{"slug":"stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2","title":"Quaestiones Aliae Veteris Et Novi Testamenti [Incertus]","title_source":"Quaestiones Aliae Veteris Et Novi Testamenti [Incertus]","author":"Augustinus (pseudo)","genre":"commentary","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T19:36:09Z","cost_usd":0.006925},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2","work_id":"stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0040a/stoa002/stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2.xml"},"stats":{"passages":74,"english_words":19020,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":68966,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":3,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0040a/stoa002/stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0040a.stoa002.opp-lat2","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":74,"translated":74,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":19020,"source_letters":68581,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — 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 Latin; 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: 74 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"1 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"2 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1; John 1:29."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Licence: Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":74},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"QUÆSTIONUM EX VETEM TESTAMENTO PARS SECUNDA.\n\nADVERSUM EOS QUI NECANT AD DEUM ALIQUID PER TINERE.\n\nQUÆST. PRIMA.— Multis, quos sæcularis ista caligo cæcavit, plurimum displicemus, si solliciti Dei præcoptn servemus, si occasiones delinquendi fugiamus, si bona omnia salutari studio implere conemur, si illecebrarum, vitiorumque blandimenti seductoria negligamus, si nulla nos sæculari dulcedine capi paliamur, si sponte pro Dci nomine cruciatus pœnasque subeamus, si mortem ipsam virtute spiritus contemnamus. Illis nimirum quibus omne quod geritur, sensus iste mortalis DOC laude nec vituperatione di gnum esse persuasit. Nolunt enim ad Deum horum aliquid pertinere. Nonnulli adeo seelera sua criminaque defendere cutienles, Nihil, inquiunt, prodest, beue an male vivas. Neque cnim ista uunc Deo cura est, ut te diversa pro instituto proprio morboque gerentem sollicite festinet aspicere, et fœdis aliquando luis actibus oculos permiscere. Vana sunt omnia, quoe ut libitum fucril celebrantur: is qui ad Deum pertinet, secretus ast et remotus ab istis rebus humanis, et ideo nec irascitur, nec movetur; nulla illi humanarum rerum, nulla nostri actus est contemplatio; totus rotati sæculi cursus. ct quædam mundam orbis inexplicabilis volutatio, ita cor reptur rapit et projicit, ut stultus credatur quisquis se ad curam Dei revocare posse putaret.","english":"PART TWO OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nAGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING PERTAINS TO GOD.\n\nQUESTION ONE.—We greatly displease many whom this worldly darkness has blinded, if, being solicitous, we keep God's precepts, if we flee the occasions of sinning, if we strive to fulfill all good things with a wholesome zeal, if we disregard the seductive enticements of allurements and the blandishments of vices, if we do not allow ourselves to be caught by any worldly sweetness, if we willingly undergo tortures and punishments for God's name, if we despise death itself by the power of the spirit. Surely to those whom this mortal sense has persuaded that everything that is done is worthy neither of God's praise nor of blame. For they do not wish any of these things to pertain to God. Some, indeed, endeavoring to defend their crimes and sins, say: It profits nothing whether you live well or badly. For neither is this now a care to God, that he should anxiously hasten to look upon you as you conduct yourself variously according to your own disposition and disease, and at some time mingle his eyes with your foul deeds. All things are vain that are celebrated as one pleases; he who pertains to God is secluded and removed from these human affairs, and therefore neither is angry nor is moved; no contemplation of human affairs, none of our actions belongs to him; the whole course of the revolving world, and a certain inexplicable rolling of the round globe, so snatches and casts along the mind, that whoever thinks he can recall himself to the care of God is believed to be a fool.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Nec martyrum quidem probandus est animus, qui Deum suum, quem misericordem esse pronuntiant, effusione sui sanguinis xslimant delectari. Nihil illi charum in nohis, mbil est odiosum; nulla mortis nostræ conditione, nulla sanitatis inL.gritate lætatur; nec quid uhi geratur scire desiderat: non quod impossibile sit majestati divinæ omnium fere quæ gesta sunt vel geruntur habere notitiam, sed quod scire nolit miserias hominum vanitatesque mundanas. Sic denique scriptum est: Vanitas vanitautium, universa vanitas (Eccle. I, 2). Quorum sententia desperatione firmata, ut divini sensus auctoritate dissolvitur, sic ipsorum sacro sermone vulgari, qui maxintus habetur in usu, convincitur expugnata. Nam cum inter negotia diversorumque contractus fides perfidiaque contendunt, ut testis divinitas adhibetur, quæ aliquando quid agamus scire negatur. Testis est, inquiunt, Deus: Deus videat, Deus judicet, Deus faciat, Deus reddat. Ei cum ad necessitatem jurisjurandi venitur, et jurantis animus metuit ne sibi aliquid obveniat pejeranti; et jusjuraudum exigit, et reddi ei posse collidit, qui sibi male juravit. Et cnm sanitas exopta et hona valetudo fuerit consecuta, divinitati gratiæ referuntur. Et cum aliqua decidente materia casus proximus illæsus evaserit, Deus bonus dicitur praestitisse.","english":"Nor, indeed, is the mind of the martyrs to be approved, who think that their God, whom they proclaim to be merciful, takes delight in the shedding of their own blood. Nothing is dear to him in us, nothing hateful; he rejoices in no condition of our death, in no soundness of our health; nor does he desire to know what is done anywhere: 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. For so it is written: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccles. 1:2). By their opinion, confirmed in desperation, as it is dissolved by the authority of the divine sense, so it is convicted and overthrown by their own sacred discourse in common use, which is held in the greatest practice. For when amid the affairs and contracts of diverse persons faith and faithlessness contend, the divinity is invoked as a witness—he who is said at times not to know what we do. God is witness, they say: let God see, let God judge, let God do, let God repay. But when it comes to the necessity of an oath, and the mind of the one swearing fears lest something befall him for perjuring himself; both the oath demands it, and he believes it can be repaid to him who has sworn falsely to himself. And when health has been obtained and good soundness has followed, thanks are given to the divinity. And when, with some falling matter, one has escaped a near fall unharmed, God is said to be good and to have provided.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Et cum adverso ventorum flatu commoti æquoris fluctus insurgunt, et navis undiquc cæsa quassatur, navigantium turbæ ad cœlum manus extendunt, Deum voce supplici deprecantur, et exaudin se et liberari posse confidunt. Unde h;rc Si Deo nulla nostri estcura, si quidagamus ignorati Inanis est igitur ista persuasio. Omliia Deo sunt cognita. Nullus sibi de impunitate commissorum scelerum blandialur. Bon æ vitæ maximus fructus est, malas perpetua pœna et alterni cruciatus. Igitur nobis qui Deum omnia nosse credimus, qui devote ad martyrium festinamus, inæstimabilis fructus, perpetua vita præstabitur: impiis vero, qui Deum scelera sua, criminumque nescire docUerunt arcana, ignis flamma consumens, incendiumque semper indeficiens ministra. bitur.