And if the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more so their creator! But he meant that he is in the heavens, not on earth, because, although the Son is also invisible, yet there, that is in the heavens, he is seen by the apostles—or by others of that kind, concerning whom he said: \"Father, I wish that where I am, these also may be with me and see my glory\"; and in another place: \"Blessed,\" he says, \"are the pure in heart, for they will see God,\" that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image, which is God in God.\n\nJust as a bodily image is of a body, so also God's image is of God, because the Father is the exemplar, but the Son is the exemplar from the exemplar, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit: for he says, \"He will receive from mine.\" And therefore God is seen in the Son as if in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God, so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing intermediate that stands in the way between Father and Son, with him himself as our witness who says: \"For no one has seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":445,"ref":"p445","source":"Sed si in filio uidetur pater, quare nemo dignus dicitur uidere deum, cum uideatur in filio, quia nihil differt a patre filius? nihil plane differt in substantia, quia uerus filius est; differt autem in causa uel gradu, quia omnis potentia a patre in filio est et, si in substantia minor non est filius, auctoritate tamen maior est pater ipso domino testante et dicente: si diligeretis me, gauderetis, quia uado ad patrem, quia pater maior me est.\n\nQuem modum custodiens apostolus Paulus: unus, inquit, deus pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus dominus Iesus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum, ut primus gradus sit, ex quo sunt omnia, secundus, per quem omnia, tertius, in quo omnia. et quia nullus ex his degener est, in unitate dei significati sunt dicente apostolo: quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria.\n\nCXXIII. SI ADAM SANCTUM HABUIT SPIRITUM?","english":"But if the Father is seen in the Son, why is no one said to be worthy to see God, when He is seen in the Son, since the Son differs in nothing from the Father? He differs in nothing at all in substance, because He is a true Son; He differs, however, in cause or rank, because all power from the Father is in the Son, and, if the Son is not lesser in substance, yet the Father is greater in authority, as the Lord Himself testifies and says: “If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.”\n\nKeeping this manner, the Apostle Paul says: “There is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things and we through Him,” so that the first rank is that from which all things are, the second that through which all things are, the third that in which all things are. And because none of these is degenerate, they are signified in the unity of God, the Apostle saying: “Since from Him and through Him and in Him are all things, glory to Him.”\n\nCXXIII. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":446,"ref":"p446","source":"Conperi quosdam ex fratribus nostris non plene discus. sisse scripturas, sed simplicitate animi adseuerare quod Adam factus sanctum accepit spiritum, quem peccans amisit, sicut nunc datur credentibus, hac ducti ratione, qua solet adseuerari a plurimis quia per fidem instauratus est homo ita, ut ad pristinum redditus statum hoc omne acciperet quod inter initia Adam fuerat consecutus, et quia perfectus homo factus dici debet, qui (si non habuit', inquiunt, 'sanctum spiritum, inperfectus fuit.'\n\nEgo autem non solum hominem, sed et cuncta quae fecit deus, quae non possint dici accepisse spiritum sanctum, dico . perfecta. omnia enim genera animalium in suo perfecta sunt, ut impleant ad id quod sunt facta; ita et homo in suo perfectus est, ut potens sit discernere mala a bonis, praua a rectis. est enim animal intellegibile, perfectum ad id quod factum est; capax est enim discendi excogitandi faciendi, ut quae uirtute non potest impleat sensu.","english":"I have found that some of our brethren do not fully understand the Scriptures, but with simplicity of mind assert that Adam received the Holy Spirit when he was made, which he lost when he sinned, just as it is now given to believers, led by this reasoning, which is commonly asserted by many, that through faith man is restored in such a way that, having been returned to his former state, he would receive all that Adam had obtained in the beginning, and because a perfect man ought to be said to be made, they say, 'If he did not have the Holy Spirit, he was imperfect.'\n\nI, however, say that not only man, but also all things that God made, which cannot be said to have received the Holy Spirit, are perfect. For all kinds of animals are perfect in their own kind, so that they fulfill what they were made for; so also man is perfect in his own kind, so that he is able to discern evil from good, and depraved from right. For he is an intelligible animal, perfect for what he was made; for he is capable of learning, thinking, and acting, so that what he cannot accomplish by strength he may fulfill by understanding.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":447,"ref":"p447","source":"Et quo modo ausi sunt hominem perfectum nasci dicere et totum scire, quem uident nihil ultra nosse quam hic discitur? quod enim hic non discit nescit. denique quoniam hic non discit qualis sit, nescit. qui se ergo nescit qualis sit, quo modo omnia nouit, cum minus sit se nosse quam cetera? sed quia de ceteris discit, de se autem non discit, de aliis nouit, de se nescit, neque qualis sit neque ante corpus an post corpus sit.\n\nNam si sic perfectus factus esset ut nullius egeret, non fuerat homo, sed deus, neque circumuentus praeuaricasset. spiritum autem sanctum habere ultra naturam et perfectionem hominis est, ut possit quae dei sunt. numquid non, quia asina locuta est ad Balaam, ultra perfectionem eius est? accepit enim ut posset quod naturae suae non erat, sed nostrae.\n\nItaque quia praestantior est homo ceteris animalibus, idcirco illa inperfecta dicenda sunt? aut quia sancti angeli non sunt quod est deus, inperfecti sunt? uel quia luminaria et stellae inferiores sunt supernis angelis, aut quia nubila uelamine suo obscurant solem et lunam, minus perfecta sunt? et quia membra inuicem egent, quia non possunt pedes quod possunt manus, inperfecti dicentur? absit. omnia enim pro locis et gradibus suis firma et perfecta sunt, ut impleant ad id quod facta sunt","english":"And how have they dared to say that a human is born perfect and knows everything, when they see that he knows nothing beyond what is learned here? For what he does not learn here, he does not know. Indeed, since he does not learn here what he is like, he does not know. Therefore, one who does not know what he himself is like, how does he know everything, when knowing oneself is less than knowing other things? But because he learns about other things, but does not learn about himself, he knows about other things, but does not know about himself—neither what he is like, nor whether he exists before the body or after the body.\n\nFor if he had been made so perfect that he needed nothing, he would not have been a human, but a god, nor would he have been deceived and transgressed. Moreover, having the Holy Spirit is beyond the nature and perfection of a human, so that he can do what pertains to God. Is it not the case that, because a donkey spoke to Balaam, that is beyond its perfection? For it received the ability to do what was not of its own nature, but of ours.\n\nTherefore, because a human is superior to other animals, are those animals to be called imperfect? Or because the holy angels are not what God is, are they imperfect? Or because the lights and stars are inferior to the higher angels, or because clouds with their covering obscure the sun and moon, are they less perfect? And because the limbs need each other, because the feet cannot do what the hands can, will they be called imperfect? Far from it. For all things, according to their places and ranks, are firm and perfect, so that they fulfill what they were made for.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":448,"ref":"p448","source":"Igitur omnia perfecta sunt, quia et creator ipsorum perfectus est, sed ad conparationem eius inperfecta sunt. deus enim per omnia perfectus est quasi fons et origo omnium. nam quae facta sunt, perfecta quidem sunt, sed ad id quod facta sunt, ut in alia parte non sint perfecta, quia alter alterius eget, ut in eo quo non eget perfectus sit, non in quo eget; ideoque perfecta et inperfecta sunt omnia. manus indigent pedibus, quia, nisi ambulauerint, otiosae erunt manus. iterum pedes indigent manibus; calciare se enim non possunt neque curare.\n\nCum ergo corpus perfectum sit membris, uolare tamen non potest neque tantum ferre quantum potest burdo. cum in his perfecta sint, gubernare se tamen nesciunt nec adhibere sibi possunt medicinam. unde dictum est: nolite fieri sicut ecus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus. et aqua et ignis, cum repugnent inuicem, in suo perfecta sunt; implent enim id ad quod facta sunt. coquit enim ignis et Consumit, purgat et calefacit; aqua uero abluit, refrigerat, inrigat, sitientes recreat. -","english":"Therefore all things are perfect, because their creator is perfect, but in comparison to him they are imperfect. For God is perfect in all things, as the fount and origin of all things. For things that are made are indeed perfect, but with respect to that for which they were made, so that in another respect they are not perfect, because one thing needs another, so that in that which it does not need it is perfect, not in that which it needs; and for this reason all things are both perfect and imperfect. Hands need feet, because unless they walk, hands will be idle. Again, feet need hands; for they cannot put on shoes nor tend to themselves.\n\nTherefore, although the body is perfect in its limbs, it nevertheless cannot fly, nor can it carry as much as a mule can. Although they are perfect in these respects, they nevertheless do not know how to govern themselves, nor can they apply medicine to themselves. Whence it is said: \"Do not become like a horse and a mule, which have no understanding.\" And water and fire, although they oppose each other, are perfect in their own nature; for they fulfill that for which they were made. For fire cooks and consumes, purifies and warms; water, however, washes, cools, irrigates, and refreshes the thirsty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":449,"ref":"p449","source":"Itaque cum omnia in suo perfecta sint, sine homine tamen nihil possunt neque homo, quamuis perfectior sit, sine - his. hinc apostolus inperfectos et perfectos nos dicit. ad conparationem enim infidelium nos perfecti sumus, quia deum cognouimus, sed, quia quae promissa sunt minus scimus quam debemus, quia in hac uita non tantum possumus conprehendere, quantum est quod creditur, inperfecti sumus. igitur quoniam putant perfectionem Adae instaurari credentibus, uideamus ai haec instauratio nihil ultra doni habeat diuini quam fuerat consecutus Adam.\n\n(Factus) enim Adam 'positus est in paradiso, ut operaretur ibi et custodiret'. hoc est, ut coleret terram et custodiret praecepta dei, per quae sciret sic se dominium cunctorum accepisse, ut ipse tamen sub lege uiueret creatoris, ne dominatio extolleret eum et inflatus superbia inmemor fieret sui conditoris. positus ergo est, ut cibis sustentaretur uita eius; per Christum autem hoc concessum est, ut resurgentes non egeant cibo uel potu, quia quod mortale est hominis conuertetur in uitam. factus est Adam ut habitaret in terra; fides autem largiri dignata est, ut in caelis sit habitatio nostra.","english":"Therefore, since all things are perfect in their own kind, yet without man they can do nothing, nor can man, although he is more perfect, do anything without them. Hence the apostle calls us both imperfect and perfect. For in comparison with unbelievers we are perfect, because we have come to know God; but because we know less of what is promised than we ought, and because in this life we cannot comprehend as much as that which is believed, we are imperfect. Therefore, since they think that the perfection of Adam is restored to believers, let us see whether this restoration has any more of the divine gift than Adam had obtained.\n\nFor Adam was made and placed in paradise, to work there and to guard it. That is, to cultivate the earth and to keep the commandments of God, through which he would know that he had received dominion over all things, yet he himself would live under the law of the creator, lest dominion exalt him and, puffed up with pride, he become forgetful of his maker. He was placed, therefore, so that his life might be sustained by foods; but through Christ it has been granted that, when we rise again, we will not need food or drink, because what is mortal in man will be transformed into life. Adam was made to dwell on earth; but faith has deigned to grant that our dwelling is in the heavens.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":450,"ref":"p450","source":"Scriptura ipsa testatur, quia factus est, inquit, primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem, secundus autem homo in spiriturn uiuificantem.. primus, ait, homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo ae caelo, caelestis: qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. quid tam apertum quia Adam non habuit spiritum sanctum? factus est enim in animam uiuentem, per Christum autem in spiritum uiuificantem, ut homo in aliquo similis sit creatori et sit quod credit. quia enim mysterium fidei, quod ad salutem datum est, trinum est, trinas fit corpore, anima et sancto spiritu, per quem dicimur filii dei, quod minime Adam probatur uocatus; terrenus enim factus est. filii autem dei non carnaliter, sed spiritaliter nati caelestes dicuntur.\n\nEcce absolutum est donum dei multo plus gratiae concessisse tempore saluatoris, quam acceperat Adam, quia non solum instauratus est, sed et melioratus: in eo instauratus, quia peccatis ablutus est, in ceteris melioratus.","english":"The Scripture itself bears witness, for it says: the first man, Adam, was made into a living soul, but the second man into a life-giving spirit. The first, it says, man from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven, heavenly: as the earthly is, so also are the earthly; as the heavenly is, so also are the heavenly. What is so clear as that Adam did not have the Holy Spirit? For he was made into a living soul, but through Christ into a life-giving spirit, so that man might be in some part like the creator and be what he believes. For because the mystery of faith, which is given for salvation, is threefold, man is made threefold: body, soul, and Holy Spirit, through which we are called sons of God, which Adam is shown not to have been called; for he was made earthly. But the sons of God, not carnally but spiritually born, are called heavenly.\n\nBehold, it is settled that the gift of God granted much more grace at the time of the Savior than Adam had received, because he was not only restored but also improved: restored in that he was washed clean of sins, improved in all other respects.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":451,"ref":"p451","source":"boc enim et iustitia et ratio exigebat, ut tunc uberior esset clementia dei in dandis beneficiis, quando mysterium diuinitatis suae innotescere uoluit creaturae, ut cognoscentes, quod incognitum fuit a saeculis et generationibus, dei unius sacramentum in trinitate consistere pro ipsa nouitatis quasi dedicatione peccatis abluti insuper iustificentur et adoptati a deo spiritum sanctum accipiant, per quem signum adoptionis habere uideantur. adoptati enim a deo signum habere debent dei patris, ut non inmerito filii dei appellentur.\n\nHoc donum per profetas promissum est, ut tunc daretur, quando mysterium dei declarari haberet in triumpho deuicta morte, ut sciret creatura patrem et filium et sanctum spiritum unum esse deum. unde et euangelista ait: spiritus, inquit, non erat datus, quia Iesus non erat clarificatus. clarificatio enim haec est, cum per uirtutem suam cognoscitur esse quod testificatus est de se, quae clarificatio boc donum dedit, quod per Iohel profetam fuerat promissum. ait enim deus, quia in nouissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, et cetera.","english":"For both justice and reason demanded that God’s mercy be more abundant in bestowing benefits at the time when He wished to make the mystery of His divinity known to creation, so that those who recognize—what had been unknown through the ages and generations—that the sacrament of the one God consists in a Trinity, might, as it were, by way of a dedication of this novelty, be washed clean of sins, and moreover be justified and, adopted by God, receive the Holy Spirit, through whom they may appear to bear the sign of adoption. For those adopted by God ought to bear the sign of God the Father, so that they may not undeservedly be called sons of God.\n\nThis gift was promised through the prophets, that it would be given when the mystery of God was to be declared in the triumph over conquered death, so that creation might know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Hence the Evangelist also says: “The Spirit,” he says, “was not given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” For this glorification is when, through His own power, He is recognized to be what He testified about Himself; and this glorification gave the gift that had been promised through the prophet Joel. For God says: “In the last days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” and so forth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":452,"ref":"p452","source":"et apostolus inter alia: cum autem benignitas, inquit, et humanitas apparuit salutaris nostri dei, non ex operibus iustitiae, quae nos fecimus, sed secundum suam misericordiam saluos nos fecit per lauacrum regenerationis et renouationis, per spiritum sanctum, quem effudit in nos habunde per Christum Iesum saluatorem nostrum, ut iustificati gratia ipsius heredes efficiamur secundum spem uitae aeternae. firmauit apostolus quod per Iohel profetam fuerat promissum, quia hoc postquam clarificatus est Iesus impleuit deus, ut spiritum sanctum effunderet in illos, qui credunt in Christum, et hoc esse 'heredem fieri uitae aeternae* spiritum sanctum accipere, ut, quia spiritus aeternus est, aeternam habeat nitam qui accepit eum; pignus est enim inmortalitatis,\n\nQui enim accepit eum et manet in eius dilectione, transpuncta hac uita pergit in caelos ad eum, cuius spiritum habet. incongruum est enim ut qui hinc exit habens spiritum sanctum apud inferos teneatur. signum est enim in homine uictoriae Christi, qua uicit mortem, spiritus eius, ut in quo fuerit spiritus eius ab inferis teneri non possit.","english":"And the apostle, among other things: \"But when,\" he says, \"the kindness and humanity of our saving God appeared, He saved us not by works of righteousness which we performed, but according to His mercy, through the bath of regeneration and renewal, through the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out abundantly upon us through Christ Jesus our Savior, so that, justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.\" The apostle confirmed what had been promised through the prophet Joel, because after Jesus was glorified, God fulfilled this, that He would pour out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Christ, and that to \"become an heir of eternal life\" is to receive the Holy Spirit, so that, because the Spirit is eternal, he who has received it may have eternal life; for it is a pledge of immortality.\n\nFor he who has received it and remains in its love, after this life is ended, passes into the heavens to Him whose Spirit he has. For it is incongruous that he who departs from here having the Holy Spirit should be held among the dead. For the Spirit of Christ is a sign in man of Christ's victory, by which He conquered death, so that he in whom His Spirit is cannot be held among the dead.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":453,"ref":"p453","source":"ac per hoc in ueteribus sanctis non ita fuit spiritus sanctus, sicut nunc est in fidelibus, quia exeuntes de saeculo apud inferos erant et non potest dici quia spiritus sanctus causa peccati Adae, quod per traducem generis omne semen eius subiectum fecit inferis, simul tenebatur sententia data Adae.\n\nCum profetis ergo et iustis uiris sanctum fuisse spiritum non est ambiguum: cum profetis propter dispensationem, cum iustis uero causa sanctitatis, sicut legitur de sancto Symeone, quia spiritus, inquit. sanctus erat cum eo, non ut signum esset adoptionis in eo, sed meritorum eius gratia; nam filii dei credentes tunc esse coeperunt, quando manifestatus est filius dei uicta morte cunctae creaturae.\n\nSi in Adam autem uel ceteris sic dicatur fuisse spiritus sanctus, sicut nunc est in fidelibus, quae noua dona dedit deus, cum regnum filii sui dedicauit in nobis? et quo modo felix et beatum tempus prae ceteris dicitur saluatoris aduentus, si ea praestitit quae iam fuerant praestita? et ubi est illud, quod dicit saluator ad discipulos: multi, inquit, profetae et iusti cupierunt uidere quae uidetis et audire quae auditis, et non audierunt?","english":"And so in the ancient saints the Holy Spirit was not present as it now is in the faithful, because when they departed from this world they were among the dead, and it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit, on account of the sin of Adam—which through the transmission of the race made all his offspring subject to the dead—was at the same time held by the sentence given to Adam.\n\nTherefore, that the Holy Spirit was with the prophets and righteous men is not in doubt: with the prophets on account of the dispensation, with the righteous, however, by reason of their sanctity, as is read concerning Saint Symeon, because the Spirit, it says, was with him, not as a sign of adoption in him, but by grace of his merits; for the faithful began to be sons of God only when the Son of God was manifested, death having been conquered for all creation.\n\nBut if it is said that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or the others as it now is in the faithful, what new gifts did God give when He dedicated the kingdom of His Son in us? And how is the time of the Savior’s advent called happy and blessed above others, if it provided what had already been provided? And where is that which the Savior says to the disciples: \"Many,\" he says, \"prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and to hear what you hear, and they did not hear\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":454,"ref":"p454","source":"Qua ratione ergo poterit dici quia beatitudo temporis huius nihil amplius contulit doni, quam ueteribus est conlatum? quod quidem ad iniuriam proficit saluatoris, ut nihil habuerit nonum, quod in ortu imperii sui suscipientibus se donaret, cum id elaborare soleant diuites, ut in die festo natalis sui exquisita inuitatis dent apoforeta. quanta ergo iniuria domini est, ut his, quos ad nonum et inauditum diem festum et omni laude dignum inuitauit, non dicatur habuisse inexperta quae donaret! et ubi est illud euangelistae Iohannis, quod dicit: in sua uenit et sui eum non receperunt; quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit illis potestatem filios dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius, qui non ex sanguine neque ei uoluntate carnis neque ex uoluntate uiri, sed ex deo nati sunt? igitur quo modo non inusitatum est quod donauit credentibus deus in Christum, quando dedit eis potestatem filios dei fieri, id est fratres filii sui proprii, non ex uoluntate carnis et sanguinis aut uiri, sed ex deo, ut spiritaliter nascerentur? aut si prius gratia ista concessa probatur, tunc nihil nouum aduentus Christi contulisse dicatur.","english":"By what reasoning, then, can it be said that the blessedness of this time contributed no greater gift than was contributed to the ancients? This indeed redounds to the injury of the Savior, as if he had nothing new which, at the beginning of his reign, he might bestow upon those who receive him, when even the wealthy are accustomed to strive to give choice gifts to those invited on the festive day of their birth. How great, then, is the injury to the Lord, that he, who invited men to a new and unheard-of festival, worthy of all praise, should be said to have had no novel gifts to bestow! And what of that saying of the evangelist John: He came into his own, and his own did not receive him; but as many as did receive him, he gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name, who are born not from blood nor from the will of the flesh nor from the will of a husband, but from God? Therefore, how is it not unusual what God gave to those believing in Christ, when he gave them the power to become sons of God, that is, brothers of his own proper Son, not from the will of flesh and blood or of a husband, but from God, so that they might be born spiritually? Or if this grace is proven to have been granted before, then let it be said that the coming of Christ contributed nothing new.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":455,"ref":"p455","source":"Adae certe carnalis et terrena fuit factura, non spiritalis. non enim ex deo sine carne et sanguine natus est, sed de terra a deo factus est. ideoque non potuit spiritum sanctum accipere, qui non erat spiritalis et cui concessum non erat patrem deum in oratione uocare. qui enim spiritum sanctum accipiunt, his data potestas est, ut per id quod spiritum dei habent patrem illum Christianorum in oratione appellent. quod quia ante concessum non fuit, non possunt dici priores spiritum sanctum habuisse. hi ergo qui putant Adam uel ceteros habuisse sanctum spiritum nesciunt, quale donum habeant dei, nec gratias congruas possunt ei agere qui plus ceteris accipientes nihil se dicunt amplius consecutos.\n\nCXXIIII. UNUM OPUS DIFFERRE SECUNDUM PERSONAS SIUE IN LAUDEM SIUE IN CONDEMNATIONEM.\n\nUna est misericordia in diuite et in paupere, sed aliter inputatur diuiti et aliter pauperi, quia plus laudanda est in paupere quam in diuite. pauper enim de exiguitate sua largiri non timuit sperans a deo sibi retribui et in praesenti et in futuro. credit enim scripturae dicenti, quia qui tribuit pauperibus non egebit. unde et paupera illa diuitibus multa mittentibus sola meruit a domino conlaudari, quia de penuria sua largiri non timuit. diuites uero securi de diuitiis suis largiuntur, pauper autem securus de domino.","english":"Adam was certainly a carnal and earthly creation, not a spiritual one. For he was not born from God without flesh and blood, but was made by God from the earth. And therefore he could not receive the Holy Spirit, since he was not spiritual and was not granted the ability to call God the Father in prayer. For those who receive the Holy Spirit are given the power, by virtue of having the Spirit of God, to address the Father of Christians in prayer. Because this was not granted before, they cannot be said to have possessed the Holy Spirit earlier. Therefore, those who think that Adam or the others had the Holy Spirit do not know what a gift of God they have, nor can they give fitting thanks to Him, since those who receive more than others claim they have obtained nothing additional.\n\nCXXIIII. THE SAME WORK IS JUDGED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO PERSONS, EITHER IN PRAISE OR IN CONDEMNATION.\n\nMercy is one and the same in the rich and in the poor, but it is accounted differently to the rich and to the poor, because it is more praiseworthy in the poor than in the rich. For the poor man, from his meager resources, did not fear to give, hoping for a reward from God both in the present and in the future. For he believes the Scripture which says that he who gives to the poor will not be in need. Hence that poor woman, while the rich were sending many gifts, alone merited praise from the Lord, because she did not fear to give from her poverty. The rich, however, give confidently from their wealth, but the poor man is confident in the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":456,"ref":"p456","source":"bene igitur faciunt diuites, dum largiuntur egenis, sed multo melius pauperes, ac per hoc alia remuneratio pauperis et alia diuitis. diues enim, si hoc non fecerit, uapulabit; a paupere enim non exigitur tantum, ideoque laudabilis pauper est misericors.\n\nFurtum in paupere et diuite unum peccatum est, sed diuitem plus facit reum, quia pauper per inopiam facit furtum, diues autem, cum habundet, non contentus suo tollit aliena. et, quod peius est, solent pauperes expoliare: ac per hoc differt poena utriusque.\n\nEt iustitia pauperis et diuitis una est, sed laudabilis est in paupere magis. in egestate enim seruare iustitiam magnifica res est; diues autem ideo uidetur seruare iustitiam, quia alienus est ab inopia. igitur uterque iustus est, sed maius est in necessitate seruare iustitiam.\n\nSuperbia una est, sed plus damnanda in paupere est quam in diuite, quia diues copia elatus est, pauper autem in egestate superbus, quod ad insaniam pertinet, ac per hoc plus reus pauper est.","english":"The rich therefore do well when they give to the needy, but the poor do much better, and accordingly the reward of the poor is one thing and that of the rich another. For the rich, if they do not do this, will be beaten; from the poor, however, so much is not demanded, and therefore a poor person who is merciful is praiseworthy.\n\nTheft in a poor person and a rich person is one sin, but it makes the rich person more guilty, because the poor person commits theft out of need, whereas the rich person, though having abundance, not content with his own, takes what belongs to another. And, what is worse, they are accustomed to despoil the poor: and accordingly the punishment of each differs.\n\nThe justice of a poor person and a rich person is one, but it is more praiseworthy in a poor person. For preserving justice in need is a magnificent thing; the rich person, however, seems to preserve justice because he is free from want. Therefore both are just, but it is greater to preserve justice in necessity.\n\nPride is one, but it is more to be condemned in a poor person than in a rich person, because the rich person is puffed up by wealth, whereas a poor person proud in need is a matter of madness, and accordingly the poor person is more guilty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":457,"ref":"p457","source":"Humilitas una est, sed magis laudanda in diuite est. quid enim magnum est si pauper humilis uideatur, quem ipsa inopia humilem facit? magnificum autem si hic, qui dignitate et copiis commendatur, inclinet se non sibi uindicans quod mereri se nouit. igitur in omnibus bona humilitas est, sed multo magis in diuite est.\n\nDoctrinae et studii una est causa, sed laudabilior in diuite est. pauper enim, cum nulla praerogatiua commendaretur, operam dedit ut haberet unde posset requiri; diues autem, cum non deesset unde commendaretur, adhibito labore auxit se, ut duplici genere necessarius esset; non enim auocatus copiis retraxit animum, quo minus per se floreret, ideo hic magis laude dignus est quam pauper, qui, si studiis minime operam dedisset, per omnia remanserat uilis. illum ergo uoluntas, hunc necessitas fecit studii cupidum.\n\nLibido in paupere et diuite eadem est, sed damnabilior in paupere quam in diuite est. pauperem enim ipsa egestas reuocare debet a cupiditate luxoriae; cogitare enim debet quia unde hoc impleat non habet et, dum hoc festinat implere, alia multa mala admittat necesse est, quibus forte nec ad praesens euadat, aut certe hoc ipsum quod habet insumens mendicus remanebit cum nota. diuitem autem deliciarum copiae lacessunt ad uoluptatem libidinis, praeterea quia securi sunt de inpunitate scientes uenalia esse iudicia et nec redargui se ab aliquo.","english":"Humility is one, but it is more praiseworthy in the rich. For what great thing is it if a poor man appears humble, whom poverty itself makes humble? But it is magnificent if he who is commended by rank and wealth bows himself, not claiming for himself what he knows he does not merit. Therefore, in all things humility is good, but much more so in the rich.\n\nLearning and study have one cause, but they are more praiseworthy in the rich. For the poor man, when commended by no prerogative, applied himself so that he might have something by which he could be sought out; but the rich man, when he was not lacking in something by which he might be commended, by applying effort increased himself, so that he might be necessary in a twofold manner; for he was not called away by his resources, nor did he withdraw his mind, so that he might flourish less on his own account; therefore he is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, if he had given no attention to studies, would have remained worthless in all respects. In the one, then, will made him eager for study; in the other, necessity.\n\nLust in the poor and the rich is the same, but it is more damnable in the poor than in the rich. For poverty itself ought to recall the poor man from the desire of luxury; for he ought to think that he does not have the means to fulfill it, and, while he hastens to fulfill it, he must necessarily commit many other evils, by which perhaps he will not even escape in the present, or certainly, consuming even what he has, he will remain a beggar with disgrace. But the abundance of pleasures provokes the rich man to the voluptuousness of lust; moreover, because they are secure about impunity, knowing that judgments are venal, and that they are not reproved by anyone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":458,"ref":"p458","source":"quia enim dignitate fultum uirum et diuitem audeat arguere? unde magis accenduntur, ut et uiolenter hoc agant. non solum enim minime reprehenduntur, sed et in magno honore sunt, ut et gloriari possint, quia tales sunt.\n\n. 8. Quod si uterque, id est pauper et diues, pudicus sit, multum differt pudicitia diuitis a pudicitia pauperis. pauperem enim potest humilitas reuocare, ne quod uult possit implere, aut timor legum; diues autem, cum multis suffragantibus causis ad uoluptatem possit inlici, laudabilis est, si auertat hinc animum. alia ergo remuneratione dignus est diues pudicus et alia pauper pudicus. quod si rex pudicus sit, multum est gloriosum, ut omnia in potestate habens non contingat, quod scit impune a se posse fieri. hic uere deum timet, hic uere praecepta eius custodit, qui in potestate habens leges futurum dei iudicium contemplatur. itaque grandis res est ut, cum in praesenti non habens quem timeat, uincat quod delectat, cum delectatio tantum possit, ut non solum futura, sed et praesentia minime uereatur. unde multum merentur qui hanc superant, sed plus hic, qui in praesenti legibus et hominibus dominatur. ceteri enim et homines et leges uerentur, quare et propositum custodiunt.","english":"For who would dare to reproach a man supported by rank and wealth? Hence they are more inflamed, so that they act even more violently. For they are not only not reproached at all, but are held in great honor, so that they can even boast because they are such.\n\n8. But if both, that is, the poor man and the rich man, are chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor man. For humility can restrain the poor man from being able to fulfill what he desires, or fear of the laws; but the rich man, when he can be lured to pleasure by many supporting causes, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from this. Therefore the chaste rich man is worthy of one reward, and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king is chaste, it is very glorious, so that, having everything in his power, he does not touch what he knows can be done by him with impunity. This man truly fears God, this man truly keeps his precepts, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgment of God. Thus it is a great thing that, when in the present he has no one to fear, he overcomes what pleases him, since pleasure can do so much that it fears not only future things but even present ones not at all. Hence those who overcome it deserve much, but more so this man, who in the present rules over laws and men. For the rest fear both men and laws, and therefore they keep their resolve.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":459,"ref":"p459","source":"ne enim apud homines erubescant, seruant quod diu tenuerunt et, ne condemnentur, a prohibitis se abstinent; hic autem, qui dominatione nec leges timet nec homines erubescit, magnae gloriae est si se abstinet.\n\nCXXV. ADUERSUS EUSEBIUM.\n\nMemini me in quodam libello Eusebii, quondam egregii in reliquis uiri, legisse, quia nec spiritus sanctus sciat mysterium natiuitatis domini Iesu Christi, et admiror tantae doctrinae uirum hanc maculam sancto spiritui inflixisse. hoc enim dicens degenerem illum significauit. neque enim potest dici de deo esse, ei nescit quae dei sunt, quia inferior natura quid in potiore sit nescit. sin uero eiusdem substantiae est et diuinitatis, quo modo potest nescire quae sua sunt? denique filius dei, quia ego, inquit, et pater unum sumus propter unitatem substantiae, non inmerito adiecit dicens: omnia quae patris sunt mea sunt et quae mea sunt patris.","english":"For they do not blush before men; they preserve what they have long held, and, lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things. But this man, who through his domination fears neither laws nor blushes before men, it is a great glory if he abstains.\n\nCXXV. Against Eusebius.\n\nI recall having read in a certain booklet of Eusebius, once an outstanding man in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I marvel that a man of such great learning inflicted this stain upon the Holy Spirit. For in saying this, he signified that the Spirit is degenerate. For it cannot be said of God that He does not know what belongs to God, because an inferior nature does not know what exists in a superior one. But if He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He be ignorant of what is His own? Finally, the Son of God says, \"For I and the Father are one,\" on account of the unity of substance; not undeservedly he added, saying: \"All that is the Father's is mine, and all that is mine is the Father's.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":460,"ref":"p460","source":"Quam ob rem si sanctus spiritus eiusdem diuinitatis est, qua ratione segregatur, ne sit eiusdem scientiae, cum eiusdem non negetur esse substantiae? quod plus est concedis et quod minus est retines. creatura enim discit et incipit aliquanta ' scire de auctore suo et erant ei quae didicerit cum auctore suo communia, substantia autem uel diuinitas non potest deo esse et creaturae communis. nam dei substantia non habet quod discat, quia nihil est quod ignoret; substantia uero hominum non habet in natura ut sciat, sed ut discat. itaque naturae hominum accedit scientia, non tamen inmutatur substantia, quia hominis natura dehabet scientiam; sic enim condita est substantia, ut per exercitium adquirat scientiam.\n\nIgitur maior est substantia quam scientia, quia non scientia adquirit substantiam, sed substantia scientiam; et substantia est sine scientia, non tamen potest esse scientia sine substantia. in deo autem sicut est substantia, ita et scientia; substantia enim, quae nihil habet quod discat, ipsa substantia est sibi scientia. quam ob rem omnia in deo substantiua dicuntur. substantia enim, cui nihil deest, omnia substantialiter habet, quia nihil ei accessit per studium.","english":"Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what principle is he separated, so that he is not of the same knowledge, when it is not denied that he is of the same substance? You grant what is greater and withhold what is lesser. For a creature learns and begins to know something about its author, and the things it has learned are common with its author; but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and a creature. For the substance of God has nothing to learn, because there is nothing it does not know; but the substance of men does not have knowledge by nature, but learns. Thus knowledge comes to human nature, yet the substance is not changed, because human nature lacks knowledge; for substance was so constituted that it acquires knowledge through practice.\n\nTherefore substance is greater than knowledge, because knowledge does not acquire substance, but substance acquires knowledge; and substance exists without knowledge, yet knowledge cannot exist without substance. In God, however, just as there is substance, so also there is knowledge; for substance, which has nothing to learn, is itself knowledge to itself. Hence all things in God are called substantial. For substance, which lacks nothing, possesses everything substantially, because nothing has come to it through study.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":461,"ref":"p461","source":"Quo modo igitur dici potest de spiritu sancto quia nescit natiuitatem filii dei, si consubstantiuus est ei? numquid potest Una eademque substantia et scire et nescire? certe filius dei mysterium natiuitatis suae non didicit; scit enim substantialiter, non per doctrinam. qua ergo ratione spiritus -sanctus dicitur nescire, cum similiter etiam ipse nihil habeat quod discat, quia omnia nouit per substantiam?\n\nSicut enim dei filius, ita et sanctus spiritus dei substantia est dicente domino: omnia quae patris sunt mea sunt, per quod significauit substantiam dei patris suam esse substantiam; et spiritum sanctum a patre dicit procedere et de suo accipere: et ideo, inquit, dixi: de meo accipiet, quia omnia quae patris sunt mea sunt. si a patre procedit et de filio accipit, quo modo nescit filii natiuitatem, quando substantia eius filii substantia est? omnia enim quae patris sunt filii sunt. sine dubio ergo patris substantia in spiritu sancto est. adiecit enim filius dicens: et omnia quae mea sunt patris sunt.","english":"How, then, can it be said of the Holy Spirit that he does not know the birth of the Son of God, if he is consubstantial with him? Can one and the same substance both know and not know? Certainly the Son of God did not learn the mystery of his own birth; he knows it substantially, not through teaching. By what reasoning, then, is the Holy Spirit said not to know, when likewise he himself has nothing to learn, because he knows all things through substance?