\n\nII. — An Spiritus qui super aquas ferebatur, Spiritus sanotus intelligatur; quia dictum est, Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas ( Gen. I, )?","english":"And when, with the adverse blast of the winds, the waves of the troubled sea rise up, and the ship, struck on every side, is battered, the crowds of those sailing stretch out their hands to heaven, entreat God with suppliant voice, and trust that they can be heard and delivered. Hence, if God has no care for us, if he does not know what we do, this persuasion is therefore empty. All things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself concerning impunity for the crimes he has committed. The greatest fruit of a good life is this, and for evil deeds perpetual punishment and alternating torment. Therefore to us who believe that God knows all things, who hasten devoutly to martyrdom, an inestimable reward, eternal life, will be given; but to the impious, who have taught that God does not know their crimes and the secrets of their offenses, a consuming flame of fire and a never-failing conflagration will be ministered.\n\nII. — Whether the Spirit that was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, because it is said, The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters (Gen. 1)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Si ideo a quibusdam Spiritus sanctus putatur, quia Dci esse spiritus legitur, etc.\n\nIII. — Si Adam factus a Deo et animatus, Spiritum sanctum accepit; qnia scriptum est, Inspiravit Deus in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ ( Gen. II, ).\n\nNon erat ordinis ut acciperet Spiritum sanctum; quia hoc in posterum reservatum cst a Deo, ut in novissimis diebus cum mysterium untus Dei manifestatum est, daretur credentibus. A principio quidem prædicata est Trinitas, sed quasi sub velamine erat intelligentia ejus. Dei cnim Patris primum persona sine cunctatione et figura prædicata cl manifestata est, quia ab ipso sunt omnia. Filii autem ejus, Domini nostri Jesu Christi ct Spiritus sancti personæ non tacebantur, sed neque manifestabantur. Denique de Domino fiL a perlidis quæstio, et de Spiritu sancto. Quidam enim dementes Spiritum sanctum ipsum Patrem dicunt, sicut ct Sabdlius ipsum dicit Patrem quem et Filium. De Oei autem Patris persona nemo dubitai. Cum ergo Trinitatis lit manifestatio, tunc demum Spiritus sanctus datur credentibus, ut et persona ejas manifesta sit, et accipientes illum, signum hahcanl, quia lilii sunt Dei, per id quod Spiritum Dei, qni de Deo utique est, habent in se. Perfectionis enim signilicatio hæc est, cum scitur ct Patcr esse el v ilius et Spiriius sanctus. Hæc perfectio hoc tribuit donum.","english":"If for this reason some think the Holy Spirit is [God], because it is read that the Spirit is of God, etc.\n\nIII. — If Adam, made by God and given life, received the Holy Spirit, because it is written, God breathed into his face the breath of life (Gen 2:7):\n\nIt was not according to order that he should receive the Holy Spirit, because this was reserved by God for later, so that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God was made manifest, it might be given to believers. From the beginning, indeed, the Trinity was proclaimed, but its understanding was, as it were, under a veil. For the person of God the Father was first proclaimed and made manifest without hesitation and without figure, because from him are all things. But the persons of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not kept silent, yet neither were they made manifest. Finally, there was a question concerning the Lord the Son from the unbelievers, and concerning the Holy Spirit. For certain foolish men say that the Holy Spirit is the Father himself, just as Sabellius says that the Father himself is also the Son. But concerning the person of God the Father, no one doubts. When, therefore, the manifestation of the Trinity has come, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that his person may be manifest, and those who receive him may have a sign that they are sons of God, through the fact that they have within themselves the Spirit of God, who is certainly from God. For this is the signification of perfection, when it is known that both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. This perfection bestows this gift.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Adveniens enim Filius Dei, et hæc adapcricns ac manifestans, pIis aliquid debuit dare, ct dignum fuit tribuere perfectionem hanc credentibus; quia nec in Filio, nee in Patre solo perfectio est vel salus, sed in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Unde decit Joannes evangelista, quia de plenitudine ejus nos omnes accepimus, gratiam pro gratia: quia Les per Moysen data est, gratia autem et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est (Joan. I, 16, 17). Apertum eat, advenientc Salvatore plenitudinem factam veritatis. Uux enim latebant, et quod promissum est dum revelatur, et manife'statur, plenitudo fit veritatis: tunc credentes accepto Spiritu sancto fiunt lilii Dei- Nam inspiratio quæ dicitur facta a Deo in Adam, animæ traditio est: Spiritus cnim frequcnler pro anima ponimur, dicente Evangelio inter cætera, Et reversus est, inquit, spiritus ejus ad illam ( Luc. VIII, 55). Et in Psalmo: Spiritum, ait, contribulatum, et cor cntritum Deus non spernit (Psal. I., 19). Frequenter tamen aliqui codices non sic habent, quia inspiravit Deus; sed, insufflavit Deus in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ, et factus eat homo in animam viventem. Nou quia dixit, spiritum vie, ideo Spiritum sanctum significavit. Nam et de animalihus ita ait: In quibus erat spiritus vitæ (Gen. VII, 22). Spiritus vitæ dicitur, quia animal corpora ad vitam.","english":"For the Son of God, when he came and made these things clear and manifest, had to give something to the faithful, and it was fitting that he bestow this perfection on believers; because neither in the Son nor in the Father alone is there perfection or salvation, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Hence John the Evangelist says that we have all received of his fullness, grace for grace: because the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is clear that when the Savior came, the fullness of truth was accomplished. For the things that lay hidden, and what was promised, when it is revealed and made manifest, becomes the fullness of truth; then believers, having received the Holy Spirit, become sons of God. For the breathing that is said to have been made by God into Adam is the giving of a soul; for \"spirit\" is frequently put for \"soul,\" as the Gospel says among other things: And his spirit returned, it says, to that place. And in the Psalm: A broken spirit, it says, and a contrite heart, God does not despise. Frequently, however, some manuscripts do not have it this way, that God breathed in; but, God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Not because he said \"breath of life\" did he therefore signify the Holy Spirit. For he also says this of animals: In which was the breath of life. It is called the breath of life because it gives life to animal bodies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"IV. — Cur Adam in mundo positus mandatum vel legum accepit, cum ipse dominium cæterorum haberet.\n\nQuamvis in mundo dominus positus sil Adam, tamen quia non utique ex se, sed a Deo id accepit, debuit hujus rei significationem ex lege accipere; ut ipse qui dominus videtur, per legem subjectus ei esset qui illi hanc dederat potestatem; ut auctoritas Creatoris reverentiam illi faceret per legem, ne dominatio tanta extolleret illum, et immemor fieret Dei condiLoris sui.\n\nV. —Cur Deus dicat, Non permanebit Spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt curo: anni illorum centum viginti, etc. (Gen. vi, 5).\n\nCum gigantes essent illis dicbus super terram, pesliferi et superbi, a magnitudinis statura elati, post eia carnis euntes nati apostatæ; tunc cum displicereL Deo, promisit genus humanum diluvio eteturum, et tempus statuit; ut si quis forte ira Dei audita et indignalionc, super hoc vellet se corrigere, haberet spatium emendandi se. Denique centum annis arca hac ratione videtur fabricata. Ante arc.f autem inchoationcm vi iuti anni fuisse perhibentur. Sed narratio istud qnod postquam de numero aunorum Nile dixit, subjecit, obscurare videtur. Nam hæc sententia autequam quingentorum annorum esset Noe, dignoscitur lata. Qnid enim dicit?","english":"IV. — Why Adam, placed in the world, received a commandment or laws, when he himself had dominion over the rest.