\n\nFor just as the Son of God, so also the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, as the Lord says: \"All things that are the Father's are mine,\" by which he signified that the substance of God the Father is his own substance; and he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from his own: \"And therefore,\" he says, \"I said: 'He will receive from mine,' because all things that are the Father's are mine.\" If he proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, how does he not know the Son's birth, when his substance is the Son's substance? For all things that are the Father's are the Son's. Without doubt, therefore, the Father's substance is in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: \"And all things that are mine are the Father's.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":462,"ref":"p462","source":"Quid ergo ambigitur de spiritu sancto, an eiusdem diuinitatis sit, cum sit eiusdem substantiae? nam sicut de se dixit dominus quia a deo processit, ita et de sancto testatur spiritu. et ne hoc aliter possit interpretari: a patre, inquit, procedit et: de meo accipiet, ut a patre procedere hoc sit de Christo accipere. cum enim dicitur de filio dei accipere, non ambigitur etiam ipse esse de deo, ut in sancto spiritu patris esse substantia et diuinitas non ambigatur.\n\nItaque qui hunc dicit nescire filii dei natiuitatem, ipsi derogat, de cuius dicitur accepisse. nec enim aliud accepit, quam ipse est de quo accepit, quia accepisse de Christo de deo processisse significat, ideoque non potest nescire, quod hic scit, de cuius accepit, neque ignorare dicendus est deum, quia a deo processit\n\nCerte filius dei, quia de patre est deo, scit omnia dei: quare ergo spiritus sanctus negetur scire quae Christi sunt, cum de eo acceperit? itaque si scit filius dei quae in deo sunt, dubium non est etiam sanctum spiritum non ignorare quae in filio dei sunt et, per id quod nouit quae sunt in filio, non nescire dicendus est quae in deo sunt. de eo enim, de quo accepit, dei habet notitiam.","english":"Why, then, is there doubt about the Holy Spirit, whether he is of the same divinity, when he is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of himself that he proceeded from God, so also he testifies concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this be interpreted otherwise: \"He proceeds from the Father,\" he says, and \"He will receive from me,\" so that proceeding from the Father is the same as receiving from Christ. For when it is said that he receives from the Son of God, it is not doubted that he himself is also from God, so that in the Holy Spirit the substance and divinity of the Father are not doubted.\n\nTherefore, whoever says that this one does not know the birth of the Son of God detracts from the one from whom he is said to have received. For he received nothing other than what he himself is, from whom he received, because having received from Christ signifies having proceeded from God, and therefore he cannot be ignorant of what the one from whom he received knows, nor should he be said to be ignorant of God, because he proceeded from God.\n\nCertainly the Son of God, because he is from God the Father, knows all things of God: why, then, is the Holy Spirit denied knowledge of those things which are Christ's, since he received from him? Therefore, if the Son of God knows what is in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also does not ignore what is in the Son of God, and, by virtue of knowing what is in the Son, he should not be said to be ignorant of what is in God. For from the one from whom he received, he has knowledge of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":463,"ref":"p463","source":"Et quid laboramus, cum testis sit in hac re apostolus dicens: nemo scit quae sunt in deo nisi spiritus dei? ecce in quo diu sudauimus, apostolo adiuuante impleuimus. et numquid praeiudicauit filio dei, quia neminem dixit scire quae in deo sunt nisi spiritum dei? absit. sic nec praeiudicauit sancto spiritui filius, cum dixit: nemo nouit patrem nisi filius. neminem enim dixit scire quae in deo sunt praeter eum qui de deo est, quia omne quod de deo est nouit deum et quae in deo sunt. natura enim dei ipsa se nouit, quam cum intellegis esse etiam in spiritu sancto, per id quod a patre processit et de filio accepit, tutum non est istum dicere nescire patrem deum, cuius naturam agnoscis in eo.\n\nEt tamen saluator sic dixit neminem scire deum nisi filium, ut reseruaret alii personae huius cognitionem. statim enim subiecit dicens: et cui uoluerit filius reuelare. cui, putas, uult reuelare filius? nulli enim carior esse potest quam spiritui suo, quia si quis, inquit, spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. igitur quo modo putas reuelatum deum patrem a filio spiritui sancto, nisi quo modo ipse dominus ait: de meo accipiet? creaturae enim reuelari non potest pater deus, quia dei naturam ferre non potest, nisi fuerit eiusdem substantiae; lucem etenim habitat inaccessibilem, creaturae dumtaxat.","english":"And why do we labor, when there is a witness in this matter, the apostle saying: No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God? Behold, in what we have long sweated, we have fulfilled with the apostle’s help. And did this prejudice the Son of God, because he said that no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God? Far from it. Thus neither did the Son prejudice the Holy Spirit, when he said: No one knows the Father except the Son. For he said that no one knows what is in God except him who is from God, because everything that is from God knows God and what is in God. For the nature of God itself knows itself; and when you understand that this nature is also in the Holy Spirit, by reason of the fact that he proceeded from the Father and received from the Son, it is not safe to say that he does not know the Father God, whose nature you recognize in him.\n\nAnd yet the Savior said that no one knows God except the Son in such a way that he reserved knowledge of this for another person. For he immediately added, saying: And to whom the Son wishes to reveal. To whom, do you think, does the Son wish to reveal? For no one can be dearer to him than his own Spirit, because if anyone, he says, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. Therefore, how do you think the Father God was revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except in the way that the Lord himself said: He will receive from me? For the Father God cannot be revealed to a creature, because it cannot bear the nature of God unless it is of the same substance; for he dwells in inaccessible light, at least for a creature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":464,"ref":"p464","source":"Sed quibusdam uidetur ideo recte dici nescire mysterium natiuitatis filii dei sanctus spiritus, quia omnia dicitur scrutari et qui scrutatur), inquit, 'nescit utique'. quod ex alio loco debet intellegi; dei enim uerba sunt inter cetera dicentis: ego deus qui scrutor renes et corda, et in psalmo: scrutans, ait, corda et renes deus, et apostolus: qui scrutatur, inquit, corda, scit quid desideret spiritus, quia secundum dei uoluntatem postulat pro sanctis.\n\nHis exemplis cum scrutari dicitur dei spiritus, non ignorare significatur. 'etiam alta dei' dicitur scrutari: et quae sunt alta dei, quae dicitur peruidere ? scrutari enim occulta significat penetrare, ut per id nihil ei occultum esse credatur. alta enim dei mysteria interiora sunt dei, quae scrutari a creatura non possunt. nam et secundum dei uoluntatem pro sanctis legitur postulare, quod sancti utique nesciunt,. dicente apostolo: nam quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus. igitur alta dei scire et uoluntatem dei non ignorare unum significat. quid enim tam altum mysterium quam uoluntas est dei, quod cognitum est spiritui sancto, ceteris uero incognitum omnibus?","english":"But to some it seems that the Holy Spirit is rightly said not to know the mystery of the Son of God’s birth, because he is said to search all things, and “he who searches,” they say, “certainly does not know.” This must be understood from another passage; for these are the words of God, among other things, saying: “I am God, who searches reins and hearts,” and in the Psalm: “Searching,” it says, “hearts and reins, God,” and the Apostle: “He who searches,” he says, “hearts, knows what the Spirit desires,” because he petitions according to God’s will for the saints.\n\nBy these examples, when the Spirit of God is said to search, it signifies not ignorance. He is even said to search “the deep things of God”: and what are the deep things of God, which he is said to see through? For “to search” signifies to penetrate hidden things, so that through this nothing is believed to be hidden from him. For the deep mysteries of God are the inner things of God, which cannot be searched by a creature. For he is also read to petition according to God’s will for the saints, which the saints certainly do not know, as the Apostle says: “For what we should pray, as we ought, we do not know.” Therefore, to know the deep things of God and not to be ignorant of God’s will mean the same thing. For what mystery is so deep as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit, but unknown to all others?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":465,"ref":"p465","source":"Contuendum etenim est quo modo dictum est, quia nemo scit quidsit in homine nisi spiritus hominis, qui in eo est. spiritum animum significauit, quia nemo scit quid sit in animo hominis nisi animus eius, qui est spiritus. sic et in deo nemo scit quae sunt nisi spiritus dei, hoc est ipse deus.\n\nQui enim de deo est, non aliud intellegitur esse quam deus est. ideo spiritus dei scit quid in deo est, quia de deo est. nam si cogitationes hominum nemo nouit nisi deus, quanto magis dei secreta et uoluntatem nullus potest cognoscere nisi sit de deo, hoc est idem ipse deus! ipse est enim soli sibi cognitus.\n\nNam utique in deo non sunt cogitationes. nec enim tractat apud se quid faciat aut quid non faciat deliberans an expediat, quia omnia, quae in deo sunt, sine dubitatione sunt non per accidentiam, sed per substantiam, neque per studium, sed per naturam, quia non inmutatur. ac per hoc non aliter nouit spiritus sanctus mysteria dei nisi per substantiam; una enim substantia unum habet sensum et uoluntatem.","english":"It must be observed, however, in what manner it is said that no one knows what is in a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. He signified the spirit as the mind, because no one knows what is in a man's mind except his own mind, which is the spirit. So also in God, no one knows what things are except the Spirit of God, that is, God Himself.\n\nFor that which is from God is understood to be nothing other than what God is. Therefore, the Spirit of God knows what is in God, because it is from God. For if no one knows the thoughts of men except God, how much more can no one know the secrets and will of God unless he is from God, that is, the same God Himself! For He alone is known to Himself.\n\nFor assuredly, in God there are no thoughts. He does not deliberate within Himself what He should do or what He should not do, considering whether it is expedient, because all things that are in God are without doubt, not by accident but by substance, not by effort but by nature, because He does not change. And through this, the Holy Spirit knows the mysteries of God in no other way than through substance; for one substance has one sense and will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":466,"ref":"p466","source":"De deo loquitur, qui semper unus et inmutabilis est, sine in filio siue in sancto spiritu. quod enim uult pater, hoc uult et filius, et quod uult filius, eadem uult et sanctus spiritus. quam ob rem aliquando dicitur spiritus dei, aliquando spiritus Christi, quia a deo, inquit, prodit, et: de meo accipiet.\n\nHinc est unde Iohannes apostolus ait: ex hoc scimus quia deus in nobis manet, de spiritu suo, quem dedit nobis. igitur si spiritu dei manente in nobis deus manere dicitur in nobis, deus significatur esse spiritus dei..\n\nDenique hic est signum credentium, quod sint filii dei, ut, cum hunc accipiunt, dei se filios audeant appellare. nisi enim signum deitatis habuerint, dei filii dici non poterunt; quia enim quis uerus dei filius non est, ut sit totus de toto, sicut et Christus, per adoptionem autem fiunt filii dei, ut accipientes spiritum Christi per ipsum filii dei dicantur, per id quod de deo est quem in se habent spiritum. in filiis enim, quamuis adoptatiui sint, patris tamen ex aliqua parte debet uideri substantia.","english":"He speaks of God, who is always one and immutable, both in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, the Son also wills, and what the Son wills, the Holy Spirit also wills. For this reason, it is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ, because, it says, it proceeds from God, and: it will receive from me.\n\nHence it is that the apostle John says: from this we know that God abides in us, from his Spirit, which he gave to us. Therefore, if by the Spirit of God abiding in us, God is said to abide in us, God is signified to be the Spirit of God.\n\nFinally, this is the sign of believers, that they are sons of God, so that, when they receive this, they dare to call themselves sons of God. For unless they have the sign of divinity, they cannot be called sons of God; because one is not a true son of God, so as to be whole from whole, as Christ is, but they become sons of God by adoption, so that, receiving the Spirit of Christ, they are called sons of God through him, by that which is from God, the Spirit whom they have in themselves. For in sons, although they are adoptive, the substance of the father must be seen in some part.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":467,"ref":"p467","source":"In mundo enim quia res inperfectae sunt, adoptati ab hominibus filii nullum pignus, sed solum nomen accipiunt; deus autem, quia perfectus est, plus facit, ut adoptatis spiritum suum det, per quem aliquam ueritatem adoptati ab eo uideantur habere, quia uocabula sine rebus inania sunt.\n\nApostolus noster hanc adsertionem nostram adiuuat dicens: o altitudo diuitiarum et sapientiae et scientiae dei! quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae ipsius! quid.est ut, cum alibi dicat scrutabilia esse alta dei, id est secreta, hoc in loco deneget dicens inscrutabilia esse? sed in hoc loco de creatura dixit quia inscrutabilia sunt ei secreta uel iudicia dei; spiritui autem sancto, eo quod omnia dei nouerit, scrutabilia dixit esse cun* cta quae in deo sunt, ut, quod creaturae incognitum est, dei spiritum adserat non ignorare. dei ergo natura negari esse non potest, quae cognitum habet quod a creatura non potest conprehendi.","english":"In the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by men receive no pledge, but only the name; God, however, because he is perfect, does more, so that he gives his Spirit to those adopted, through whom those adopted by him may seem to have some truth, because names without realities are empty.\n\nOur Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and unsearchable his ways! What is it that, although elsewhere he says that the deep things of God, that is, his secrets, are searchable, in this place he denies it, saying they are inscrutable? But in this place he spoke concerning the creature, because the secrets or judgments of God are inscrutable to it; concerning the Holy Spirit, however, because it knows all things of God, he said that all things which are in God are searchable, so that what is unknown to the creature, he asserts that the Spirit of God does not ignore. Therefore, the nature of God cannot be denied to exist, which has knowledge of that which cannot be comprehended by the creature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":468,"ref":"p468","source":"Qui degenerem dicunt sanctum spiritum, dei pulsant propositum, qui totius creaturae salutem in trinitatis diuinitate consistere declarauit, quia, si consubstantiuus non est deo et Christo, ineptum est ponere istum in numero patris et filii, ut sine hoc neque salus alicui sit neque dignitas. si enim non est eiusdem diuinitatis, aut stulte aut gratiose factum est, quod absit. quis enim prudentium deneget creatorem cum creatura connumerari non posse neque aeternum cum eo, qui sub initio sit, conparari neque dominum cum seruo aequari nec potentem cum inpotente conferri neque scium cum inscio deputari?\n\nSed iam cesset calumnia. tertius enim ordine est, non natura; gradu, non diuinitate; persona, non ignorantia. sicut enim filius dei secundae a patre est et diuinitate minor non est, ita et spiritus sanctus sequens a filio est non inpar, sed aequalis diuinitate substantiae.","english":"Those who call the Holy Spirit degenerate assail God’s design, who declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity, because, if He is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is unfitting to place Him in the number of the Father and the Son, so that without Him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if He is not of the same divinity, it was done either foolishly or as a favor, which is unthinkable. For what prudent person would deny that the creator cannot be numbered with the creature, nor the eternal compared with that which has a beginning, nor the lord equated with a slave, nor the powerful set alongside the powerless, nor the wise classed with the ignorant?\n\nBut let the slander cease now. For He is third in order, not in nature; in rank, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance. For just as the Son of God is second from the Father and is not lesser in divinity, so also the Holy Spirit, following from the Son, is not unequal but equal in the divinity of substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":469,"ref":"p469","source":"Denique quae legimus de filio dei, eadem legimus et de sancto spiritu ipso nobis teste. ait enim: rogabo patrem et alium paraclitum dabit uobis, spiritumueritatis. 'alium' cum dixit, se paraclitum significauit. quod Iohannes apostolus declarat dicens, quia filius dei postulat pro peccatis nostris, et Paulus apostolus: ipse, inquit, spiritus dei postulat pro nobis. ecce scriptura ambos aduocatos esse ostendit. et cum ueritatis illum dixit spiritum, nihil illum a se differre ostendit, quia dixit: ego ueritas. missum se a patre dixit et ipse mittere se sanctum spiritum promisit. si ipse a mittente inpar non est, neque inpar ab illo est sanctus spiritus. nec enim quia tres sunt, singuli alter alterius membra sunt, ut diuersa possint. una est enim trium potentia, ut nihil singulis desit.\n\nHic finis sit; iam enim in libello aduersus Arriam inpietatem digesto reliqua plene tractata sunt, quae trinitatis conplexa sunt indiscretam unitatem.","english":"Finally, what we read about the Son of God, we also read about the Holy Spirit, with the Spirit Himself as our witness. For He says: \"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth.\" When He said \"another,\" He signified Himself as Paraclete. The apostle John declares this, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins, and the apostle Paul says: \"The Spirit of God Himself intercedes for us.\" Behold, Scripture shows both to be advocates. And when He called that Spirit the Spirit of truth, He showed that He differs in nothing from Himself, because He said: \"I am the truth.\" He said that He was sent by the Father, and He Himself promised to send the Holy Spirit. If He is not unequal to the one who sends, neither is the Holy Spirit unequal to Him. For it is not because they are three that each is a member of the other, so that they might have different powers. For the power of the three is one, so that nothing is lacking to any of them.\n\nLet this be the end; for already in the booklet composed against the impiety of Arius, the remaining matters are fully treated, which encompass the undivided unity of the Trinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":470,"ref":"p470","source":"CXXVI. DE EO QVI PERCIPIT.\n\nScriptum est, quia iusto nihil proderit iustitia eius, in qua die exerrauerit, et quia iniusto nihil oberit iniustitia sua, cum se conuerterit, et dominus in euangelio: qui non crediderit, inquit, iam iudicatus est, ut per hoc eum, qui crediderit, non iudicio subiectum ad sententiam excipiendam signaret, sed fidei merito landsdignum futurum.\n\nIgitur cognitio dei hanc habet praerogatiuam, ut peccatorum consequatur remissa. credens enim dei esse filium Iesum dignus exsistat ab omnibus liberari peccatis. diu enim errore deuius, cum per diuersa ignorantiae fluctibus iactaretur, inluminatus ueritatis corusco stationem nanctus est, in qua post nimias tempestates requiescat securus, cui congruit, ut post cognitionem temperet ab his, quae iam pridem in ignorantia positus agebat. quid enim prodest cognitio, si manet pristina, conuersatio? hinc enim quis uidetur cognouisse deum, si uitam mutet et conuersationem suam.","english":"126. ON THE ONE WHO RECEIVES.\n\nIt is written that a just man’s justice will profit him nothing on the day he goes astray, and that an unjust man’s injustice will harm him nothing when he has turned back. And the Lord says in the Gospel: “He who has not believed,” he says, “is already judged,” so that by this he might indicate that the one who has believed is not subject to judgment for receiving sentence, but will be worthy of reward by the merit of his faith.\n\nTherefore, knowledge of God has this prerogative, that remission of sins follows. For one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God becomes worthy of being freed from all sins. For a man long led astray by error, when he had been tossed about by the various waves of ignorance, once illuminated by the flash of truth, has taken up a station where, after excessive storms, he may rest secure. It is fitting for him that, after gaining knowledge, he should refrain from those things which he formerly did while placed in ignorance. For what use is knowledge if the former manner of life and conduct remains? For it is by this that a person is seen to have known God: if he changes his life and his conduct.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":471,"ref":"p471","source":"Cognitus enim deus timeri debet, quia iudicaturus praedicatur, ut et fideles iustitiae suae percipiant fructum et impii, id est increduli, perfidiae suae congruas poenas exsoluant. conuenit enim iustos in futuro gaudere, ubi regnabit Christus cum suis, ut qui in saeculo obprobrio sunt et iniuriis subiacent, in quo princeps est diabolus, in regno Christi gloriosi appareant, propter quem contemptibiles iudicati sunt a mundanis, iniustos autem, quia falso florere uidentur, per mendacium repugnantes ueritati in poena tribulari, ut qui per fucum gloriosi uisi sunt per uerum despecti et humiliati nimis appareant. tunc enim iusti credidisse se gaudent, cum perfidos uiderint cruciari, et nec paenitebit perfidos non credidisse, nisi uiderint gloriam illorum et suam poenam, quos, quia crediderunt, stultos et contemptibiles arbitrati sunt.","english":"For God, once known, must be feared, because He is proclaimed as the one who will judge, so that the faithful may receive the fruit of their justice, and the impious—that is, the unbelieving—may pay the fitting penalties for their faithlessness. For it is fitting that the just rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with his own, so that those who in this age are held in contempt and subject to injuries—in which the prince is the devil—may appear glorious in the kingdom of Christ, for whose sake they were judged contemptible by worldly people; and that the unjust, because they seem to flourish falsely, resisting the truth through falsehood, may be afflicted in punishment, so that those who seemed glorious through pretense may appear utterly despised and humiliated through the truth. For then the just will rejoice that they believed, when they see the faithless tormented, and the faithless will not repent of not having believed, unless they see the glory of the former and their own punishment—those whom, because they believed, they considered foolish and contemptible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":472,"ref":"p472","source":"Igitur ex eo quod profitetur quis Christianum se esse, id studere debet ne peccet. armare enim se debet contra uitia et — quia inpossibile est semper uincere — si uictus fuerit, dolere, ne iterum uincatur, quia qui se dolet uictum reparat se. qui ergo repugnat, habet unde excuset, si nictus fuerit. ostendit enim se uotum habuisse uincendi, sed minime praeualuisse. de hoc spes est quia potest reparare se, ut assidua meditatione in congressione peritior et fortior inueniatur.\n\nNam qui ad hoc surgit, ut peccet, (et) inexcusabilis est, is pergrauem habet causam. peius est enim sub dei uiuere professione et uoluntatem habere peccandi, quam si ignoret quis deum et turpiter et contaminate uersetur. hic enim nescit quem timere debeat, ille sciens contemnit.\n\nCredentes igitur accipiunt remissionem peccatorum; non tamen gloriosi erunt, nisi post acceptam fidem uixerint sub dei timore, ut conluctati contra hostes Christiani nominis uictoriam faciant, ut possint praemium mereri, dum plus uincunt quam uincuntur.","english":"Therefore, from the fact that someone professes to be a Christian, he ought to strive not to sin. For he must arm himself against vices and—since it is impossible always to conquer—if he is overcome, he should grieve, lest he be overcome again, because he who grieves over being overcome restores himself. Therefore, he who resists has grounds for excuse, if he is overcome. For he shows that he had the intention of conquering, but was least able to prevail. There is hope for him because he can restore himself, so that by constant practice he may be found more skilled and stronger in the contest.\n\nFor he who rises up in order to sin is inexcusable and has a very serious case. For it is worse to live under the profession of God and have the will to sin, than if someone were ignorant of God and lived shamefully and impurely. For the latter does not know whom he ought to fear; the former, knowing, despises.\n\nBelievers, therefore, receive remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless after receiving the faith they have lived under the fear of God, so that, having struggled against the enemies of the Christian name, they achieve victory, so that they can earn the reward, while they conquer more than they are conquered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":473,"ref":"p473","source":"Nam qui intellegit deum et non accedit ad fidem eius, ne uiuat Christianus, sed in fine uult fidem accipere, ut moriatur Christianus, aut erubescit Christianus uiuere aut peccatis operam dat, quae arbitratur posse sibi remitti, cum crediderit, istum puto non bonam causam habere, quia, ut, quamdiu in saeculo est, peccet, non uult fieri et uiuere Christianus aut confunditur dici Christianus. qualem sperat deum, cui cum militare erubescit, uult ab eo stipendium accipere? huius modi inrisor est. sciens enim se iam tempus non habere ut peccet morte inminente, tunc uult fieri Christianus, ut, quia iam non potest peccare, credere$e dicat in Christum, qui exsecratur peccari, ut non iam nolit peccare, sed non possit praeueniente morte. istis legi debet, quia deus non inridetur.\n\nNam et solent huius modi talia dare mandata, ut iam defectis et alienis, tantum anhelantibus detur fides, timentes ne euadant et confundantur, quia facti sunt Christiani. quibus recitanda sunt euangelii uerba dicentis: qui enim me erubescit, inquit, et mea uerba in hac generatione, et filius hominis confundet eum, cum uenerit in regno patris sui.","english":"For he who understands God and does not approach his faith, so that he does not live as a Christian, but wishes to receive faith at the end, so that he dies a Christian—either he is ashamed to live as a Christian, or he devotes himself to sins which he thinks can be remitted for him once he has believed—such a man, I think, has no good case, because, as long as he is in the world, he sins; he does not wish to become and live as a Christian, or he is ashamed to be called a Christian. What sort of God does he hope for, for whose service he is ashamed, yet from whom he wishes to receive a reward? Such a man is a mocker. For knowing that he no longer has time to sin, with death impending, he then wishes to become a Christian, so that, because he can no longer sin, he may claim to believe in Christ, who abhors sinning, so that he no longer wishes not to sin, but cannot, because death intervenes. Such men ought to be read the law, because God is not mocked.\n\nAnd such men are accustomed to give commands of this kind, that faith be given to those already failing and estranged, merely gasping, fearing that they might escape and be put to shame because they have become Christians. To them the words of the Gospel are to be recited, saying: \"For he who is ashamed of me,\" he says, \"and of my words in this generation, the Son of Man will confound him when he comes in the kingdom of his Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":474,"ref":"p474","source":"Sed forte dicant: 'scientes fragile esse genus humanum idcirco in fine uitae uolumus fidem accipere, ne iam peccemus'. sed fides sic accipi debet, ut sciatur quod accipitur. tunc enim beneficium eius habebit, si cognoscat et profiteatur eam - corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem — ac per hoc, qui iam nescit ubi sit, quo modo potest dici accipere? ille enim accepit, qui profitetur se accepisse sciens quia accepit, si enim credunt quia datur credentibus remissio pec-. catorum, scire debent quia hic credit qui corde suo teste credit, quia deus, qui promisit, cordis inspector est; ipsum enim suscipit, quem corde uidet credere. itaque cuius cor uerba fidei non aduertit, quo modo beneficium eius habebit?\n\nIgitur hic potest uideri timere fieri Christianus accepta fide, qui id agere cernitur, ne facile peccet. nam qui peccare festinat, idcirco non uult accipere fidem, ne cogatur bene uiuere, quod uidetur nolle, sed in morte uult consequi inpunitatem sperans et remissionem praeteritorum malorum, ut et de praeteritis securus sit et de futuro, quia iam utique non poterit peccare moriturus.","english":"But perhaps they say: \"Knowing that the human race is fragile, we therefore wish to receive faith at the end of life, so that we no longer sin.\" But faith ought to be received in such a way that what is received is understood. For it will have its benefit only if one knows and professes it—for faith is believed in the heart for righteousness, but confession is made by the mouth for salvation—and on this account, one who no longer knows where he is, how can he be said to receive? For he receives who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received. For if they believe that remission of sins is given to believers, they ought to know that he believes who believes with his own heart as witness, because God, who promised, is an inspector of the heart; for He receives him whom He sees believing in his heart. Therefore, how will one whose heart does not attend to the words of faith have its benefit?\n\nTherefore, he can be seen to fear becoming a Christian upon receiving faith, who is observed to act so that he does not easily sin. For he who hastens to sin does not wish to receive faith for this reason, lest he be compelled to live well, which he seems unwilling to do; but in death he wishes to obtain impunity, hoping for remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both about the past and about the future, because, being about to die, he will certainly no longer be able to sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":475,"ref":"p475","source":"Sed hoc non bono fit consilio neque munda conscientia, ut tunc uelit accipere fidem, quando iam non possit, non nolit peccare. his conuenit dictum illud: faciamus mala, ut ueniant bona, hoc est 'modo peccemus et in nouissimo credamus et remittetur nobis'. ideoque subiecit: quorum damnatio, inquit, iusta est. non est enim dignum ut his detur remissio peccatorum, qui iam scientes deum. qui nolit peccari et odio habeat peccatores, peccare gestiunt nolentes aduertere donum dei his proficere, qui ignorantes deum sic peccant, ut nesciant iudicaturum deum. qui autem audiuit et tractauit apud se et uotum habet peccandi, non ut uincatur cogente aliqua causa, sed uelit peccare, durum est ignosci ei.\n\nNam duae causae sunt, quae habent peccatorum remissa: una doni, alia paenitentiae, ut qui post donum peccauerit per paenitentiam reformet. quia enim in accepta gratia non permansit, ut in libertate duraret, sed iterum se subiecit peccato, lamentatione et gemitu impetrat oblitterari peccatum. sciens enim prudensque peccauit: non quod aliquis ignoret peccatum, sed qui nescit deum iudicaturum inpune putat futurum quod peccat.","english":"But this is done with neither good counsel nor a clear conscience, to wish to receive faith at a time when one cannot sin, not when one is unwilling to sin. To these people that saying applies: \"Let us do evil, so that good may come,\" that is, \"Let us sin now and believe at the very end, and it will be forgiven us.\" And therefore he added: \"Whose condemnation,\" he says, \"is just.\" For it is not fitting that remission of sins be given to those who, already knowing God—who is unwilling that sin be committed and who hates sinners—eagerly desire to sin, unwilling to notice that the gift of God benefits those who, being ignorant of God, sin in such a way that they do not know that God will judge. But one who has heard and deliberated within himself and has a desire to sin—not that he is overcome by some compelling cause, but that he wishes to sin—it is harsh for him to be forgiven.\n\nFor there are two causes that have remission of sins: one is the gift, the other is penance, so that one who has sinned after the gift may reform through penance. For because he did not remain in the grace received, so as to persist in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, he obtains the obliteration of the sin by lamentation and groaning. For he sinned knowingly and deliberately: not that anyone is ignorant of sin, but one who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he sins will go unpunished.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":476,"ref":"p476","source":"Ac per hoc gentilis, si coeperit infirmari et ipsa uitae desperatione tractet apud se de fide et spe promissa, integram habet causam, ut huic credenti remittantur peccata nec teneatur in inferis, signum ferens secum euictae mortis ac spoliatae, licet non habeat dignitatem uel remunerationem, quia debet aliquid interesse inter eum, qui prouocatus amore domini sui contra hostes eius dimicare non timuit armans se continentia et obseruatione omnium uitiorum, ut possit resistere malo, semper sollicitus quo modo imperium domini sui defendat, et inter eum, qui cum inimicis domini sui conueniens et eis adsistens in finem uitae ad dominum suum regressus est, non ut regnum domini sui uindicaret, sed sibi soli prode esset, missicius ante quam miles.\n\nIlle enim, qui uiuere mauult Christianus, ut post mortem remuneretur, scit quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis, ac per hoc suscepta arma fidei non dubitat congredi contra principes et potestates, ut in saeculo uictor exsistens post saeculum coronetur.","english":"And so, if a gentile begins to fall ill and, in the despair of life itself, deliberates within himself about faith and the promised hope, he has a complete case, so that for this believer sins are remitted and he is not held in the underworld, bearing with him the sign of death conquered and despoiled, although he does not have dignity or reward, because there ought to be some difference between him who, provoked by love of his lord, did not fear to fight against his enemies, arming himself with continence and the observance of all vices, so that he might be able to resist evil, always anxious as to how he might defend the command of his lord, and him who, having come to an agreement with his lord's enemies and standing by them, returned to his lord at the end of his life, not to vindicate his lord's kingdom, but to be of benefit to himself alone, a deserter before being a soldier.\n\nFor he who prefers to live as a Christian so that he may be rewarded after death knows that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of comparison to the future glory which will be revealed in us, and therefore, having taken up the arms of faith, he does not hesitate to engage against princes and powers, so that, being victorious in the world, he may be crowned after the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":477,"ref":"p477","source":"dignum est enim ut qui inter perfidos et rebelles domini sui regnum ad praesens testatur huius rei in futuro consequatur mercedem, ut uidentes inimici dei testem Christi propter confessionis suae ueritatem sublimem apparere in regno dei doleant confusi falsum se aestimasse, quod uerum esse declaratum est, nec non etiam hi, qui tarde crediderunt, non in uita, sed in morte confitentes deum, uidentes quanta gloria eorum est, qui sub arma Christi militantes bella imperatoris sui deuote et fideliter gerunt, paeniteant non se uixisse, sed mortuos esse Christianos.\n\nPotest enim uideri minime idoneus mori Christianus, qui uotum non habuit uiuere Christianus. forte enim iam moriturus idcirco uoluit dici Christianus, ut quia iam tempus peccandi non erat. (ne forte*, inquit, 'uerum sit quod creditur, uolo fieri Christianus nihil amittens, si falsum est quod creditur'. ut quia iam in morte non uoluntas peccandi, sed peccatum fieri desinit, temptat si prodesse poterit fides post mortem, cum hoc utique fuerat utile, ut hic uitia et peccata emendarentur, ubi fuerant admissa.","english":"For it is fitting that one who, among the faithless and rebellious, now bears witness to the kingdom of his lord should receive the reward of this matter in the future, so that the enemies of God, seeing the witness of Christ exalted in the kingdom of God because of the truth of his confession, may grieve, confounded that they judged as false what has been declared true; and also that those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, seeing how great is the glory of those who, serving under the arms of Christ, loyally and faithfully wage the wars of their emperor, may repent that they were not Christians in life, but only in death.\n\nFor one who had no intention of living as a Christian can seem hardly fit to die a Christian. For perhaps the dying man wished to be called a Christian for this reason, because there was no longer time for sinning. ('Lest perhaps,' he says, 'what is believed be true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false.') Because in death not the will to sin, but sin itself ceases, he tries whether faith after death might be of use, when surely it would have been useful for vices and sins to be corrected here, where they were committed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":478,"ref":"p478","source":"Tunc enim aliquis condemnasse se praeterita probat, quando fidei lineam sequens conuersationem et uitam uidetur mutare. si enim prius ideo peccabat, quia nesciebat deum, cum cognoscit eum, ultra non debet peccare, ne frustra sit cognouisse illum; debet enim aliquis profectus esse ex cognitione dei. Christianus enim ante professionem debet intellegi: operibus magis probantur quam nomine. nam propterea mandata data sunt a ceteris legibus puriora et ad sanctitatem pertinentia, ut ex his dei cultura appareat; si quo minus, audient: quid me uocatis, domine, domine, et non facitis quae dico? per quod tunc significauit prodesse dominum uocari dominum, si mandata eius seruentur; inrisor enim uidetur qui dominum uocat eum, cuius praecepta contemnit. huic uerba legis recitanda sunt, quae dicunt, quia deus noninridetur. itaque uerbis suis condemnabitur qui dominum uocat, quem minime se timere operibus suis ostendit.","english":"For then a person proves that he has condemned his past when, following the line of faith, he appears to change his conduct and his life. For if he sinned before because he did not know God, when he comes to know Him, he ought not to sin any longer, lest his having known Him be in vain; for there ought to be some progress from the knowledge of God. For a Christian ought to be understood before his profession: they are proven more by works than by name. For this reason, commandments were given, purer than other laws and pertaining to holiness, so that the worship of God might be evident from them; if not, they will hear: \"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I say?\" By which He then signified that it profits to call the Lord 'Lord' only if His commandments are kept; for one who calls 'Lord' the one whose precepts he scorns seems a mocker. The words of the law, which say that God is not mocked, are to be recited to such a one. And so he will be condemned by his own words who calls 'Lord' the one whom he shows by his works that he does not fear at all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":479,"ref":"p479","source":"CXXVII. DE PECCATO ADAE ET EUAE.\n\nNulli dubium arbitror mundum istum hominis causa esse fabricatum, qui, cum diuersis constet substantiis, unus est tamen multis membris. aptatus, ut ex his inuicem mutuis operibus, quae necessaria homini futura erant, gignerentur. domus enim facta est homini cum annona, ita ut singula eorum secundum genus fierent super terram, id est, ut facta hanc haberent insitam potentiam, ut propago unius cuiusque generis eorum crearetur in terris. origines enim institutae sunt, quarum semen proficeret ad procreationem multiplicandorum generum super terram.\n\nUnde scriptura testatur dicens et benedixit ilia deus dicens: crescite et multiplicamini super terram. simili modo etiam hominum genus benedictum est, quem sensum contuemur in lege; cernimus enim scriptum esse: creuit populus et multiplicatus est in Aegypto. qua benedictione enim benedicta sunt, quae ad utilitatem creata sunt hominis, ea benedictione et homo est benedictus, ut similiter ex mare et femina propago generis humani cresceret et multiplicaretur super terram et ut, sicut per culturam melioranda erant semina, ita et hominum genus adhibita cura id studeret, ut creatoris cognitione percepta uitam suam frenaret ad promerendum eum, ut simul omnia proficerent ad laudem et gloriam creatoris.","english":"127. On the Sin of Adam and Eve.