\n\nAlthough Adam was placed in the world as lord, yet because he received this not from himself but from God, he ought to receive a sign of this matter from the law; so that he who appears to be lord should, through the law, be subject to him who had given him this power; so that the authority of the Creator should instill reverence in him through the law, lest such great dominion exalt him and he become unmindful of God his Creator.\n\nV. — Why God says, My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh: their years shall be a hundred and twenty, etc. (Gen. 6:5).\n\nSince in those days there were giants upon the earth, pestilent and proud, elated by the stature of their size, going after the things of the flesh, born apostates; then, when they began to displease God, he foretold that the human race would be destroyed by the flood, and set a time, so that if anyone, perhaps having heard the wrath and indignation of God, wished to correct himself concerning this, he might have space to amend himself. Finally, it is for this reason that the ark is seen to have been built over a hundred years. But before the beginning of the ark there are said to have been twenty years. Yet the narrative seems to obscure this, in that after it spoke of the number of the years of Noah, it added what follows. For this sentence is discerned to have been brought forth before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis: propterea et subjecil, Quia malitia increvit super terram, delebo I hominem a facie terra usque ad pecus; quod utique diluvio facto impletum est. Nam et post diluvium multis annis homines vixisse meminimus: et Aaron frater Moysi centum viginti Ires anuos vixisse memoratur (Num. XXXIII, 58, 59). Ipse autem Moyses ut centum et viginti annos transire non posset, fecit quod Deum in contradictione aquæ non clarificavit. Num intraturus erat in terram promissinnis, si non obstetisset peccatum ( Deut. XXXIV, 7, et XXXII, 48-52). Videtur enim hoc quibusdam dictum ad tempus Moysi periincre, cum inveniatur Joiada sacerdos centum triginta annos vixisse (II Paral. XXIV, 15).\n\nVI.- Quid continet benedictio Jacob, quam ledit filiis suis (Gen. XLVIII, XLIX). Non solum ex præsentibus causis futura uniusctijusquc tribus prædixit, sed et de futuris futura, quorum adhuc umbra non craL, in populo Judaicu significavit. Quales enim futuræ essent singula: U'ibus n.oribus, fide, disciplina, luxuria, petulantia, contemptu fidei, ut cum dc uno erant, ct tamen unum non servarent, ostendit.","english":"My spirit shall not remain in these men; therefore I also added, Because malice has increased upon the earth, I will destroy man from the face of the earth, even to the cattle; which was of course fulfilled when the flood came. For we remember that even after the flood men lived for many years: and Aaron, the brother of Moses, is recorded to have lived a hundred and twenty-three years (Num. 33:38-39). But Moses himself, so that he could not pass beyond a hundred and twenty years, did what he did because he did not glorify God at the contradiction of the waters. Was he not about to enter the land of promise, had sin not stood in the way (Deut. 34:7, and 32:48-52)? For to some this seems to have been said as belonging to the time of Moses, since Joiada the priest is found to have lived a hundred and thirty years (2 Paral. 24:15).\n\nVI. — What the blessing of Jacob contains, which he gave to his sons (Gen. 48, 49). He foretold the future of each individual tribe not only from present causes, but also from future things he signified future things, whose shadow was not yet, among the Jewish people. For he showed what each tribe would be like in their customs, faith, discipline, luxury, wantonness, and contempt of faith — so that although they were from one man, they nevertheless did not keep to one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Aliqui enim profui erunt in melius, alii deterioraverunt, alii permanserunt: ut por hoc non silii prærogativam gcneris vindicarent, cnm ab eo ipso prædictum esset, quosdam ex his, qui itique ex eJus essent origine, reprobos futuros, imo multos perituros, ita ut alii significarentur subintrare, qui ad eorum dedecus ct damnationem inserereutur in naturam, ex qua illi exciderunt. Promiscuum ergo populum in omnibus tribubus futurum declaravit: qua vavietate tam boni sed pauci, quam mali scd multi iptelligerentur. Et quamvis sceptrum dederil filio suo Joseph ad tempus, Judam tamen prafecit omnibus. Non quod omnes ex Juda idonei esscut futuri, sed quia Salvator, qui vcre rcx cst, ex ea tribu oriundus. erat secundum carnem.\n\nVII. — Cur angelus missus loqui ad Moysen in igne et rubo apparuit?.\n\nNatura angelica secundum se simplex est, cujus substantia superiora appelit, ctc.","english":"For some advanced for the better, others deteriorated, and others remained; so that on this account they might not claim for themselves the prerogative of their race, since it had been foretold by that very one that certain of those who were likewise from his origin would be reprobate, indeed that many would perish, so that others were signified to enter in stealthily, who would be inserted to their disgrace and damnation into the nature from which those others fell away. Therefore he declared that the people would be promiscuous in all the tribes: by which variety both the good, though few, and the evil, though many, were understood. And although he gave the scepter to his son Joseph for a time, yet he set Judah over all. Not that all from Judah would be fit, but because the Savior, who is truly king, was to be born of that tribe according to the flesh.\n\nVII. — Why did the angel who was sent to speak to Moses appear in fire and a bush?\n\nThe angelic nature is in itself simple, whose substance is higher than those things which it...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"VIII.— Non fuit aliud signum quod fieret a Moyse palam Pharaoni, nisi serpens (Exod, vu, i?\n\nQui hoc reprehensibile putat, dicat quid aliud fieri debuit. Nam utique serpentem fecit, qui et terrorem incuteret, non tamen obesset, per id quod stupore quodam ad nocendum tardior est. Si emm leonem fecisset, aut ursum, ant aliud tale, quomodo evaderent qui uderant? Nec enim occidere voluit quemquam, scd solum timorum ponere, et ostendere virtutem; ut quia prima prævaricatio per serpentem cœpit, similiter ct recordatio cognitionis Dei et morum cincn datio serpentis signo proveniret. ut quomodo peccatum est, sic et emendaretur: sicut ct per mulierem peccatum factum, per mulierem sublatum cst, Mariam matrem scilice Domini, ex qua Christus natus damnavit peccatum. Eva virgo adhuc prævaricavit, sicut et Maria virgo crat. Huc ergo modo ad statum pristinum revocata sunt, quæ perierant: quia et regnurn per ligni gustum amissum erat, et iterum pur lignum quæsitum est. Dominus enin, ait, regnavit a tigno (Psal. xcv, 10), Simili modo et mundus in quo factus est, in coel reformandus cst, id est in principio mensis primi, quod est Pascha: Nulla CliO mala erit natura frisi sola prævaricatio; quando peccatum pcr id emendatum est, pcr quod ct admissum est.","english":"VIII. There was no other sign that Moses performed openly before Pharaoh except the serpent (Exod. 7:1?).\n\nWhoever thinks this is objectionable should say what else ought to have been done. For surely he made a serpent, which would also strike terror, yet would not harm, in that through a certain dullness it is too slow to do injury. For if he had made a lion, or a bear, or some other such beast, how would those who saw it escape? For he did not wish to kill anyone, but only to cast out fears and to show his power; so that, because the first transgression began through a serpent, similarly both the remembrance of the knowledge of God and the amendment of morals might come about through the sign of the serpent, so that just as sin was committed, so also it might be corrected; just as sin was also committed through a woman, so through a woman it was taken away—namely Mary the mother of the Lord, from whom Christ was born and condemned sin. Eve transgressed while still a virgin, just as Mary also was a virgin. In this way, then, those things that had perished were restored to their former state; because both the kingdom had been lost through the tasting of the tree, and again it was sought through a tree. For the Lord, it says, has reigned from the tree (Ps. 95:10). In like manner also the world, in which it was made, is to be renewed in heaven, that is, on the first day of the first month, which is the Passover. No nature of the faithful will be evil except by transgression alone; since sin was corrected through that same thing through which it was also committed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"IX.- Si unus Deus est, cur in tribusspessalutis est, ct non in duobus aut quatuor, aut certe in uno; et quare prius non est Trinitas prædicata?\n\nUnus quidem pst Deus, sed non singularis est, etc.\n\nX. — Utquid circumcisio ct pra cepta dala sunt populo, qux prius non crant, neque nunc in auctoritate habentur?\n\nCircumcisio signum cst fidei Abrahrc, ut cum in filiis ejus hoc signujn videretur, scirentur ejus fila esse, qui Deo credens hoc signum acceperit ( Gen. XVII, 10, 11). Præcepta autem sabbatorum, et præteritorum testimonio data sunt, et futurorum qua! 'haberent figuram Exod. XX, 9-11). Futuri cniin sabbati, quod in æternis dabit rcquienl, figura cst hac sabbatum quod in hebdomadam impletam factum cst. Escarum autem Icx non in primordio Legis data cst sed cum duce perfidia, Dei,'cluis et promissis fidem tollent dare, ad duritiam, cordis sui acceperunt præcepta non bona, sicut dicit propheta Jeremias (Ezech. xx, 25). Id cuiun actum est, ut cervix corum premeretur, ad profectum illorum. S aperbis enim hominibus ct contumacibus, non dcbuit tola crcatura subjici. Postea autcm misericordia Dei veniente, reddita est libertas edendi. Unde dicit Petrus apostolus: Quid imponitis jugum super cervicem fratrum, quod neque nos XV, 10).? neque patres nostri portare potuimus [Act.,","english":"IX. If there is one God, why is salvation in three and not in two or four, or indeed in one; and why was the Trinity not preached first?\n\nThere is indeed one God, but he is not solitary, etc.\n\nX. Why were circumcision and the commandments given to the people, which did not exist before, nor are they now held in authority?\n\nCircumcision is the sign of Abraham's faith, so that when this sign was seen in his sons, they might be known to be the sons of him who, believing God, received this sign (Gen. 17:10-11). But the commandments of the sabbaths were given both as a testimony of things past and as a figure of things to come (Exod. 20:9-11). For this sabbath, which was completed in a full week, is a figure of the future sabbath, which he will give as rest in eternal things. But the law of foods was not given at the beginning of the Law, but when, with faithlessness as their leader, they refused to give faith to God their helper and to his promises; to the hardness of their heart they received commandments that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says (Ezek. 20:25). For this was done so that their neck might be pressed down, for their own profit. For to proud and stubborn men, the whole creation ought not to have been subjected. But afterward, when God's mercy came, the freedom to eat was restored. Hence the apostle Peter says: Why do you impose a yoke on the neck of the brethren, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10)?","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":11,"ref":"p11","source":"XI. — Si propter diffidentiam et detractiones dura acceperant Judæi mandata; quid' peccaverant filii corum, ut etiam ipsi his mandatis astringerentur?\n\nPatribus data lex cst, quæ 'iliis similibus oneri esset. Nam postea non minus, sed forte amplius in Deum peccaverunt quam patres illorum. Præscius enim Deus, liliis magis hanc legem dedit; quia illi omnes in eremo obierunt.\n\nXII. — Cur in Lege etiam ipsi Aaron dictum est, ut pro peccatis suis holocausta offrerret, cum dicat David, Pro delictis holocaustum non postulasti ( Psal, xxxix, 7); et in subjectis, Holocaustis noM delectaberia ( Paul. L, )? Quomodo offerri præcepit, quo non delectatur?\n\nManifestum est holocaustis Deum non delectari scd pro satisfactione peccati gemitu et dolore cordis veniam passe mereri. Sacrificium autem testimonium peccati voluit esse, ut se peccator per oblationem sacrilicii coufiteretur peccasse. Remissio autem quomodo obtineretur, ipsp alio loco ostendit, dicens, Frange esurienti panem tuum: si videris nudum, vesti, et domesticos seminis tui ne despicias (Isai. LVIII, 7): aut certe, COI; contritum et humiliatum Deus non speruit (Psal. L, 19.Primum ergo confitendum delictum. monuit; deinde quomodo ignosci possit, ostendit. Nam nupquam pro manifesto delicto sacrificium mandavit, sed pro ignoratis; quia etiam cum nescit homo peccat, et cum se putat recte agere, intentione quadam delinquit.","english":"XI. If the Jews received harsh commandments because of their distrust and slanderous complaints, in what way had their children sinned, that they too should be bound by these same commandments?\n\nThe law was given to the fathers, which would be a burden to their children as well. For afterward they sinned against God no less, but perhaps even more, than their fathers. For God, foreknowing this, gave this law rather to the children, because all those fathers died in the wilderness.\n\nXII. Why in the Law was it said even to Aaron himself that he should offer burnt offerings for his own sins, when David says, For my transgressions you did not require a burnt offering (Psalm 39:7); and in the following words, In burnt offerings you will not be pleased (Psalm 50)? How did he command to be offered what he does not delight in?\n\nIt is clear that God does not delight in burnt offerings, but that for the satisfaction of sin pardon is earned through groaning and sorrow of heart. But he willed the sacrifice to be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner, through the offering of the sacrifice, might confess that he had sinned. But how remission is obtained, he shows in another place, saying, Break your bread to the hungry; if you see the naked, clothe him, and do not despise the household of your own seed (Isaiah 58:7); or certainly, God has not despised a contrite and humbled heart (Psalm 50:19). First, then, he admonished that the offense must be confessed; then he showed how it may be forgiven. For he never commanded a sacrifice for a manifest offense, but for those committed in ignorance; because even when a man does not know it, he sins, and when he thinks he is acting rightly, he goes astray through a certain intention.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Tale peccatum dixit pcr sacrificium posse purgari.\n\nXIII. — Quid est ut missa mors ill Jacob, venerit in Israel; cum Jacob ipse sit Israel?\n\nUnius populi dno nomina posuit. Nani utiquc qui prius Jacob dicebatur. etc.\n\nXIV.—Si anima quæ peccat ipsa morietur, quid cst ut Charmi peccante triginta sex viri occIsi videantur causa ejus?\n\nCharmi quidem peccavit, ct mortuus est lapidibus. Illi autem trigiiita sex viri, etc.\n\nXV. — Quid est quod dicit propheta, Lætare, sterilis quænon paris; erumpe et clama, quæ non parturis: quia multi filii desertæ magis quam ejus quæ habet virum?,\n\nDuas matres hoc in loco intelligimus, coelestem et terrestrem, id est, Jerusalem liberam, etc.\n\nXVI. — Benedicat terra Dominum, ait, hoc est laudet et confiteatur virtutcm tuam: quomodo ergo in Psalmis, Numquid confitebitur tibi, inquit, pulvis, aut annuntiabit virtutem tuam?","english":"Such sin, he said, could be purged through sacrifice.\n\nXIII. — What does it mean that with Jacob dead, he came into Israel, since Jacob himself is Israel?\n\nHe set two names for one people. For certainly he who was first called Jacob, etc.\n\nXIV. — If the soul that sins shall itself die, what does it mean that when Charmi sinned, thirty-six men are seen to have been killed on his account?\n\nCharmi indeed sinned, and he died by stoning. But those thirty-six men, etc.\n\nXV. — What is it that the prophet says: Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who do not travail: for many are the children of the desolate more than of her who has a husband?\n\nIn this place we understand two mothers, the heavenly and the earthly, that is, Jerusalem the free, etc.\n\nXVI. — Let the earth bless the Lord, he says, that is, let it praise and confess your virtue: how then is it said in the Psalms, Shall dust confess to you, or declare your virtue?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Non est sic intelligendum, ut legitur, et sonant verba, etc.