\n\nI think it is beyond doubt that this world was made for the sake of man, and that, although it consists of diverse substances, it is nevertheless one, fitted together with many members, so that from these, by their mutual operations, those things which would be necessary for man might be generated. For a house was made for man, complete with provisions, so that each of these things, according to their kind, would come into being upon the earth—that is, so that, once made, they would have this inherent power, that the offspring of each of their kinds would be created on the earth. For origins were established, whose seed would advance to the procreation of multiplying kinds upon the earth.\n\nWhence Scripture bears witness, saying, \"And God blessed them, saying, 'Increase and multiply upon the earth.'\" In a similar way, the human race also was blessed, a sense of which we contemplate in the Law; for we see it written: \"The people grew and multiplied in Egypt.\" For by that blessing with which those things created for the use of man were blessed, by that same blessing man also was blessed, so that likewise, from male and female, the offspring of the human race would increase and multiply upon the earth, and so that, just as seeds were to be improved through cultivation, so also the human race, with due care applied, would strive, by gaining knowledge of the creator, to restrain its life in order to merit him, so that all things together might advance to the praise and glory of the creator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":480,"ref":"p480","source":"Et quoniam non aliud haec dicta significant, res ipsae testantur. omnia enim, quae facta sunt, dei nutu multiplicata et meliorata sunt super terram. nec enim aliter posset crescere quam dei uoluntas et benedictio decreuit seminibus. quo modo ergo dici potest male fieri aut nou licere, quod ex dei benedictione et ipso fauente augmentum facit? cuius rei traditio et in sinagoga mansit et nunc in ecclesia celebratur, ut dei creatura sub dei benedictione iungatur, non utique per praesumptionem, quia ab ipso auctore sic data est forma.\n\nSed si cessare debere putatur, tunc cessare debebit, quando cessatura et illa sunt, quae similiter benedicta sunt ut multiplicarentur, quia, si generatio hominum cessat, ad quam utilitatem nascuntur, quae benedicta sunt super terram? non potest enim mundus ex parte agere et ex parte cessare. aut totus enim operatur aut totus pausat in otio. numquid utile corpus est, cuius quaedam membra uigent, quaedam torpescunt?","english":"And since these words signify nothing else, the things themselves bear witness. For all things that have been made have been multiplied and improved upon the earth by God's will. For they could not increase otherwise than as God's will and blessing decreed for the seeds. How, then, can it be said that it is done wrongly or is not permitted, which makes increase by God's blessing and with His favor? The tradition of this matter remained in the synagogue and is now celebrated in the Church, that God's creature is joined under God's blessing, not indeed by presumption, because the form was given thus by the Author Himself.\n\nBut if it is thought that it ought to cease, then it will have to cease when those things also cease which are likewise blessed to be multiplied, because, if the generation of men ceases, for what use are those things born which are blessed upon the earth? For the world cannot partly act and partly cease. For either it operates entirely or it rests entirely in idleness. Is a body useful whose some members are vigorous and some are sluggish?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":481,"ref":"p481","source":"Quod ergo a deo benedictum est, cur sordidum et contaminatum opus a quibusdam adseritur, nisi quia ipsi deo manus quodam modo inferunt? non enim hoc reprehenderent nisi de deo huius operis auctore male sentirent. quia enim aperte deo detrahere uerentur, per opus tamen ab eo inuentum accusant eum. quando enim displicet opus, reprehenditur auctor.\n\nSed si huius modi homines legerent aut potius acciperent scripturas, memores essent Balaam dicentis: quid maledicam, inquit, quem benedicit deus? frustra enim accusatur qui a iudice laudatur, immo ipse sui accusator est, qui reum dicit quem leges defendunt. quis ergo tu es, qui damnare censes quod a deo benedictum legis, nisi aut deum hunc esse negas aut scripturam falsam accuses?\n\nSunt enim qui quasi noua accipientes uetera repudianda putant. sed non discrepant ab his noua per Christum praecepta populis intimata. ipse enim rogatus ad nuptias ire non dedignatus est et non solum praesentia sui inlustrauit eas, uerum etiam contulit quod deerat ad laetitiam. scriptum est enim, quia uinum laetificat cor hominis. et ut hoc secundum dei patris sui uoluntatem fecisse se demonstraret, Iudaeis interrogantibus, an liceret homini dimittere uxorem suam, respondit inter cetera dicens: quoniam ab initio fecit deus masculum et feminam et dixit: propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit ad uxorem suam et erunt duo in carne una.","english":"Therefore, why is a work blessed by God considered sordid and contaminated by some, unless they are in some way laying hands on God himself? For they would not reproach this unless they thought ill of God, the author of this work. Because they fear to openly disparage God, they accuse him through the work he devised. For when the work displeases, the author is reproached.\n\nBut if such men would read—or rather accept—the Scriptures, they would remember Balaam saying: \"Why should I curse,\" he says, \"whom God blesses?\" For it is futile to accuse one whom the judge praises; indeed, the accuser himself is the accuser who declares guilty one whom the laws defend. Who then are you, to judge as worthy of condemnation what you read is blessed by God, unless you either deny that this is God or accuse the Scripture of falsehood?\n\nFor there are those who, receiving the new as if it were something novel, think the old should be rejected. But the new precepts imparted to the peoples through Christ do not disagree with these. For he himself, when invited, did not disdain to go to weddings, and not only did he grace them with his presence, but he also contributed what was lacking for joy. For it is written that wine gladdens the human heart. And to show that he did this according to the will of his Father God, when the Jews asked whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, he replied among other things, saying: \"Since from the beginning God made male and female and said: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh.'","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":482,"ref":"p482","source":"itaque iam non sunt duo, sed una caro. quod ergo deus coniunxit, homo non separet. hinc est unde rogatus ad nuptias iit libenter, ne factum dei et patris sui infirmare uideretur; magis autem legis ueteris et nouae doctrinam concordare ostendens nuptias non solum non prohibuit, sed et interesse dignatus est testimonium eis tribuens, quoniam deus auctor earum est, et quod a deo iunctum est neque prohiberi neque separari debere salutari praecepto monstrauit.\n\nEt quia natiuitas prodest, cum iam relinqueret mundum, matrem suam Iohanni discipulo suo commendauit. quam ob rem et nos per omnia legis ueteris et nonae mandata ut parentes honoremus docemur, quod nisi fecerimus, maledictum nos incursuros cautum est lege.\n\nItaque quae est praesumptio aut ex qua lege descendit nuptiarum aditus intercludere, quando tam noua quam uetus lex per omnia istis fauere uideatur? sed illud est quod legimus, quia quod extra est a malo est. unde apostolus huius modi homines cauteriatam dicit habere conscientiam, qui prohibentes nubere et a cibis, quos deus ad percipiendum creauit, abstinendum docent. hoc enim in hypocrisi inimicitiarum causa facere denotantur, ut legem a deo traditam criminentur.","english":"Thus they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined, man should not separate. This is the reason why, when asked, he willingly went to weddings, lest he seem to weaken the work of God and his own father; rather, by showing that the teaching of the Old and New Law agrees, he not only did not forbid marriages, but even deigned to attend them, bearing witness to them, since God is their author, and he showed by a salutary precept that what is joined by God ought neither to be forbidden nor separated.\n\nAnd because birth is beneficial, when he was already leaving the world, he commended his mother to his disciple John. For this reason we are also taught by all the commandments of the Old and New Law to honor our parents, and it is provided by law that if we do not do so, we will incur a curse.\n\nTherefore, what presumption is this, or from what law does it derive, to block access to marriage, when both the New and the Old Law seem to favor them in every respect? But this is what we read: that which is outside is from evil. Hence the apostle says that such men have a cauterized conscience, who forbid marrying and teach abstaining from foods which God created for consumption. For they are noted to do this in hypocrisy for the sake of enmity, so as to accuse the law handed down by God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":483,"ref":"p483","source":"Alii ideo studentes praeceptis salutaribus obuias manus tendunt, ut prauae doctrinae mandata commendent, ac per hoc cauteriatam habere dicuntur conscientiam. corrupta enim mente aliud scientes aliud profitentur, sicut et Iudaei, qui non ignorantes gesta saluatoris opera esse spiritus sancti inuidentes dicebant, quia in Belzebul eiciebat demonia, ut populum a fide eius auerterent. talis est et supra memoratorum uersutia, quia, ut castitatis et sanctimonii amatores esse se simulent, etiam nuptias dicunt esse damnandas, ut per id commendentur et populum a ueritate auertant, et, ut abstinentiae studere se fingant, temperandum a cibis tradunt, ut per haec alienos se a mundo ad caelestia regna festinare ostendant. per quod mentes hominum inlicientes deinceps inlicita docent licere et licita quasi inconcessa damnare.\n\nHaec sunt praestrigia satanae, ut causas inuertat, quasi nouum insinuans aliquid excludat ueritatem, in qua nihil nonum est, quia totum aeternum est. quia non aduertat sensum istum ab aduersario esse aptatum? quis enim audeat dei inuentum reprobare et quod numquam alicui obfuit nisi aduersarius ueritatis, . qui, ut inpuritatem suam tegat, sanctimonium praedicat, quem non amat, et, dum ex eo se quasi bonae uoluntatis ostendit, inlicita suadet quasi licita?","english":"Others, while professing to follow the salutary precepts, stretch out their hands in opposition, so as to commend the mandates of a corrupt teaching, and because of this they are said to have a cauterized conscience. For with a corrupted mind, knowing one thing, they profess another, just as the Jews, who, not ignorant that the deeds of the Savior were works of the Holy Spirit, said out of envy that he cast out demons by Beelzebul, in order to turn the people away from faith in him. Such also is the cunning of those mentioned above, because, in order to pretend to be lovers of chastity and sanctity, they even say that marriage is to be condemned, so that through this they may be commended and turn the people away from the truth; and, in order to feign devotion to abstinence, they teach that one should refrain from foods, so that through these things they may show themselves to be detached from the world and hastening to the celestial realms. By this means, ensnaring the minds of men, they then teach that unlawful things are permitted and lawful things are to be condemned as if they were not allowed.\n\nThese are the deceptions of Satan, so that he may invert causes, as if introducing something new, and exclude the truth, in which there is nothing new, because it is entirely eternal. Who does not perceive that this sense has been fitted by the adversary? For who would dare to reprove God’s invention and that which has never harmed anyone, except the adversary of the truth, who, in order to conceal his own impurity, preaches sanctity, which he does not love, and, while through this he shows himself as if of good will, he persuades unlawful things as if they were lawful?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":484,"ref":"p484","source":"commendat enim se, ut promtius fallat, ac per hoc captis inprudentibus suggerit per quae plus eos faciat peccatores, quia, ut causae suae aliquam conferat medicinam, granditer homines suadet peccare magnum ex eo quaerens solatium, dum criminis sui socios multos ostendit leuem poenam aestimans, acsi grauis sit, si secum multos uideat in gehenna. uiderint in peccatis ceteris homines, dum uincuntur uitiis, aut per ignorantiam defendent non uindicanda hic.\n\nQuae contraria decipit concupiscentia aut quae obstat caligo, ut non quod uerum est uideatur! nam solent litterae aliud uideri significare, dum aut non bene pronuntiantur aut inproprie distinguntur. cum autem legitur: 'fecit deus. et: 'benedixit quod fecit., quis hinc disputet? quis dubitet? quia quod benedictum audit, maledictum putet, nisi alio spiritu animetur? quod quidem si hominis uox esse diceretur, forte aliqua fallacia crederetur: deus dicitur loqui et dubitas? deus benedicit et reprobus?","english":"For it commends itself, so as to deceive more readily, and through this, having caught the imprudent, it suggests means by which it makes them greater sinners, because, in order to bring some remedy to its own cause, it strongly urges men to sin greatly, seeking from that a great solace, while it shows many companions in its own crime, deeming the penalty light, as if it were heavy, if it sees many with itself in Gehenna. Let men see to other sins, while they are overcome by vices, or through ignorance they defend that these things are not to be punished here.\n\nWhat contrary desire deceives, or what darkness obstructs, so that what is true is not seen! For letters are accustomed to seem to signify something else, while either they are not pronounced well or are improperly punctuated. But when it is read: 'God made,' and: 'He blessed what he made,' who would dispute this? Who would doubt? Because what one hears as blessed, would one think it accursed, unless animated by another spirit? Which indeed, if it were said to be the voice of a man, perhaps some deception might be believed: God is said to speak, and do you doubt? God blesses, and is he reprobate?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":485,"ref":"p485","source":"Sed forte sub dei nomine Moyses errorem induxit! satis tibi faciant signa et prodigia per Moysen facta in Aegypto: suadeant tibi mirabilia quae in rubro mari gesta sunt ad liberationem filiorum Israhel; audi magos confitentes quia digitus dei est hic; consenti apostolo dicenti: nolo enim, ait, uos ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt et omnes per mare transierunt et omnes in Moysen baptizati sunt in nube et in mari et omnes eandem escam spiritalem ederunt et omnes eundem potum spiritalem biberunt. bibebant enim de spiritali sequenti petra; petra autem erat Christus. et unde haec apostolus locutus est? praesto est scriptura, in qua legimus Christum dominum nostrum -dicentem Iudaeis: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi, quia de me scripsit Moyses. quis huic concordiae fidem deneget? quis audeat dicere quod unum est discrepare? quis tam malae mentis est, ut indiuiduam caritatem uideri contendat inimicitiam? ecce habes et uerborum testimonia et exempla uirtutum, quae animum tuum subiugent ueritati, ut non aliud putes uerum quam quod ecclesiae catholicae continent libri.","english":"But perhaps under the name of God, Moses introduced error! Let the signs and wonders performed through Moses in Egypt satisfy you; let the marvels that took place in the Red Sea for the liberation of the children of Israel persuade you; hear the magicians confessing that this is the finger of God; agree with the apostle saying: \"For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud and all crossed through the sea and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink.\" For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed; and the rock was Christ. And from where did this apostle speak? The scripture is at hand, in which we read our Lord Christ saying to the Jews: \"If you believed Moses, you would also believe me, because Moses wrote about me.\" Who would deny faith to this harmony? Who would dare to say that what is one is discordant? Who is of such evil mind as to contend that indivisible love appears as enmity? Behold, you have both the testimonies of words and the examples of deeds, which subjugate your mind to the truth, so that you think nothing else true than what the books of the Catholic Church contain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":486,"ref":"p486","source":"Quoniam igitur probatum est idem deum fuisse in ueteri, qui nunc noster est, et hunc multis uirtutum indiciis uerum esse, in tantum eius auctoritas debet praeferri, ut etiam id, quod asperum et forte absurdum a nobis aestimatur, accepto ferri debeat et aliter sentiri quam a nobis putatur, si dei iudicio commendetur, quia magis deo credere debemus quam nobis. infirmitas enim nostra et inperitia utilia solet iudicare quae nociua sunt et aestimare falsa pro ueris, quod de deo uel suspicari nefas est — non est enim natura, quae possit falli —: quanto magis de coniugiis dubitari non debet deo dicente! est enim res aperta et simplex.\n\nCerte omnis homo gaudet, cum fuerit dei dignationem' adeptus, et meliorari se credit, dum sacramentum creatoris addiscit, quod utique non adsequeretur nisi natus. cur ergo plangit quod gaudet et quod gloriatur se didicisse condemnat? si enim gaudet quia didicit, non autem didicisset, nisi natus fuisset, sine dubio bonum est nasci, quia fructus natiuitatis est cognitio ueritatis. si autem malum est nasci, non erit bona cognitio, cui enim rei proderit cognitio, si damnatur natiuitas, quia, si non expedit nasci nec debet, inane est ut discat damnandus? sed quia nemo tam hebes est, ut neget cognitionem dei prode esse hominibus, et bona et utilia est.","english":"Since it has been proven that the same God existed in the Old Testament who is now ours, and that this God is true through many signs of His powers, His authority ought to be so greatly preferred that even what we consider harsh and perhaps absurd should be accepted and understood differently than we suppose, if it is commended by God’s judgment, because we ought to believe God more than ourselves. For our weakness and inexperience often judge useful things to be harmful and estimate false things as true—which it is impious even to suspect of God, for He is not a nature that can be deceived. How much more, then, ought there to be no doubt about marriages when God speaks! For it is an open and simple matter.\n\nCertainly, every man rejoices when he has obtained God’s favor, and believes himself to be improved while he learns the sacrament of the Creator, which he would certainly not attain unless he were born. Why, then, does he lament what he rejoices in, and condemn what he glories in having learned? For if he rejoices because he has learned, but would not have learned unless he had been born, then without doubt it is good to be born, because the fruit of birth is the knowledge of truth. But if it is evil to be born, then knowledge will not be good; for to what purpose will knowledge serve, if birth is condemned, since, if it is not expedient to be born and ought not to be, it is vain for one who is to be condemned to learn? But because no one is so dull as to deny that the knowledge of God is beneficial to men, it is both good and useful.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":487,"ref":"p487","source":"per ipsam enim melioratur natiuitas, ut plus mereatur quam fuerat conlatum Adae, quia in caelo, non in terra regnabunt credentes, in paradiso dei patris, non in quo Adam corporaliter iussus fuerat operari.\n\nNam si encenia celebrabantur Hierosolymis, id est dedicationis templi domini agebatur festiuitas, quanto magis ipsius hominis celebrandus natalis est, qui magis templum dei est, cui etiam ad agendas deo gratias manibus templum est fabricatum! melius est enim templum corpus nostrum, quia hoc dei opere, illud uero humano labore constructum est, et hoc sub spe aeternitatis est, illud perditionis. itaque qui deo instituente natum se nouit, ut ei gratias agat cognitum habens mysterium eius, debet in natali suo gaudere uidens profectum esse natiuitatis suae. uere autem illi nasci non debuerunt, qui creatorem suum relinquentes gloriam eius aliis deputant. horum enim natiuitas proficit ad poenam; sed non natiuitas crimen incurrit, sed uoluntas.","english":"For through it birth is improved, so that one may merit more than was conferred upon Adam, because believers will reign in heaven, not on earth—in the paradise of God the Father, not in that in which Adam was corporally commanded to work.\n\nFor if the Encenia were celebrated at Jerusalem—that is, the festival of the dedication of the Lord’s temple was observed—how much more ought the birthday of man himself to be celebrated, who is more truly a temple of God, for whose sake even a temple built by hands was constructed to give thanks to God! For our body is a better temple, because this is built by the work of God, whereas that is constructed by human labor; and this is under the hope of eternity, that of destruction. Therefore, one who knows that he was born by God’s institution, so that, having understood His mystery, he may give thanks to God, ought to rejoice on his birthday, seeing that his birth has made progress. But truly, those should not have been born who, abandoning their Creator, attribute His glory to others. For such persons, their birth leads to punishment; but it is not birth that incurs the crime, but the will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":488,"ref":"p488","source":"Sed quis tu es, qui nuptias prohibes? forte Marcion, quia corpus non a deo fabricatum putas, sed a diabolo, animam uero errore quodam lapsum passam, ut ad tenebrarum partes, in quibus nunc mundus est, ueniret, contendis. quo modo ergo posset hinc liberari, si prohiberetur generari? natus enim cognouisti casum tuum et data opera id egisti, at remeares ad patricam sedem redditus fonti tuo. denique gratias agere te dicis Christo, per quem hanc cognitionem adsecutum te gratularis. age uero, si natus non esses, cessaret cognitio nec prosequeretur liberatio. itaque si gaudes animam liberari, faue natiuitati; nam si natiuitati resistis, inimicus es animarum.\n\nAut si Manicheus es, qui nuptias quasi contrarias rennuis, quaero a te, quia, si corpora minime gignerentur, quo modo anima hinc, quam fusam in tenebrarum partem et haerentem hylicis rebus asseris, eriperetur? nascendo enim liberari eam in libris uestris scriptum habetis, ut a luna susceptae animae exeuntes de corporibus soli tradantur, quem deum uestrarum adseritis animarum. nam gaudetis, cum Manichei uocamini. per hoc enim nomen liberationem uestram flagitatis quod utique nesciretis, nisi nati essetis. longe itaque apparet per hypocrisin nuptias uos condemnare. sanctimonium enim profitentes latenter inmunditiae studetis, quod non' solum priuatim, sed et edictis proditum est imperatorum.","english":"But who are you, who forbid marriage? Perhaps you are Marcion, because you think the body was not made by God, but by the devil, and you contend that the soul, through some error, has suffered a fall, so that it came into the regions of darkness, in which the world now is. How then could it be freed from here, if generation were forbidden? For by being born, you recognized your fall and deliberately strove to return to your ancestral seat, restored to your source. Finally, you say you give thanks to Christ, through whom you congratulate yourself for having attained this knowledge. But truly, if you had not been born, the knowledge would cease, nor would liberation follow. Therefore, if you rejoice that the soul is liberated, favor birth; for if you resist birth, you are an enemy of souls.\n\nOr if you are a Manichee, who reject marriage as something contrary, I ask you this: because, if bodies were not generated at all, how would the soul, which you assert is poured into the region of darkness and clings to hylic things, be snatched away from here? For by being born, it is liberated—this is written in your books, so that souls received from the moon, departing from bodies, are handed over to the sun, whom you declare to be the god of your souls. For you rejoice when you are called Manichees. By this name you demand your liberation, which you would certainly not know unless you had been born. Thus it is clear that you condemn marriage through hypocrisy. For professing sanctity, you secretly pursue impurity, which has not only been revealed privately but also by the edicts of the emperors.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":489,"ref":"p489","source":"Audi nunc, catholice, euangelio teste prodesse hominis natiuitatem. cum Symeon enim uir iustus uellet exire de saeculo sufficere sibi putans creatoris sine mysterii eius cognitione notitiam, non permissum est ei, nisi crementum faceret in dei perceptione, ut plenam haberet fidei suae mercedem. denique natum saluatorem accipiens in manibus benedixit deum et dixit: domine, nunc dimitte seruum tuum secundum uerbum tuum in pace, quoniam uiderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. manifeste ostensum est dei beneficium esse in hominis natiuitate, quando uiro iusto de morte cogitanti responsum est, quod non ante moreretur, quam christum domini uidisset. tantum enim proficiebat in uita, ut dignus fieret etiam in praesenti uidere, quem liberatorem sperabat post mortem. qui ergo reseruatus in uita non permissus est mori, nisi spei suae fructum uidisset, ut securus esset quia de uita ad uitam transiret, quo modo potest dici non huic profuisse natiuitas?","english":"Hear now, O Catholic, with the Gospel as witness, that the birth of a man is beneficial. For when Symeon, a just man, wished to depart from the world, thinking that the knowledge of the Creator without the understanding of His mystery was sufficient for him, he was not permitted to do so unless he made progress in the perception of God, so that he might have the full reward of his faith. Finally, taking the newborn Savior in his hands, he blessed God and said: \"Lord, now dismiss your servant according to your word in peace, because my eyes have seen your salvation.\" It is clearly shown that the birth of a man is a benefit of God, when a just man, contemplating death, was answered that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. For he advanced so much in life that he became worthy even in the present to see the one whom he hoped for as a liberator after death. Therefore, how can it be said that this birth did not benefit him, who was kept alive and not permitted to die until he had seen the fruit of his hope, so that he might be certain that he was passing from life to life?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":490,"ref":"p490","source":"Si enim malum est quod nascimur, non paradisus promitteretur, non uita aeterna, non regnum caelorum, sed poena gehenna perditio, ut timeret alterum generare, qui se sciret natum ad perditionem, ut inlicite natum non liceret generare.\n\nSed forte dicatur: 'regnum quidem caelorum promissum est, sed fidis et bene agentibus*. recte. uides itaque non ideo reos fieri homines, quia nati sunt, sed quia male conuersati sunt. neque enim non natis promissum est regnum caelorum, ut natiuitati inputent, quibus non dabitur; promissum est autem natis bene agentibus, ut neque natiuitas prosit male agenti neque obesse possit bene agenti.\n\nA fidelibus enim et bene agentibus melioratur natiuitas, ab infidelibus autem et male agentibus deterioratur. sic enim est natiuitas quasi arbor quae inseritur, quia, si bono surculo inseritur, melior fiet et bona dicetur, sin uero malo surculo inseratur, et deterior erit et non bona, sed mala uocabitur. ita et natiuitati si bona accedat doctrina, bonos faciet fructus; si autem mala, malos faciet fructus. ita sicut necessaria est arbor, ut sit ubi inseratur, ita et necessaria est natiuitas, ut sit ubi proficiatur.","english":"For if it is an evil that we are born, then paradise would not be promised, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven, but rather the punishment of gehenna and perdition, so that one who knew himself born to perdition would fear to beget another, so that one who was unlawfully born would not be permitted to beget.\n\nBut perhaps it may be said: 'The kingdom of heaven is indeed promised, but to the faithful and to those who act well.' Correctly. You see, therefore, that men do not become guilty because they are born, but because they have conducted themselves badly. For the kingdom of heaven is not promised to those not yet born, so that those to whom it will not be given might impute it to their birth; rather, it is promised to those born who act well, so that birth may neither benefit the one who acts badly nor be able to harm the one who acts well.\n\nFor among the faithful and those who act well, birth is improved; among the unfaithful and those who act badly, it is worsened. For birth is like a tree that is grafted: if it is grafted with a good shoot, it will become better and be called good; but if it is grafted with a bad shoot, it will be worse and will be called not good, but bad. So too with birth: if good teaching comes to it, it will produce good fruits; if bad teaching, it will produce bad fruits. Thus, just as a tree is necessary so that there is something into which to graft, so too is birth necessary so that there is something in which to make progress.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":491,"ref":"p491","source":"Sed respondetur e contra: 'si utilis est natiuitas, cur renascitur?' non renasceremur, nisi utilis esset natiuitas. renasci enim renouari est et qui renouatur instauratur. non ergo accusat renascibilitas natiuitatem, sed reformat, et quod reformatur bene ab initio institutum probatur. igitur quod renascimur, consilio mutamur corporis expiatione percepta, ut reddamur ad pristinum statum Adae. animae autem peccato maculatum est corpus, quod reparato et meliorato per fidem consilio\n\nabluitur, ut, sicut per contemptum dei fuerat pollutum, ita per oboedientiam abluatur, ut effugiat sententiam datam Adae et possit resurgere.\n\nItaque si ab anima coepit peccatum, cur natura corporis accusatur, cum in causa peccati Adae non fuerit desiderium corporale, sed spe deitatis inlecta anima «transgressa sit dei praeceptum, ut et corpus suum subiugaret peccato et nasce. rentur homines sub peccato? quod quidem nihil obest homini, . si tamen legi dei oboediat, nisi quod moritur, cui rei beniuolentia dei promisit mercedem, ut, quoniam in creatoris deuotione fideles inueniuntur, per praeuaricationem autem Adae corruptioni subiecti et morti sunt, pro hac re accipiant a iudice deo ultra quam fuerat concessum Adae, ut in futuro et gloriosi sint et aeternam habeant uitam et adoptati filii dei uocentur, ut lucrum sit, quia nati sunt.","english":"But it is answered on the contrary: 'If birth is useful, why are we reborn?' We would not be reborn unless birth were useful. For to be reborn is to be renewed, and one who is renewed is restored. Therefore, rebirth does not accuse birth, but reforms it, and what is reformed is proven to have been well instituted from the beginning. Thus, that we are reborn changes us by design, through the received expiation of the body, so that we may be restored to the original state of Adam. But the body was stained by the sin of the soul, and when the design is repaired and improved through faith, it is washed away, so that, just as it was polluted through contempt for God, it is washed clean through obedience, so that it may escape the sentence given to Adam and be able to rise again.\n\nTherefore, if sin began from the soul, why is the nature of the body accused, since in the cause of Adam's sin there was no bodily desire, but the soul, enticed by the hope of divinity, transgressed God's command, so that it subjugated its own body to sin and men are born under sin? This indeed does no harm to a man, if he nevertheless obeys God's law, except that he dies, for which thing the benevolence of God has promised a reward, so that, since the faithful are found devoted to the creator, but through Adam's transgression they are subject to corruption and death, for this reason they receive from the judge God more than had been granted to Adam, so that in the future they may be glorious and have eternal life and be called adopted sons of God, so that it is a gain that they were born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":492,"ref":"p492","source":"Ex hoc iam reuertar ad reliquam partem lectionis. cum positus esset homo in paradiso, haec accepit mandata: ex omni, inquit, ligno, quod est in paradiso ad escam, edes; de ligno autem, unde dinoscitur bonum et malum, non edetis ex eo. omnia ligna, quae memorat, fructuum sunt ad edendum creatorum. denique uno nomine ligna dicuntur, sed uaria intelleguntur in fructibus; omnia tamen ligna sunt et edendi unum est genus, quamuis diuersa sunt quae edantur, cum enim multa fructuum ligna creasset homini ad edendum, sicut dixi, de uno ligno edi prohibuit, ut reuerentiam creatoris ex aliqua parte haberent, qui omnia in potestate acceperant, dum una reseruata est arbor, cuius licentiam non haberent, ut memores essent conditionis legem.\n\nQuo modo ex sententia peccati genus intellegebatur? et homicidae enim et malefico et adultero et infami congruit haec sententia. Achar quoque filius Charmi cum peccasset, consumi cum omnibus suis adiudicatus est. quo modo potest ex sententia peccati genus intellegi? grande delictum fuisse potest cognosci, non tamen genus delicti intellegi. scimus enim etiam alios hac damnatos sententia, cum sciantur aliter deliquisse. et Aman enim et Sodomitae cum omnibus suis perisse noscuntur. ita enim fit ut et unius peccati rei diuersa feriantur sententia et diuersi criminis peccatores uno adque eodem genere puniantur.","english":"From this point I will return to the remaining part of the reading. When man was placed in paradise, he received these commandments: 'From every tree,' it says, 'which is in paradise for food, you shall eat; but from the tree by which good and evil are discerned, you shall not eat from it.' All the trees it mentions are of fruits created for eating. Indeed, they are called by the single name 'trees,' but they are understood to be various in their fruits; nevertheless, all are trees, and eating is one kind of act, although the things that are eaten are diverse. For when the Creator had created many fruit-bearing trees for man to eat, as I have said, He forbade eating from one tree, so that they might have reverence for the Creator in some respect, they who had received all things into their power, while one tree was reserved, of which they would not have license, so that they might be mindful of the law of their condition.\n\nIn what way was the kind of sin understood from the sentence? For this sentence is fitting for a murderer, a malefactor, an adulterer, and a disreputable person. Also Achar, son of Charmi, when he had sinned, was adjudged to be consumed together with all his possessions. In what way can the kind of sin be understood from the sentence? It can be known that it was a great offense, but the kind of offense cannot be understood. For we know that others also have been condemned by this sentence, although they are known to have offended in a different way. For both Haman and the Sodomites are known to have perished together with all their possessions. Thus it happens that both those guilty of a single sin are struck by different sentences, and sinners of different crimes are punished by one and the same kind of sentence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":493,"ref":"p493","source":"quam ob rem Adae et Euae non ex data sententia peccati genus potest intellegi.\n\nQuamuis enim unum eorum peccatum sit, sed secundum personam suam uir et mulier sententiam acceperunt, nec non et serpens, ut non solum in eo quod facti sunt non manerent, uerum etiam adderetur eis labor ad poenam. cum enim omnia pecora et animantia homini fuissent, sicut legimus, subiecta, serpens uero contra hanc constitutionem erexit se et dolo per fallaciam circumuentum hominem sibi subiecerat. sine dubio enim qui aliquem capit intra se eum facit. propter quod serpens, ne astutiae suae effectum haberet, sententia dei reuocatur et reprimitur ultra quam fuerat factus, ne supra hominem esset, ut calliditate sua non solum nihil profecisse se doleat, sed et deteriorasse. cum enim prudentior legatur fuisse ceteris bestiis, postquam decepit hominem, maledictus factus est ab omnibus bestiis terrae.","english":"Therefore, from Adam and Eve, the race of sin cannot be understood as arising from a sentence already given.\n\nFor although the sin of one of them is at issue, yet according to their own persons, the man and the woman received sentence, and likewise the serpent, so that not only would they not remain in the state in which they were made, but also labor would be added to them as punishment. For since all cattle and living creatures had been, as we read, subjected to man, the serpent, contrary to this established order, raised itself up and, by deceit through guile, had subjugated the deceived man to itself. For without doubt, whoever captures someone makes him subject to himself. On account of this, the serpent, lest it have the effect of its cunning, is recalled and restrained by the sentence of God beyond what it had been made, so that it would not be above man, and so that it would grieve that by its craftiness it had not only gained nothing but had even worsened its condition. For although it is recorded that it was more prudent than the other beasts, after it deceived man, it was made accursed by all the beasts of the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":494,"ref":"p494","source":"Post sententiam datam in serpentem sequitur ut et mulier, quam sibi sociauerat ad contemnendam dei legem, excipiat sententiam. ait enim: replens replebo maerores tuos et gemitum tuum: in tristitia paries filios et ad uirum tuum conuersio tua et ipse tui dominabitur: nemo quod reprehendit ipse confirmet. si ideo concessi sunt filii, quia usurpauerat coitum, ergo plus usurpatio praestitit. si, quia dixit: in tristitia paries filios, inde putas generationem sumpsisse principium, ubi erit quod dictum est: crescite et multiplicamini? intellege ergo hoc ad poenam tantum additum, ut, cum per laetitiam fuerit ante concessum, tristitia subdaretur ob poenam. et ut durior et multiplicata mulierem semper urgueret, additur conuersio ad uirum, ut esset unde eidem iterum innouaretur.\n\nSi coitum dominus damnabat in seruis, cur addebat: ad uirum conuersio tua? nemo, quod damnat, hoc pro poena constituat, cum utique poena sit damnato contraria nec umquam ex uno, sed e contra proueniat. quod si in uno essent, damnationem nemo metueret. deinde aliquis in hoc addiceret, ex quo in legem commissum uideret? hoc est confirmasse, non punisse peccatum. si ideo conuersio feminae ad uirum et ex eo, quod coiit, et non quod t uerum est, conuersio simpliciter ante concessa cum ultima seruitute propter poenam eidem credatur inposita.","english":"After the sentence was given against the serpent, it follows that the woman also, whom he had associated with himself for the purpose of despising God’s law, receives the sentence. For it says: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning: in sadness you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” No one should confirm what he himself condemns. If children were granted for this reason, because she had usurped intercourse, then the usurpation granted more. If, because it says: “in sadness you will bear children,” you think that generation took its beginning from that point, where then will what was said: “increase and multiply” be? Understand, therefore, that this was added only as a punishment, so that, whereas it had previously been granted through joy, sadness would be imposed as a penalty. And so that a harsher and multiplied condition would always press upon the woman, the turning to her husband is added, so that there would be a means by which it might be renewed for her again.\n\nIf the Lord was condemning intercourse in his servants, why did he add: “your turning to your husband”? No one establishes as a punishment what he condemns, since punishment is certainly contrary to what is condemned and never arises from the same thing, but from its opposite. If they were one and the same, no one would fear condemnation. Moreover, would anyone add this as a penalty, from which he saw that the law had been transgressed? This would be to confirm, not to punish, the sin. If the woman’s turning to her husband is for this reason, and because she had intercourse, and not because it is true, the turning simply granted before, together with ultimate servitude, is believed to have been imposed upon her as a punishment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":495,"ref":"p495","source":"quoniam per mulierem subiectus factus fuerat uir et sine dubio superior uidebatur, cuius consilio usus putauit prodesse quod suasit, ut factum dei subtilitate serpentis destrui uideretur, instauratur per sententiam dei institutum, ut reuertatur mulier ad condicionis subiectionem humiliata uiro, sicut fuerat constitutum, et additur ei quod additur ad poenam, cum audit: replens replebo maerores tuos et gemitum tuum: in tristitia paries filios et ad uirum tuum conuersio tua et ipse tui dominabitur.\n\nNumquid aliter fuerat decretum, quam mulier dominio uiri esset subiecta? hinc ergo apparet mulierem reuocatam esse ad id, quod fuerat facta, cum additamento. unde ait: replens replebo maerores tuos et gemitum. quid replet? in eo quod minus est addit, non in eo quod non est uidetur operari. hic ergo sententia, quae ante processerat: crescite et multiplicamini, non incipit ad creandum, sed ad creaturae, quae fuerat concessa, perniciem. mulieri ad pariendum filios dolor additur, difficultas inponitur, non procreationis noua forma conponitur. nam si ex hoc recte speratur generatio, intellegi potest magis arbitrio serpentis generationem extitisse quam domini et est uere, ut ait ille, progenies uiperarum.","english":"Because through the woman the man had been made subject, and he seemed without doubt the superior, whose counsel he had used, thinking that what he had persuaded would benefit him, so that the work of God might seem to be undone by the serpent’s cunning, the established order is restored through God’s sentence, so that the woman returns, humbled before the man, to the subjection of her condition, as had been ordained, and what is added to her is added as a penalty, when she hears: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning; in sadness you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.”