\n\nXVII.—In sole, inquit, posuit tabernaculum suum (Psril. XVIII, 6), id est corpus sitim in quo habitavit Christus, qui a Pilato flagellis cæsus est: qnomodo ergo dicitur in Psalmo de Christo, Flagellum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo ( Psat. XC, 10)? quippe cum templum corpus suum dixerit.\n\nEt filii hominis, et Dci Filii corpus templum cssa intelligitur. Deus tamen, id est, Dei Filius, quamvis in carne venerit, in anima tamen habitavit. Ergo tam. anima quam co;pos tabern aculumcst Filii Dci, hiccE nius sit Deus et homo, Filius Dei, et filius hominis. Ergo ex hac parte flagellum non appropinquasse dicitur tabėrnactilo ejus; id est, anima cius, in qua habitat divinitas ejus, immunis fujf a pœna infefni vel principunj ejus. Ne quia hic quasi peccator, cum sit innocens, crucifixus est, ct passa est caro, aliquid mœstitiæ apud inferos anima ejus bassa putaretur ostendit Scriptura non potuisse animam cjus lurbarr apud inferos, quia ad hoc discendit, hoc cst pati se permisit, ut confunderet tenebras, et principes earum remitteret hebetes. Unde et ipse Dominus ait: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem (Matth. XXVI, 38). Permissa est enim, quod naturæ suæ eral, ut tristaretur, tropæum protinus referens, et spolia eorum a quibus conlrisUla fucrat usque ad mortem, post morlem jam in æterno gaudio constituta.","english":"It is not to be understood as it is read, and as the words sound, etc.\n\nXVII. — “In the sun,” he says, “he has set his tabernacle” (Ps. 18:6), that is, the body in which Christ dwelt, who was struck with scourges by Pilate. How then is it said in the Psalm concerning Christ, “The scourge shall not come near your tabernacle” (Ps. 90:10)? Surely since he called his own body a temple.\n\nBoth the body of the son of man and the body of the Son of God is understood to be a temple. Yet God, that is, the Son of God, although he came in the flesh, nevertheless dwelt in the soul. Therefore both the soul and the body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, who here is both God and man, Son of God and son of man. Therefore in this respect the scourge is said not to have come near his tabernacle, that is, his soul, in which his divinity dwells, was immune from the punishment of hell or of its princes. Lest, because he was crucified here as though a sinner, though he was innocent, and the flesh suffered, his soul might be thought to have suffered some sorrow among the dead, Scripture shows that his soul could not be disturbed among the dead, because he descended for this purpose — that is, he permitted himself to suffer — in order to confound the darkness and to send away its princes dulled. Hence the Lord himself also says: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” (Matt. 26:38). For what was proper to his nature was permitted, that he should grieve, straightway bearing away the trophy, and the spoils of those by whom he had been troubled even unto death, now after death established in eternal joy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Potest et de toto homine intelligi; quia qui peccatum nesciit, a lege flagellari non potuil.\n\nXVIII. — Cur Salomon spiritum sapientiæ habuit (III Reg. III), cum vitam mundam non hahuit? valde ' euim mulieribus delectabatur, ac per hoc peccabat (Id. XI).\n\nPrimum merito suo accepit spiritum prudentiæ: postea vero quam mulieribus nimium cœpit uti, et per hoc peccare, si habuit spiritum sapientiæ, regni merito habuit; sicut et Nabuchodonosor regni merito in camino Christum vidit.\n\nXIX. — In Salomone, Spes est, inquit, tenebris, et melior est canis vivus et leone mortuo.\n\nTenebræ ignorantiam significant et gentilitatem: qnia spes est in gentili potius quam in apostata, etc.\n\nXX. — In Sapientia, Qui crcavit, inquit, orbtut ex materia invisa: et coutra, quia ex nihilo facti sumus (Sup. XI, 18, ct II, 2).\n\nDeum simul confusas substantias creasse, Scripturarum SI'USUS III-cia rat, permixtis utique tenebris. Hanc confusionem rerum, id cst, aera, ignem, aquam, terram, tenebras, materiam dixit invisam, sicut in Genesi legitur: Terra autem erat, inquit, invisibilis et incomposita (Gen. I, 2). Ex hac ergo confusione creavil orbem inslitulo firmamento, ut intra ipsum aquis congregatis in unum habitatio fieret generi humano. Distinctis enim et discretis substamiis, in concavo domum habitabilem fecit.","english":"It can also be understood of the whole man, because he who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law.\n\nXVIII. — Why did Solomon have the spirit of wisdom (1 Kings 3), when he did not have a clean life? For he was greatly delighted with women, and through this he sinned (ibid. 11).\n\nFirst he received the spirit of prudence by his own merit; but afterwards, when he began to make excessive use of women and thereby to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by the merit of his kingship, just as Nebuchadnezzar also saw Christ in the furnace by the merit of his kingship.\n\nXIX. — In Solomon, he says, there is hope in the darkness, and a living dog is better than a dead lion.\n\nDarkness signifies ignorance and the Gentile condition, because there is hope in the Gentile rather than in the apostate, etc.\n\nXX. — In Wisdom, he says, he who created the world out of invisible matter; and on the other hand, because we were made out of nothing (Wis. 11:18, and 2:2).\n\nThat God created confused substances at once, the usage of the Scriptures declared, with darkness certainly mingled in. This confusion of things, that is, air, fire, water, earth, darkness, he called invisible matter, as is read in Genesis: But the earth, he says, was invisible and unformed (Gen. 1:2). From this confusion, therefore, he created the world at the instant of the firmament, so that, with the waters gathered together into one within it, there might be a dwelling place for the human race. For when the substances were distinguished and separated, he made a habitable home in the hollow.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"QUÆSTIONUM EX NOVO TESTAMENTO PARS SECUNDA.\n\nQUÆSТIO PRIMA. — Cur facta et dicta dominica quatuor voluminibus a quatuor scriptoribus suut in scripturam digesta?\n\nCongruum Tuit annum Domini acceptabilem, sicut dicit propheta (Isai. LXI, 2), a quatuor voluminibus veluti quatuor vicibus contineri. Sicut enim annus quatuor temporibus evolvitur, ita ut invicem sui egeant, ita et gesta et dicta Domini quatuor libris definita sunt, ita ut alter alterius indigeat: simul autcm plenitudine perfecta sunt. Ut autem a quatuor scriptoribus ordinarentur, hæc fuit causa, ut quia temporum diversa sunt nomina, Evangeliorum quoque essent diversa vocabula. Et si qua videntur in verbis contraria, sensu tamen non discrepant, pcr interpretationem aptam causæ: sicut tempora cum videantur utique diversa nomine, aere, et cursu siderum, in effectu tamen eorum quæ gignuntur non discrepant.","english":"PART TWO OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nQUESTION ONE. — Why were the deeds and words of the Lord gathered into writing in four volumes by four writers?\n\nIt is fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says (Isa. 61:2), be contained in four volumes as in four seasons. For just as the year is rolled out through four seasons, such that they need one another, so too the deeds and words of the Lord are defined in four books, such that one needs another; yet together they are complete in perfect fullness. But that they were arranged by four writers, this was the reason: that since the names of the seasons are different, the titles of the Gospels should likewise be different. And if anything seems contradictory in the words, yet in sense they do not disagree, through an interpretation suited to the case: just as the seasons, though they appear different in name, air, and course of the stars, yet in the effect of the things that are produced they do not disagree.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"II - — Quoniam constat quatuor libros rite conscriptos gestorum et dictorum Domini, sciendum quis ordo eorum sil.\n\nEvangelium ordinatione colligitur magis quam lempore. Matthæus ergo primus ponendus est, quia ab ipsa promissione sumpsit initium, id est ab Abraham, cui facta promissio est incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Post hunc Lucas, quia incarnationem hanc quomodo facta est, narrat. Tertius Marcus, qui Evangelium quod prædicatum est a Christo, testamur in Lege promissum. Quarlus autem Joannes, quia hunc qui promissus est Abrahæ incarnandus, ei a Luca quemadmodum incarnatus est dictum est, et a Marco Evangelium cjus juxta Isaiam prophetam prædicatum ostensum est, aperta voce ostendit Deum dicens, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum crat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. I, 1).\n\nIII. - Quare Matthæus Evangelium Christi describens dicit, Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David ( Matth. I, 1); cum prior sit Abraham?","english":"PART TWO. — Since it is established that four books of the deeds and words of the Lord were duly written, one must know what their order is.\n\nThe order of the Gospels is determined by arrangement rather than by time. Matthew, then, is to be placed first, because he took his beginning from the promise itself, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him comes Luke, because he narrates how this incarnation came about. Third is Mark, who testifies that the Gospel which was preached by Christ was promised in the Law. Fourth, however, is John, because he shows with open voice that the one who was promised to Abraham as to be incarnate, to whom Luke told how he was incarnated, and by Mark the Gospel of him was shown to have been preached according to the prophet Isaiah—he shows, saying, \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word\" (John 1:1).\n\nIII. — Why does Matthew, when describing the Gospel of Christ, say, \"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David\" (Matt. 1:1), when Abraham is earlier?","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":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Propterea sic coepit, ut prius de ipso dicerct a promissione incarnationis ejus genealogiam describens, sicut dicit Apostolus, Quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem (Rom. IX, 5). Ideo dixit, LibaT generationis; quia ex multis et diversis incarnatio Christi consistit, ut qnia ex uno diversi esse coeperunt, de omnibus corpulentiam traheret. De Judais ct Gentibus ct de dignis et indignis: quia Ruth Moabitida fuit. et. Bersabee ex moecha facta uxor est; ut omnium carnem ad se trahens, ad unitatem illos penuinam revocaret. Idcirco, Jesu Christi filii, ait, David, cnm prior sit Abraham; quia specia'iler Christus dicitur lilius David, propter regnum: ut sicut Deus de Deo, ita et rex de rege ortum caperet juxta carnem. Sic enim dictum eSI ad David: De fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem luam (Psal. CXXXI, 11).\n\nIV. — Quid est, ut generationes omnes in tres partes dividcret supradictus Matthæus apostolus (Matth. 1, 17).","english":"For this reason he began as he did, first speaking of him from the promise of his incarnation by describing his genealogy, as the Apostle says, \"Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh\" (Rom. 9:5). Therefore he said, \"The book of the generation,\" because the incarnation of Christ is constituted from many and diverse persons, so that, since diverse persons began to exist from one, he might draw bodily substance from all. From Jews and Gentiles, and from the worthy and the unworthy—because Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba, having been a harlot, became a wife—so that, drawing the flesh of all to himself, he might recall them to the unity of the one body. For this reason he says, \"Jesus Christ, the son of David,\" although Abraham is prior; because Christ is specifically called the son of David on account of the kingdom, so that, just as God is from God, so also a king might take his origin from a king according to the flesh. For thus it was said to David: \"Of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne\" (Ps. 131:11).\n\nIV. — What is the meaning of the fact that the aforesaid Matthew the apostle divided all the generations into three parts (Matt. 1:17)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Caus:e faciunt divisiones et tempora. Idcirco ab Abraham usque ad David distinxit. Prima enim pars causæ ab Abraham usque ad David est; quia Abraham pater lidei east, ct David pater regni. Saul enim indignus effectus, seipsum regno privavit. A David vero usque ad trausmigrationcm alta pars coisse, in qua rcguum amiserunt facti reprobi Judæi. I'ost transmigrationem autem Bahylonis usque ad Christum tertia pars lamentationis et miseria!, captivitatis et dispersionis illorum: quia quamvis post transmigrationem Babylonis et septuaginta annorum tempus, quando a Cyro dimissi reversi sunt ad sua, nunquam tamen causam vel requiem habuerunt. Neque enim postea Jud.ca regnare potuit, sed solliciti semper et pervagantes fuerunt. Nam uliquc tempore nativitatis Chriti captivi fuerunt, dicentes: Nos, non habemus regem nisi Cæsarem (Joan. XIX, 15). Hac ergo causa Matthæus tres gradus fecit generationis, ut eliam meritorum et causarum mutationes ostenderet a promissione facta usque ad Christum, anni autem tempora usque ad fluem in unam gratiam permanere.","english":"For this reason they make divisions and periods. Therefore he distinguished from Abraham to David. For the first part of the reason is from Abraham to David, because Abraham is the father of faith, and David the father of the kingdom. For Saul, having become unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom. But from David to the transmigration the second part runs, in which the Jews, having become reprobate, lost the kingdom. But after the transmigration of Babylon to Christ, the third part is of lamentation and misery, of their captivity and dispersion; because although after the transmigration of Babylon and the time of seventy years, when they were released by Cyrus and returned to their own land, they nevertheless never had a cause or rest. For neither afterward could Judea reign, but they were always anxious and wandering. For at the time of the birth of Christ they were captives, saying, \"We have no king but Caesar\" (John 19:15). By this reason, therefore, Matthew made three degrees of generation, so that he might also show the changes of merits and causes from the promise made to Christ, but that the periods of years endure to the end in one grace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"V. — Quare cum quadraginta et una sint generationes, Evangelista quadraginta duas numerasse videtur (Matth. I, 17)? Ter enim quatuordecim, qui faciunt, nisi quadraginta duo?\n\nSecundum uumcrum, quadraginta et una gencralioncs numerantur; juxta rationem autem, quadraginta duæ probantur. Jechonias autem in transmigratione genitus, id est rex lactus, sicut continetur in Paralipomenon, finem fecit secundæ parii: et quia post transmigrationem remansit ill regno permittente rege Nabuchodonosor, ab ipso incipit tertia pars, qu.c venit usque ad Christum. Ideoque his computatur, ut et concludat secundam partem, et initiet tertiam Jechon as. Sic enim habet: Et post transmigrationem Babylonis, Jechonias genuit Salathiel (Matth. I, 12). Usque ad istum autem Salathiel regnaverunt qui sunt ex Juda, scilicet quorum ex radice nascitur Joseph. Nam Jechonias primum filium habuit Assur nomme. Sed quoniam Joseph per radicem Salathiel originem trahit, prætermisso Assur Salathiel Jechoniæ patri suo subjunctus est, ut veniretur ad Joseph, cui erat desponsata virgo Maria. Nant et post Josiam Jechonias seqNitur. Sed quia per Joachim patrem Jechoniæ venitur ad Joseph, prætermisso eo, id est Joachim, Jechoniam posuit, ut numerum quatuordecim generationum non egrederetur, et quia post Jechoniam Salathiel et filius ejns per quem oritur Joseph.","english":"V. — Why, when there are forty-one generations, does the Evangelist appear to have counted forty-two (Matt. 1:17)? For three times fourteen makes forty-two, does it not?