\n\nHad it been decreed otherwise than that the woman would be subject to the man’s dominion? Hence, therefore, it appears that the woman was recalled to what she had been made, with an addition. Whence it says: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning.” What does it fill? It adds to what is less, it does not seem to operate on what does not exist. Here, therefore, the sentence which had previously gone forth: “Increase and multiply,” does not begin for the purpose of creating, but for the destruction of the creature which had been granted. To the woman, pain is added for bearing children, difficulty is imposed; a new form of procreation is not composed. For if from this generation is rightly hoped for, it can be understood that generation arose more by the will of the serpent than by the Lord’s, and it is truly, as he says, a brood of vipers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":496,"ref":"p496","source":"si quis autem se existimat ita natum, quid mereatur, aduertat, ut propter peccatum amplificaretur ei dolor e partu, ut quae modicum doloris habitura erat filiorum, cresceret ei causa delicti, quia et cum gemitu et maerore pariuntur, nati autem sine tristitia non habentur.\n\nNunc tertio promitur in uirum sententia talis: quoniam audisti, inquit, uocem mulieris tuae et edisti de ligno, de quo praeceperam tibi ne ederes, ex eo edisti, maledicta terra in operibus tuis et in maeroribus tuis edes ex ea omnibus diebus uitae tuae: spinas et tribulos generabit tibi, et cetera. etiam hic, id est Adam, ad hoc reuocatur, ad quod fuerat factus, sed cum detrimento. ante enim positus erat ut operaretur terram simpliciter, ut sequeretur eum laboris effectus; adubi autem spreuit praecep. tum dei melius sibi procurari credens consilio serpentis quam fecerat deus, ad institutum pristinum reuocaretur cum laboiis dispendio, ut terra ei secundum laborem minime responderet maledicta non sibi, sed operibus eius, et ostenderetur propositum dei subuerti non posse neque melius posse quemquam prouidere quam deum. nemo enim potest alterius opus plus diligere, quam ipse qui fecit, dicente apostolo, quia nemo, inquit, carnem suam odio habet, sed nutrit et fouet eam, sicut et Christus ecclesiam.","english":"If, however, anyone thinks himself so born, let him note what he deserves, that on account of sin the pain of childbirth was increased for her, so that she, who was to have had little pain in bearing children, would have the cause of her fault increased, because children are born with groaning and sorrow, and once born, they are not had without sadness.\n\nNow for the third time a sentence of this kind is brought forth against the man: \"Because,\" it says, \"you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree from which I had commanded you not to eat, from that you have eaten; the earth is cursed in your works, and in your sorrows you will eat from it all the days of your life: it will produce thorns and thistles for you,\" and so on. Here too, that is, Adam, he is recalled to that for which he had been made, but with detriment. For before, he had been placed to work the earth simply, so that the result of his labor would follow him; but when he spurned the command of God, believing that he was procuring better for himself by the counsel of the serpent than God had made, he was recalled to his original state with the loss of his labors, so that the earth would not respond to him according to his labor—cursed not to itself, but to his works—and it would be shown that the plan of God cannot be overturned, nor can anyone provide for himself better than God. For no one can love another's work more than the one who made it, as the apostle says: \"Because no one,\" he says, \"hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the Church.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":497,"ref":"p497","source":"Uideamus nunc sequentia legis, an concordent cum initiis eius. Abraham cum placuisset deo, inter cetera, quae ad remunerationem fidei eius pertinent, cum senior esset, etiam filium generare dignus est iudicatus. quo modo ergo accusari potest quod pro merito cessisse uidetur, ut, quia ipse dei uoluntatem fecerat, deus uoluntatem eius impleret? quae minime fuisset impleta, nisi innoxia esset, nec deus impleret. quod male uel inperite posci uidebat, maxime ab eo, qui sibi placeret; hoc enim nec homini conuenit. et Anna, cum sterilis esset et deum diligeret, petit ut haberet filium et accepit. quod si contrarium esset, moneri potuit ab eo quem diligebat, ne rem postularet aduersam. et natus ex ea sanctissimus Samuhel filios genuit et non tamen iustitiae suae merita minuit. prima enim aetate sua semper auctus est, ut in senectute propensiori dei testimonio commendetur. et Zacharias sacerdos, uir iustus, in senectute sua dei nutu filium genuit, quo nato meruit profetare. qua igitur ratione accusatur quod minime obesse probatur? et quis neget bonum debere dici quod neminem laedit?","english":"Let us now examine the subsequent parts of the law, whether they agree with its beginnings. When Abraham had pleased God, among other things pertaining to the reward of his faith, although he was advanced in age, he was judged worthy even to beget a son. How, then, can it be accused of something that seems to have yielded as a reward, so that, because he himself had done God’s will, God would fulfill his will? This would by no means have been fulfilled unless it were blameless, nor would God fulfill it if he saw that what was asked was evil or foolish, especially by one who pleased him; for this would not befit even a man. And Anna, when she was barren and loved God, asked to have a son and received him. But if this were contrary, she could have been warned by the one she loved not to request an adverse thing. And the most holy Samuel, born of her, begot sons and yet did not diminish the merits of his righteousness. For from his earliest age he always increased, so that in his more advanced old age he is commended by the testimony of God. And Zacharias the priest, a just man, in his old age begot a son by God’s will, and by his birth he merited to prophesy. By what reasoning, then, is something accused that is proven to do no harm? And who would deny that what harms no one should be called good?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":498,"ref":"p498","source":"Et ut hoc loco aliquid de apostolis dicatur, ad robur pertinet causae. certe sanctus Iohannes sanctimonii fuit custos; condiscipulus autem eius adaeque sanctus Petrus uxorem et filios habuisse cognoscitur et, primatum ut acciperet inter apostolos, non ei obstitit generatio filiorum. quo modo ergo condemnandum putatur quod non inpedit meritis?\n\nHinc apostolus eum qui uxorem habeat, si in ceteris seruet mandata, sacerdotem fieri posse ac debere ostendit. quod si inlicitum esset, non poterat utique peccatorem dicere debere fieri sacerdotem. et quid tam apertum? eiusdem enim apostoli uox est dicentis: de uirginibus imperium domini non habeo. cum enim Corinthii exagitarentur ab hereticis. qui in hypocrisi nuptias damnandas docebant, consuluerunt apostolum litteris, an liceret nubere aut uxorem remittere. tunc praecepit apostolus non debere uxorem a uiro recedere, cum habuerit occasionem dicendi, si scisset sic docendum, non licere nubere quoquo modo uirum. quod sibi sciit non traditum, docere se non posse ostendit. quis ergo audeat discipulorum docere quod a magistro traditum non est et quem audiat praedicantem: uolo adulescentas nubere, filios procreare?","english":"And so that something may be said here about the apostles, it pertains to the strength of the case. Certainly, the holy John was a guardian of chastity; but his fellow disciple, the equally holy Peter, is known to have had a wife and children, and when he was to receive the primacy among the apostles, the begetting of children did not hinder him. How, then, is what did not impede merits thought to be condemned?\n\nHence the apostle shows that one who has a wife, if he keeps the commandments in other respects, can and ought to become a priest. For if it were unlawful, he certainly could not say that a sinner ought to become a priest. And what is so clear? For it is the voice of the same apostle saying: \"I have no command from the Lord concerning virgins.\" For when the Corinthians were being agitated by heretics who taught in hypocrisy that marriage was to be condemned, they consulted the apostle by letter, asking whether it was lawful to marry or to dismiss a wife. Then the apostle commanded that a wife should not leave her husband, when he had the opportunity to say, if he knew that such teaching was to be given, that it was not lawful for a man to marry in any way. He shows that he cannot teach what he knows was not handed down to him. Who, then, among the disciples dares to teach what was not handed down by the master, and whom does he hear preaching: \"I want young women to marry, to bear children\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":499,"ref":"p499","source":"Sed forte dicatur: (si licet et bonum est nubere, cur sacerdotibus non licet uxores habere, id est, ut ordinatis iam non liceat conuenire?' quis nesciat unum quemque pro persona et dignitate sua et legem habere? est enim quod omnino generaliter omnibus non liceat; est iterum quod aliis licet et aliis non licet; et est quod aliquando licet, aliquando uero non liceret. fornicari omnibus semper non licet; negotiari uero aliquando licet et aliquando non licet. antequam enim ecclesiasticus quis sit, licet ei negotiari; facto iam non licet. et Christiano cum uxore sua conuenire aliquando licet, aliquando uero non licet. propter dies enim processionis aliquando non licet conuenire, quia etiam a licitis abstinendum est, ut facilius impetrari possit quod postulatur. unde apostolus: ex consensu ait abstinendum ad tempus, ut uacetis orationi. nam et secundum legem in ieiunio caedi et iurgari non licet, postea licet, quia maior reuerentia debetur dei causis.","english":"But perhaps it will be said: 'If it is permitted and good to marry, why is it not permitted for priests to have wives, that is, that it is no longer permitted for those who have been ordained to have intercourse?' Who does not know that each one, according to his person and dignity, has a law? For there is that which is not permitted to all generally at all; there is again that which is permitted to some and not permitted to others; and there is that which is permitted at one time, but at another time is not permitted. To fornicate is never permitted to all; but to engage in business is sometimes permitted and sometimes not. For before one becomes a cleric, it is permitted to him to engage in business; once he has become one, it is no longer permitted. And for a Christian to have intercourse with his wife is sometimes permitted, but at other times it is not permitted. For on account of the days of procession, it is sometimes not permitted to have intercourse, because one must also abstain from lawful things, so that what is sought may be more easily obtained. Hence the Apostle says: by mutual consent, one should abstain for a time, so that you may be free for prayer. For also according to the law, on a fast day it is not permitted to strike or quarrel; afterwards it is permitted, because greater reverence is owed to the causes of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":500,"ref":"p500","source":"Numquid omne, quod inter ceteros licet, ante imperatorem licet? quanto magis in dei causis! ac per hoc antestitem eius puriorem ceteris esse oportet; ipsius enim personam habere uidetur. est enim uicarius eius, ut quod ceteris licet illi non liceat, quia necesse habet cotidie Christi uicem agere aut orare pro populo aut offerre aut tinguere. et non solum huic non licet, uerum et ministro eius, quia et ipse mundior debet esse, quia sancta sunt quae ministrat. nam sicut ad conparationem lucernae tenebrae non tantum obscurae, sed et sordidae sunt, ad conparationem autem stellarum lucerna caligo est, ad solis uero conparationem stellae nebulosae sunt, ad dei autem claritatem sol nox est, ita quae ad nos licita et munda . sunt, ad dei autem dignitatem quasi inlicita et inmunda sunt; quamquam enim bona sint, dei tamen personae non conpetunt. numquid non tunica mediocris hominis, quamuis munda, imperatori tamen sordida et inlicita est? similiter et saxonicia senatori P ac per hoc antestites dei puriores esse debent quam ceteri, quia et Christi habent personam et ministros dei mundiores esse oportet. nemo enim imperatori ministrat non accuratus; igitur uestibus claris mundis induti ministrant: deus autem quia natura clarissimus est, ministros eius natura magis quam uestibus mundos esse oportet.","english":"Is everything that is permitted among others permitted before the emperor? How much more so in matters concerning God! And for this reason, his representative ought to be purer than the rest; for he seems to hold his person. For he is his vicar, so that what is permitted to others is not permitted to him, because he has the necessity daily to act in Christ’s stead, either to pray for the people, or to offer, or to baptize. And not only is this not permitted to him, but also to his minister, because he too ought to be purer, since the things he administers are holy. For just as, in comparison to a lamp, shadows are not only dark but also foul, but in comparison to the stars, a lamp is gloom, and in comparison to the sun, the stars are cloudy, and in comparison to the brightness of God, the sun is night, so those things which are permitted and pure for us are, in relation to the dignity of God, as it were unlawful and impure; for although they are good, they are not fitting for the person of God. Is not a common man’s tunic, though clean, nevertheless foul and unlawful for the emperor? Similarly, a Saxon garment for a senator. And for this reason, the representatives of God ought to be purer than the rest, because they hold the person of Christ, and the ministers of God ought to be purer. For no one ministers to the emperor who is not well-groomed; therefore they minister clothed in bright, clean garments. But God, because he is brightest by nature, his ministers ought to be pure by nature rather than by garments.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":501,"ref":"p501","source":"QVAESTIONES [SANCTI AUGUSTINI] DE UETERI ET NOUO TESTAMENTO.\n\nI huius recensionis = I recensionis quaestionum numero CXXVII.\n\nII. ADUERSUM EOS QVI NEGANT AD DEUM ALIQVID PERTINERE.\n\nMultis, quos saecularis ista caecauit, plurimum displicemus, si solliciti dei praecepta seruemus, si occasiones delinquendi fugiamus, si bona omnia salutari studio implere conemur, si inlecebrarum uitiorumque blandimenta seductoria neglegamus, si nulla nos saeculari dulcedine capi patiamur, si sponte pro dei nomine cruciatus poenasque subeamus, si mortem ipsam uirtute spiritus contemnamus, illis nimirum, quibus omne quod geritur sensus iste mortalis nec laude nec uituperatione dignum esse persuasit. nolunt enim ad deum horum aliquid pertinere.\n\nNonnulli adeo scelera sua criminaque defendere cupientes: 'nihil', inquiunt, 'prodest, bene an male uiuas. neque enim ista nunc deo cura est, ut te diuersa pro instituto proprio morboque gerentem sollicite festinet aspicere et foedis aliquando tuis actibus oculos permiscere. uana sunt omnia, quae ut libitum fuerit celebrantur. is qui ad deum pertinet secretus est et remotus ab istis rebus humanis et ideo nec irascitur nec mouetur.","english":"Many, whom this worldly blindness has darkened, greatly disapprove of us if we diligently keep God's commandments, if we flee occasions for sinning, if we strive to fulfill all good things with salutary zeal, if we neglect the seductive allurements of vices and pleasures, if we allow ourselves to be captivated by no worldly sweetness, if we voluntarily undergo torments and punishments for the name of God, if we despise death itself by the strength of the spirit—to them, evidently, for whom this mortal sense has persuaded that nothing which is done is worthy of either praise or blame. For they do not wish any of these things to pertain to God.\n\nSome, indeed, desiring to defend their own crimes and offenses, say: 'It profits nothing whether you live well or badly. For God has no such care now as to anxiously hasten to look upon you, conducting yourself variously according to your own disposition and sickness, and sometimes to mingle his eyes with your foul deeds. All things are vain, which are celebrated as one pleases. He who pertains to God is secret and remote from these human affairs, and therefore neither becomes angry nor is moved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":502,"ref":"p502","source":"nulla illi humanarum rerum, nulla nostri actus est contemplatio; totus rotati saeculi cursus et quaedam mundani orbis inexplicabilis uolutatio ita correptum rapit et proicit, ut stultus credatur quisquis se ad curam dei reuocari posse putarit. nec martyrum quidem probandus est animus, qui deum suum, quem misericordem esse pronuntiant, effusione sui sanguinis aestimant delectari. nihil deo carum in nobis, nihil est odiosum; nulla mortis nostrae condicione, nulla sanitatis integritate laetatur nec quid ubi geratur scire desiderat, non quod inpossibile sit diuinae maiestati omnium fere quae gesta sunt uel geruntur habere notitiam, sed quod scire nolit miserias hominum uanitatesque mundanas. sic denique scriptum est: uanitas uanitantium, uniuersa uanitas.'\n\nQuorum sententia desperatione firmata ut diuini sensus auctoritate dissoluitur, sic ipsorum sacro sermone uulgari, qui maximus habetur in usu, conuincitur expugnata. nam cum inter negotia diuersorumque contractus fides perfidiaque contendunt. ut testis diuinitas adhibetur, quae aliquando quid agamus scire negatur. 'testis est', inquiunt, (deus: deus uideat, deus iudicet, deus faciat, deus reddat.) et cum ad necessitatem iuris iurandi uenitur et iurantis animus metuit, ne sibi aliquid obueniat peieranti, et iusiurandum exigit, reddi ei posse confidit, qui sibi male iurarit.","english":"He has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our actions; the whole course of the revolving age and a certain inexplicable whirling of the world seizes and hurls him so that anyone who thinks he can be recalled to the care of God is considered a fool. Nor is the spirit of the martyrs even to be approved, who think that their God, whom they proclaim to be merciful, is delighted by the shedding of their own blood. Nothing in us is dear to God, nothing is hateful; He takes no joy in any condition of our death, nor in any soundness of health, nor does He desire to know what happens where, not because it is impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of nearly all things that have been done or are being done, but because He does not wish to know the miseries of men and the vanities of the world. Thus it is finally written: 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.'\n\nTheir opinion, fortified by despair, is dissolved by the authority of divine sense as it is, and is refuted and overcome by their own common speech, which is held to be of the greatest use. For when, amid business and the contracts of different parties, faith and perfidy contend, the divinity is called as a witness, which at other times is said not to know what we do. 'God is witness,' they say, 'God sees, God judges, God acts, God repays.' And when it comes to the necessity of an oath, and the mind of the one swearing fears lest something befall him for perjuring himself, and he demands an oath, he trusts that it can be rendered to him who has sworn falsely.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":503,"ref":"p503","source":"et cum sanitas exoptata et bona ualitudo fuerit consecuta, diuinitati gratiae referuntur; et cum aliqua decidente materia casu proximus inlaesus euaserit, deus bonus dicitur praestitisse; et cum aduerso uentorum flatu commoti aequoris fluctus insurgunt et nauis undique caesa quassatur, nauigantium turbae ad caelum manus extendunt, deum supplici uoce deprecantur et exaudiri se et liberari posse confidunt. unde haec, si deo nulla nostri est cura et quod agimus ignorat?\n\nInanis est igitur ista persuasio: omnia deo sunt cognita. nullus sibi de inpunitate commissorum scelerum blandiatur. bonae uitae maximus fructus est, malae perpetua poena aeternusque cruciatus. igitur nobis, qui deum scire omnia credimus, qui deuote ad martyrium festinamus, inaestimabilis fructus perpetua uita praestabitur; impiis uero, qui deum crimina sua scelerumque nescire docuerunt arcana, ignis flamma consumens incendiumque semper indeficiens ministrabitur.","english":"And when the longed-for health and good condition have been obtained, thanks are given to the divinity; and when, by some chance falling matter, a neighbor escapes unharmed, God is said to have been good and to have provided it; and when, by an adverse blast of winds, the waves of the stirred-up sea rise and the ship is battered and shaken on all sides, the crowds of sailors stretch their hands to the sky, beseech God with suppliant voice, and trust that they can be heard and delivered. Whence these things, if God has no care for us and does not know what we do?\n\nTherefore this persuasion is empty: all things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself about impunity for committed crimes. The greatest fruit of a good life is, of a bad one, perpetual punishment and eternal torment. Therefore to us, who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly hasten to martyrdom, an inestimable fruit, eternal life, will be granted; but to the impious, who have taught that God is ignorant of their crimes and the secrets of their wickedness, a consuming flame of fire and an ever-unfailing conflagration will be administered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":504,"ref":"p504","source":"III.\n\nIII—XII = II-XI.\n\nXIII.\n\nXIII = XXXV\n\nXIIII.\n\nXIIII-XXXVI = XII-XXXIIII\n\nXXXVII. CUR DEUS DIXIT: 'NON PERMANEBIT SPIRITUS MEUS IN HOMINIBUS ISTIS, QVIA SUNT CARO, ET ERUNT ANNI ILLORUM CENTUM UIGINTI'?\n\nCum gigantes essent illis diebus super terram pestiferi et superbi, a magnitudinis statura elati, post desideria carnis euntes, nati apostatae, tunc, cum displiceret deo, promisit genus hominum diluuio deleturum et tempus statuit, ut, si quis forte audita ira dei et indignatione super hoc uellet se corrigere, haberet spatium emendandi se. denique centum annis arca hac ratione uidetur fabricata. ante arcae autem inchoationem uiginti anni fuisse perhibentur.\n\nSed narratio istud, quod postquam de numero annorum Noe dixit subiecit, obscurare uidetur. nam haec sententia, antequam quingentorum annorum esset Noe, dinoscitur lata. quid enim dicit? non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis. propterea et subiecit, quia malitia increuit super terram: deleam hominem a facie terrae usque adpecus, quod utique diluuio facto impletum est nam et post diluuium multis annis homines uixisse meminimus et Aaron frater Moysi centum uiginti III annis uixisse memoratur. ipse autem Moyses ut centum uiginti annos transire non posset, fecit quod deum in contradictione aquae non clarificauit. nam intraturus erat terram promissionis, si non obstitisset peccatum.","english":"III.\n\nIII–XII = II–XI.\n\nXIII.\n\nXIII = XXXV.\n\nXIIII.\n\nXIIII–XXXVI = XII–XXXIIII.\n\nXXXVII. WHY DID GOD SAY: 'MY SPIRIT WILL NOT REMAIN IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH, AND THEIR YEARS WILL BE ONE HUNDRED TWENTY'?\n\nWhen giants were upon the earth in those days, pestilent and proud, puffed up by the stature of their size, pursuing the desires of the flesh, born apostates, then, when they displeased God, He promised that He would destroy the race of men by a flood and set a time, so that if anyone, having heard the anger and indignation of God concerning this, should wish to correct himself, he would have space to amend himself. Finally, the ark seems to have been built for this reason over a hundred years. But before the beginning of the ark, twenty years are reported to have passed.\n\nBut the narrative seems to obscure this, because after it spoke of the number of Noah's years, it subjoined this. For this sentence is known to have been pronounced before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say? 'My spirit will not remain in these men.' And for this reason it also subjoined, because wickedness had increased upon the earth: 'I will destroy man from the face of the earth to the beasts,' which was certainly fulfilled by the flood. For we remember that after the flood men lived for many years, and Aaron, the brother of Moses, is recorded to have lived one hundred twenty-three years. But Moses himself, so that he could not pass one hundred twenty years, did what he did because he did not glorify God in the contradiction of the water. For he was about to enter the promised land, if sin had not stood in the way.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":505,"ref":"p505","source":"uidetur enim quibusdam hoc dictum ad tempus Moysi pertinere, cum inueniatur Ioiadae sacerdos centum triginta annos uixisse.\n\nXXXVIII. QVID CONTINEAT BENEDICTIO IACOB, QVAM DEDIT.\n\nNon solum ex praesentibus causis futun unius cuiusque tribus praedixit, sed et de futuris futura, quorum adhuc umbra non erat, in populo Iudaico significauit. quales enim futurae essent singulae tribus moribus, fide, disciplina, luxuria, petulantia, contemptu fidei, ut, cum de uno erant, non tamen unum seruarent, ostendit. aliqui enim profecerunt in melius, alii deteriorauerunt, alii permanserunt, ut per hoc non sibi praerogatiuam generis uindicarent, cum ab eo ipso praedictum esset quosdam ex his, qui utique ex eius essent origine, reprobos futuros, immo multos perituros, ita ut alii significarentur subintrare, qui ad eorum dedecus et damnationem insererentur in naturam, ex qua illi exciderunt. promiscuum ergo populum in omnibus tribubus futurum declarauit, qua uarietate tam boni sed pauci, quam mali sed multi intellegerentur. et quamuis sceptrum dederit Ioseph filio suo ad tempus, ludam tamen praefecit omnibus, non quod omnes ex Iuda idonei essent futuri, sed quia saluator, qui uere rex est, ex ea tribu oriundus erat secundum carnem.","english":"It seems to some that this was said with reference to the time of Moses, since the priest Jehoiada is found to have lived one hundred and thirty years.\n\nXXXVIII. WHAT THE BLESSING OF JACOB, WHICH HE GAVE, CONTAINS.\n\nNot only from present causes did he foretell the future of each individual tribe, but he also signified future things from future things, of which there was not yet even a shadow, within the Jewish people. For he showed what each tribe would be like in the future in character, faith, discipline, luxury, petulance, and contempt for the faith, so that, although they were from one, they would not, however, preserve unity. For some advanced for the better, others deteriorated, others remained as they were, so that by this they would not claim a prerogative of lineage for themselves, since it had been predicted by him that some of these, who were certainly from his origin, would be reprobate—indeed, that many would perish—so that others would be signified as entering in, who would be inserted into the nature, to their disgrace and damnation, from which those others had fallen. Therefore, he declared that a mixed people would be future in all tribes, by which variety both the good, though few, and the evil, though many, would be understood. And although he gave the scepter to his son Joseph for a time, he nevertheless set Judah over all, not because all from Judah would be suitable in the future, but because the Savior, who is the true king, was to be born from that tribe according to the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":506,"ref":"p506","source":"XXXVIIII.\n\nXXXVIIII = XLII\n\nXL. NON FUIT ALIUD SIGNUM QVOD FIERET A MOVSE PALAM PHARAONI NISI SERPENS?\n\nQui hoc reprehensibile putat, dicat quid aliud fieri debueri t nam utique serpentem fecit, qui et terrorem incuteret, non tamen obesset, per id quod stupore quodam ad nocendum tardior est. si enim leonem fecisset aut ursum aut aliud tale, quo modo euaderent qui aderant? nec enim occidere uoluit quemquam, sed solum timorem ponere et ostendere uirtutem, ut, quia prima praeuaricatio per serpentem coepit, similiter et recordatio cognitionis dei et morum emendatio serpentis signo proueniret, ut, quo modo peccatum est, sic et emendaretur, sicut et per mulierem peccatum factum per mulierem sublatum est, Mariam scilicet matrem domini, ex qua Christus natus damnauit peccatum. Eua uirgo adhuc praeuaricauit, sicut et Maria uirgo erat. hoc ergo modo ad statum pristinum reuocata sunt quae perierant, quia et regnum per ligni gustum amissum erat et iterum per lignum quaesitum est. dominus enim, ait, regnauit a ligno. simili modo et mundus, in quo factus est, in eo et reformatus est, id est in principio mensis primi, quod est pascha. nulla ergo mala erit natura nisi sola praeuaricatio, quando peccatum per id emendatum est, per quod et admissum est.","english":"XXXIX.\n\nXXXIX = XLII\n\nXL. WAS THERE NO OTHER SIGN THAT MOSES COULD HAVE PERFORMED BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT?\n\nWhoever thinks this blameworthy should say what else ought to have been done. For he certainly made a serpent, which would inspire terror yet not cause harm, because by a certain stupor it is slower to injure. For if he had made a lion or a bear or some such thing, how would those present have escaped? He did not wish to kill anyone, but only to instill fear and display power, so that, just as the first transgression began through the serpent, so likewise the recollection of the knowledge of God and the correction of morals might come about through the sign of the serpent, so that, as sin was committed, so it might be amended, just as sin committed through a woman was removed through a woman, namely Mary the mother of the Lord, through whom Christ born condemned sin. Eve, still a virgin, transgressed, just as Mary was a virgin. In this way, therefore, things that had been lost were restored to their former state, because the kingdom had been lost through the tasting of wood and was sought again through wood. For the Lord, it says, reigned from the wood. In like manner, the world, in which it was made, was also reformed in it, that is, at the beginning of the first month, which is Passover. Therefore, no nature will be evil except transgression alone, when sin is amended through that by which it was also committed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":507,"ref":"p507","source":"XLI. QVID EST QVOD IN PSALMO: TIOMINES,' INQVIT, ET IUMENTA SALUOS FACIES' ET AD IONAM PROPHETAM: 'NON PARCAM,' AIT, 'CIUITATI IN QVA HABITANT CXX MILIA HOMINUM ET PECORA MULTA', CONTRA AUTEM APOSTOLUS: NUMQUID,) AIT, CDE BOBUS CURA EST DEO?'\n\nQuantum ad uerba pertinet, uidetur contrarium; si causa autem hominis et pecorum inspiciatur, manifestabitur esse non dispar. omnium curam gerit deus quasi omnium opifex, sed non seruat pecora propter ipsa, sed propter homines seruat pecora, non homines propter pecora. itaque qui hominum curam gerit, custodit pecora, ut non illi cura sit de bobus, sed de hominibus. quae enim spes in pecoribus?\n\nXLII. SI ADAM FACTUS A DEO ET ANIMATUS SPIRITUM SANCTUM ACCEPIT, QVIA SCRIPTUM EST: 'INSPIRAUIT DEUS IN FACIEM EIUS SPIRITUM UITAE'?\n\nNon erat ordinis ut acciperet spiritum sanctum, quia hoc in posterum . reseruatum est a deo, ut in nouissimis diebus, cum mysterium unius dei manifestatum est, daretur credentibus. a principio quidem praedicata est trinitas, sed quasi sub uelamine erat intellegentia eius. dei enim patris primum persona sine cunctatione et figura praedicata et manifestata est, quia ab ipso sunt. omnia. filii autem eius, domini nostri Iesu Christi, et spiritus sancti personae non tacebantur, sed neque manifestabantur. denique de domino fit a perfidis quaestio et de spiritu sancto.","english":"XLI. What is the meaning of the Psalm verse: \"You will save men and beasts,\" and of the verse to the prophet Jonah: \"I will not spare the city in which one hundred twenty thousand men and many cattle dwell,\" but on the other hand the Apostle says: \"Is God concerned about oxen?\"\n\nAs far as the words are concerned, it seems contradictory; but if the cause of man and of cattle is examined, it will be shown not to be dissimilar. God cares for all things as the maker of all, but He does not preserve cattle for their own sake, but preserves cattle for the sake of men, not men for the sake of cattle. Therefore, He who cares for men preserves cattle, so that it is not that He is concerned about oxen, but about men. For what hope is there in cattle?\n\nXLII. IF ADAM WAS MADE BY GOD AND ANIMATED, DID HE RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN: \"GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE SPIRIT OF LIFE\"?\n\nIt was not in the order of things that he should receive the Holy Spirit, because this was reserved by God for a later time, so that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God was revealed, it would be given to believers. From the beginning, the Trinity was indeed proclaimed, but its understanding was, as it were, under a veil. For the person of God the Father was first proclaimed and manifested without hesitation and without figure, because all things are from Him. But the persons of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not kept silent, but neither were they manifested. Finally, a question arises from the faithless concerning the Lord and concerning the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":508,"ref":"p508","source":"quidam enim dementes spiritum sanctum ipsum patrem dicunt, sicut et Sabellius ipsum dicit patrem quem et filium. de dei autem patris persona nemo dubitat.\n\nCum ergo trinitatis fit manifestatio, tunc demum spiritus sanctus datur credentibus, ut et persona eius manifesta sit et accipientes illum signum habeant, quia filii dei sunt, per id quod spiritum dei, qui de deo utique est, habent in se. perfectionis enim significatio haec est, cum scitur et pater esse et filius et spiritus sanctus. haec perfectio hoc tribuit donum. adueniens enim filius dei et haec adaperiens ac manifestans plus aliquid debuit dare et dignum fuit tribuere perfectionem hanc credentibus, quia nec in filio nec in patre solo perfectio est uel salus, sed in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. unde dicit Iohannes euangelista, quia de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, gratiam pro gratia, quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia autem et ueritas per legum Christum facta est.","english":"For some madmen say that the Holy Spirit is the Father himself, just as Sabellius says that the Father and the Son are the same person. But no one doubts the person of God the Father.\n\nTherefore, when the Trinity is manifested, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that both His person may be made manifest and those who receive Him may have a sign that they are sons of God, by virtue of the fact that they have within them the Spirit of God, who is certainly from God. For this is the meaning of perfection: when it is known that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. This perfection bestows this gift. For the Son of God, coming and revealing and manifesting these things, had to give something more, and it was fitting to bestow this perfection upon believers, because perfection or salvation is found neither in the Son alone nor in the Father alone, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Hence the evangelist John says that we have all received from His fullness, grace for grace, because the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were brought about through Jesus Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":509,"ref":"p509","source":"Apertum est adueniente saluatore plenitudinem factam ueritatis, quae enim latebant et quod promissum est dum reuelatur et manifestatur, plenitudo fit ueritatis. tunc credentes accepto spiritu sancto fiunt filii dei. nam inspiratio, quae legitur facta a deo in Adam, animae traditio est. spiritus enim frequenter pro anima ponitur dicente euangelio inter cetera: et reuersus est, inquit, spiritus eius ad illam et in psalmo: spiritum, ait, contribulatum et cor contritum deus non spernit. frequenter tamen aliqui codices non sic habent: et inspirauit deus, sed: insufflauit deus in faciem eius spiritum uitae et factus est homo in animam uiuentem. non quia dixit: spiritum uitae, ideo spiritum sanctum significauit; nam et de animalibus ita ait: in quibus erat spiritus uitae. spiritus uitae dicitur, quia animat corpora ad uitam.\n\nXLIII.\n\nXLIII = XXXVI","english":"It became clear upon the coming of the Savior that a fullness of truth had been made; for what was hidden and what was promised, while it is revealed and made manifest, becomes a fullness of truth. Then believers, having received the Holy Spirit, become sons of God. For the inspiration which is read to have been made by God in Adam is a transmission of the soul. For \"spirit\" is frequently put for \"soul,\" as the Gospel says among other things: \"And his spirit returned to her,\" it says, and in the Psalm: \"A troubled spirit,\" it says, \"and a contrite heart God does not despise.\" Yet frequently some manuscripts do not have it thus: \"And God inspired,\" but: \"God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made a living soul.\" Not because it said \"breath of life\" did it signify the Holy Spirit; for concerning animals it also says thus: \"in which there was the breath of life.\" \"Breath of life\" is said because it animates bodies to life.\n\nXLIII.\n\nXLIII = XXXVI","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":510,"ref":"p510","source":"XLIIII.\n\nXLIIII = XXXVII\n\nXLV. 'IN SOLE', INQVIT, 'POSUIT TABERNACULUM SUUM,' ID EST CORPUS SUUM, IN QVO HABITAUIT CHRISTUS, QVIA A PILATO FLAGELLIS CAESUS EST: QVO MODO ERGO IN PSALMO DE CHRISTO: 'FLAGELLUM NON APPROPINQVABIT TABERNACULO TUO', QVIPPE CUM TEMPLUM CORPUS SUUM DIXERIT?\n\nEt filii hominis et dei filii corpus templum esse intellegitur. deus tamen, id est dei filius, quamuis in carne uenerit, in anima tamen habitauit, ergo tam anima quam corpus tabernaculum est filii dei, licet unus sit deus et homo filius dei et filius hominis. ergo ex hac parte flagellum non appropinquasse dicitur tabernaculo eius, id est, anima eius, in qua habitat diuinitas eius, inmunis fuit a poena inferni uel principum eius. ne, quia hic quasi peccator, cum sit innocens, crucifixus est et passa est caro aliquid maestitiae, apud inferos anima eius putaretur, ostendit scriptura non potuisse animam eius turbari apud inferos, quia ad hoc descendit, hoc est pati se permisit, ut confunderet tenebras et principes earum remitteret hebetes. unde et ipse dominus ait: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. permissa est enim, quod naturae suae erat, ut tristaretur, tropaea protinus referens et spolia eorum, a quibus contristata fuerat usque ad mortem, post mortem iam in aeterno gaudio constituta. potest et de toto homine intellegi, quia qui peccatum nesciit a lege flagellari non potuit.","english":"XLIIII.\n\nXLIIII = XXXVII\n\nXLV. \"He placed his tabernacle in the sun,\" he says, that is, his body, in which Christ dwelt, because he was beaten with whips by Pilate. How then is it in the Psalm concerning Christ: \"The whip will not approach your tabernacle,\" especially since he called his body a temple?\n\nThe body of the Son of Man and the Son of God is understood to be a temple. Yet God, that is, the Son of God, although he came in the flesh, dwelt in the soul; therefore both the soul and the body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, although the Son of God and the Son of Man is one God and one man. Hence from this aspect it is said that the whip did not approach his tabernacle, that is, his soul, in which his divinity dwells, was immune from the punishment of hell or its princes. Lest, because here, as if a sinner, though innocent, he was crucified and the flesh suffered, his soul might be thought to have experienced some sorrow among the dead, the Scripture shows that his soul could not be troubled among the dead, because he descended for this purpose, that is, he allowed himself to suffer, in order to confound the darkness and render its princes powerless. Whence the Lord himself says: \"My soul is sad unto death.\" For it was permitted, as was natural to it, that it be saddened, immediately bearing trophies and spoils from those by whom it had been saddened unto death, after death being established in eternal joy. This can also be understood of the whole man, because one who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":511,"ref":"p511","source":"XLVI. CUR ADAM IN MUNDO POSITUS MANDATUM ACCEPIT UEL LEGEM, CUM IPSE DOMINIUM CETERORUM HABERET?.\n\nQuamuis dominus in mundo positus sit Adam, tamen quia non utique ex se, sed a deo accepit, debuit huius rei significationem ex lege accipere, ut ipse, qui dominus uidetur, per legem ei subiectus esset, qui illi hanc dederat potestatem, ut auctoritas creatoris reuerentiam illi faceret per legem, ne dominatio tanta extolleret illum et inmemor fieret dei conditoris sui.\n\nXLVII. UETUS LEX DEUM IURASSE ALLEGAT — SIC ENIM DICIT: TER MEMET IPSUM IURAUI, DICIT DOMINUS' —, SALUATOR AUTEM IURARE PROHIBUIT: QVO MODO NON DESTRUXIT UETERA?\n\nAntequam notitia dei esset in terris, non aliter oportuit prouocare homines ad spem inauditam, quam iure iurando promissio illis fieret, ab eo utique quem non, ut dignum erat, sciebant. adubi autem coepit sciri, non utique iurare oportuit, quem mentiri fas non esset arbitrari. ideo ergo dominus nec seruos iam iurare praecepit, sed tales se instituere, ut sermonibus illorum fides habeatur. sacramentum enim iuris iurandi aut perfidia exigit aut fallacia inconstantis, ut, quia fallere homines solent, timore forte dei reuereantur; aut certe satis erit et qui fallitur, quia ex hoc offensam adquirit.","english":"XLVI. Why did Adam, placed in the world, receive a command or law, when he held dominion over the rest?\n\nAlthough Adam was placed in the world as lord, yet because he did not receive this from himself, but from God, he had to receive the signification of this matter through the law, so that he, who seems to be lord, would be subject through the law to the one who had given him this power, so that the authority of the creator would inspire reverence in him through the law, lest such great dominion exalt him and he become unmindful of God his creator.\n\nXLVII. The Old Law alleges that God swore — for it says thus: \"I swore by myself three times,\" says the Lord — but the Savior forbade swearing: how did he not destroy the old things?\n\nBefore knowledge of God existed on earth, it was necessary to provoke men to unheard-of hope in no other way than by a promise made to them under oath, by him whom they did not know as was fitting. But when he began to be known, it was not fitting for him to swear, whom it would not be right to think could lie. Therefore the Lord also commanded that servants should no longer swear, but should so conduct themselves that faith is placed in their words. For the sacrament of an oath is demanded either by perfidy or by the deceit of the inconstant, so that, because men are accustomed to deceive, they might perhaps be restrained by fear of God; or certainly it will be enough even for the one who is deceived, because from this he incurs offense.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":512,"ref":"p512","source":"XLVIII. CUR IN LEGE ETIAM IPSI AARON DICTUM SIT, UT PRO PECCATIS SUIS HOLOCAUSTA OFFERRET, CUM DICAT DAUID: 'PRO DELICTIS HOLOCAUSTUM NON POSTULASTI' ET IN SUBIECTIS: 'HOLOCAUSTIS NON DELECTABERIS.' QVO MODO OFFERRI PRAECEPIT, QVO NON DELECTATUR?\n\nManifestum est holocaustis deum non delectari, sed pro satisfactione peccati gemitu et dolore cordis ueniam posse mereri. sacrificium autem testimonium peccati uoluit esse, ut se peccator per oblationem sacrificii confiteretur peccasse. remissio autem quo modo obtineretur, ipse alio loco ostendit dicens: frange esurienti panem tuum; si uideris nudum, uesti et domesticos seminis tui non despicies, aut certe: cor contritum et humiliatum deus non spernit. primum ergo confitendum delictum monuit, deinde quo modo ignosci possit ostendit. nam numquam pro manifesto delicto sacrificium mandauit, sed pro ignoratis, quia etiam cum nescit homo peccat et, cum se putat recte agere, intentione quadam delinquit. tale peccatum dixit per sacrificium posse purgari.","english":"XLVIII. Why in the Law was it said even to Aaron himself that he should offer holocausts for his sins, when David says: 'You have not demanded a holocaust for offenses' and in the following: 'You will not take delight in holocausts.' How did he command to be offered what he does not delight in?\n\nIt is manifest that God does not delight in holocausts, but that for the satisfaction of sin, pardon can be merited through groaning and grief of heart. He wished the sacrifice, however, to be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner, through the offering of a sacrifice, would confess that he had sinned. But how pardon might be obtained, he himself shows in another place, saying: Break your bread for the hungry; if you see someone naked, clothe him, and you will not despise the members of your own household; or certainly: A contrite and humbled heart God does not despise. First, therefore, he urged that the offense be confessed; then he showed how forgiveness can be granted. For he never commanded a sacrifice for a manifest offense, but for unknown ones, because even when a man does not know it, he sins, and when he thinks he is acting rightly, he offends in some intention. Such a sin, he said, can be purified through sacrifice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":513,"ref":"p513","source":"XLVIIII. CUR SALOMON SPIRITUM SAPIENTIAE HABUIT, CUM UITAM MUNDAM NON HABUIT? UALDE ENIM MULIERIBUS DELECTABATUR AC PER HOC PECCABAT.\n\nPrimum merito suo accepit spiritum prudentiae, postea uero quam mulieribus nimium coepit uti et per hoc peccare, si habuit spiritum sapientiae, regni merito habuit, sicut et Nabuchodonosor merito regni in camino Christum uidit.\n\nL. IN TOBIA: 'OPERA,' INQVIT, 'DEI REUELARE ET CONFITERI HONORIFICUM EST'; SALUATOR AUTEM OPUS DEI FACIENS: 'NULLI', AIT, 'DIXERIS'.\n\nNon saluator opera dei celare debere dixit - nam alio loco: uade, inquit, et narra quanta tibi fecerit deus -, sed illorum testimonium refutauit aliquando et iactantiam pressit, ne uideretur, quod prudentibus absurdum est, ipse sibi ut seductor testimonium perhibere.\n\nLI. UT QVID CIRCUMCISIO ET PRAECEPTA DATA SUNT POPULO, QVAE PRIUS NON ERANT NEQVE NUNC IN AUCTORITATE HABENTUR?","english":"XLIX. Why did Solomon have the spirit of wisdom, when he did not have a pure life? For he took great delight in women and through this sinned.\n\nFirst, he received the spirit of prudence by his own merit; afterwards, when he began to use women excessively and through this to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by merit of the kingdom, just as Nebuchadnezzar, by merit of the kingdom, saw Christ in the furnace.\n\nL. In Tobit: 'To reveal and confess the works of God is honorable,' he says; but the Savior, doing the work of God, says: 'Tell no one.'\n\nThe Savior did not say that the works of God ought to be concealed—for in another place he says: go, and tell how much God has done for you—but he sometimes rejected their testimony and suppressed their boasting, lest he appear, which is absurd to the prudent, to bear witness for himself as a deceiver.\n\nLI. Why were circumcision and the precepts given to the people, which previously did not exist and are now not held in authority?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":514,"ref":"p514","source":"Circumcisio signum est fidei Abrahae, ut, cum in filiis eius hoc signum uideretur, scirentur eius filii esse, qui deo credens hoc signum acceperat; praecepta autem sabbatorum et praeteritorum testimonio data sunt et futurorum quae haberent figuram. futuri enim sabbati, quod in aeternis dabit requiem, figura est hoc sabbatum, quod in hebdomadam impletam factum est; escarum autem lex non in primordio legis data est, sed cum duce perfidia dei uerbis et promissis fidem nollent dare, ad duritiam cordis sui acceperunt praecepta non bona, sicut dicit propheta Hieremias. id enim actum est, ut ceruix eorum premeretur ad profectum illorum —- superbis enim hominibus et contumacibus non debuit tota creatura subici —, postea autem misericordia dei ueniente reddita est libertas edendi, unde dicit Petrus apostolus: quid inponitis iugum super ceruicem fratrum, quod neque nos neque patres nostri potuimus portare?","english":"Circumcision is a sign of Abraham’s faith, so that when this sign was seen in his sons, they would be known to be his sons, who, believing in God, had received this sign. But the precepts of the sabbaths were given both as a testimony of past things and as a figure of future things. For the future sabbath, which will give rest in eternity, is figured by this sabbath, which was instituted on the completion of the week. Moreover, the law concerning foods was not given at the beginning of the law, but when, under a leader, their faithlessness refused to give credence to God’s words and promises, they received, on account of the hardness of their heart, precepts that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says. For this was done so that their neck might be bowed down for their own improvement—for proud and stubborn men ought not to have the whole of creation subjected to them—but afterwards, with the coming of God’s mercy, freedom of eating was restored, whence the apostle Peter says: “Why do you impose a yoke upon the neck of brothers, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":515,"ref":"p515","source":"LII.\n\nLII = XXXVIII\n\nLIII.\n\nLIII = XXXVIIII\n\nLIIII. IN SAPIENTIA: 'QVI CREAUIT,' INQVIT, 'ORBEM EX MATERIA INUISA' ET CONTRA: 'QVIA EX NIHILO FACTI SUMUS.'\n\nDeum simul confusas substantias creasse scripturarum sensus declarat. permixtis utique tenebris hanc confusionem rerum, id est aera, aquam, terram tenebrosam, materiam dixit inui. sam, sicut in Genesi legitur: terra autem erat, inquit, inuisibilis et inconposita. ex hac ergo confusione creauit orbem instituto firmamento, ut intra ipsum aquis congregatis in unum habitatio fieret generi humano. distinctis enim et discretis substantiis in concauo domum habitabilem fecit.\n\nLV.\n\nLV. LVI = XL. XLI\n\nQVAESTIONES DE NOUO TESTAMENTO.\n\nI = XLVIII.\n\nII.\n\nII = LXXXVII\n\nIII. CUR FACTA ET DICTA DOMINICA QVATTUOR UOLUMINIBUS ET A QVATTUOR SCRIPTORIBUS SUNT IN SCRIPTURAM DIGESTA?\n\nCongruum fuit annum domini acceptabilem, sicut dicit propheta, a quattuor uoluminibus uelut quattuor uicibus contineri. sicut enim annus quattuor temporibus euoluitur ita ut inuicem sui egeant, ita et gesta et dicta domini quattuor libris definita sunt, ita ut alter alterius indigeat; simul autem plenitudine. perfecta sunt. ut autem a quattuor scriptoribus ordinarentur, haec fuit causa, ut, quia temporum diuersa sunt nomina, euangeliorum quoque essent diuersa uocabula.","english":"LII.\n\nLII = XXXVIII\n\nLIII.\n\nLIII = XXXVIIII\n\nLIIII. IN WISDOM: 'WHO CREATED,' IT SAYS, 'THE WORLD FROM INVISIBLE MATTER' AND AGAINST: 'BECAUSE WE WERE MADE FROM NOTHING.'\n\nThat God created substances simultaneously in a confused state is declared by the sense of the scriptures. With darkness certainly intermingled, this confusion of things, that is, air, water, dark earth, he called invisible matter, as is read in Genesis: 'But the earth,' it says, 'was invisible and unformed.' From this confusion, therefore, he created the world by establishing the firmament, so that within it, with the waters gathered into one, a dwelling place might be made for the human race. For by separating and distinguishing the substances, he made a habitable home in the hollow.\n\nLV.\n\nLV. LVI = XL. XLI\n\nQUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nI = XLVIII.\n\nII.\n\nII = LXXXVII\n\nIII. WHY WERE THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD SET DOWN IN SCRIPTURE IN FOUR VOLUMES AND BY FOUR WRITERS?\n\nIt was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says, be contained in four volumes as if in four seasons. For just as the year unfolds through four seasons so that they need each other in turn, so also the deeds and sayings of the Lord are defined in four books, so that one needs the other; together, however, they are complete in fullness. But that they were arranged by four writers, this was the reason: because the names of the seasons are different, the names of the gospels were also to be different.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":516,"ref":"p516","source":"et si qua uidentur in uerbis contraria, sensu tamen non discrepant per interpretationem aptam causae, sicut tempora, cum uideantur utique diuersa nomine, aere et cursu siderum, in effectu tamen eorum quae gignuntur non discrepant.\n\nIIII. QVONIAM CONSTAT QVATTUOR LIBROS RITE CONSCRIPTOS GESTORUM ET DICTORUM DOMINI, SCIENDUM QVIS EORUM ORDO SIT.\n\nEuangelium ordinatione colligitur magis quam tempore. Matheus ergo primus ponendus est, quia ab ipsa promissione sumpsit initium, id est ab Abraham, cui facta promissio est incarnationis domini nostri Iesu Christi. post hunc Lucas, quia incarnationem hanc quo modo facta est narrat. tertius Marcus, qui euangelium, quod praedicatum est a Christo, testatur in lege promissum. quartus autem Iohannes, quia hunc, qui promissus est Abrahae incarnandus et a Luca quem ad modum incarnatus est dictum est et a Marco euangelium eius iuxta Esaiae prophetiam praedicatum ostensum est, aperta uoce ostendit deum dicens: in principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat uerbum.","english":"And if some things seem contradictory in words, they do not, however, differ in meaning through an interpretation suited to the case, just as seasons, although they appear diverse in name, air, and course of the stars, do not differ in the effect of the things that are generated.\n\nLIIII. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FOUR BOOKS OF THE DEEDS AND SAYINGS OF THE LORD WERE PROPERLY WRITTEN, IT MUST BE KNOWN WHAT THEIR ORDER IS.\n\nThe Gospel is gathered by arrangement rather than by time. Matthew, therefore, is to be placed first, because it took its beginning from the promise itself, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him, Luke, because he narrates how this incarnation was accomplished. Third, Mark, who testifies that the Gospel, which was preached by Christ, was promised in the law. Fourth, however, John, because he, with clear voice, shows that the one who was promised to Abraham to be incarnated—and by Luke it was told how he was incarnated, and by Mark it was shown that his Gospel was preached according to the prophecy of Isaiah—is God, saying: \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":517,"ref":"p517","source":"V. QVARE MATHEUS EUANGELIUM CHRISTI DESCRIBENS DICIT: 'LIBER GENERATIONIS IESU CHRISTI FILII DAUID', CUM PRIOR SIT ABRAHAM?\n\nPropterea sic coepit, ut prius de ipso diceret a promissione incarnationis eius genealogiam describens, sicut dicit apostolus: quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem. ideo dixit: liber generationis, quia ex multis et diuersis incarnatio Christi consistit, ut, quia ex uno diuersi esse coeperunt, de omnibus corpulentiam traheret, de Iudaeis et gentibus et de dignis et indignis, quia Ruth Moabitida fuit et Bethsabee ex moecha facta est uxor, ut omnium carnem ad se trahens ad unitatem illos genuinam reuocaret. idcirco autem: Iesu Christi filii Dauid ait, cum prior sit Abraham, quia specialiter Christus dicitur filius Dauid propter regnum, ut, sicut deus de deo, ita et rex de rege ortum caperet iuxta carnem. sic enim dictum est ad Dauid: de fructu uentris tui ponam super sedem tuam.","english":"V. Why does Matthew, when describing Christ’s Gospel, say: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David,” when Abraham is earlier?\n\nHe began in this way so that he might first speak of him by describing his genealogy from the promise of his incarnation, as the apostle says: whose fathers and from whom Christ according to the flesh. Therefore he said “book of generation,” because the incarnation of Christ consists of many and diverse elements, so that, since from one they began to be diverse, he might draw corporeality from all—from Jews and Gentiles, and from the worthy and unworthy, because Ruth was a Moabitess and Bathsheba was made a wife from a harlot, so that by drawing the flesh of all to himself he might recall them to genuine unity. Moreover, he says “Jesus Christ, son of David,” although Abraham is earlier, because Christ is specifically called the son of David on account of the kingdom, so that, just as God from God, so also a king from a king might take his origin according to the flesh. For thus it was said to David: “From the fruit of your womb I will place upon your throne.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":518,"ref":"p518","source":"VI. QVID EST UT GENERATIONES OMNES IN TRES PARTES DIUIDERET SUPRA. DICTUS MATHEUS APOSTOLUS?\n\nCausae faciunt diuisiones et tempora; idcirco ab Abraham usque ad Dauid distinxit. prima enim pars causae ab Abraham usque ad Dauid est, quia Abraham pater fidei est et Dauid pater regni — Saul enim indignus effectus se ipsum regno priuauit —; a Dauid uero usque ad transmigrationem alia pars causae, in qua regnum amiserunt facti reprobi Iudaei; post transmigrationem autem Babylonis usque ad Christum tertia pars lamentationis et miseriae, captiuitatis et dispersionis illorum, quia, quamuis post transmigrationem Babylonis et septuaginta annorum tempus, quando a Cyro dimissi reuersi sunt ad sua, numquam tamen pausam uel requiem habuerunt. neque enim postea Iudaea regnare potuit, sed solliciti semper et peruagantes fuerunt. nam utique tempore natiuitatis Christi captiui fuerunt dicentes: nos non habemus regem nisi Caesarem. hac ergo causa Matheus tres gradus fecit generationis, ut et meritorum et causarum mutationes ostenderet a promissione facta usque ad Christum, anni autem tempora usque ad finem in unam gratiam permanere.","english":"VI. Why did he divide all the generations into three parts above, as the Apostle Matthew is said to have done?\n\nCauses and times make divisions; for this reason he distinguished from Abraham up to David. For the first part of the cause is from Abraham up to David, because Abraham is the father of faith and David is the father of the kingdom—for Saul, having been found unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom—; from David up to the deportation is another part of the cause, in which the Jews, having become reprobate, lost the kingdom; after the deportation of Babylon, however, up to Christ is a third part of lamentation and misery, of their captivity and dispersion, because, although after the deportation of Babylon and the period of seventy years, when they were released by Cyrus and returned to their own lands, they never had rest or respite. For afterwards Judea was never able to rule, but they were always anxious and wandering. For certainly at the time of Christ’s birth they were captives, saying: “We have no king but Caesar.” For this reason, therefore, Matthew made three degrees of generation, so that he might show the changes of merits and causes from the promise made up to Christ, but the times of the years remain in one grace until the end.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":519,"ref":"p519","source":"VII. QVARE, CUM QVADRAGINTA ET UNA SINT GENERATIONES, EUANGELISTA QVADRAGINTA ET DUAS NUMERASSE UIDETUR? TER ENIM QVATTUORDECIM QVID FACIUNT NISI QVADRAGINTA DUAS?\n\nSecundum numerum quadraginta et una generationes numerantur, iuxta rationem autem quadraginta et duae probantur.\n\nIechonias autem in transmigratione genitus est, id est rex factus, sicut continetur in Paralipomenon, finem fecit secundae parti et, quia post transmigrationem remansit in regno permittente rege Nabuchodonosor, ab ipso incipit tertia pars, quae uenit usque ad Christum. ideoque bis conputatur, ut et concludat secundam partem et initiet tertiam Iechonias. sic enim habet: et post transmigrationem Babylonis Iechonias genuit Salathiel. usque ad istum autem Salathiel regnauerunt qui sunt ex Iuda, sed quorum ex radice nascitur Ioseph. nam Iechonias primum filium habuit Asyr nomine, sed quoniam Ioseph per radicem Salathiel originem trahit, praetermisso Asyr Salathiel Iechoniae patri suo subiunctus est, ut ueniretur ad Ioseph, cui erat desponsata uirgo Maria. nam et post Iosiam Iechonias sequitur, sed quia per Ioachim patrem Iechoniae uenitur ad loseph, praetermisso eo, id est Ioachim, Iechoniam posuit, ut numerum quattuordecim generationum non egrederetur, et quia post Iechoniam Salathiel et filius eius, per quem oritur Ioseph.","english":"VII. Why, when there are forty-one generations, does the evangelist appear to have counted forty-two? For three times fourteen make what but forty-two?\n\nAccording to the number, forty-one generations are counted, but according to the rationale, forty-two are proven.\n\nNow Jeconiah was born during the deportation, that is, made king, as is contained in the Paralipomenon; he made an end to the second part, and because after the deportation he remained in the kingdom with the permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, the third part begins from him, which comes down to Christ. And therefore he is counted twice, so that Jeconiah both concludes the second part and initiates the third. For thus it reads: \"And after the deportation of Babylon, Jeconiah begot Salathiel.\" Now up to that Salathiel, those who are from Judah reigned, but from whose root Joseph is born. For Jeconiah first had a son named Asyr, but since Joseph traces his origin through the root of Salathiel, with Asyr passed over, Salathiel was joined to his father Jeconiah, so that one might come to Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. For also after Josiah, Jeconiah follows, but because through Joachim, the father of Jeconiah, one comes to Joseph, with him, that is Joachim, passed over, he placed Jeconiah, so that he would not exceed the number of fourteen generations, and because after Jeconiah come Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph arises.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":520,"ref":"p520","source":"VIII.\n\nVIII = LXXXV\n\nVIIII.\n\nVIIII = XLVIIII\n\nXI.\n\nXI = LIIII\n\nXII.\n\nXII = LII\n\nXIII.\n\nXIII = LI\n\nXIIII.\n\nXIIII = LIII\n\nXV.\n\nXV = LV.\n\nXVI.\n\nXVI = LVI\n\nXVII. UT QVID SALUATOR POST BAPTISMUM XL DIEBUS IEIDNAUIT ET POSTEA ESURIIT? QVI ENIM XL DIEBUS IEIUNAUIT, POTUIT IAM NON ESURIRE?\n\nScriptum est: fili, accedens ad seruitutem dei sta iniustitia et timore et praepara animum tuum ad temptationem. ideoque saluator, ut formam nobis daret, ieiunauit, ut simili modo nos quoque ieiuniis insistentes omnem motum diaboli contra nos oppositum dei auxilio superemus scientes exemplo saluatoris tunc magis insidias aduersarii cauendas, cum ad dei timorem accedimus. dolet enim quod recesserimus ab illo; ideo plus saeuit aduersum nos. hoc nobis gessit saluator, non sibi.\n\nSimiliter et quod esuriit, non sua causa, sed nostra est. ieiuniis enim cum superatae fuissent temptationes diaboli, quae ideo scriptae non sunt, quia ad profectum non pertinent, postea, id est post quadraginta dies, permisit se famem pati, ut — quod hominis erat — pateretur famem, ut uidens diabolus, qui iam fuerat superatus, infirmitatem in eo famis incitaretur rursum ad temptandum, uidens hominem esse, a quo uincebatur.","english":"VIII. Why did the Savior fast for forty days after his baptism and then become hungry? For if he fasted for forty days, could he not have already ceased to be hungry?\n\nIt is written: \"Son, when approaching the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your mind for temptation.\" Therefore the Savior, to give us an example, fasted, so that we likewise, by persisting in fasts, might overcome every assault of the devil against us with the help of God, knowing from the Savior's example that the adversary's snares are especially to be guarded against when we approach the fear of God. For he grieves that we have withdrawn from him; therefore he rages more fiercely against us. This the Savior did for us, not for himself.\n\nSimilarly, that he became hungry was not for his own sake, but for ours. For when the devil's temptations had been overcome by fasts—which are not written because they do not pertain to edification—afterward, that is after forty days, he allowed himself to suffer hunger, so that—what was human—he would suffer hunger, so that the devil, who had already been defeated, seeing the weakness of hunger in him, would be incited again to tempt, seeing that the one by whom he was being vanquished was a man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":521,"ref":"p521","source":"Hoc enim fuit mysterium saluatoris, ut, quia homini uicto insultabat et dominabatur, ab homine uinceretur, ut dei uirtus homini uictoriam adquireret. sic magis uilis effectus est satanas, cum et homilem cernit et uirtutem non hominis intellegit. mirabatur enim stupore hebetatus quod mysterium inesset quod se lateret, ut potestas esset accedendi, circumueniendi non esset. duabus enim ex causis torquebatur. uidens enim infirmitatem accedebat et inueniebat uirtutem, ut cernens hominem suspectus esset de dei uirtute. ad hoc ergo esuriit, ut inluderet astutiam satanae. idcirco autem non amplius ieiunauit, ut concordaret Moysi et Heliae.\n\nXVIII. SI 'LEX ET PROPHETAE USQVE AD IOHANNEM,' EX QVO REGNUM CAELORUM PRAEDICATUM EST — IPSE EST ENIM INCHOATOR NOUAE PRAEDICATIONIS -, CUR BAPTISMUM EIUS CESSAUIT?\n\nBaptismum Iohannis coeptum non cessauit, sed additum est ei quod deerat. Iohannes enim tantum baptizauit, non spiritum sanctum credentibus dedit, sicut et ipse dicit de saluatore: ego quidem baptizo uos in aqua in paenitentiam, ipse autem uos baptizabit in spiritu sancto. hoc est quod dicit: *per me remissio peccatorum, non tamen datur spiritus sanctus, ut purificati filii dicantur; hoc enim saluatori reseruatum est, utpote domino, ut filii dei non fierent, nisi accepto a filio dei spiritu sancto'.","english":"This indeed was the mystery of the Savior, that, because the devil was insulting and lording it over a defeated man, he would be conquered by a man, so that the power of God might acquire victory for man. Thus Satan was made more contemptible, when he both sees a man and understands that the power is not of man. For he was amazed, stupefied with wonder, that a mystery was present which was hidden from him, so that he had the power to approach, but not to ensnare. For he was tormented for two reasons. For seeing weakness, he approached and found strength, so that, perceiving a man, he was suspicious of the power of God. For this reason, therefore, he became hungry, in order to mock the cunning of Satan. He did not, however, fast longer for this reason, so that he might be in harmony with Moses and Elijah.\n\nXVIII. IF 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN,' FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS PROCLAIMED — FOR HE IS THE BEGINNER OF THE NEW PREACHING — WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE?\n\nThe baptism of John, once begun, did not cease, but what was lacking was added to it. For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to believers, just as he himself says about the Savior: 'I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.' This is what he says: 'Through me there is remission of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that the purified may be called sons; for this was reserved for the Savior, as the Lord, so that men would not become sons of God unless they had received the Holy Spirit from the Son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":522,"ref":"p522","source":"effectus ergo baptismi Iohannis, quod tacite operabatur sine interrogatione, non tamen sine saluatoris mentione, ut firmum esset quod agebat, trinitatis est donum, quod dignatio saluatoris ostendit dans formam trium nominum, quae a primordio sub unius dei nomine uel persona unum opus et indifferens operata sunt. interpretatio ergo accessit ad baptismum Iohannis cum significatione latentis dudum mysterii; accessit et amplius donum, ut baptizati accepto spiritu sancto sint filii dei. amplificatum ergo est, non euacuatum.\n\nXVIIII. QVARE 'LEX ET PROPHETAE USQVE AD IOHANNEM' RECTE CESSASSE DICUNTUR? QVIA IAM DE QVO PROPHETABANT ADUENIT. QVARE 'LEX USQVE AD IOHANNEM,' CUM APOSTOLUS DICAT LEGI NOS SUBIECTOS ESSE DEBERE? QUAE AUTEM', INQVIT, 'SUNT, A DEO ORDINATAE SUNT.'\n\nLegis quidem unum nomen est, sed tripertitam habet intellegentiam. prima enim pars legis de deo est; si enim lex a lectione dicta est, ut de multis quid eligas scias, inter errores ergo positi acceperunt ut eligant uerum, id est reprobato diabolo eligant deum. secunda autem legis pars haec est. quae sex praeceptis continetur, quae sic incipit: honora patrem et matrem. tertia uero in neomeniis et in sabbato est et in escis discernendis ac eligendis et in circumcisione et in hostiis pecudum offerendis. hanc itaque legem dicit usque ad Iohannem, non ultra seruandam. sic enim data est, ut completo tempore cessaret.","english":"The effect, therefore, of John's baptism was that it worked silently without interrogation, yet not without mention of the Savior, so that what it did might be firm; it is a gift of the Trinity, which the Savior's condescension showed by giving the form of three names, which from the beginning under the name or person of the one God have performed one work and an undifferentiated one. Interpretation, therefore, was added to John's baptism with the revelation of a mystery long hidden; and a further gift was added, so that those baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, are sons of God. It was therefore amplified, not emptied.\n\nXIX. WHY ARE 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS UP TO JOHN' RIGHTLY SAID TO HAVE CEASED? BECAUSE THE ONE OF WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAS COME. WHY 'THE LAW UP TO JOHN,' WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW? 'BUT THOSE,' HE SAYS, 'WHICH ARE, ARE ORDAINED BY GOD.'\n\nThe law indeed has one name, but it has a threefold understanding. For the first part of the law is about God; for if law is named from 'lection' (reading), so that you may know what to choose from many things, then placed among errors they received it so as to choose the true, that is, having rejected the devil, to choose God. The second part of the law, however, is this, which is contained in the six precepts, which begin thus: honor your father and mother. The third, indeed, is in the new moons and in the sabbath and in distinguishing and choosing foods and in circumcision and in offering sacrifices of cattle. This law, therefore, it says is to be observed up to John, not beyond. For it was given in such a way that, when its time was completed, it would cease.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":523,"ref":"p523","source":"nec enim fuit ab initio, sed ei causa data ad tempus est, ut adueniente saluatore cessaret lex. ergo de deo manet tam lex praeceptorum quam natura eius, quae sine dubio ab ipso est et aboleri non potest. per ipsam enim proficitur ad promissum praemium. timor enim sollicitudinem parit.\n\nXX.\n\nXX = LXVIIII\n\nXXI.\n\nXXI = LX\n\nXXII. SABBATUM CERTE LEX EST UEL PARS LEGIS: QVO MODO ERGO NON EUACUATA LEX EST, QVANDO SABBATUM SOLUTUM EST DICENTE EUANGELISTA: 'QVIA NON SOLUM SOLUEBAT SABBATUM' ET RELIQVA?\n\nSoluit sane sabbatum saluator, sed sine praeiudicio dati sabbati. dum enim sabbati iam tempus cessaret, Iudaei autem sabbatum adhuc manere assererent, saluator sabbatis operans et infirmo lectum suum sabbatis portare praecipiens secundum sensum Iudaeorum sabbatum soluebat. nam iuxta ueri fidem quo modo tale est si dicatur quod iam cessauerat, quale est si dicatur de aliquo, qui expraefectus dicendus est et iniuriam passus sit, quia praefectura iniuriam passa est, non ergo sabbatum solutum est, sed homines, qui inprudenter sabbati auctoritatem uindicabant, delusi sunt, cum iam sabbato successisset noua lex.","english":"For it was not from the beginning, but a cause was given to it for a time, so that with the coming of the Savior the law would cease. Therefore, both the law of precepts and his nature, which without doubt is from him and cannot be abolished, remain from God. For through it one advances toward the promised reward. For fear produces anxiety.\n\nXX.\n\nXX = LXVIIII\n\nXXI.\n\nXXI = LX\n\nXXII. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY A LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW: HOW THEN HAS THE LAW NOT BEEN ABROGATED, WHEN THE SABBATH WAS DISSOLVED, WITH THE EVANGELIST SAYING: 'BECAUSE HE NOT ONLY DISSOLVED THE SABBATH' AND THE REST?\n\nThe Savior indeed dissolved the Sabbath, but without prejudice to the Sabbath as given. For when the time of the Sabbath was already ceasing, but the Jews asserted that the Sabbath still remained, the Savior, working on the Sabbaths and ordering his bed to be carried to a sick man on the Sabbaths, was dissolving the Sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For according to the truth of the matter, it is as if one were to say that what had already ceased is such as if one were to say of someone who is to be called an ex-prefect and suffered an injury, because the prefecture suffered an injury; therefore the Sabbath was not dissolved, but the men who imprudently claimed the authority of the Sabbath were deceived, since a new law had already succeeded the Sabbath.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":524,"ref":"p524","source":"XXIII. CUR SALUATOR DISCIPULOS SUUS FILIOS TONITRUI APPELLAUIT, QUI PLUS MAGIS UIDEANTUR FILII DEI DICI? TONITRUA ENIM DICUNTUR COLLISIONE NUBIUM FIERI.\n\nQuoniam tonitrua terrorem incutiunt, hac causa filios tonitrui dominus discipulos appellauit, quasi eius filios, qui timendus sit. quamuis enim tonitrua collisione nubium fiant, uoluntate tamen dei fiunt et sunt terribilia.\n\nXXIIII.\n\nXXIIII = LVIIII\n\nXXV.\n\nXXV = LXI\n\nXXVI.\n\nXXVI = LXIII\n\nXXVII.\n\nXXVII = LXII\n\nXXVIII. MANIFESTUM QVIA NATUS SALUATOR DEI FILIUS ET CHRISTUS APPELLATUS EST: CUR ERGO POST BAPTISMUM ACCESSIT AD EUM TEMPTATOR DICENS: 'SI FILIUS DEI ESJ ET RELIQVA?\n\nSic natus saluator ex uirgine est, ut et Christus esset et dei filius, non factura, sed ortu. adhuc autem in minori aetate potentiam suam euacuans, hoc est a potestate sua dissimulans, inpudentiam diaboli non prouocauit. baptizatus autem descendente in se spiritu sancto, cum apparuisset hominibus testimonio dei patris qui esset, aemulatione zeli ductus est inimicus ad inuidiam uidens hoc factum sibi obesse; intellexit enim ordinationem baptismatis ad salutem hominum procuratam. ideoque accedit ad saluatorem huius rei principem, non ut approbet, sed ut locum inueniat euertendi. temptatio enim aliquando ad probationem fit, aliquando subdole ad subuersienem.","english":"XXIII. Why the Savior Called His Disciples Sons of Thunder, Who Would Seem More Fittingly Called Sons of God? For Thunders Are Said to Occur by the Collision of Clouds.\n\nBecause thunders strike terror, for this reason the Lord called the disciples sons of thunder, as it were sons of him who is to be feared. For although thunders occur by the collision of clouds, they occur by the will of God and are terrible.\n\nXXIIII.\n\nXXIIII = LVIIII\n\nXXV.\n\nXXV = LXI\n\nXXVI.\n\nXXVI = LXIII\n\nXXVII.\n\nXXVII = LXII\n\nXXVIII. It Is Manifest That the Savior Was Born the Son of God and Was Called Christ: Why Then After Baptism Did the Tempter Approach Him Saying, 'If You Are the Son of God?' and the Rest?\n\nThe Savior was born from a virgin in such a way that he was both Christ and the Son of God, not by creation but by birth. However, while still in a younger age, diminishing his power, that is, dissembling his authority, he did not provoke the impudence of the devil. But after being baptized, with the Holy Spirit descending upon him, when he had appeared to men through the testimony of God the Father as to who he was, the enemy was led by zeal to envy, seeing that this deed was done to his own detriment; for he understood that the ordinance of baptism was procured for the salvation of men. And therefore he approaches the Savior, the author of this matter, not to approve, but to find an opportunity to subvert. For temptation is sometimes made for testing, sometimes deceitfully for subversion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":525,"ref":"p525","source":"arbitratus est enim quasi saluatori elicuisset secundum dolum uoluntatis suae responsum, ut regnum suum totum haberet, securus quod duce saluatoris doctrinae subiecto nemo mortem eius euaderet.\n\nXXVIIII. CUR SALUATOR TEMPTANTI SE DIABOLO NON ALITER QVAM EXEMPLIS LEGIS RESTITIT?\n\n'Saluator non solum diabolo' temptanti respondit, sed et ludaeis, per. quos! crudelitatis suae impietatem egit in saluatorem. praescius enim Iudaeos se inimicum legis dicturos patris eorum inpudentiam [diaboli testimoniis legis conpressit, ut patrem in filios et filios in patrem condemnaret.\n\nXXX.\n\nXXX = LVII.\n\nXXXI.\n\nXXXI = LVIII.\n\nXXXII. EUANGELIUM TESTATUR QVIA (NEMO UIDIT DEUM': CONTRA IACOB ET MOVSES ET ESAIAS ASSERUNT DEUM SE UIDISSE. SED DICIT QVIS: «PATREM NEMO UIDIT). QVID AD REM? SI FILIUS UISUS EST. UISUS EST ET PATER., QVIPPE CUM PATER ET FILIUS UTERQVE UNUS SIT DEUS ET IN SUBSTANTIA ET IN IMAGINE, QVIA DUORUM UNA IMAGO EST ET, SICUT IPSE DICIT.: 'QVI MEUIDET, UIDET ET PATREM.' QVO MODO ERGO NEMO UIDIT PATIi,EM_ DEUM, CUM FILIUS DICAT UIDERI PATREM, CUM IPSE UIDETUR, QVIA NEQVE ALTER DEUS.? SI £ RGO ALTER.NON EST, IPSE . IDEM, QVIA UNUS EST, UISUS EST DEUS.","english":"He judged that, as if he had drawn out a response from the Savior according to the deceit of his own will, he would have his entire kingdom, secure that with the leader of the Savior's teaching subjected, no one would escape his death.\n\nXXIX. WHY DID THE SAVIOR REPLY TO THE TEMPTING DEVIL NOT OTHERWISE THAN WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE LAW?\n\nThe Savior replied not only to the tempting devil, but also to the Jews, through whom he carried out the impiety of his cruelty against the Savior. For, foreknowing that the Jews would call him an enemy of the law, he crushed the shamelessness of their father [the devil] with testimonies from the law, so that he might condemn the father in the sons and the sons in the father.\n\nXXX.\n\nXXX = LVII.\n\nXXXI.\n\nXXXI = LVIII.\n\nXXXII. THE GOSPEL TESTIFIES THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD; AGAINST THIS, JACOB, MOSES, AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN GOD. BUT SOMEONE SAYS: \"NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER.\" WHAT OF IT? IF THE SON HAS BEEN SEEN, THE FATHER HAS ALSO BEEN SEEN, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON, BOTH, ARE ONE GOD BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, BECAUSE THE IMAGE OF THE TWO IS ONE, AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS: \"HE WHO SEES ME, SEES ALSO THE FATHER.\" HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN THE FATHER, GOD, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN, WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN, BECAUSE HE IS NOT A DIFFERENT GOD? IF, THEREFORE, HE IS NOT DIFFERENT, BUT THE SAME, BECAUSE HE IS ONE, GOD HAS BEEN SEEN.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":526,"ref":"p526","source":"Quantum ad euangelistam pertinet, de patre deo hoc dixit, quia nemo uidit d.e.uw, nisi. filius unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarrauit. credamus filio; ipse enarrauit enim quia nemo, nisi ipse, uidit deum. hoc autem ideo dixit, ut doceret se semper. apparuisse patriarchis et prophetis. non ergo hoc ad unum deum pertinet, sed ad personam patris, de quo non potest aliter dici quam deus pater. filius autem sic se uisum dicit, ut inuisibilis sit tamen, in eo ipso, cum uideri putatur. uisus enim hic intellectus est, quia non utique oculis uisus est, sed mente intellectus, et hoc fuit uidisse intellexisse, in eo quod apparuit ibi inesse deum. cum autem dicit saluator: qui me uidet, uidet et patrem, non utique ad oculorum uisum hoc retulit, sed ad mentis, et ut nihil inter patrem et filium diuersum esse putaretur. neuter ergo eorum uisus est iuxta substantiam; circumapparentia autem solus filius uisus est mente, non carnalibus oculis, quia inuisibilis est sicut pater.","english":"As far as the evangelist is concerned, he said this about God the Father, because no one has seen God except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him. Let us believe the Son; for he has revealed that no one except himself has seen God. He said this, however, in order to teach that he himself always appeared to the patriarchs and prophets. Therefore this does not pertain to the one God, but to the person of the Father, of whom it cannot be said otherwise than God the Father. The Son, however, says that he is seen in such a way that he is nevertheless invisible, even in the very act when he is thought to be seen. For \"seen\" here is understood, because he was certainly not seen with the eyes, but understood with the mind, and to have seen was to have understood, in that God was present there in that which appeared. But when the Savior says, \"He who sees me sees also the Father,\" he did not refer this to the sight of the eyes, but to that of the mind, and so that nothing diverse might be thought to exist between Father and Son. Therefore neither of them has been seen according to substance; but in circumappearance, the Son alone has been seen with the mind, not with carnal eyes, because he is invisible like the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":527,"ref":"p527","source":"XXXIII. QVID EST UT SALUATOR, MULIERI AUENIGENAE, ID EST CHANANAEAE, INTER INITIA MISERICORDIAM DENEGARET. CUM ET CENTURIONI ALIENIGENAE ET LEPROSO, QVEM IPSE IESVS ALIENIGENAM DIXIT, BENEFICIUM IMPERTIENDAE SALUTIS NON NEGAUERIT?\n\nDignum factum saluatoris ipsa causa designat. absurdum enim erat et ad iniuriam promissionis patrum proficiebat, si mulier, quae Iudaeorum deum confessa: non fuerat,- acciperet beneficium promissum genti confitenti deum. ideo inter initium negatum est illi. adubl-autem ceruice flexa saluatoris uerbis fidem non negauit, sed confessa est Iudaeos credentes esse filios, gentes autem canes uel seruos, per quod iunxit se fidei dominicae, quia serui dominum indicant et dominus non est sine seruis, unitas facta est subiecti et subicientis. hinc est unde meruit consequi quod precata est. centurio autem, qui beneficium a saluatore incunctanter accepit, olim se dei rebus infecerat. denique dicunt maiores Iudaeorum ad dominum: dignus est ut praestes illi; diligit enim gentem nostram et synagogam ipse aedificauit nobis. leprosum uero (alienigenam) dixit dominus, non fide, sed natione. erat enim Samaritanus, quos constat ex origine esse Babyloniorum. et hic tamen non sine confessione consecutus est beneficium, quia dictum erat discipulis a domino: in uiam gentium ne abieritis et in ciuitatem Samaritanorum ne introieritis, .","english":"XXXIII. Why is it that the Savior denied mercy to a foreign woman, that is, a Canaanite woman, at the beginning, when he did not deny the benefit of granting healing to a foreign centurion and to a leper, whom Jesus himself called a foreigner?\n\nThe reason itself indicates the worthiness of the Savior’s action. For it would have been absurd and would have worked to the injury of the promise to the patriarchs if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews were to receive the benefit promised to the people who do confess God. Therefore, it was denied to her at the beginning. But when she bowed her neck and did not deny faith in the Savior’s words, but confessed that believing Jews are sons, while Gentiles are dogs or servants, she thereby joined herself to the Lord’s faith, because servants indicate a master, and a master is not without servants; unity was established between the subject and the one who subjects. Hence it is that she deserved to obtain what she had begged for. The centurion, however, who received the benefit from the Savior without hesitation, had long ago involved himself in the affairs of God. Indeed, the Jewish elders say to the Lord: “He is worthy for you to grant it to him; for he loves our people and the synagogue, and he himself built it for us.” As for the leper, the Lord called him a foreigner not in faith, but in nationality. For he was a Samaritan, who are known to be of Babylonian origin by descent. And yet even he obtained the benefit not without confession, because it had been said by the Lord to the disciples: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the city of the Samaritans.