\n\nAccording to the number, forty-one generations are counted; according to the reckoning, however, forty-two are proved. But Jechoniah, born in the transmigration—that is, the rejoicing king, as is contained in Paralipomenon—made the end of the second part; and because after the transmigration he remained in the kingdom, King Nebuchadnezzar permitting it, the third part begins from him, which runs all the way to Christ. And therefore Jechoniah is counted in both, so that he both concludes the second part and begins the third. For so it has: And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechoniah begot Salathiel (Matt. 1:12). But up to this Salathiel, those who are from Judah reigned—namely, those from whose root Joseph is born. For Jechoniah had a first son named Assur. But since Joseph traces his origin through the root of Salathiel, Assur being passed over, Salathiel is joined to his father Jechoniah, so that one might come to Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. For indeed after Josiah, Jechoniah follows. But because through Joachim, the father of Jechoniah, one comes to Joseph, he being passed over—that is, Joachim—he placed Jechoniah, so that the number of fourteen generations might not be exceeded, and because after Jechoniah come Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph is born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"VI. — Quare in Matthæo paler Joseph Jacob scribitur, et in Luca Heli; ut aut duos patres habere imperite descriptus sit, aut certe qui vere pater sit nesciatur?\n\nNon est ambiguum pairem Joseph Jacob fuisse. Ordo enim a David per Salomonem tramitem suum tenens, recto cursu pervenit ad Jacob, etc.\n\nVll — Manifestum quia natus Salvator Dei Filius et. Christus appellatus est: cur ergo post baptismum accessit ad eum tentator, dicens, Si Filius Dei es? etc. (Matth. IV, 3).\n\nSic natus Salvator ex Virgine est, ut et Christus esset et Filius Dei, non factura, sed ortu. Adhuc autem in minori ætate potentiam suam evacuans, hoc est a potestate sua dissimulans, impudentiam diaboli non provocavit. Baptizatus autem descendente in se Spiritu sancto, cum apparuisset hominibus testimonio Dei Patris, æmulatione zeli ductus cst inimicus ad injuriam, videns hoc factum sibi obesse: intellexit enim ordinationem baptismalis ad salutem hominum proeuratam. Ideoque accedit ad Salvatorem hujus rei principem, non ut approbet. sed ut locum inveniat evertendi. Tentatio enim aliquando ad probationem Ht, aliquando sub dolo ad subversionem. Arbitratus est enim quasi Salvatori elicuisset secundum dolum voluntatis sua; responsum, ut regnum sunna totum haberet securus, quod duce Salvatoris doctrinae subjecto, nemo mortem eius evaderet.","english":"VI. — Why is Joseph's father written as Jacob in Matthew, and as Heli in Luke, so that he is either ignorantly described as having two fathers, or else it is not known who is truly his father?\n\nIt is not doubtful that Joseph's father was Jacob. For the line from David through Solomon, keeping its course, comes by a direct path to Jacob, etc.\n\nVII. — It is manifest that the Savior was born as the Son of God and was called Christ; why then, after his baptism, did the tempter come to him, saying, If you are the Son of God? etc. (Matt. 4:3).\n\nThus the Savior was born of the Virgin, so that he was both Christ and the Son of God, not by creation but by birth. But still, in his lesser age, emptying his power, that is, disguising it from his power, he did not provoke the shamelessness of the devil. But when he was baptized, with the Holy Spirit descending upon him, when he had appeared to men by the testimony of God the Father, the enemy was led by the emulation of zeal to insult, seeing that this deed was harmful to himself; for he understood that the ordinance of baptism had been procured for the salvation of men. And therefore he comes to the Savior, the prince of this matter, not to approve it, but to find an occasion for overthrowing it. For temptation is sometimes for testing, sometimes under deceit for subversion. For he thought that, as if he had elicited from the Savior a response according to the deceit of his own will, he would securely possess his whole kingdom, since, with the leadership of the Savior's teaching subjected, no one would escape his death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"VIII. — Cur Salvator tentanti se diabolo non aliter quam exemplis Legis rcsistit (Matth. IV, 4-10)?\n\nSalvator non solum diabolo tentanti respondit, sed ct Judxis per quos crudelitatis suæ impietatem egit in Salvatorcm. Præscius enim Judaeos se inimicum Legis dicturos, patris eorum impudentiam diaboli, testimoniis Legis compressit, ut patrem in lilios, et fitios in patrem condemnaret.\n\nIX. — Utquid Salvator post baptismum quadraginta diebus jejunavit, postea esuriit (Matth. IV, 2)? Qui enim quadraginta diebus jejunavit, potuit jam non esurire.\n\nScriptum est, Fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei, ita in justitia et timore, et pra'para animam tuam ad tentationem (Eccli. II, 1). Ideoque Salvator ut formam nobis daret, jejunavit; ut simili modo nos quoque jcjuuiis insistentes, omnem motum diaboli contra nos oppositum, Dei auxilio superemus, scientes exemplo Salvatoris tunc magis insidios adversarii cavendas, cum ad Dei timorem accedimus. Dolet enim quod recesserimus ab illo: ideo plus sævit adversum nos. Hoc nobis gessit Salvator, non sibi. Similiter et quod esuriit, non sua causa, sed nostra est.","english":"VIII. — Why did the Savior resist the devil who tempted him only with examples from the Law (Matt. 4:4-10)?\n\nThe Savior answered not only the devil who tempted him, but also the Jews, through whom the devil 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 the devil, their father, by testimonies from the Law, so that he might condemn the father in the sons and the sons in the father.\n\nIX. — Why did the Savior, after his baptism, fast for forty days and afterward hunger (Matt. 4:2)? For he who fasted for forty days could already have not hungered.\n\nIt is written: My son, when you come to serve God, prepare your soul for temptation in righteousness and fear (Sirach 2:1). And therefore the Savior fasted to give us a model, so that we too, in like manner, persisting in fasts, may overcome by God's help every movement of the devil set against us, knowing by the Savior's example that the snares of the adversary are then more to be guarded against when we draw near to the fear of God. For he grieves that we have withdrawn from him; therefore he rages more fiercely against us. This the Savior did for us, not for himself. Likewise also that he hungered was not for his own sake, but for ours.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Jejuniis enim cum superatae fuissent tentationes diaboli, quas ideo scriptæ non sunt, quia ad profectum doctrinæ non pertinent; postea, id cst, post quadraginta dies permisit, lit (quod hominis erat) pateretur famem: ut videns diabolus, qui jam fuerat superatus, infirmitatem in eo raIn is, incitaretur rursum ad tentandum, videns hominem esse a quo vincebatur. Hoc enim fuit mysterium Salvatoris, ut quia homini victo insultahat et dominahaLnr, ab homine vinceretur, ut Dei virtus homini victoriam acquireret: et sic magis vilis elrectus est satanas, cum et hominem cernit, ct virtutem non hominis intelligit. Mirahatur enim stupore hebetatus, quod mysterium inesset quod se lateret: ut potestas esset accedendi, circumveniendi non esset. Duabus enim ex causis torquebatur. Videns enim infirmitatem, accedebat, et inveniebat virtutem; ut cernens hominem suspectus esset de Dei virtute. Ad hoc ergo esuriit, ut illuderet astutiam satanae. Idcirco autem non amplius jejunavit, ut concordarct Moysi et Eliæ.","english":"For when the devil's temptations had been overcome by fasting—temptations which were for that reason not written down, because they do not pertain to the advancement of doctrine—afterward, that is, after forty days, he permitted himself (which was characteristic of a man) to suffer hunger: so that the devil, who had already been defeated, seeing weakness in him, might be stirred up again to tempt him, seeing that it was a man by whom he was being conquered. For this was the mystery of the Savior: that, since he had insulted and lorded it over conquered man, he might be conquered by a man, so that the power of God might win victory for man; and thus Satan was all the more despised and mocked, when he both perceives the man and does not understand the power to be that of a man. For he marveled, dulled with astonishment, that there was a mystery in him that lay hidden from himself: so that he had the power to approach, but not the power to deceive. For he was tormented for two reasons. For seeing the weakness, he drew near, and found the power; so that, perceiving the man, he might be left in suspicion concerning the power of God. For this purpose, then, he hungered, that he might mock the cunning of Satan. And for this reason he did not fast any longer, that he might be in accord with Moses and Elijah.