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":528,"ref":"p528","source":"sed ite potius ad oues, quae perierunt domus Israhel; hoc est, ut non prius praedicaretur Samaritanis et gentibus quam Iudaeis, quorum fuerat promissio haec. adubi autem coeperunt Iudaei repudiare fidem Christi, tunc et Samaritanae se obtulit saluator et post crucem centurioni Cornelio; a Chananaea autem requisitus suscepit eam, quia adhuc non erat tempus, ut offerretur illi salus.\n\nXXXIIII.\n\nXXXIIII = LXIIII,\n\nXXXV.\n\nXXXV = LXV\n\nXXXVI.\n\nXXXVI = LXVII\n\nXXXVII.\n\nXXXVII = LXVI\n\nXXXVIII.\n\nXXXVIII = LXVIII\n\nXXXVIIII. PETRUS APOSTOLUS DICIT: 'CHRISTUS MORTUUS EST PRO NOBIS', PAULUS UERO APOSTOLUS ASSERIT, QVIA ET PRO SE MORTUUS EST: TACTUS/ INQVIT, 'OBOEDIENS USQVE AD MORTEM; PROPTER QVOD DONAUIT ILLI DEUS NOMEN, QVOD EST SUPER QVNE NOMEN,) QVOD SI ITA EST INPERFECTUS UIDEBITUR FUISSE, QVI PER OPERA SUA FECIT AUGMENTUM.\n\nFilium dei perfectum natum esse de deo nemo fidelium ambigit. omnia enim diuinitatis paternae accepit nascendo de deo patre. tunc ergo accepit nomen, quod est super omne nomen, id est ut hoc dicatur quod pater, deus. nam nihil apud eum futurum dicitur; omnia enim ante se habet. ideo ad haec omnia creanda et restauranda natus est. nam utique ordo et ratio hoc habet, ut paterno nomini omne genu flectatur. hoc pater donauit filio propter ea, quae erat acturus; donauit autem quando genuit. sic enim illum genuit, ut in eodem honore esset, quo ipse pater est","english":"But go rather to the sheep of the house of Israel that have perished; that is, that the gospel should not be preached to the Samaritans and the Gentiles before the Jews, to whom this promise had been made. However, when the Jews began to reject the faith of Christ, then the Savior offered himself to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius; but when asked by the Canaanite woman, he received her, because it was not yet the time for salvation to be offered to her.\n\nXXXIV.\n\nXXXIV = LXIV,\n\nXXXV.\n\nXXXV = LXV,\n\nXXXVI.\n\nXXXVI = LXVII,\n\nXXXVII.\n\nXXXVII = LXVI,\n\nXXXVIII.\n\nXXXVIII = LXVIII,\n\nXXXIX. The Apostle Peter says: ‘Christ died for us,’ but the Apostle Paul asserts that he also died for himself: ‘He was,’ he says, ‘obedient unto death; on account of which God gave him a name which is above every name.’ If this is so, he who through his works made an increase will seem to have been imperfect.\n\nNo believer doubts that the Son of God was born perfect from God. For he received all the attributes of the paternal divinity by being born from God the Father. He then received the name which is above every name, that is, that he be called what the Father is, God. For nothing is said to be future with him; he has everything before him. Therefore he was born to create and restore all these things. For indeed order and reason require that every knee be bent to the Father’s name. The Father gave this to the Son on account of what he was to do; he gave it, however, when he begot him. For he begot him in such a way that he would be in the same honor as the Father himself is.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":529,"ref":"p529","source":"XL.\n\nXL = LXXII.\n\nXLI.\n\nXLI = LXXIII\n\nXLII. IOHANNES AD DOMINUM: 'TU ES, QVI UENTURUS ES, AN ALIUM EXPECTAMUS?'\n\nSub sua persona discipulorum suorum agit causam. nec. enim Iohannes dubitabat, qui dixerat: ecce agnus dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi, sed, ut discipulis suis satis faceret, mittit illos suis uerbis, ut saluatoris ore firmaret, quod ipse de illo docebat, ut post excessum suum sine dubitatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur.\n\nXLIII. QVID EST UT, CUM SALUATOR OMNES PROPE UERBO CURASSET, CAECO TAMEN PER LUTUM DE SPUTO FACTUM OCULOS REFORMASSET?\n\nHoc saluator ad confusionem illorum fecit, qui creaturam accusant. quando enim non aliter uitium - accidenscorpori emendauit quam conditor fecit, auctorem operis huius commendauit. per id enim emendauit, quo erat conditum. omne enim quod fit, si lapsum per id quod fuerat factum reformetur, rectum factum probabitur. si enim saluator per haec se deum testatur, quia damna et uitia corporis. emendauit, quanto magis deus est, qui ipsius corporis inuentor est!","english":"XL.\n\nXL = LXXII.\n\nXLI.\n\nXLI = LXXIII.\n\nXLII. JOHN TO THE LORD: 'ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR ARE WE TO EXPECT ANOTHER?'\n\nHe pleads the cause of his disciples in his own person. For John did not doubt, who had said: behold the Lamb of God, behold the one who takes away the sin of the world, but, to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself taught about him, so that after his departure his disciples would follow Christ without any hesitation.\n\nXLIII. WHY IS IT THAT, WHEN THE SAVIOR HAD HEALED ALMOST EVERYONE WITH A WORD, HE NEVERTHELESS RESTORED THE EYES OF A BLIND MAN THROUGH MUD MADE FROM SPITTLE?\n\nThe Savior did this to confound those who accuse creation. For when he corrected a defect—an accident of the body—in no other way than the creator made it, he commended the author of this work. For he corrected it through that by which it was made. For everything that is made, if when fallen it is restored through that by which it was made, it will be proven to have been made correctly. For if the Savior testifies through these things that he is God, because he corrected damages and defects of the body, how much more is God the one who is the inventor of the body itself!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:29","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the lamb of god”, which matches John 1:29. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":530,"ref":"p530","source":"XLIIII. QVID EST. UT ADMIRABILEM ET INCOGNITAM UIRTUTEM FACTURUS, LAZARUM SCILICET A MORTUIS RESUSCITATURUS, FLERET AUT LOCUM, UBI POSITUS ERAT, QVASI IGNARUS QVAERERET?\n\nSaluator deus et homo est, ac per hoc duas uices egit semper, ut, quod hominis affectus habebat, ploraret, sed, quia et deus erat, hunc quem fleuit resuscitauit. a minimis ergo semper ad maiora uenitur, ut, quia homo cernebatur, hoc se probaret esse, quod uidebatur; deum autem se operibus asserebat.\n\nXLV. QVID EST QVOD SUPERIUS HERODEM MORTUUM LEGIMUS, INFRA AUTEM ET POST MULTOS ANNOS. HERODEM IOHANNEM OCCIDISSE, CUM SUPERIUS MORTUO HERODE IOHANNES SUPERUIXERIT?\n\nHerodes rex fuit Iudaeae, hic habuit filios quattuor,-Archep laum, Herodem, Philippum et Lysaniam, sed mortuo Herode patre eorum successit Archelaus, quo mortuo in quattuor partes diuisum est regnum supra dicti Herodis, ita ut Pilatus in partem regni quartam admitteretur quasi praeses, non quasi rex, frlii autem Herodis reges dicerentur. denique mortuo iterum Philippo accepit uxorem illius Herodes frater eius, de qua arguebatur a Iohanne baptista, qua causa occidit eum Herodes filius supra memorati Herodis. quid enim dicit? Herodes, inquit, tetrarcha, id est in quarta parte regni positus patris sui Herodis. quid ergo ambigitur, quando significatio adiecti cognominis ostendit alium hunc esse Herodem?","english":"44. Why is it that, when about to perform an astonishing and unknown miracle—namely, to raise Lazarus from the dead—he wept, or sought the place where he was laid as if he did not know it?\n\nThe Savior is God and man, and through this he always acted in two ways: what pertained to human emotion, he wept; but because he was also God, he raised the one he wept for. Therefore, from the least things one always proceeds to greater ones, so that, since he was perceived as a man, he would prove himself to be what he seemed; but he asserted himself as God through his works.\n\n45. Why is it that we read above that Herod died, but below, and after many years, that Herod killed John, when John survived the death of Herod above?\n\nHerod was king of Judea; he had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. But when their father Herod died, Archelaus succeeded him. When Archelaus died, the kingdom of the aforementioned Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted into the fourth part of the kingdom as a governor, not as a king, while Herod's sons were called kings. Finally, when Philip died again, his brother Herod took his wife, for which he was rebuked by John the Baptist, and for this reason Herod, the son of the aforementioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? \"Herod,\" it says, \"the tetrarch,\" that is, placed in the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why, then, is there doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows that this is a different Herod?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":531,"ref":"p531","source":"ipse est enim, qui et Iacobum occidit gladio, fratrem Iohannis, qui postea percussus ab angelo dei scatens uermibus expirauit.\n\nXLVI.\n\nXLVI = LXXXVI\n\nXLVII.\n\nXLVII = LXXV.\n\nXLVIII. CUR APOSTOLUS OMNIBUS OMNIA SE FACTUM DICIT, QVOD FACTUM ADULATORIS UIDETUR ET HVPOCRITAE?\n\nAdulator ille est, qui ideo dat consensum, ne offendat eum, quem optat -habere propitium. qui enim propter scandalum aliquid facit, quod non quidem periculosum, sed superfluum - sit, saluti studet illius, quem scandalum pati non uult. cum Paulus apostolus circumcidit Timotheum propter Iudaeos et purificatus intrauit in templum, talem se utique praestitit, ne illi, qui aemuli erant traditionis paternae, scandalum passi aut occiderent illum aut religionem nostram sibi inimicam putarent. minus ergo admittere uoluit, ut plus posset lucrari. grauiter enim potuerat peccare si non Iudaeum se fecisset in templum ire ad orandum; subiecit ergo se, ut illis prodesset. his autem qui sub lege erant, id est Samaritanis, hac ratione consensit, qua constat illos libros Moysi recte confiteri a deo esse et circumcisionem et sabbata data a deo. ei his autem ostendebat illis Christum, quem sperabant hunc esse quem praedicabat. sic enim habes dicente Samaritide ad dominum: scio quia Messias uenit; cum ergo uenerit, ille nobis adnuntiabit omnia.","english":"For he it is who also killed James with a sword, the brother of John, who later, struck by an angel of God, swarming with worms, expired.\n\nXLVI.\n\nXLVI = LXXXVI\n\nXLVII.\n\nXLVII = LXXV.\n\nXLVIII. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY HE BECAME ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, A THING WHICH SEEMS THE ACT OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE?\n\nA flatterer is one who gives his consent so as not to offend the one he wishes to have well-disposed toward him. For one who does something for the sake of avoiding scandal—something not indeed dangerous, but superfluous—is concerned for the salvation of the one he does not wish to suffer scandal. When the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews and entered the temple purified, he presented himself in such a way that those who were zealous for the ancestral tradition would not, having suffered scandal, either kill him or consider our religion hostile to them. He therefore wished to concede less so that he might gain more. For he could have sinned gravely if he had not made himself a Jew when going into the temple to pray; he therefore subjected himself in order to benefit them. But with those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he agreed on this principle, by which it is established that they rightly confess the books of Moses to be from God and that circumcision and the Sabbath were given by God. And among these, moreover, he showed them that the Christ whom they awaited was the one he was proclaiming. For thus you have it in the Samaritan woman’s words to the Lord: “I know that the Messiah is coming; when he comes, he will announce everything to us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":532,"ref":"p532","source":"iuxta hunc ergo sensum persequebatur uerba librorum Moysi, qui dixit, quia prophetam uobis suscitabit dominus deus uester de fratribus uestris. his autem, qui sine lege erant, ex hac parte adsensit, quia mundum dicunt factum a deo et hominum genus. ait enim: sicut quidam ex uobis dixerunt: huius etenim genus sumus. sic ergo factus est omnibus omnia, ut saluti eorum proficeret.\n\nXLVIIII.\n\nXLVIIII = LXXVI\n\nL. CUM SALUATOREM NATUM PROFITEAMUR, QVID EST UT APOSTOLUS FACTUM EUM DICAT EX SEMINE DAUID, CUM ALIUD SIT FIERI, ALIUD NASCI?\n\nQuamquam hoc loco possit factura natiuitatis intellegi — factura enim a generatione distat quidem, sed in aliis causis, non ubi carnis et corporis uertitur ratio —, apostolus tamen non sine causa taliter uerbis locutus est, quia et in alio loco: factum, inquit, ex muliere. aliquid ergo significauit hoc dicto. quoniam enim non humano semine concreta caro domini est in utero uirginis et corpus effecta, sed effectu et uirtute sancti spiritus, ideo sic locutus est apostolus. aliud est enim semine admixto sanguinem coagulare et generare, et aliud non permixtione, sed uirtute procreare. ideo factum dixit, quia ingenitum.","english":"Therefore, according to this understanding, he was interpreting the words of the books of Moses, who said that the Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers. But to those who were without the law, he assented in this respect, because they say that the world and the human race were made by God. For he says: \"As some of you have said: For we are of this race.\" Thus he became all things to all people, so that he might benefit their salvation.\n\nXLIX.\n\nXLIX = LXXVI\n\nL. WHEN WE PROFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE WAS MADE FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, SINCE IT IS ONE THING TO BE MADE, ANOTHER TO BE BORN?\n\nAlthough in this passage the making could be understood as birth—for making differs from generation, indeed, but in other matters, not where the nature of flesh and body is concerned—nevertheless, the apostle did not speak in such words without reason, because in another place he says: \"made from a woman.\" Therefore, he signified something by this expression. For since the Lord's flesh was not formed in the virgin's womb by human seed and made into a body, but by the effect and power of the Holy Spirit, the apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing to mix seed with blood, coagulate, and generate, and another to procreate not by mixture but by power. Therefore, he said \"made\" because it was unbegotten.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":533,"ref":"p533","source":"LI. QVARE APOSTOLUS GALATIS DIXIT, QVOS SIC REPREHENDIT ET ARGUIT PER TOTAM EPISTOLAM: 'ESTOTE', INQVIT, 'SICUT ET EGO, QVIA EGO SICUT UOS'? SI ERGO TALEM SE PRAESTITIT, QVALES ILLI ERANT, SUPERFLUUM FUIT DICERE: 'ESTOTE SICUT ET EGO'; AUT FORTE IN QVIBUSDAM IMITATOR ILLORUM ESSE COEPERAT ET IN ALIQVIBUS UULT ILLOS SUI IMITATORES ESSE?\n\nQuis illorum poterat imitari apostolum? aut quid illi deerat magistro gentium? sed hortatur illos, ut imitatores eius sint, et quoniam non est inpossibile, sic reprobat, cum dicit: 'quia hoc sum quod uos. homines enim estis, sicut et ego; ideo facite quod facio ego\\\\ potest et ad illud referri, ut quoniam omnibus se omnia factum dicit per adsensum, in quibus a uero non discrepabant, maxime gentiles. nec enim fuit aliquid eorum, quod iam fieri minime oportebat, prius autem factum erat recte, ut circumcisio, sabbatorum obseruatio, neomeniarum, escarum. sed si quid gentium probauit, non cessare iam debere ostendit. mundum enim dicunt a deo et hominibus fabricatum — hoc semper stat —: si ergo in his consentiens illis factus est, sicut et illi, hortatur illos ut simili modo et hi fiant, sicut et ille est, consentientes doctrinae eius..","english":"Why did the Apostle say to the Galatians, whom he so reproaches and rebukes throughout the whole epistle: 'Be as I am,' he says, 'because I am as you are'? If, therefore, he presented himself as such as they were, it was superfluous to say: 'Be as I am'; or perhaps he had begun to be an imitator of them in some things and in some things he wants them to be his imitators?\n\nWho among them could imitate the apostle? or what was lacking to the teacher of the Gentiles? but he exhorts them to be his imitators, and since it is not impossible, he thus reproves, when he says: 'because I am what you are. For you are men, just as I am; therefore do what I do.' It can also be referred to that, since he says he became everything to everyone through agreement, in those things in which they did not deviate from the truth, especially the Gentiles. For there was nothing of theirs which it was no longer appropriate to do, but which had previously been done rightly, such as circumcision, observance of the sabbath, of the new moons, of foods. But if he approved of anything of the Gentiles, he shows that it should not now cease. For they say the world was made by God and men—this always stands: if, therefore, by agreeing with them in these things he became as they are, he exhorts them that in a similar way they also should become as he is, agreeing with his teaching.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":534,"ref":"p534","source":"LII. QVO MODO LIBERI SUMUS ARBITRU AC UOLUNTATIS, CUM DICAT APOSTOLUS: 'CARO CONCUPISCIT ADUERSUS SPIRITUM, SPIRITUS UERO ADUERSUS CARNEM, UT NON, QVAE UULTIS, EA FACIATIS'? ET SI CARO ADUERSUS SPIRITUM CONCUPISCIT, MALA EST; SPIRITUS ENIM BONA SUGGERIT.\n\nCarnem) non substantiam carnis hoc loco intellegas, sed actus malos et perfidiam significatam in carne. per id quod enim omnis error ex uisibilibus et mundanis, caro autem cognata eorum est — ex elementis enim constat —, omnem errorem carnem appellat. non solum adulteria et fornicationes et luxurias opera dicit carnis, sed et idolatriam et maleficia et blasphemias et talia. numquid caro blasphemiam cogit aut idolatriam? nonne haec animae uitia sunt, dum consentit errori? recte autem agentibus dicit quod non sint in carne, sed in spiritu, et utique adhuc in corpore sunt. qui ergo bene ambulat nec diffidit de spe fidelium, in carne positus non esse dicitur in carne; male autem agens et blasphemus in carne dicitur esse, quia, quo modo bene agentes spiritales sunt cum ipsa carne, sic male uiuentes carnales sunt cum ipsa anima. hoc enim nuncupatur quod dicit","english":"LII. How are we free in will and choice, when the Apostle says: 'The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do what you wish'? And if the flesh lusts against the spirit, it is evil; for the spirit suggests good things.\n\nBy 'flesh' in this place you should understand not the substance of the flesh, but evil acts and faithlessness signified in the flesh. For because every error arises from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them—since it is composed of the elements—he calls every error 'flesh.' He calls not only adulteries, fornications, and luxuries the works of the flesh, but also idolatry, sorceries, blasphemies, and such things. Does the flesh compel blasphemy or idolatry? Are these not vices of the soul, when it consents to error? But of those who act rightly, he says that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and yet they are still in the body. Therefore, he who walks well and does not despair of the hope of the faithful, though placed in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but he who acts evilly and is a blasphemer is said to be in the flesh, because just as those who act rightly are spiritual even with the flesh itself, so those who live wickedly are carnal even with the soul itself. For that is called what it does.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":535,"ref":"p535","source":"Hic itaque error, quem carnem appellat, concupiscit aduersus spiritum, id est suggerit mala contra eundem spiritum, qui est lex dei. duas enim leges inducit, dei et diaboli. unde spiritum dicit, propterea quod lex dei spiritalis est, contra carnem, hoc est contra uitia, repugnare, ut hominem conseruet deo; lex autem diaboli, qui est error, contradicit per oblectamenta luxuriae et mundana dulcedine. his ergo repugnantibus medius homo est, qui cum conseutit spiritui, non uult caro; cum autem manum dat carni, spernit spiritum, id est legem dei contemnit. consentientem ergo carni spiritus reuocat, ne faciat quod uult; adsentientem autem spiritui caro sollicitat, ne faciat -quod putat utile. sed spiritus recte et prouidenter contradicit et reuocat, ut eripiat hominem a consiliis satanae, caro autem, quae est lex aduersa, idcirco sollicitat et spiritui legis resistit, ut per fallaciam decipiat.-","english":"Here then is the error, which he calls \"the flesh,\" that lusts against the spirit—that is, it suggests evils against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For he introduces two laws, that of God and that of the devil. Hence he speaks of \"spirit\" because the law of God is spiritual, and it fights against the flesh—that is, against the vices—so as to preserve man for God. The law of the devil, however, which is error, contradicts through the enticements of luxury and worldly sweetness. With these two opposing forces, man stands in the middle. When he consents to the spirit, the flesh does not wish it; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he scorns the spirit—that is, he despises the law of God. Therefore, to one consenting to the flesh, the spirit calls him back, so that he does not do what he wishes; but to one assenting to the spirit, the flesh tempts him, so that he does not do what he thinks is beneficial. Yet the spirit rightly and providently contradicts and calls back, so as to snatch man from the counsels of Satan; but the flesh, which is the opposing law, tempts and resists the spirit of the law for this reason: so that through deceit it may ensnare him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":536,"ref":"p536","source":"Ideo ergo haec apostolus publicat, ut ostendat arbitrio humano cui rei uoluntatem suam committat, non ut arbitrium libertatis inaniat, sed docet arbitrium cui rei se coniungat. si autem non est uoluntatis arbitrium, neque lex diaboli, quae est caro, neque lex dei, quae est spiritus, inuicem sibi aduersando hominem consiliis sollicitarent. qui enim sollicitat, suadet; qui autem suadet, non uim infert, sed circumuenit; qui circumuenitur, fallaciis quibusdam uoluntas illi mutatur. si autem non esset liberum arbitrium, nolens homo traheretur ad ea, quae non uult.\n\nLIII. QVA RATIONE SAPIENTIA CARNIS INIMICA EST DEO UEL QVAE EST IPSA SAPIENTIA, QVAE LEGI DEI NON EST SUBIECTA?\n\nNon discrepat sensu quaestio haec a superiore. nam carnem . dicendo quid significet declaratum est; unde quae sit eius sapientia, facile poterit dinosci. diximus ergo elementa omnia carnem appellari, id est uisibilium substantias, quorum ratio talis est, ut nihil aestiment posse fieri sine commixtione spiritali et simplici potentiae rationem horrentes ac fatuam iudicantes. hi enim, qui de spiritalibus diffidentes carnalia secuntur, nihil aliud sapiunt ac putant uerum, quam ratio continet elementorum, ut neque uirginem peperisse neque carnis credant resurrectionem, quia hoc ratio carnis, id est elementorum.","english":"Therefore the apostle publicizes these things to show to which thing the human will entrusts its own choice, not to void the freedom of choice, but he teaches to what thing the choice should join itself. But if there were no will's choice, neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, would, by opposing each other, solicit a man with their counsels. For he who solicits, persuades; he who persuades, does not inflict force, but circumvents; he who is circumvented, his will is changed by certain deceptions. But if there were no free choice, an unwilling man would be dragged to those things which he does not want.\n\nLIII. BY WHAT REASON IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH HOSTILE TO GOD, OR WHAT IS THAT WISDOM ITSELF WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD?\n\nThis question does not differ in sense from the previous one. For by saying \"flesh,\" what it signifies has been declared; whence what its wisdom is can be easily discerned. We have said, therefore, that all elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things, whose nature is such that they think nothing can be done without a spiritual mixture, and they abhor and judge as foolish the reason of simple power. For those who, distrusting spiritual things, follow carnal things, taste and think nothing else true except what the reason of the elements contains, so that they believe neither that a virgin gave birth nor in the resurrection of the flesh, because this is the reason of the flesh, that is, of the elements.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":537,"ref":"p537","source":"non recipit — omnia enim, quae gignuntur in tempore, permixtione operante generantur —, et emortua et resoluta corpora non posse rursus reddi ad uitam, quia unum quodque elementum permixtione discreta reuertitur in propriam naturam. his . modis inflati negant futurum uel factum quod credimus, ac per hoc adseueratio illorum inimica est deo, dum stultum et inane putat quod fecit et quod facturum se promisit deus.\n\nLIIII.\n\nLIIII = LXXVII\n\nLV. QVID EST UT, CUM PRIUS IOHANNES BAPTISTA TESTIMONIUM PERHIBUERIT SALUATORI, POSTEA DUBITAUERIT DICENS PER DISCIPULOS SUOS: 'TU ES, QVI UENTURUS ES, AN ALIUM EXPECTAMUS?'\n\nQui Iohannem putant dubitasse, detrahunt saluatori. aut enim recte illum asserunt dubitasse aut certe inperitiae arguunt saluatorem, quia, sicut putant, male de se sentientem laudauit. sed quia falli saluatorem inpossibile est, recte audatus ab eo Iohannes est. si recte laudatus est, non dubitauit ipso enim tempore quo misit ad Iesum Iohannes de carcere discipulos suos dicens: tu es, qui uenturus es, an alium expectamus? tunc Iesus respondit discipulis eius dicens: ite, dicite Iohanni quae uidistis et audistis. caeci uident, surdi audiunt, leprosi mundantur, claudi ambulant, mortui resurgunt; et beatus ille est qui in me non fuerit s candalizatus. abeuntibus autem nuntiis Iohannis coepit Iesus dicere ad turbas de Iohanne baptista: quid. existis in desertum uidere?","english":"does not receive it—for all things that are born in time are generated by the working of mixture—and that dead and dissolved bodies cannot be restored to life again, because each element, once the mixture is separated, returns to its own nature. Puffed up by these arguments, they deny the future or the past that we believe, and through this their assertion is hostile to God, since it considers foolish and vain what God has done and what He has promised to do.\n\nLIIII.\n\nLIIII = LXXVII\n\nLV. WHY IS IT THAT, ALTHOUGH JOHN THE BAPTIST FIRST BORE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, HE LATER DOUBTED, SAYING THROUGH HIS DISCIPLES: \"ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS TO COME, OR DO WE EXPECT ANOTHER?\"\n\nThose who think that John doubted detract from the Savior. For either they assert that he rightly doubted, or else they certainly accuse the Savior of ignorance, because, as they think, he praised one who thought ill of him. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be mistaken, John was rightly praised by him. If he was rightly praised, he did not doubt. For at the very time when John sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, saying: \"Are you the one who is to come, or do we expect another?\" then Jesus answered his disciples, saying: \"Go, tell John what you have seen and heard. The blind see, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead rise again; and blessed is he who has not been scandalized by me.\" And as John's messengers were departing, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John the Baptist: \"Why did you go out into the desert to see?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":538,"ref":"p538","source":"harundinem uento moueri aut hominem mollibus uestimentis indutum? ecce qui mollibus uestiuntur, in domibus regum sunt. sed quid existis uidere? prophetam? dico uobis quoniam plus quam prophetam. hic est de quo scriptum est: ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparet uiam tuam. tunc et publicani laudauerunt deum baptizati baptismo Iohannis.\n\nQuanta autem laus data Iohanni est, ut plus diceretur esse quam propheta! et beatum uocat saluator eum qui non scandalizatur in eum: quo modo laudabatur Iohannes si dubitando scandalizatus est? sed non utique dubitauit. laus enim beatum illum probat, quia non est scandalizatus. nam et saluator . idcirco ipso tempore in laudem Iohannis prorupit, ut ostenderet sensum Iohannis liberum a discipulorum eius dubitatione. Iohannes enim uolens nutantes discipulos suos corroborare in fide saluatoris, sciens exitum sibi imminere, ea, quae de ipso dicebat, ore eius uoluit confirmari. ideo ut testis uerus sit, testimonium potioris implorat, ut eorum concordia omnis ambiguitas auferretur. hoc commentum Iohannis est, ut dubio suis quasi uerbis mitteret, ut eadem audientes a saluatore, quae audierant a Iohanne, firmarentur scientes idonei procuratoris et domini caelestis testimonium in dubium uocari non posse. idcirco et saluator quasi Iohanni respondit, ut inter Iohannem interrogantem et saluatorem respondentem discerent ueritatem.","english":"A reed moved by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But why have you gone out to see? A prophet? I tell you that he is more than a prophet. This is the one of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way. Then even the tax collectors praised God, having been baptized by the baptism of John.\n\nHow great, then, is the praise given to John, that he was said to be more than a prophet! And the Savior calls blessed the one who does not stumble over him: how was John praised if he stumbled through doubt? But he certainly did not doubt. For the praise proves him blessed, because he did not stumble. And the Savior, indeed, at that very time burst forth into praise of John, in order to show that John’s mind was free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his wavering disciples in their faith in the Savior, knowing that his own end was imminent, wanted the things he said about him to be confirmed by the Savior’s own mouth. Therefore, so that he might be a true witness, he implores the testimony of a greater authority, so that by their concord all ambiguity might be removed. This is John’s device: to send his own men, as it were, to the Savior in doubt, so that hearing from the Savior the same things they had heard from John, they might be confirmed, knowing that the testimony of a suitable agent and of the heavenly Lord cannot be called into doubt. For this reason, the Savior also replied, as it were, to John, so that between John questioning and the Savior answering, they might learn the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":539,"ref":"p539","source":"LVI.\n\nLVI = LXXVIII\n\nLVII. QVID EST QVOD APOSTOLUS DICIT GALATIS: 'MIROR QVOD SIC TAM CITO TRANSFERIMINI AB EO, QVI UOCAUIT UOS IN GRATIA, IN ALIUD EUANGELIUM, QVOD NON EST ALIUD? SI ALIUD CERTE EST, IPSUM NON EST; SI IPSUM NON EST, QVO MODO NON ALIUD EST?\n\nIdeo 'aliud' dixit 'euangelium', ad quod uocati fuerant, quia non hoc est quod postea sequi coeperant Galatae. ab euangelio enim Christi abducti in ludaismum fuerant adtracti sub nomine Christi, quasi hoc esset sequendum, et aliud quam quod apostolus praedicabat adfirmabant. unde sublegitur: 'sicut uobis suadent.' pseudo enim apostoli, cum circumuenirent gentiles credentes, hoc dicebant a saluatore traditum, quod ipsi docebant, sicut continetur in Actibus Apostolorum: quia nisi circumcidamini more Moysi, non poteritis salui esse. hinc apostolus dolore euersionis illorum commotus scribit ad eos dicens: miror quod sic tam cito transferimini ab eo, qui uocauit uos in gratia, in aliud euangelium, quod non est aliud.","english":"LVI.\n\nLVI = LXXVIII\n\nLVII. WHY IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THE GALATIANS: 'I MARVEL THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY TRANSFERRED FROM HIM WHO CALLED YOU IN GRACE TO ANOTHER GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER? IF IT IS CERTAINLY ANOTHER, IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF IT IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS IT NOT ANOTHER?'\n\nHe said 'another gospel' for this reason, because that to which they had been called was not what the Galatians had subsequently begun to follow. For they had been led away from the gospel of Christ and drawn into Judaism under the name of Christ, as if this were to be followed, and they affirmed something other than what the apostle was preaching. Hence it is added: 'as they persuade you.' For the pseudo-apostles, when they deceived believing Gentiles, said that what they themselves taught had been handed down by the Savior, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles: because unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Moved by the grief of their perversion, the apostle writes to them saying: I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from him who called you in grace to another gospel, which is not another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":540,"ref":"p540","source":"Miratur ergo, quia post rem lenem et minus grauem asperitati studerent et oneri, hoc est, ut post fidei simplicitatem circumcidi se pro elementis permitterent, neomenias colerent et sabbatum elementis subiecti. et ne pseudoapostolis occasionem dedisse uideretur dicentibus aliud esse quod acceperant Galatae quam ueritatis habet traditio, statim subiecit: quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui qui uos conturbant et nolunt conuertere euangelium Christi. aliud ergo erat, ad quod ab apostolo uocati erant euangelium, quam quod sequi coeperant inpulsu pseudoapostolorum, non tamen aliud erat quam Christus tradiderat, ut uel per id in errorem se inductos cognoscerent et solam fidem sequerentur profitentes Christum deum et hunc sufficere ad salutem tribuendam, per quem fuerant remissionem peccatorum adepti, non per legem, quia sine lege gratia dei donat delicta.","english":"He marvels, therefore, that after a gentle and less burdensome matter they would devote themselves to harshness and to a burden, that is, that after the simplicity of faith they would permit themselves to be circumcised for the elements, would observe the new moons and the sabbath, subjected to the elements. And lest he seem to have given occasion to the false apostles, who say that what the Galatians had received is other than what the tradition of truth holds, he immediately subjoined: that it is not another, except that there are some who disturb you and are unwilling to convert the gospel of Christ. Therefore, the gospel to which they had been called by the apostle was one thing, and what they had begun to follow under the impulse of the false apostles was another; yet it was not other than what Christ had handed down, so that through this they might recognize that they had been led into error and would follow only faith, professing Christ as God and that he suffices to grant salvation, through whom they had obtained remission of sins, not through the law, because without the law the grace of God bestows forgiveness of offenses.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":541,"ref":"p541","source":"LVIII. CUM MULTA PECCATA IN CORPUS ADMITTI UIDEANTUR — OMNIS ENIM QVI SIBI EX QVACUMQVE PARTE CORPORIS UIM INTULERIT, IN CORPUS UTIQVE SUUM PECCAT; EST ENIM QVI SE ABSCIDIT, EST QVI LAQVEO UITAM FINIUIT, EST QVI FERRUM IN SE INIECIT —, QVA RE APOSTOLUS: 'OMNE', INQVIT, 'PECCATUM, QVODCUMQVE FECERIT HOMO, EXTRA CORPUS EST; QVI AUTEM FORNICATUR, IN CORPUS SUUM PECCAT'?\n\nInperitum putas fuisse apostolum aut uim dicti explanari desideras? nam apostolus (corpus) dicens non singularem hominem significauit, sed simul conprehendit et feminam. quia portio uiri est mulier. nam omnia supra dicta facinora. quae uiolenter in se unus quisque admittit, non totum maculant corpus; singularis enim peccat ac per hoc solus fit reus. in fornicatione enim totum polluitur corpus, quia consensus contaminationis et uirum tenet et feminam: ideo graue delictum esse fornicationem. pessime enim peccatur, cum quis facinori suo socium quaerit ad perditionem. si enim, ut bene uiuens etiam pro eo praemium accipiet, quem lucrum fecit. et malus non tantum in se, sed et in illo fit reus, quem participem uoluit habere damnationis, quanto magis qui fornicatur, quem constat uno delicto se ipsum bis quodam modo contaminare ! si enim in carnem, quae ex se est, peccat, bis utique se ipsum adulterat.","english":"LVIII. When many sins seem to be committed against the body — for everyone who inflicts violence upon himself from any part of his body certainly sins against his own body; there is the one who castrates himself, the one who ends his life by the noose, the one who thrusts a blade into himself — why does the Apostle say: 'Every sin,' he says, 'whatever a man may commit, is outside the body; but he who fornicates sins against his own body'?\n\nDo you think the apostle was ignorant, or do you desire the meaning of the statement to be explained? For the apostle, in saying 'body,' did not signify an individual man, but included the woman as well. Because woman is a portion of man. For all the aforementioned crimes, which someone violently inflicts upon himself, do not defile the whole body; the individual sins, and by this alone becomes guilty. In fornication, however, the whole body is polluted, because the consent to defilement holds both the man and the woman: therefore fornication is a grave offense. For one sins most grievously when he seeks a companion for his own crime to the point of perdition. For if, as one who lives well will also receive a reward for the one he has gained, and the evil man is guilty not only in himself but also in the one whom he wished to make a partner in damnation, how much more so he who fornicates, whom it is established by one offense contaminates himself twice, in a certain way! For if he sins against the flesh, which is from itself, he certainly adulterates himself twice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":542,"ref":"p542","source":"Si quis autem quaestionem hanc transfigurare se putat. ut aut ad ecclesiam aut ad corpus Christi dictum hoc aptet. non stabit. inproprie enim dicetur et Nouatianis similis erit, qui, ut causam furoris sui adstruat, pronuntiat eum, qui fornicatur, non:in suum corpus peccare, sed in Christi, quia Christiani membra et corpus Christi sunt, ut fornicatio hoc sit quod sacrilegium, ut talis in Christum dicatur peccare, sicut qui negat Christum. quod quidem infirmum est et fragile, quia ex quauis parte haeret in laqueum et non euadit. si enim qui fornicatur in corpus Christi peccat, cetera peccata non erunt in Christum admissa, ut si Christianus fratrem occidat aut sacrificet idolis uel aliud. genus peccati admittat, quia omne peccatum extra corpus est excepta fornicatione, si autem omne. peccatum non est extra corpus, sed quodcumque fuerit in Christum admittitur, qui. furatur aut qui periurat . et qui mentitur, qui percutit fratrem aut.aliud tale admittit, in Christum uel in spiritum sanctum dicitur peccare, . quod ualde absurdum est,: et tamen apostolus ecclesiam membra et corpi\\\\% Christi appellat, ita ut nos inuicem simus membra, quo modo; ergo ' qui'formcatur m suum corpus peccat et non magis in, Christi? quia secundum ecolesiae mysterium non QV-strum corpus dicimur, sed Christi,. et.","english":"If, however, someone thinks to transform this question so as to apply this statement either to the Church or to the body of Christ, it will not stand. For it will be said improperly and will be similar to the Novatians, who, in order to support the cause of their madness, declare that one who fornicates does not sin against his own body, but against Christ’s, because Christians are members and the body of Christ, so that fornication is the same as sacrilege, and that such a person is said to sin against Christ, just as one who denies Christ. This is indeed weak and fragile, because from any side it sticks in the snare and does not escape. For if one who fornicates sins against the body of Christ, then other sins will not be committed against Christ, as if a Christian kills a brother or sacrifices to idols or commits another kind of sin, because every sin is outside the body except fornication. But if every sin is not outside the body, but whatever is committed is committed against Christ, then one who steals, or who perjures, or who lies, or who strikes a brother, or commits any such thing, is said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is very absurd. And yet the apostle calls the Church the members and body of Christ, so that we are mutually members; how then does one who fornicates sin against his own body and not rather against Christ’s? Because according to the mystery of the Church we are called not our own body, but Christ’s, and.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":543,"ref":"p543","source":"hoclonge a causa est, quia qui forni* catur ideo in corpus suum peccat; (quoniam totbs;A'dam con-. taminatur.\n\nLVIIII.\n\nLVIIII = LXXVIIII .\n\nLX. CUR APOSTOLUS PAULUS PETRUM COAPOSTOLUM SUUM REPREHENDIT, QVOD. 'TIMENS EOS, QVI ERANT EX CIRCUMCISIONE, SUBTRAHEBAT SE' A GENTILIBUS, CUM ET IPSE TIMENS EOS, QVI ERANT EX CIRCUMCISIONE, 'ACCIPIENS CIRCDMCIDIT' TIMOTHEUM,. QVOD FIERI PROHIBEBAT, ET IPSE ERGO REPREHENDENDUS EST?\n\nIncredibile est tantum apostolum in eo alterum reprehendisse, in quo se sciret succubuisse. hoc a tam magno uiro factum non est fas credere, quia his conpetit, qui carnaliter uiuunt. caret itaque apostoli Pauli factum reprehensu. cum enim praedicaret non circumcidi, uolens autem Timotheum secum adsumere, qui esset natus matre Iudaea, patre autem Graeco, et hoc ludaeis esset scandalum, ut ex ludaea natum incircumcisum adsumeret, tunc subiectioni se summisit ad horam et accipiens circumcidit eum. rem ergo superfluam fecit permittente eo, qui passus est. quia enim erat ex matre Iudaea, eruditus ab infantia in synagoga litteris sacris, id est uolumi. nibus Hebraeorum, permisit circumcidi se, ut ludaeis scandalum tolleret, quia zelum habebant generis sui. denique: cum Titus, inquit, esset Graecus, non est conpulsus circumcidi. Timotheum autem, quia de matre Iudaea erat, sicut dixi, non sunt passi Iudaei adsumi inter doctores incircumcisum.","english":"This is far from the case, because one who fornicates sins in his own body, since the whole of Adam is contaminated.\n\nLIX.\n\nLIX = LXXIX.\n\nLX. WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REPROVE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER, BECAUSE, 'FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF' FROM THE GENTILES, WHEN HE HIMSELF, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, 'TOOK AND CIRCUMCISED' TIMOTHY, WHICH HE FORBADE TO BE DONE, AND THEREFORE HE HIMSELF IS TO BE REPROVED?\n\nIt is incredible that so great an apostle would have reproved another in a matter in which he knew himself to have succumbed. It is not right to believe that such a thing was done by so great a man, because this befits those who live carnally. Therefore, the act of the apostle Paul is free from reproach. For when he preached that one should not be circumcised, but wishing to take Timothy with him, who was born of a Jewish mother but a Greek father, and this was a scandal to the Jews, that he would take with him one born of a Jewess who was uncircumcised, then he submitted to subjection for the moment and, taking him, circumcised him. He therefore did a superfluous thing, with the permission of the one who suffered it. For because he was from a Jewish mother, instructed from infancy in the synagogue in the sacred scriptures, that is, the books of the Hebrews, he permitted himself to be circumcised, in order to remove the scandal from the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race. Finally: when Titus, he says, was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised. But Timothy, because he was from a Jewish mother, as I have said, the Jews did not allow an uncircumcised man to be taken among the teachers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":544,"ref":"p544","source":"ad hoc illum adsumpsit apostolus, ut eum episcopum ordinaret, sicut . et fecit. eruditus enim propheticis litteris ad asserendum Christum idoneus magister inuentus est.\n\nApostolus enim Petrus non esset reprehensus, si se timore Iudaeorum a gentilibus segregasset, ne illis scandalo esset. sed hoc reprehensum est in apostolo Petro, quod, cum ante Graecis credentibus gentiliter uiueret, aduenientibus ab Iacobo Iudaeis timori subiectus ex gentilibus iudaizare debere docebat. hinc audit: si tu, cum sis Iudaeus, gentiliter uiuis, quo modo cogis gentes iudaizare? dubitari enim fecerat de euangelica disciplina, quod crimen est, dum quae aedificauerat destruebat. ideo simulationem) hanc uocat apostolus Paulus, quem constat, si circumcidisset Timotheum, ut non taceret rem se superfluam propter illorum scandalum facere, et ideo se cedere, propter quod matrem haberet Iudaeam. nec enim Iudaei insisterent, nisi minime occasions matris ludaeae, quia hoc inuenta possent inprobare gentilibus nec habere facile de his scandalum, qui non essent de genere Israhel. non ergo simulatione hoc fecit, sed uiolentia; supra dicta enim causa simulationem habuit non minimam. nam multi reprehensi sunt in hac causa, ita ut aliqui Iudaeorum et Barnabas consentirent huic simulationi.","english":"For this purpose the apostle took him on, so that he might ordain him bishop, as indeed he did. For, being learned in the prophetic writings, he was found to be a suitable teacher for asserting Christ.\n\nFor the apostle Peter would not have been reproved, if he had separated himself from the Gentiles out of fear of the Jews, lest he be a scandal to them. But this was reproved in the apostle Peter: that, although he previously lived in a Gentile manner among the believing Greeks, when Jews arriving from James made him subject to fear, he began to teach that Gentiles ought to Judaize. Hence he hears: \"If you, though a Jew, live in a Gentile manner, why do you force Gentiles to Judaize?\" For he had caused doubt about the evangelical discipline, which is a crime, while he was destroying what he had built. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this a pretense, since it is established that, if he had circumcised Timothy, he would not have kept silent about doing something superfluous for the sake of their scandal, and therefore he yielded, because he had a Jewish mother. For the Jews would not have insisted, had it not been for the minimal occasion of his Jewish mother, because they could then reproach the Gentiles with this discovery and would not easily be scandalized by those who were not of the race of Israel. Therefore he did not do this by pretense, but by force; for the aforementioned cause had no small pretense. For many were reproved in this matter, so that some of the Jews and even Barnabas consented to this pretense.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":545,"ref":"p545","source":"LXI. QVEM SPIRITUM APOSTOLUS SALUANDUM ASSEBIT, CUM DICIT TRADI HUIUS MODI HOMINEM SATANAE IN INTERITUM CARNIS?\n\nInteritus carnis est, cum quis uoluptatibus et desideriis carnalibus deditus gehennam sibi procurat; interitum enim ex opere carnis adquirit. ex his enim totus fit carnalis, quia, sicut secundum legem uiuens totus homo spiritalis efficitur, ut etiam caro hoc dicatur quod anima, ita, si secundum desideria mundi et uoluptates libidinum uiuat, totus homo fit caro proficiens in interitum carnis; id est, ut sicut caro, propterea quod fluxa et corruptibilis et mortalis est, amissa anima deformatur — carens figura defluit in interitum; interit enim, cum uigorem omnium membrorum amittit —, sic et anima de tali corpore deformata est, cuius uigore despecta erat in poena cum carne, in qua se uitiis maculauit, ut nullus profectus sit carni per animam, sed interitum habeat anima per carnem, quia non corpus gubernauit spiritaliter, cum regina data sit carni, sed ipsa docet opera carnalia.","english":"LXI. WHAT SPIRIT DOES THE APOSTLE DEEM TO BE SAVED, WHEN HE SAYS THAT A MAN OF THIS KIND IS DELIVERED TO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH?\n\nThe destruction of the flesh is when someone, given over to pleasures and carnal desires, procures hell for himself; for he acquires destruction from the work of the flesh. For from these things he becomes entirely carnal, because, just as one living according to the law becomes wholly spiritual, so that even the flesh is said to be what the soul is, so if one lives according to the desires of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, advancing toward the destruction of the flesh; that is, so that just as the flesh, because it is fluid, corruptible, and mortal, is disfigured when the soul is lost—lacking form, it flows away into destruction; for it perishes when it loses the vigor of all its members—so also the soul is disfigured from such a body, whose vigor it had despised, being in punishment with the flesh in which it stained itself with vices, so that there is no benefit to the flesh through the soul, but the soul suffers destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually, although it was given as queen to the flesh, but itself teaches carnal works.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":546,"ref":"p546","source":"Talem igitur hominem cum ecclesia abicit, spiritum habet saluum, sanctum scilicet, qui ecclesiae curator est, quia, si passi fuerint talem inter se habere, qui uxorem patris polluit libidine, ut lege eum possint conpellere, ne contaminet omnes, et spiritus sanctus recedat ab ecclesia propter pollutum, non habebit saluum spiritum ecclesia. quod enim amittitur non est -saluum et in die domini. nudi ab spiritu: inuenti inter filios dei conputari non poterunt. spiritus en.im testimonium perhibet quod sumus filii dei.\n\nHaec apostolus ad plebem loquitur, quia adhuc episcopi ecclesiis non erant locis omnibus ordinati. ideo plebem iubet hoc facere, quod facturus esset, si illic creatus fuisset episcopus, ut conspirantes. in unum eicerent illum de coetu suo, ne consentire uiderentur operibus eius, quia qui non arguit eum,_ quem potest, sed recipit quasi non errantem, delinquendi illi fomitem. praestat, qua causa contaminatur et ipse fugans a se spiritum sanctum.","english":"Therefore, when the church casts out such a man, it has its spirit safe, that is, the Holy Spirit, who is the guardian of the church, because if they were to suffer having such a man among them—one who defiled his father’s wife with lust—so that they could compel him by law not to contaminate everyone, and the Holy Spirit were to depart from the church on account of the polluted man, the church would not have its spirit safe. For what is lost is not safe, and on the Lord’s day, found naked of the Spirit, they will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are sons of God.\n\nThe apostle speaks this to the people, because bishops had not yet been ordained for the churches in all places. Therefore, he commands the people to do what he himself would do if a bishop had been created there: that is, conspiring together, they should cast him out of their assembly, lest they appear to consent to his works, because whoever does not rebuke the one whom he can, but receives him as if he were not erring, supplies fuel for his wrongdoing, by reason of which he himself is also contaminated, driving the Holy Spirit away from himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":547,"ref":"p547","source":"Ad. Thessalonicenses namque simili modo inter cetera dicit: integer spiritus uester et anima et corpus sine querella in aduentu domini nostri serueturipse idem sensus est; hoc est enim 'saluum' esse, quod 'integrum'. nam dicit rex Daniheli: salua sunt signa, Danihel? et ille re* spondit: salua,.rex, id est Integra', ut nobis sit integer spiritus, cum non nos deserit. quos enim spiritus deserit, iam non erunt integri in causa regenerationis, quia non habent eum, per quem filii dei uocabantur. nec hoc est contrarium, si ipsum spiritum dicamus nobis peccantibus nos deserere et integrum non esse. ideo enim integer non est, dum nos deserit, qui dux et rector noster erat,. quia, si caput nostrum est, et nos membra eius. cum autem aduersum aliquid facimus, non ille nos, sed.nos illum uidemur deserere et tunc ille uidetur integer non esse, cum nos amittit. hoc enim uerum ac manifestum est, quia non ille se. a nobis auertit, sed nos ab illo, cum peccamus. et ad Colosenses inter cetera ait: ex quo omne corpus subministratum.et productum crescit in crementum domini, quod iuxta sonum uerborum si accipiamus, non conuenit — nec enim deus aliquid dehabet, ut crementum faciat per nos —, sed, nos dum reuertimur. ad auctorem uitae nostrae et. confitemur illum, adquirit nos ad salutem et crementum facit in nobis diuinitas, ideo in eis qui ab eo recedunt, detrimentum est.","english":"To the Thessalonians, likewise, among other things, he says: \"May your spirit, soul, and body be kept whole and without complaint at the coming of our Lord.\" This is the same sense; for \"to be safe\" is the same as \"to be whole.\" For the king says to Daniel: \"Are the signs safe, Daniel?\" And he replied: \"They are safe, O king,\" that is, \"whole.\" So that our spirit may be whole for us, when it does not abandon us. For those whom the spirit abandons will no longer be whole in the matter of regeneration, because they do not have that by which they were called sons of God. Nor is this contrary, if we say that the spirit itself abandons us when we sin and is not whole. For it is not whole precisely because it abandons us, it which was our guide and ruler, because, if it is our head, we are its members. But when we act against something, it is not it that seems to abandon us, but we seem to abandon it, and then it seems not to be whole, when it loses us. For this is true and manifest: that it does not turn itself away from us, but we turn away from it, when we sin. And to the Colossians, among other things, he says: \"From which the whole body is supplied and produced, and grows into the increase of the Lord.\" If we take this according to the sound of the words, it does not fit—for God does not lack anything, so as to make increase through us—but, when we return to the author of our life and confess him, he acquires us for salvation, and the divinity makes increase in us; therefore, in those who depart from him, there is loss.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":548,"ref":"p548","source":"hoc est ergo integrum non esse, quod est et detrimentum facere.\n\nLXII. QVARE SALUATOR: 'ORATE', AlT, 'NE FIAT FUGA UESTRA HIEME U;FjL SABBATO,' CUM TEMPUS PERSECUTIONIS HUIUS DIFFERRI NON POSSIT DICENTE APOSTOLO: 'QVIREUELABITUR IN SUO TEMPORE', ET IN ACTIS APOSTOLORUM: 'DEFINIENS' INQVIT, 'TEMPORA ET TERMINOS HABITATIONIS EORUM'? ET CUR HIEME FUGERE UEL SABBATO EXIRE NON LICEAT [SIGNIFICAT]?\n\nHieme tuta fuga non est; frigora enim sunt, imbres assidui, ninguit, gelat, flumina exeunt; ideoque fugientibus pergraue est. latere enim in siluis non possunt neque in montibus . neque in speluncis. sabbato autem iuxta Iudaeos longius a ciuitate exire non licet nec altum ascendere ac per hoc fugere sabbato non potes. quo modo autem haec tempora fugam tutam non faciunt propter inpedimenta supra dicta, ita et fuga nostra tuta non erit, si nos obligatos inpedimentis carnalibus inuenerit praedicta persecutio. detinent enim homines quasi conpedes desideria saecularia et facultates mundanae nec seductionem diaboli possunt effugere. ideo ergo orandum est ne tempore, quo fugiendum est, hiemis et sabbati in nobis ratio inueniatur, sed ut liberos nos ab his inpedimentis dei praestet auxilium, ut non sit, quod nos desiderio sui captos mancipet mundo.","english":"This, therefore, is not to be whole, which is also to suffer loss.\n\nLXII. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY: 'PRAY,' HE SAYS, 'THAT YOUR FLIGHT NOT BE IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH,' WHEN THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE DELAYED, THE APOSTLE SAYING: 'WHICH WILL BE REVEALED IN ITS OWN TIME,' AND IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: 'DEFINING,' HE SAYS, 'THE TIMES AND TERMS OF THEIR HABITATION'? AND WHY IS IT NOT PERMISSIBLE TO FLEE IN WINTER OR TO DEPART ON THE SABBATH?\n\nIn winter, flight is not safe; for there are cold, constant rains, it snows, it freezes, rivers overflow; and therefore it is very burdensome for those fleeing. For they cannot hide in the woods nor in the mountains nor in caves. On the Sabbath, moreover, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go out farther from the city nor to ascend to a height, and for this reason you cannot flee on the Sabbath. Just as these times do not make flight safe because of the aforementioned impediments, so too our flight will not be safe if the predicted persecution finds us bound by carnal impediments. For worldly desires and mundane possessions detain men like fetters, and they cannot escape the seduction of the devil. Therefore, it is to be prayed that at the time when one must flee, the condition of winter and the Sabbath not be found in us, but that God's aid may render us free from these impediments, so that there may be nothing that, having captivated us by its desire, delivers us over to the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":549,"ref":"p549","source":"quoniam ergo de nouissima persecutione loquebatur saluator, quae futura est tempore Antichristi, ideo hiemem posuit, quae nouissimum tempus est; et sabbatum similiter, qui postremus dies est, ut, sicut his temporibus aspera et difficilis fuga est, ita significaret illo tempore tam graues futuras persecutiones et pressuras, ut uix aliquis eas possit effugere.\n\nLXIII.\n\nLXIII = LXXX\n\nLXIIII.\n\nLXIIII = LXXXI\n\nLXV. QVID EST QVOD DICIT APOSTOLUS: 'NEMO POTEST DICERE DOMINUM IESUM NISI IN SPIRITU SANCTO'? ERGO FOTINUS, QVI NEGAT CHRISTUM DEUM, POTEST DOMINUM NOSTRUM IESUM CHRISTUM IN SPIRITU SANCTO FATERl? ET MARCION ET MANICHEUS, QVI NEGANT CHRISTUM IN CARNE UENISSE, HIIN SPIRITU SANCTO POSSUNT DICERE DOMINUM IESUMCHRISTUM? UEL MERETRICES ET SPURCI, CUM SPIRITUS SANCTUS NON HABITET IN CORPORE SUBDITO PECCATIS ET IN MALIUOLAM ANIMAM NON INTRET SAPIENTIA?","english":"Since, therefore, the Savior was speaking about the final persecution, which will occur in the time of Antichrist, he set winter, which is the last season; and likewise the Sabbath, which is the last day, so that, just as at these times flight is harsh and difficult, he might signify that at that time persecutions and pressures will be so severe that hardly anyone will be able to escape them.\n\nLXIII.\n\nLXIII = LXXX\n\nLXIIII.\n\nLXIIII = LXXXI\n\nLXV. WHAT IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'NO ONE CAN SAY THE LORD JESUS EXCEPT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT'? THEREFORE, CAN PHOTINUS, WHO DENIES THAT CHRIST IS GOD, CONFESS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? AND MARCION AND MANICHAEUS, WHO DENY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, CAN THEY SAY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? OR HARLOTS AND THE LEWD, SINCE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A BODY SUBJECT TO SINS AND WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER A MALEVOLENT SOUL?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":550,"ref":"p550","source":"Ueritas non ex persona probatur neque inprobatur; quicquid enim bene et uerum dicitur, sine dubio in spiritu sancto dicitur. non ergo, si quis in aliis reus est, et in hoc praescribi illi debet, quod uerum loquitur. nec illi tamen praescribitur, sed Christo domino contradicitur. qui enim negat istum uerum dicere, Christo iniuriam facit. si autem uerum dicitur negeturque quod uerum est in sancto spiritu dici, quod et Christus admittit — nemo enim bonorum uera de se dicentem arguit; nec enim ex reuelatione ediscitur, quod per traditionem discitur —, nemo uerum dicens poterit inprobari.\n\nLXVI. SI IN LEGE NEMO IUSTIFICATUR APUD DEUM\\\\ QVARE SCRIPTUM EST: 'MALEDICTUS OMNIS, QVI NON PERMANSERIT IN OMNIBUS, QVAE SCRIPTA SUNT IN LIBRO LEGIS, UT FACIAT EA'? SI EX FIDE IUSTIFICANTUR HOMINES ET NON PER LEGEM, UT QVID MALEDICTUS EST QVI NON IMPLEUIT LEGEM, CUM NON PROFICIAT AD IUSTITIAM?","english":"Truth is not proven or disproven by the person; for whatever is said well and truly is without doubt said in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone is guilty in other matters, he ought not to be prejudged in this, that he speaks the truth. Yet it is not he who is prejudged, but Christ the Lord who is contradicted. For whoever denies that this man speaks the truth does an injury to Christ. But if it is said to be true, and it is denied that what is true is spoken in the Holy Spirit—which Christ also admits (for no good person rebukes one who speaks the truth about himself; nor is what is learned through tradition learned through revelation)—no one who speaks the truth can be disapproved.\n\nLXVI. IF IN THE LAW NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT REMAIN IN ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, SO AS TO DO THEM'? IF MEN ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY THE LAW, WHY IS THE ONE WHO DID NOT FULFILL THE LAW CURSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT AVAIL FOR JUSTICE?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":551,"ref":"p551","source":"Lex data per Moysen iustitiam habebat quidem, sed terrenam, ut seruantes legem iusti essent ad praesens, ut non rei fierent. iustus est enim ex lege, qui nulli nocet. unde apostolus:. lex, inquit, non est ex fide, sed qui fecerit ea uiuet in eis, hoc est, faciens legem non morietur, sed uiuet ad praesens; iustitia autem, quae ex fide est, iustificat homines apud deum, ut remunerentur in futuro. saeculo. addiderunt enim temporali iustitiae. iustitiam fidei. iustum est enim nosse ex quo et per quem sumus, ut patris et filii et spiritus sancti uera confessio ad caelestia nos regna perducat nam et ueteres qui non solum legem praeceptorum seruauerunt, sed et deum dilexerunt spem habentes in promissione iustifi.cati -Sunt.Apild deum. solam enim legem dicit non iustificare homines apud deum, sicut nec sola fides; exceptis.bonis operibus commendat, deo, sed seruata , iustitia terrena et diuina, perfectos facit. hinc dicit dominus: nisi abundauerit iustitia \\\\iustitia plus quamscribarum et PharisaiBorui#, non introibitis in regnum caelo caelorum.","english":"The Law given through Moses had justice indeed, but earthly justice, so that those keeping the law would be just for the present, so that they would not become guilty. For one is just according to the law who harms no one. Whence the Apostle: \"The law,\" he says, \"is not from faith, but whoever has done it will live in them,\" that is, doing the law he will not die, but will live for the present; but the justice which is from faith justifies men before God, so that they are rewarded in the future. For they added the justice of faith to temporal justice. For it is just to know from whom and through whom we are, so that the true confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. For even the ancients who not only kept the law of precepts, but also loved God, having hope in the promise, were justified before God. For it says that the law alone does not justify men before God, just as faith alone does not; except that good works commend one to God, but earthly and divine justice preserved makes men perfect. Whence the Lord says: \"Unless justice abounds, justice more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":552,"ref":"p552","source":"LXVII. SI IN CHRISTO OMNES THESAURI SAPIENTIAE ET SCIENTIAE SUNT ABSCONDITI, QVO MODO IDEM SALUATOR DE DIE ET HORA FUTURI IUDICII DICIT SE NESCIRE? SI AUTEM SCIAT ET DICIT SE NESCIRE. UIDETUR MENTIRI.\n\nDictum hoc duplicem continet -sensum. in Christo enim omnes thesauros sapientiae et scientiae sic dicit absconditos. ut qui habet Christum pro omni sapientia et scientia illi cedat, ut scire Christum totum sit scire et omnem sapientiam conprehendisse, sicut dicit ad Colosense: nemo uos circumueniat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem secundum elementa huius mundi et non secundum Christum, quia'in ipso inhabitat omnia plenitudo diuinitatis corporaliter; hoc est nihil indigere ad salutem eum, qui credit in Christum, sed illi hoc abundare, quia plenitudo diuinitatis in fide eius est. et iterum in eadem epistula inter cetera ait: nemo uos seducat in humiliatione cordis et in superstitione angelorum, quae uidet extollens se, frustra inflatus mente carnis suae et non tenens caput, ex quo omne corpus subministratum et productum crescit in crementum dei. si itaque credentes in Christum caput totius principatus et potestatis uenerantur, nullius indigent, sed totum, quod ad salutem opus est, habent, nihil illis oberit inferiora, quae ad salutem nihil conferunt, nescire, quando id quod necessarium est norunt.","english":"LXVII. If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, how is it that the same Savior says he does not know the day and hour of the future judgment? But if he does know and says he does not know, he seems to lie.\n\nThis statement contains a twofold sense. For it says that in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in such a way that whoever has Christ has him in place of all wisdom and knowledge, so that to know Christ is to know and have comprehended all wisdom, just as he says to the Colossians: \"Let no one circumvent you through philosophy and empty seduction according to the elements of this world and not according to Christ, because in him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily\"; that is, he who believes in Christ lacks nothing for salvation, but has it in abundance, because the fullness of divinity is in his faith. And again in the same epistle, among other things, he says: \"Let no one seduce you in the humiliation of the heart and in the superstition of angels, which appears exalting itself, vainly puffed up in the mind of its own flesh and not holding to the head, from which the whole body is supplied and produced and grows into the increase of God.\" If, therefore, believers in Christ venerate the head of all principality and power, they lack nothing, but have everything that is necessary for salvation; it will not harm them to be ignorant of inferior things, which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know what is necessary.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":553,"ref":"p553","source":"huius modi ergo totum scire dicendi sunt, qui hoc sciunt, quod illis proficiat ad salutem.\n\nEst etiam illud, quia in saluatore omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae sunt absconditi, omnia enim sacramenta paterna ipsi sunt cognita et omnem creaturam ipse metitur; et nec pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit filio et nemo scit quae sunt in deo nisi spiritus dei, qui est et Christi. quo modo ergo diem et horam nescire dicendus est futuri iudicii, cuius spiritus quae in deo sunt nouit, de quo dixit quia de eius accepit? si ergo qui de eius accepit nouit quae futura sunt, quo modo nescit Christus, qui nobis misit spiritum sanctum? et potest fieri ut iudex nesciat diem futuri iudicii, quippe cum omnia signa dederit quando speretur? forte etiam hos dicatur uere nescire, quibus dicet: amen dico uobis, quod nescio uos. nec uirgines stultas et inprouidas dicetur nescire, quia dixit etiam — ipsis dicentibus: domine, domine, aperi nobis —: amen dico nobis, quod nescio uos. causa ergo est ut dicat se nescire quod scit. denique sic ait: uigilate itaque, quia nescitis qua hora dominus uester uenturus est. ut ergo sollicitos nos et uigilantes faceret, interrogatus nescire se dixit diem et horam futuri iudicii, sed ut nobis prodesset, negauit se scire quod scit. ignorantibus ergo nobis quid prodest nobis — scire enim uolumus quod, si scierimus, oberit nobis —, Christus [autem],.","english":"Therefore, those who know what is beneficial for their salvation are to be said to know everything in this manner.\n\nThere is also this: in the Savior all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, for all the paternal mysteries are known to him, and he himself measures every creature; and the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, and no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God, who is also the Spirit of Christ. How, then, is he to be said not to know the day and hour of the future judgment, when his Spirit knows what is in God, of whom he said that he received from him? If, therefore, he who received from him knows what is to come, how does Christ not know, who sent the Holy Spirit to us? And can it be that the judge does not know the day of the future judgment, especially since he has given all the signs by which it is to be expected? Perhaps he is even said truly not to know those to whom he will say: \"Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.\" Nor will he be said not to know the foolish and improvident virgins, because he also said—when they were saying, \"Lord, Lord, open to us\"—\"Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.\" Therefore, there is a reason for him to say he does not know what he knows. Finally, he speaks thus: \"Watch, therefore, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.\" So, in order to make us anxious and watchful, when asked, he said he did not know the day and hour of the future judgment, but to benefit us, he denied knowing what he knows. Therefore, since we are ignorant, what benefit is it to us—for we wish to know what, if we knew, would harm us—Christ, however,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":554,"ref":"p554","source":"prouisor salutis nostrae, ne audiremus quod contra nos esset. dixit se nescire. numquid, si alicui in dolore posito gladium poscenti, ut se perimat, qui habet respondeat se non habere, mendacii arguendus erit negans, quod, si non neget, sciat contrarium ?\n\nLXVIII.\n\nLXVIII = LXXXII\n\nLXVIIII. SALUATOB AIT: 'QVI NON RELIQVERIT OMNIA SUA.', ID EST DOMUM ET AGRUM ET CETERA, NON POTEST MEUS DISCIPULUS ESSE' ET CONTRA. EUANGELISTA: 'UENIT,' INQVIT, 'IOSEPH AB ARIMATHIA, HOMO DIUES, QVI ET IPSE DISCIPULUS ERAT IESU, EXPECTANS REGNUM DEI': QVID EST UT EUANGELISTA PROFITEATUR DISCIPULUM EUM, QVEM SALUATOR NEGAUIT? NAM ET ZACHEUS DIUES ERAT ET CORNELIDS CENTURIO DIUES ET MULIERES, QVAE ILLI MINISTRABANT DE FACULTATIBUS SUIS.\n\nHanc sensum paucis absoluit apostolus dicens: qui habent quasi non habentes sint et, qui utuntur hoc saeculo, quasi non utantur et, qui emunt, tamquam non possidentes. qui ergo haec sic habet, quasi non habeat, reliquisse uidetur. quando enim non praesumit de his neque se iactat, sed humiliter incedit non tantum habitu, sed et mente, dispensatorem se harum et ministrum datum intellegens omnia sua reliquisse uidetur. hoc enim relinqui dicitur, quod a desiderio recedit et gratiam non habet.","english":"The provider of our salvation, lest we hear what would be against us, said he did not know. Surely, if someone in pain asks for a sword to kill himself, and the one who has it answers that he does not have it, will he be accused of lying for denying what, if he did not deny, he would know would be harmful?\n\nLXVIII.\n\nLXVIII = LXXXII\n\nLXVIIII. The Savior says: 'He who has not left all his things,' that is, house and field and the rest, 'cannot be my disciple,' and the contrary. The Evangelist says: 'Joseph of Arimathea came, a rich man, who himself was a disciple of Jesus, awaiting the kingdom of God.' Why is it that the Evangelist professes him a disciple, whom the Savior denied? For Zacchaeus was also rich, and Cornelius the centurion was rich, and the women who ministered to him from their resources.\n\nThe apostle settles this sense in few words, saying: let those who have be as if they do not have, and those who use this world be as if they do not use it, and those who buy be as if they do not possess. Therefore, he who has these things in such a way that he seems not to have them, appears to have left them. For when he does not presume upon them nor boast, but walks humbly not only in dress but also in mind, understanding himself to be a steward and minister given to these things, he seems to have left all his own. For that is said to be left which recedes from desire and has no favor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":555,"ref":"p555","source":"LXX. QVID EST UT SALUATOR DICAT MARIAE UOLENTI SE TANGERE CAUSA GAUDII: NOLI ME TANGERE; NONDUM ENIM ASCENDI AD PATREM', CUM LEGATUR A CETERIS MULIERIBUS ET TACTUS ET ADORATUS?\n\nIndignantis uerba sunt dicentis: noli me tangere. quamuis enim desideraret saluatorem, aliis tamen resurreetionem eius credentibus haec ad monumentum stabat plorans, quam iam gaudere oportuerat. audierat enim a Iohanne et Petro apostolis resurrexisse dominum. sic enim habes: et uidit linteamin et sudarium in unum locum et credidit; nondum enim sciebant scripturas, quia oporteret eum a mortui resurgere. sed Maria. quia non illum uiderat resurrexisse non credebat. nimius enim amor dubitare illam faciebat. denique;. quos diligimus, si incommodum patiantur, non eos euadere credimus; quos autem odimus, si iam prope morti sint, incredulum nobis est. Mariae ergo, quoniam obstupuerat et maerorem patiebatur prae amore, quam oportuerat sequi discipulorum fidem, primum se ostendit dominus, ut desineret a maerore, non tamen sine indignatione. hinc audit: noli me tangere, hoc est: 'carnalem sensum sequeris, a quo abstine te et spiritalia sequere, quae non uidentur'. nondum enim, inquit, ascendi ad patrem.","english":"LXX. Why is it that the Savior says to Mary, who wishes to touch him out of joy, \"Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father,\" when it is read that he was both touched and adored by the other women?\n\nThese are the words of one speaking indignantly: \"Do not touch me.\" For although she desired the Savior, while others believed in his resurrection, she stood weeping at the tomb, when she ought already to have rejoiced. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. For thus you have: and she saw the linen cloth and the sudarium in one place and believed; for they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead. But Mary, because she had not seen him risen, did not believe. For excessive love made her doubt. Indeed, those whom we love, if they suffer misfortune, we do not believe they escape; but those whom we hate, even if they are near death, it seems incredible to us. Therefore, to Mary, because she was stunned and suffering grief out of love, when she ought to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord first showed himself, that she might cease from grief, yet not without indignation. Hence she hears: \"Do not touch me,\" that is, \"You follow a carnal sense; refrain from that and follow spiritual things, which are not seen.\" \"For I have not yet,\" he says, \"ascended to the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":556,"ref":"p556","source":"Tale est hoc, quale illud Iohannis baptistae mittentis discipulos suos ad Iesum et dicentis: ite -et dicite: Iohannes baptista misit nos ad te dicens; tu es, qui uenturus es, an alium expectamus? sub sua persona discipulorum suorum agit causam. nec enim Iohannes dubitabat, qui dixerat: ecce agnus dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi, sed ut discipulis suis satis faceret, mittit illos suis uerbis, ut saluatoris ore firmaret, quod ipse de illo docebat, ut post excessum suum sine dubitatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur. ita et saluator in se Mariam arguit dicens: nondum ascendi ad patrem, id est: adhuc cor tuum humi pressum, est, quae, si non uides, non credis'. si enim ad deum cor eleuasset, resurrexisse dominum cum discipulis credidisset.\n\nLXXI. QVID EST QVOD SALUATOR AIT: 'EGO SUM IANUA; QVI ANTE ME FUERUNT, FURES SUNT ET LATRONES'? QVOD DICTUM UIDETUR PROPHETAS PULSARE.","english":"This is like that of John the Baptist sending his disciples to Jesus and saying: \"Go and say: John the Baptist sent us to you, saying: Are you the one who is to come, or do we await another?\" He pleads the cause of his disciples in his own person. For John did not doubt, who had said: \"Behold the Lamb of God, behold the one who takes away the sin of the world,\" but to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior what he himself taught about him might be confirmed, so that after his death his disciples would follow Christ without any hesitation. So also the Savior reproaches Mary in himself, saying: \"I have not yet ascended to the Father,\" that is: \"Your heart is still pressed to the ground, you who, if you do not see, do not believe.\" For if she had raised her heart to God, she would have believed that the Lord had risen with the disciples.\n\nLXXI. Why is it that the Savior says: \"I am the door; those who were before me are thieves and robbers\"? This saying seems to attack the prophets.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":557,"ref":"p557","source":"Quia nemo uadit ad deum patrem nisi per fidem Christi, idcirco se ianuam dicit saluator regni caelorum. si ergo ianuae uerbis utitur, quid opus erat ut de anterioribus diceret: quotquot ante me fuerunt, cum nulla quaestio de praeteritis uerteretur, sed utique quasi praesens ianua de praesentibus quereretur? de Iudaeis enim dicit saluator, qui non per fidem, , sed per iustitiam legis in regnum dei se intrare putabant. ante saluatorem enim uenientes, id est ante illum stantes obtrectabant ei contradicentes, ut etiam alios a fide eius auerterent, unde fures et latrones appellati sunt. nam eo tempore haec dicta sunt, quo Pharisaei disceptabant cum illo, qui erat ex caeco, cui saluator oculos reddidit, quos natura negauerat, quem uolebant a fide saluatoris saluatoris dicentes non per hanc posse, quia sabbatum uiolat, sed per iustitiam legis intrari in regnum dei. tunc saluator: ego sum, inquit, ianua. per me si quis introibit, saluabitur et pascua inueniet; si quis autem aliunde intrare uolueritille fur est et latro.","english":"Because no one goes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, the Savior therefore calls himself the door of the kingdom of heaven. If, then, he uses the words of a door, what need was there for him to speak of those who came before, saying: \"as many as were before me,\" when no question was being raised about the past, but rather, as a present door, he would be asked about present matters? For the Savior speaks of the Jews, who thought they could enter the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the law. For those coming before the Savior—that is, standing before him—slandered him, contradicting him, so as also to turn others away from faith in him, for which reason they were called thieves and robbers. For these words were spoken at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with him, concerning the man who was blind from birth, to whom the Savior restored eyes that nature had denied, whom they wished to turn away from faith in the Savior, saying that one could not enter through this faith, because it violated the Sabbath, but that entry into the kingdom of God was through the righteousness of the law. Then the Savior said: \"I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved and will find pasture; but if anyone wishes to enter from elsewhere, he is a thief and a robber.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":558,"ref":"p558","source":"Quo modo hoc ad personam pertinet prophetarum? numquid prophetae fuerunt fures et latrones? numquid prophetarum Christi doctrina per iustitiam legis sine fide deum promereri posse dicebat, qui Christum in carne uenturum -scierunt? hoc ergo de praesentibus dixit, ut quicumque ante ipsum fuerunt astantes uel sedentes fures intellegantur et latrones. seuocantes enim illum, qui fuerat caecus, uolebant eum a fide saluatoris auertere dicentes: da honorem deo; nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est, quos ille arguit dicens: a saeculo numquam fuit auditum quia aperuit quis oculos caeci nati. nisi hic esset a deo, non poterat facere quicquam. de hoc ergo, quia perseuerauit in fide, et de illis, qui dixerunt: haec uerba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid potest daemonium caecorum oculos aperire? dixit saluator: sed non audierunt eos oues, illos utique, quos fures ac latrones appellauit. nam quo modo non audierunt prophetas oues, cum constet in scripturis omnes bonos oboedire prophetis et malos pseudoprophetis?","english":"How does this pertain to the person of the prophets? Were the prophets thieves and robbers? Did the prophets say that the teaching of Christ, through the righteousness of the law, could merit God without faith—they who knew that Christ was coming in the flesh? Therefore he said this about those present, so that whoever among those standing or sitting before him are understood to be thieves and robbers. For they were calling away the man who had been blind, wanting to turn him from faith in the Savior, saying: \"Give honor to God; we know that this man is a sinner.\" He refutes them, saying: \"Never since the beginning of the world has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. Unless this one were from God, he could do nothing.\" Therefore, concerning this man, because he persevered in faith, and concerning those who said: \"These are not the words of one possessed; can a demon open the eyes of the blind?\" the Savior said: \"But the sheep did not hear them\"—those, that is, whom he called thieves and robbers. For how did the sheep not hear the prophets, when it is established in the scriptures that all the good obey the prophets and the evil obey the false prophets?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":559,"ref":"p559","source":"LXXII. APOSTOLUS DICIT CHRISTUM PRO OMNIBUS MORTUUM ESSE; SIC ENIM AIT: 'ERGO OMNES MORTUI SUNT ET PRO OMNIBUS MORTUUS EST', IPSE UERO DOMINUS AIT: 'UENIT FILIUS HOMINIS DARE ANIMAM SUAM REDEMPTIONEM PRO MULTIS': HOC MODO CONTRARIUM.\n\nUerba quidem diuersa sunt, sed unus est sensus, quo modo iterum uerba eadem diuersum habent sensum, ut puta: quod non est ex fide, peccatum est et: lex, ait, non est ex fide, nec tamen peccatum est. hos ergo, quos (multos) dixit saluator, ipsos apostolus 'omnes' significauit. multi enim sunt. quia maxima pars ex omni populo et gente creditura est saluatori. istos apostolus credentes (omnes) nuncupauit; sic enim inter cetera ait: et pro omnibus mortuus est, his utique,. qui crediderunt et credituri sunt. est etiam et pro ipsis mortuus,. qui credere nolunt, sed dum illi beneficium non recipiunt, nolunt pro se mortuum esse Christum, ac per hoc non uidetur mortuus pro his, quibus nihil profuit, sed magis obfuit. pro his autem rite mortuus dicitur, quibus adquisita uictoria est, qui intellegentes mysterium deo gratias referunt per Christum dominum nostrum.","english":"LXXII. The Apostle says that Christ died for all; for he speaks thus: 'Therefore all have died and He died for all.' But the Lord Himself says: 'The Son of Man came to give His soul as a ransom for many.' In this way there is a contradiction.\n\nThe words are indeed different, but the meaning is one, just as, conversely, the same words have a different meaning, as for example: what is not from faith is sin, and: the law, it is said, is not from faith, yet it is not sin. Therefore those whom the Savior called 'many,' the Apostle signified as 'all.' For they are many, because the greater part of every people and nation was believed to believe in the Savior. These believers the Apostle called 'all'; for among other things he says: and He died for all, that is, for those who have believed and will believe. He also died for those who are unwilling to believe, but because they do not receive the benefit, they are unwilling that Christ died for them, and through this He does not seem to have died for those to whom He was of no profit, but rather a hindrance. For those, however, He is rightly said to have died, for whom victory was acquired, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through our Lord Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":560,"ref":"p560","source":"LXXIII. QVID EST UT DAUID DICAT: 'CONFUNDANTUR ET ERUBESCANT QVI DICUNT MIHI: 'EUGE, EUGE', DOMINUS AUTEM EUGE', INQVIT, 'SERUE BONE ET FIDELIS', ET CETERA? QVOD DAVID PRO PROBRO ET MALO ACCEPIT, HOC SALUATOR BONIS MERITIS DIGNUM OSTENDIT?\n\nNon ualde illud discrepat a superiore quaestione. unum enim uerbum diuersas habet significationes, sicut supra memoraui. obtrectatores enim Dauid, cum exitiis eius fauerent, gratulabantur malis eius. dum enim ille pressuras et angustias pateretur a Saul et a filio suo Abessalon, illi recte et bene fieri dicebant. tale est si aliquis dicat de eo, qui iniurias patitur: 'bene illi hoc est, gaudere in malis', hoc est dicere: 'recte illi fit; sic enim meretur'. simili modo et saluator laetus in bonis operibus meritum hominis pronuntiat dicens: euge, bone serue et fidelis. exultat enim, quia seruus digniorem se fecit, dicens: 'bene', hoc est: 'recte egisti, uti maius meritum conlocares'. unum igitur uerbum duabus contrariis causis aptatur. nam solemus de aliquo dicere: 'adiudicatus est, sed quo modo dicatur, causa aut subsequens aut praedicta declarat; aliquando enim ad bonum dicitur, aliquando ad malum, sicut et concupiscentia aliquando ad bonum, aliquando ad malum aptatur.","english":"LXXIII. Why is it that David says: 'Let them be confounded and blush who say to me: \"Well done, well done,\"' but the Lord says: 'Well done, good and faithful servant,' and so forth? That which David took as a reproach and an evil, did the Savior show to be worthy of good merits?\n\nThis does not differ greatly from the preceding question. For one word has different meanings, as I mentioned above. For David's detractors, when they favored his misfortunes, rejoiced in his evils. For while he suffered pressures and distresses from Saul and from his son Absalom, they said that it was right and well done. It is as if someone says of a man who suffers injuries: 'It is well for him that this happens, rejoicing in evils,' that is to say: 'It serves him right; for he deserves it.' In a similar way, the Savior, joyful in good works, pronounces the merit of a man, saying: 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' For he rejoices because the servant has made himself more worthy, saying: 'Well,' that is: 'You have acted rightly, so that you might place a greater merit.' Therefore, one word is applied to two contrary causes. For we are accustomed to say of someone: 'He has been judged,' but how it is said is made clear either by the following or the preceding cause; for sometimes it is said for good, sometimes for evil, just as 'desire' is sometimes applied to good, sometimes to evil.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":561,"ref":"p561","source":"LXXIIII.\n\nLXXIIII = XCVIIII\n\nLXXV. APOSTOLUS LEGEM DATAM A MOVSE SANCTAM ET IUSTAM ET BONAM ET SPIRITALEM APPELLAT ET ALIBI DICIT: 'LEX ENIM IRAM OPERATUR' ET: 'UBI NON EST LEX, NEC PRAEUARICATIO'. SINE HIS ENIM ESSE SECURITAS EST.\n\nIpsa dicta conferens satis tibi debueras facere. nam sic solent dubii facere quaestiones, ut unius dicta et quem fas non est reprehendere repugnantia et inimica quaerantur. si enim apostolus legem sanctam et iustam et bonam et spiritalem uocat, uir omni laude praecipuus et undique ueiitate munitus, sufficeret hoc ad fidem; et de hoc quod uidetur contrarium sine obstinatione quaerendum erat.\n\nPropositio enim haec inpunitatem peccandi uult. nam apostolus utique, cum legem fidei pro merito temporis et gratia praeferret apud Romanos, qui sub fide Christi in legem fuerant inducti — 'in legem' dico, non eam quae naturalis est (nam utique in lege erant Romani, quam utique de Athenis decem uiri missi et post alii duo adtulerant, quae in duabus tabulis scripta erat, quae in Capitolio obrutae sunt), sed eandem, quae factorum appellatur, ut circumciderentur, sabbatum obseruarent et neomenias, discernerent escas, circa mundanda uasa essent solliciti, et cetera, quae continentur in lege huius modi —, hanc ergo legem dicit iram operari.","english":"LXXIV.\n\nLXXIV = XCIX\n\nLXXV. The Apostle calls the Law given by Moses holy and just and good and spiritual, and elsewhere says: 'For the Law works wrath' and: 'Where there is no Law, there is no transgression.' For without these things there is security.\n\nBy comparing the statements themselves, you ought to have satisfied yourself. For those who are uncertain usually raise questions in such a way that the statements of one whom it is not lawful to reproach are sought out as contradictory and hostile. For if the Apostle calls the Law holy and just and good and spiritual, a man preeminent in every praise and fortified on all sides by truth, this would suffice for faith; and concerning this which seems contrary, it ought to have been inquired without obstinacy.\n\nFor this proposition wishes for impunity in sinning. For the Apostle, when he preferred the law of faith according to the merit of the time and grace among the Romans, who had been brought into the law under the faith of Christ—'into the law' I say, not that which is natural (for certainly the Romans were under a law, which ten men sent from Athens and later two others had brought, which was written on two tablets, which were buried in the Capitol), but the same law which is called the law of works, so that they would be circumcised, observe the Sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be concerned about purifying vessels, and other things of this kind which are contained in the law—this law, therefore, he says works wrath.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":562,"ref":"p562","source":"propterea enim irato deo addita sunt haec, ut oneri essent perfidiae Iudaeorum; de tantis enim necesse est ut aliquid praetereat. unde apostolus Petrus: quid, inquit, inponitis iugum super ceruicem fratrum, quod neque patres nostri neque nos potuimus portare? denique dicit deus per Hieremiam prophetam: dedi illis praecepta non. post offensiones enim multas et temptationes in deum et contumelias factas Moysi et detractiones factas de deo haec data sunt, quae obseruarent, ut premeretur dura ceruix eorum et, quocumque se uerterent, legem haberent, ut nullum eis esset refrigerium.\n\nUt ergo ab hac illos lege tolleret apostolus: ubi, ait, non est lex, nec praeuaricatio, ut securi per conpendium possint deo seruire spiritaliter, (quia), inquit, 'legem Iudaeorum seruantes necesse est ut praeuaricetis; tanta enim sunt praecepta, quae impleri inpossibile est\\\\","english":"For this reason these things were added by an angry God, so that they would be a burden to the faithlessness of the Jews; for with so many things, it is inevitable that something is omitted. Hence the Apostle Peter says: \"Why,\" he says, \"do you place a yoke upon the neck of brothers, which neither our fathers nor we ourselves were able to bear?\" Finally, God says through the prophet Jeremiah: \"I gave them commandments not.\" For after many offenses and temptations against God, and insults made to Moses, and slanders made against God, these things were given, which they were to observe, so that their stiff neck might be weighed down, and wherever they turned, they would have the law, so that there would be no respite for them.\n\nTherefore, in order to remove them from this law, the Apostle says: \"Where there is no law, there is no transgression,\" so that they might securely and by a shortcut be able to serve God spiritually, (because), he says, \"by keeping the law of the Jews, it is necessary that you transgress; for the precepts are so many that it is impossible to fulfill them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":563,"ref":"p563","source":"Nam quo modo de ista lege diceret, quae naturalis est? — quam Moyses ideo scripsit, ut auctoritatem illius firmaret. non quia ante non erat, cum legamus uindicatum esse ante Moysen —, sed ut exponeret Romanos non debere uiuere iam sub lege, quos sub lege agere expediebat; non aliter enim possent seruare iustitiam. denique dicit ad eos: uis non timere potestatem? bonum fac et: qui contemnunt, ipsi sibi damnationem adquirunt.\n\nSpiritalem ergo hanc legem dicit, quam et sanctam et iustam et bonam ostendit. haec est, quam naturalem diximus, quae prohibet peccari; dux est enim bonae uitae. huic addita lex fidei perfectum hominem facit. nam quia communi nomine nuncupatur lex haec, quam naturalem dixi, et illa, quae factorum lex dicitur, contra legem loqui uidetur apostolus, sed ne hanc inanire uideretur, sine qua uita haec gubernari non potest, dicit: scimus quia lex spiritalis est, ut illam, quam inanit. legem sabbati et circumcisionis et escarum et neomeniarum sciretur. illa enim idcirco spiritalis dicitur, quia omnia deponit peccata.","english":"For how could he speak about that law which is natural?—which Moses wrote in order to strengthen its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read that vengeance was taken before Moses—but to explain that the Romans ought not to live any longer under the law, those whom it was expedient to act under the law; for they could not otherwise preserve justice. Finally, he says to them: \"Do you wish not to fear power? Do good,\" and: \"Those who despise, they themselves acquire condemnation for themselves.\"\n\nTherefore, he calls this law spiritual, which he shows to be both holy and just and good. This is what we have called natural, which forbids sinning; for it is the guide of a good life. To this, the law of faith is added, which makes a person perfect. For because this law, which I have called natural, and that which is called the law of deeds are both designated by a common name, the apostle seems to speak against the law, but lest he appear to nullify this law, without which this life cannot be governed, he says: \"We know that the law is spiritual,\" so that it would be known that he nullifies the law of the Sabbath, of circumcision, of foods, and of new moons. For that law is called spiritual because it lays aside all sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":564,"ref":"p564","source":"LXXVI. SI PROPTER DIFFIDENTIAM ET DETRACTIONES DURA ACCEPERUNT IUDAEI MANDATA, QVID PECCAUERANT FILII EORUM, UT ETIAM IPSI HIS MANDATIS ADSTRINGERENTUR?\n\nPatribus data est lex, quae filiis similibus oneri esset. nam postea non minus, sed forte amplius in deum peccauerunt quam patres illorum. praescius enim deus filiis magis hanc legem dedit, quia illi omnes in heremo obierunt.\n\nLXXVII. CUM SALUATOR DICAT: 'EGO PRO EIS ROGO. QVOS MIHI DEDISTI, NON PRO MUNDO ROGO', IOHANNES APOSTOLUS CONTRA: 'HABEMUS', INQVIT, 'ADUOCATUM APUD PATREM, DEPRECATOREM PRO PECCATIS NOSTRIS, ET NON SOLUM PRO NOSTRIS, SED PRO UNIUERSO MUNDO': HOC CONTRARIUM UIDETUR.\n\nQuamuis non longe discrepet sensus, tamen aliud est, quod dicit saluator, et aliud, quod adfirmat apostolus Iohannes. nam saluator rogat pro discipulis, ut a mali infestatione tuti praestentur. denique sic dicit: non rogo ut tollas eos de mundo, sed ut serues eos a malo. apostolus autem Iohannes aliud genus precationis inducit; ait namque: habemus aduocatum, qui postulat pro peccatis nostris et totius mundi. pro Christianis ergo duplici genere postulat, quia et pro peccatis illorum orat et ut tuti a diaboli infestatione praestentur. pro his autem, qui non credunt, haec sola deprecatio est, ut, cum pro peccatis suis et perfidia plecti merentur, bonitas et patientia dei expectet illos, si forte uelint corrigi.","english":"LXXVI. IF ON ACCOUNT OF DISTRUST AND DETRACTIONS THE JEWS RECEIVED HARSH COMMANDMENTS, WHAT HAD THEIR CHILDREN SINNED, THAT THEY ALSO SHOULD BE BOUND BY THESE COMMANDMENTS?\n\nThe law was given to the fathers, which would be a burden to the sons as well. For afterwards they sinned against God no less, but perhaps more, than their fathers. For God, being prescient, gave this law more for the sons, because all those fathers died in the wilderness.\n\nLXXVII. WHEREAS THE SAVIOR SAYS: 'I PRAY FOR THEM. FOR THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME, I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD', THE APOSTLE JOHN ON THE CONTRARY SAYS: 'WE HAVE', HE SAYS, 'AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, AN INTERCESSOR FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE WORLD': THIS SEEMS CONTRARY.\n\nAlthough the sense is not far apart, nevertheless it is one thing that the Savior says, and another that the apostle John affirms. For the Savior prays for the disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of evil. Indeed, he speaks thus: I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil. The apostle John, however, introduces another kind of prayer; for he says: we have an advocate who pleads for our sins and for those of the whole world. For Christians, therefore, he pleads in a twofold manner, because he both prays for their sins and that they may be kept safe from the assault of the devil. For those, however, who do not believe, this alone is the intercession: that, although they deserve to be punished for their sins and faithlessness, the goodness and patience of God may wait for them, if perhaps they might wish to be corrected.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":565,"ref":"p565","source":"nec enim postulat ut ignoscantur illis peccata diffidentibus, sed ut dilationem accipiant longam, ut, si se emendauerint, dimittantur illis delicta. hoc ergo postulat pro illis saluator, quod diximus.\n\nLXXVIII. IN EUANGELIO LEGIMUS ANGELUM DICERE AD MARIAM MATREM DOMINI, QVOD 'REGNI EIUS', ID EST CHRISTI, 'NON ERIT FINIS' ET DANIHEL EODEM SENSU DICIT DE HOC; AIT ENIM: TUNC EXURGET REGNUM AETERNUM, QVOD NUMQVAM CORRUMPETUR' CONTRA APOSTOLUS DE DOMINO: 'CUM TRADIDIT', INQVIT, 'REGNUM DEO ET PATRI. QVO MODO REGNUM AETERNUM HABEBIT, QVOD TRADITURUS DICITUR DEO ET PATRI?\n\nIn causa patris et filii, id est dei et Christi, traditio, non abolitio intellegitur. considera enim quo modo pater tradiderit filio regnum ipso hoc domino protestante: omnia enim, inquit, mihi tradita sunt a patre meo. si pater ergo desiit habere, cum tradidit, potest et de saluatore dici quia, cum tradidit, amisit. nam filius, postquam traditum sibi a patre regnum dixit, patrem adhuc praeferens ait: haec est autem uita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum et uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. secundum hunc igitur sensum et filius non amittit regnum cum tradit, ut haec uera sint, et angelus et Danihel non discrepare ab hoc sensu dicuntur. qui enim horum testimonium detractandum putat, perfidia plenus est.","english":"Nor indeed does he ask that their sins be forgiven to those who are distrustful, but that they receive a long delay, so that, if they should correct themselves, their offenses may be remitted to them. This, therefore, the Savior asks on their behalf, as we have said.\n\nLXXVIII. IN THE GOSPEL WE READ THAT THE ANGEL SAYS TO MARY, THE MOTHER OF THE LORD, THAT 'OF HIS KINGDOM,' THAT IS, OF CHRIST'S, 'THERE WILL BE NO END,' AND DANIEL SPEAKS TO THE SAME EFFECT CONCERNING HIM; FOR HE SAYS: THEN AN ETERNAL KINGDOM WILL ARISE, WHICH WILL NEVER BE CORRUPTED. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE APOSTLE SAYS CONCERNING THE LORD: 'WHEN HE HAD DELIVERED,' HE SAYS, 'THE KINGDOM TO GOD THE FATHER.' HOW WILL HE HAVE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM, WHICH IS SAID TO BE ABOUT TO DELIVER TO GOD THE FATHER?\n\nIn the matter of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and Christ, the delivery is understood not as an abolition. For consider how the Father delivered the kingdom to the Son, with the Lord Himself testifying: For all things, He says, have been delivered to me by my Father. If, therefore, the Father ceased to have it when He delivered it, it can also be said of the Savior that, when He delivered it, He lost it. For the Son, after he said that the kingdom had been delivered to him by the Father, still preferring the Father, says: But this is eternal life, that they may know you alone and the true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent. According to this sense, therefore, the Son also does not lose the kingdom when he delivers it, so that these things may be true, and the Angel and Daniel are said not to disagree with this sense. For whoever thinks that the testimony of these is to be disparaged is full of faithlessness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":566,"ref":"p566","source":"Sed nunc uideamus manentes in hac fide, quid sit tradere filium patri regnum; hoc est enim, quod inter cetera alio loco dicit apostolus: tunc et ipse filius subiectus erit ei, qui subiecit ei omnia, ut sit deus omnia in omnibus. subiectio ergo haec ipsa est traditio regni. itaque hoc loco interpretatio uidetur necessaria, ut et subiectus patri filius non negetur et nihilo minus aeternum regnum habere dicatur, hoc est regnum filii, quia in nomine eius omnia genua flectuntur, caelestia. terrestria et inferna. quod etiam adfirmat Petrus apostolus dicens: non est aliud nomen datum sub caelo, in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri. et ipse dominus discipulis ait: usque modo non petistis quicquam in nomine meo: petite et ego faciam. sic regnat filius, cum omnia in nomine eius saluantur et dantur quae postulantur usque ad finem mundi.\n\nPostquam uero omnia Christum fuerint confessa, siue ui siue uoluntate, et substrata potentiae eius, cui restiterant, mysterium unius dei cunctis manifestabitur et omnis gratiarum actio referetur ad patrem, ex quo sunt omnia, ut cessante praedicatione unus deus sciatur in mysterio trinitatis. cum enim omnes potestates et principatus et dominationes Christo genu flexerint, tunc filius manifestabit non se esse, a quo sunt omnia, sed filium eius et illum in se uideri. haec est subiectio et regni traditio.","english":"But now let us see, for those remaining in this faith, what it means for the Son to hand over the kingdom to the Father; for this is what the Apostle says elsewhere among other things: then the Son himself will be subject to him who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all. This subjection, therefore, is itself the handing over of the kingdom. Hence, at this point an interpretation seems necessary, so that the Son is not denied to be subject to the Father, and yet is said to possess the eternal kingdom nonetheless—that is, the kingdom of the Son—because in his name all knees bend: the celestial, the terrestrial, and the infernal. This the Apostle Peter also affirms, saying: there is no other name given under heaven in which we ought to be saved. And the Lord himself says to the disciples: until now you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and I will do it. Thus the Son reigns, when all things are saved in his name and what is asked is granted, until the end of the world.\n\nBut after all things have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been subjected to his power, to which they had resisted, the mystery of the one God will be made manifest to all, and all thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from whom all things come, so that, with preaching ceasing, the one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, principalities, and dominions have bent the knee to Christ, then the Son will make it manifest that he is not the one from whom all things come, but his Son, and that the Father is seen in him. This is the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":567,"ref":"p567","source":"ostendens enim patrem esse, a quo sunt omnia, subicit se illi, cum de eo se dicit esse. tanta enim claritas et maiestas in aduentu filii uidebitur, ut omnes potentiae et chori angelorum hunc singularem putent deum. saluator autem, cum se non illum esse dixerit, qui dicitur pater, sed filium eius, regnans tradit regnum patri. in hac re manifestata est et subiectio et regni traditio, quia. cum a patre se profitetur esse, quicquid habet, patris esse fatetur omnem summam referens ad eum.\n\nLXXVIIII.\n\nLXXVIIII = LXXXIII\n\nLXXX. QVID OPUS ERAT UT GALATAS ARGUENS APOSTOLUS HOC INTERPONERET — GALATIS ENIM POST EUANGELIUM AD LEGEM CONFUGIENTIBUS INTER CETERA AIT: 'MEDIATOR ENIM UNIUS NON EST, DEUS AUTEM UNUS EST' —, QVASI GALATAE UNUM DEUM NEGARENT, QVIPPE CUM HAC RATIONE INDUCTI (SINT) IN LEGE, UT UNUM DEUM ET SINGULAREM CREDERENT, CHRISTUM AUTEM MINISTRUM TANTUM EX PRAEDESTINATIONE UENISSE AD DISPENSANDUM DONUM GRATIAE DEI?","english":"For in showing that the Father is the one from whom all things come, He subjects Himself to Him, when He says that He is from Him. For such great brightness and majesty will be seen in the coming of the Son that all the powers and choirs of angels will think this one to be the singular God. But the Saviour, when He has said that He is not that one who is called the Father, but His Son, while reigning hands over the kingdom to the Father. In this matter both the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom are made manifest, because, when He professes Himself to be from the Father, whatever He has, He acknowledges to be the Father's, referring the whole sum to Him.\n\nLXXIX.\n\nLXXIX = LXXXIII\n\nLXXX. WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INTERPOSE THIS — FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE FLEEING TO THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: 'FOR A MEDIATOR OF ONE IS NOT, BUT GOD IS ONE' — AS IF THE GALATIANS DENIED ONE GOD, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WERE LED BY THIS REASON INTO THE LAW, SO THAT THEY BELIEVED IN ONE GOD AND A SINGULAR ONE, BUT THAT CHRIST CAME AS A MINISTER ONLY, BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":568,"ref":"p568","source":"Manifestum est sic inductos Galatas in legem fuisse, ut et Christum profiterentur, sed non sicut dignum est, sed more Fotini, ut, quia unum deum lex praedicat, contra legem sit, si Christus deus dicatur. hoc commentum Iudaeorum est, qui magnalibus uirtutum uicti crediderunt post crucem Christum, ita ut profitentes Christum legem tamen seruarent, quasi non esset omnis spes in Christo ponenda. hi sunt, quos apostolus falsos fratres appellat. isti ergo post apostolorum traditionem Galatarum sensum corruperant, ita ut Iudaeos eos facerent sub nomine saluatoris. hinc apostolus Christum dicit uenisse arbitrum circumcisionis et praeputii, sicut dicit ad Ephesios: in uno nouo homine faciens pacem. si ergo arbiter uenit Christus, arbiter autem sic facit pacem inter duos, ut nouam regulam ponat, auferens ambobus professiones reconciliat eos ut eius sententiam secuti amittant discordiam pristinam. Iudaeo enim circumcisionem uindicante et gentili praeputium discordia fit; cum uero hoc aufertur, fit pax..","english":"It is clear that the Galatians were led into the Law in such a way that they also professed Christ, but not as is fitting, but in the manner of Photinus, so that, because the Law proclaims one God, it is against the Law if Christ is called God. This is a contrivance of the Jews, who, overcome by the great deeds of power, believed in Christ after the cross, so that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as if all hope were not to be placed in Christ. These are the ones whom the apostle calls false brothers. Therefore, after the tradition of the apostles, these men had corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so that they made them Jews under the name of the Savior. Hence the apostle says that Christ came as the arbiter of circumcision and the foreskin, as he says to the Ephesians: making peace in one new man. If, therefore, Christ came as arbiter, and an arbiter makes peace between two parties in such a way that he lays down a new rule, removing the professions of both, he reconciles them so that, having followed his judgment, they lay aside their former discord. For when the Jew claims circumcision and the Gentile claims the foreskin, discord arises; when this is removed, peace is made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":569,"ref":"p569","source":"'Si igitur sic se haec habent, quo modo uos,) inquit, 'Galatae Iudaei facti Christi arbitrium corrumpitis?' ideo dixit illis: euacuati estis a Christo. ius enim reconciliationis, quod inter eos constituerat, spernentes ad pristinum Iudaeorum sensum conuersi sunt, accusantes tam se quam reconciliatorem; omne enim quod displicet accusatur: et quoniam haec res Galatas ad legem conuerti coegerat, ut unum deum sine mysterio faterentur, quasi legi esset inimicum, si Christus deus diceretur, dicit: arbiter, hoc est mediator, unius non est — sed duorum utique; uos autem conuersi ad legem arbitrum recusastis —, deus tamen unus est.' quo dicto non sic se Christum deum praedicare testatur, ut alterum deum faceret aut duos profiteretur, sed unum esse deum, sicut et in lege dictum est, quia, cum Christus de deo deus praedicatur, non ad alterum proficit deum, quia quod de deo est non se permittit alterum deum dici. siue enim deus, siue, quod de deo est, unus est deus. nihil enim utique distat inter deum et quod de deo est; est enim alter. ipse enim alter propter personam, qua filius nuncupatur, ipse uero idem propter unitatem substantiae. ne reprehensibile uideatur quia'personam' dixi; solent enim quidam abnuere, sed apostolum sequamur qui ait: nam quod donaui, si quid donaui, propter uos in persona Christi.","english":"If therefore these things are so, how is it,' he says, 'that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the judgment of Christ?' For this reason he said to them: you have been emptied by Christ. For the law of reconciliation, which he had established among them, they spurned and turned back to the former mindset of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler; for everything that displeases is accused. And because this matter had compelled the Galatians to convert to the Law, so that they would confess one God without mystery, as if it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: an arbiter, that is, a mediator, is not of one — but of two, certainly; you, however, having turned to the Law, have rejected the arbiter — yet God is one. By this statement he testifies that he does not proclaim Christ as God in such a way as to make another God or to profess two, but that God is one, just as it is said in the Law, because when Christ is proclaimed as God from God, it does not redound to another God, since what is from God does not permit itself to be called another God. For whether it is God, or what is from God, God is one. For there is no difference at all between God and what is from God; for it is another. He himself is another on account of the person, who is called Son, but he himself is the same on account of the unity of substance. Lest it seem reprehensible that I said 'person'; for some are accustomed to deny it, but let us follow the apostle who says: for what I have given, if I have given anything, I have given for your sake in the person of Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":570,"ref":"p570","source":"LXXXI. SALUATOR, CUM SE PASSURUM DICERET ET POST TERTIUM DIEM RESURRECTURUM, ADIECIT: 'ET POSTQVAM RESURREXERO, PRAECEDAM UOS IN GALILEAM; IBI ME VIDEBITIS'. ET ANGELUS MULIERIBUS SIMILITER. CUM INUENIATUR A MULIERIBUS ET A DISCIPULIS SUIS VISUS IN HIERUSALEM.\n\nUerba saluatoris retractare infidelis est, sed te uideo non de uerbis saluatoris dubitare, sed sensum requirere, quare, cum in Hierosolymis post passionem suam uisus sit, dixit se in Galilea ab his uideri. cum in Hierosolyma uisus est, sed particulatim ad recreandos animos discipulorum, in Galilea uero ab omnibus simul, ergo qui in Hierusalem uisuri illum erant per partes, in Galilea illis constituit, ut simul omnibus appareret et ad ordinandam disciplinam daret praecepta.\n\nLXXXII. NON ESSE CONTRISTANDUM DE MORTUIS PAULUS APOSTOLUS SIGNAT; NAM DESPERANTUM EST CONTRISTARI ET IPSE: 'INFIRMUS', INQVIT DE EPAFRODITO. 'FUIT PROPE MORTEM. SED DEUS MISERTUS EST ILLI; NON SOLUM AUTEM ILLI. SED ET MIHI, NE TRISTITIAM SUPER TRISTITIAM HABEREM'. QVO MODO CONTRISTANDUM UETAT, CUM IPSE CONTRISTANDUM SE, SI MORTUUS FUISSET, DECLARAT?","english":"LXXXI. The Savior, when He said that He would suffer and would rise again on the third day, added: 'And after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see Me.' And the angel said similarly to the women. Yet He is found to have been seen by the women and by His disciples in Jerusalem.\n\nTo retract the words of the Savior is impious, but I see that you do not doubt the words of the Savior, but seek the meaning: why, when He was seen in Jerusalem after His passion, He said that He would be seen by them in Galilee. He was seen in Jerusalem, but individually, to revive the spirits of the disciples; in Galilee, however, by all together. Therefore, for those who were to see Him in Jerusalem in parts, He appointed that in Galilee He would appear to all at once and give precepts for ordering the discipline.\n\nLXXXII. The Apostle Paul indicates that one should not grieve for the dead; for it is a sign of despair to grieve, and he himself says of Epaphroditus: 'He was near death. But God had mercy on him; and not only on him, but also on me, lest I have grief upon grief.' How does he forbid grieving, when he himself declares that he would have grieved if he had died?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":571,"ref":"p571","source":"Aliter se de morte Epafrediti, si prouenisset, contristandum significauit apostolus et aliter prohibet contristandum. nam hic propter solacium adiutorii eius, quo utebatur in euangelio, si mortuus fuisset, contristandum se dixit; nos autem sic contristari prohibet, ne obitos quasi exstinctos et perditos lugeamus desperantes de resurrectione. aliud est igitur solacium requirere quasi absentis et aliud dolere interitum iam non futuri. hic cessat consolatio, illic excluditur desperatio.\n\nLXXXIII. QVID EST UT, CUM APOSTOLI OMNES CURAS SIBI OBLATAS SANASSENT, PROPRIIS TAMEN INFIRMIS MEDELLAM NON DEDERINT? NAM UTIQVE EPAFRODITUS USQVE AD MORTEM NON AEGROTASSET, SI INTERCESSIO APOSTOLI FUISSET AUDITA. QVIS ENIM DUBITET ORASSE HOC SAEPE APOSTOLUM ET NON IMPETRASSE? SI ENIM AUDITUS FUISSET, STATIM INFIRMITAS FUISSET ADEMPTA.\n\nSigna et uirtutes idcirco ab apostolis factae sunt, ut iufidelitas cogeretur ad fidem, ut uidentes facta, quae hominibus inpossibilia sunt. dei ex hoc esse praedicationem agnoscerent et rationem esse in fide uirtute probarent, ut, quoniam uerbis semper contradicitur, testis uirtus posita est, cui cum uerba cedunt, rationem esse in fide significat, quae uerbis exprimi non potest. inter fideles igitur non iam signa et prodigia sunt necessaria, sed spes firma.","english":"Otherwise he indicated that he would be saddened by the death of Epaphroditus, if it had occurred, and otherwise he forbids being saddened. For here, on account of the solace of his assistance, which he used in the gospel, he said he would be saddened if he had died; but he forbids us to be saddened in such a way that we mourn the dead as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, therefore, to seek solace as for one absent, and another to grieve for the destruction of one who will no longer exist. In the former case, consolation ceases; in the latter, despair is excluded.\n\nLXXXIII. WHY IS IT THAT, WHEN THE APOSTLES HAD HEALED ALL THE CURES OFFERED TO THEM, THEY NEVERTHELESS DID NOT GIVE REMEDY TO THEIR OWN SICK? FOR SURELY EPAPHRODITUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ILL UNTO DEATH, IF THE APOSTLE'S INTERCESSION HAD BEEN HEARD. FOR WHO WOULD DOUBT THAT THE APOSTLE OFTEN PRAYED FOR THIS AND DID NOT OBTAIN IT? FOR IF HE HAD BEEN HEARD, THE INFIRMITY WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.\n\nSigns and miracles were performed by the apostles for this reason, so that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that, seeing deeds which are impossible for men, they would recognize that the preaching is from God and would prove by the power that there is reason in the faith, so that, since words are always contradicted, the witness of power was set forth, to which, when words yield, it signifies that there is reason in the faith, which cannot be expressed in words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but firm hope.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":572,"ref":"p572","source":"postquam enim discitur uera esse quae promissa sunt, ad hoc se armat animus, ut spretis praesentibus futuris dignus existat meritum sibi conlocans per laborem hoc Salomone testante, qui ait: fili, accedens ad seruitutem dei sta in iustitia et timore et praepara animam tuam ad temptationem. quoniam temptationibus proficit homo, haec data sunt monita. unde apostolus: per tribulationes, inquit, oportet nos intrare in regnum dei. hae tribulationum temptationes diuersis modis accidunt, ut perseuerans animus in accepta fide possit coronari. non solum enim in fide temptatur homo, sed et in aegritudine et in damno et in persecutione et in morte carorum, ut, si in his passionibus ad auxilium daemoniorum non fuerit abductus, sine sanguinis pretio mercetur martyrium. non ergo ad dispendium Epafroditi non impetrauit apostolus quod petiit, sed ad profectum, quia et in sua causa, cum postulasset, audiuit: sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam uirtus in infirmitate perficitur.","english":"Afterwards, when it is learned that what was promised is true, the mind arms itself for this purpose, so that, despising present things, it may become worthy of future ones, establishing merit for itself through labor, as Solomon testifies, who says: \"Son, approaching the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation.\" Because man advances through temptations, these warnings were given. Hence the apostle: \"Through tribulations,\" he says, \"we must enter the kingdom of God.\" These tribulations and temptations occur in various ways, so that a persevering spirit in the faith it has accepted may be crowned. For man is tempted not only in faith, but also in sickness, in loss, in persecution, and in the death of loved ones, so that, if in these passions he is not led away to seek the help of demons, he may earn martyrdom without the price of blood. Therefore, the apostle did not fail to obtain what he asked to the detriment of Epaphroditus, but to his advancement, because also in his own case, when he had made a request, he heard: \"My grace is sufficient for you\"; for virtue is perfected in weakness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":573,"ref":"p573","source":"LXXXIIII.\n\nLXXXIIII = XCV\n\nLXXXV.\n\nLXXXV = LXXI\n\nLXXXVI.\n\nLXXXVI = LXXXIIII\n\nLXXXVII.\n\nLXXXVII = LXXXVIIII\n\nLXXXVIII.\n\nLXXXVIII = XC\n\nLXXXVIIII.\n\nLXXXVIIII = XCII\n\nXC.\n\nXC = XCIII\n\nXCI.\n\nXCI = XCVI\n\nXCII. DE AETERNITATE FILII.\n\nQuoniam sunt quidam, qui nondum adhuc discussa erroris caligine nec purgata uel detersa ueternosae uitae carie terreno sensu aestimantes dubitant uel de dei filio uel duos unum esse — perfida enim et contumax natio Iudaeorum, quibus fons legis et sacramentorum thesauri patuerunt, non ambigit, sed nefariis pernegat uocibus —, breuiter, quantum tractatus contractior patitur, edisseram. spes enim ignorantibus, si uelint discere, integra dimittitur; poena dissimulantibus perpetua destinatur.\n\nDeus omnipotens, cum magnitudine ac bonitate praestantior sit, magnum aliquid et maxime bonum edere ex se atque exhibere debuerat, sed, si quid edidisset quod contra modum excellentiae suae foret. aut non potuisse amplius — quod in omnipotentem non cadit — aut noluisse — quod in benignissimum — uideretur. certe in summo deo grande non fuerat fecisse quod intra se positum uim plenae summitatis non esset habiturum- . turum. super se ergo nihil erat — nihil est enim quod deum uincat —, infra se parum fuerat, quia minus maximo non congruebat.","english":"LXXXIV.\n\nLXXXIV = XCV\n\nLXXXV.\n\nLXXXV = LXXI\n\nLXXXVI.\n\nLXXXVI = LXXXIV\n\nLXXXVII.\n\nLXXXVII = LXXXIX\n\nLXXXVIII.\n\nLXXXVIII = XC\n\nLXXXIX.\n\nLXXXIX = XCII\n\nXC.\n\nXC = XCIII\n\nXCI.\n\nXCI = XCVI\n\nXCII. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON.\n\nSince there are some who, still not having the darkness of error dispelled nor the decay of a sluggish life cleansed or wiped away, judging with an earthly mind, either doubt concerning the Son of God or that the two are one—for the perfidious and obstinate nation of the Jews, to whom the source of the law and the treasures of the sacraments lay open, does not doubt, but denies with impious words—I will set forth briefly, as far as the more restricted scope of the treatise permits. For hope is left intact for the ignorant, if they wish to learn; perpetual punishment is destined for those who dissemble.\n\nGod Almighty, since He is more excellent in magnitude and goodness, ought to have brought forth and exhibited from Himself something great and supremely good. But if He had brought forth something that would be contrary to the measure of His excellence, it would seem either that He could not do more—which does not befit the Almighty—or that He did not wish to—which does not befit the Most Benign. Certainly, for the supreme God it would not have been great to have made something which, placed within Himself, would not possess the force of full supremacy. Therefore, nothing was above Him—for there is nothing that overcomes God—and below Him would have been too little, because the lesser did not befit the greatest.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":574,"ref":"p574","source":"simillimum itaque suum filium creans edidit ex se quasi alterum se, ac sic illud summum et maximum bonum, quod nobis ex deo suppetit, per eius ad nos propaginem redundauit.\n\nQuin et haec simul intellegenda ratio est deum, qui hunc mundum condidit, ei, qui inter cetera pulchritudinis ordinationisque miracula creandi quoque naturam sufficiendis sui cuiusque generis foetibus tribuit, ipsum prius utique habuisse quod dederit. nullus enim dat quod ipse non habeat. qui ergo habuit filium totis sibi similitudinis partibus congruentem — hoc est, unus unicum, probus probum, bonus benignum, beatus beatum, maximus maximum, sempiternus aeternum —, habuit utique ante mundum creatae subolis principatum, de quo rebus oriundis impertiebatur exemplum, ut gignentium germina suis respondere seminibus cogerentur. nec sane aliter sinebat ordo legitimus, quam ut pater rerum futurus ante esse debuerit pater proprius, hoc est proprii sui foetus.","english":"Therefore, creating a son most similar to himself, he brought forth from himself, as it were, another self, and thus that highest and greatest good, which comes to us from God, overflowed to us through his propagation to us.\n\nMoreover, this reasoning must also be understood at the same time: that God, who founded this world, and who, among other wonders of beauty and order, also bestowed upon each kind the nature of creating, for the purpose of producing offspring of its own kind, must first have had himself what he gave. For no one gives what he himself does not have. Therefore, he who had a son corresponding to him in all parts of likeness—that is, one with one, upright with upright, good with kind, blessed with blessed, greatest with greatest, everlasting with eternal—certainly had, before the world, the primacy of created offspring, from which an example was imparted to things coming into being, so that the offspring of those who beget would be compelled to correspond to their seeds. Nor, indeed, did the legitimate order allow otherwise, than that the one who was to be the father of things should first have been a father in his own right, that is, of his own offspring.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":575,"ref":"p575","source":"Sed quod editum filium diximus, non sic est accipiendum, tamquam nostri similem habeat ortum natusque ita sit, ut mortales nasci uidemus, cum prorumpente foetu existant quae ante non fuerant. illa enim aliunde insitis concepta seminibus elementorum distantia in coetum sui generis specie coalescunt; hic autem diuinitus nullo auxilio admixtionis externae ex se id, quod in se ac secum semper habuit, eduxit et protulit. ut enim, si lucem nasci ex sole dicamus, quod ab eo procedat et profluat, non utique sic dicimus, quasi aliquando sine luce sol aut esse possit aut fuerit, ut eam tempore aliquo a se superiore generauerit, sed ut, quod secum semper obtinuit, eam de se scilicet genitam sine coepti aliqua distinctione principii, quia semper fulgeat, semper ex se uelut munere reparante conlustret, sic dei filius ab aeterno patri cohaerens hanc quoque eius similitudinem tenuit, ut nec ortum habeat nec occasum. et ut deus sine origine sempiternus, ita et filius sempiternus; et ut deus unus est, simplex idemque, sic cum patre permixtus, ut nominibus et adfectibus distincti quidem, sed idem sint, in ambobus unus et uterque in uno inseparabili maiestate continuus.","english":"But when we say that a son was brought forth, it is not to be understood as if he had a birth like ours, or that he was born in the way we see mortals born, when with the bursting forth of the fetus things come into existence which did not exist before. For those things, conceived by seeds implanted from elsewhere, coalesce into a species of their own kind through the difference of elements; but this divine being, with no help from any external mixture, brought forth and produced from itself that which it always had in itself and with itself. For if we say that light is born from the sun, because it proceeds and flows from it, we certainly do not speak as if the sun could at some time exist or have existed without light, as if it generated light from itself at some time as something superior, but rather that what it always possessed with itself, namely light born from itself without any distinction of a beginning, because it always shines, always illuminates from itself as if by a renewing gift, so the Son of God, cohering with the Father from eternity, also held this likeness of him, that he has neither beginning nor end. And as God is without origin and eternal, so also the Son is eternal; and as God is one, simple, and the same, so he is mingled with the Father, so that they are indeed distinct in names and affections, but are the same, one in both and each in one, continuous in inseparable majesty.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":576,"ref":"p576","source":"Deus itaque filium non ex materiis discordantibus tractum, sed ex simplici ac singulari naturae suae stirpe ac seminario editum, semper in se habitum nec a se ulla umquam separatione dimissum ita secum continet et amplectitur, ut nihil in ambobus de illa unitate mutetur.\n\nXCIII.\n\nXCIII = XCI\n\nXCIIII.\n\nXCIIII = XCVII\n\nXCV.\n\nXCV non exstat.","english":"Therefore, God did not draw forth a son from discordant materials, but brought him forth from the simple and singular stock and seed of his own nature, always held within himself and never sent away from himself by any separation, and so contains and embraces him with himself that nothing in either of them is changed from that unity.\n\nXCIII.\n\nXCIII = XCI\n\nXCIIII.\n\nXCIIII = XCVII\n\nXCV.\n\nXCV does not exist.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}