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"X. — Quid est ut cum prius Joannes Baptista testimonium perhibuerit Salvatori, postea dubitaverit dicens per discipulos: Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus (Matth. XI, 3-10)?\n\nQui Joannem putant dubitasse, detrahunt Salvatori Aut enim illum recte asserunt duhiiasse, aut certe imperitiae arguunt Salvatorem; quia sicut putant, male de se sentientem laudavit. Sed quia falli Salvatorem impossibile est, recte laudatus ab eo Joannes est. Si recte laudatus est, non dubitavit. Ipso enim tempore quo misit ad Jesum Joannes de carcere discipulos suos, dicens: Tu ea qni venturus es, an aliut. exspectamus? tunc Jesus respondit discipulis ejns dicens: lie, dicite Joanni quæ videtis et auditis. Cæci vident, surdi audiunt, leprosi mundantur, claudi ambulant, mortui resurgunt, et beatus ille qui non fuerit scandalizatus in me. Abcunlibus autem nuntiis Joannis. cœpit Jesus dicere ad turhas de Joanne Baptista: Qtud existis in desertum videre? arundinem vento moveri, ant hominem mollibus vestibus indutum? Ecce qui mollibus vestiuntur, in domibus regum sunt. Sed quid existis videre? prophetam? Dico vobis quoniam plus quam prophetam. Hic eat de quo scriptum eat, Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui præparet viam tuam. Tunc publicani laudaverunt Deum, baptizati baptismo Joannis.","english":"X. — What does it mean that, although John the Baptist had previously borne testimony to the Savior, he afterward doubted, saying through his disciples: \"Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another\" (Matthew 11:3-10)?\n\nThose who think John doubted detract from the Savior. For either they rightly assert that he doubted, or certainly they convict the Savior of ignorance, because, as they think, he praised one who held a bad opinion of himself. But because 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 should we expect another?\" then Jesus answered his disciples, saying: \"Go, tell John what you see and hear. The blind see, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead rise, and blessed is he who has not been scandalized in me.\" But as John's messengers were departing, Jesus began to say to the crowds about John the Baptist: \"What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? I tell you, more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way.\" Then the tax collectors praised God, having been baptized with John's baptism.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Quanta autem laus data Joanni est, ut plus diceretur esse quam propheta, et beatum vocat Salvator eum qui non scandalizatur in sc? quomodo tardatur Joannes qui dubitando scandalizatus est? Sed non utique dubitavit. Laus enim beatum illum probat, quia non est scandalizatus. Nam et Salvator idcirco ipso tempore in laudem Joannis prorupit, ut ostenderet sensum Joannis esse liberum a discipulorum ejus dubitatione. Joannes enim volens mirantes discipulos SilOS corroborare in fide S alvatoris, scieus exitum sibi imminere, ea quas de ipso dicebat, ore ejus voluit conlirmari: idco ut testis verus sit, testimonium potioris implorat, ut eorum concordia omnis ambiguitas auferretur. Hoc commentum Joannis est, ut dubios suis quasi verbis mitteret, ut cadem audientes a Salvatore quæ audierant a Joanne, firmarentur, scientes idonei procuratoris et Domini caelestis testimonium in dubium vocari non posse. Idcirco et Salvator quasi Joanni respondit, ut inter Joannem interrogantem et Salvatorem respondentem discerent veritatem.","english":"But what great praise was given to John, so that he was said to be more than a prophet, and the Savior calls him blessed who is not scandalized in him? How is John slow who was scandalized by doubting? But he certainly did not doubt. For the praise proves him blessed, because he was not scandalized. For the Savior also for this reason burst forth in praise of John at that very time, to show that John's meaning was free from the doubt of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his wondering disciples in faith in the Savior, knowing that his own end was imminent, desired that those things which he was saying about him be confirmed by his own mouth: therefore, so that he might be a true witness, he implores the testimony of the greater, so that by their agreement all ambiguity might be removed. This is John's device, that he sent the doubtful ones as if with his own words, so that hearing from the Savior the same things they had heard from John, they might be strengthened, knowing that the testimony of so worthy a procurator and heavenly Lord cannot be called into doubt. Therefore the Savior also answered as if to John, so that between John asking and the Savior answering they might learn the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"XI. — Quid est quod superius Herodem mortuum legimus (Matth. II, 19), infra autem et post multos annos Herodem Joannem occidisse (Id. XIV, 1-11), cum superius mortuo Herode Joannes supervixerit?\n\nHerodes rex fuit Judææ: hie hahuit filios quatuor, Archelaum, Herodem, philippum, et Lysaniam: scd mortuo Herode patre eoruin, successit Archelaus, quo mortuo, in quatuor partes divisum est regnum supra dicti Herodis, ita ut Pilatus in partem regni quartam admitteretur, quasi præses, non quasi rex (Matth. II. 22, et Luc. III, 1): filii autem Herodis reges dicerentur. Denique mortuo iterum Philippo, accepit uxorem illius Herodes frater cjus, de qua argucbatuc a Joanne Baptista, qua causa occidit cum Herodes filius supra memorati Hcrodis. Quid cnim dicit? Herodet, inquit, tetrarcha; id est, in parte quarta regni positus sui patris Hcrodis. Quid ergo ambigitur quando significatio adjecti cognominis ostendit alium hunc esse Herodem? Ipse est euim qui et Jacobum occidit gladio, fratrem Joannis, qui postca percussus ab angelo Dei scatens vermibus exspiravit.","english":"XI. — What is the meaning of the fact that above we read that Herod died, but below, and after many years, that Herod killed John, when John survived the Herod who died above?\n\nHerod was king of Judaea. He had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. But when their father Herod died, Archelaus succeeded him; and when he died, the kingdom of the aforementioned Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted to a fourth part of the kingdom as a governor, not as a king. But the sons of Herod were called kings. Then, 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 above-mentioned 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. What doubt is there, then, when the designation of the added surname shows that this is another Herod? For he is the one who also killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, who afterward was struck by the angel of God and died swollen with worms.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"XII. — Orandum utique pro inimicis docuit Domninus: quid est ergo ut contra animæ eccisorum ulcisci petant. a Domino postulantes vindictam?\n\nApocalypsis cuin futura mal.. et tribulationes diifidentiæ et malæ vitæ causas Deo vindice testaretur, etc.\n\nXIII. — Si jam prædicante Salvatore vel Joanne Lex cessavit, quomodo Salvator ait: Non veni solvere Legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere? Si cuim cessavit, quomodo non soluti cst, aut destructa, qu;c agendi amisit auctoritatem? Prophetarum dicta dc Salvatoris adventu, impleta sunt cum venit etc.\n\nXIV. — Joannes ad Dominum, Tu es qui venturus est an alium exspeclamus (Matth. XI)? Sub sua persona discipulorum suorum agit causam. Non enim Joannes dubitabat, qui dixerat: Ecce agnus Deit ecce qui tollit peccata mundi (Joan. i, 29): sed ut discipulis suis satisfaceret, miHil illos suis verbis, ut Salvatoris ore firmaret quod ipse de illo docebat; ut post excessum suum sine dubjtatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur.","english":"XII. — The Lord certainly taught that we should pray for our enemies: what then is the meaning of praying against the souls of the slain, asking the Lord for vengeance?\n\nThe Apocalypse, when it testifies with God as avenger to future evils and to the causes of the tribulations of dissension and of an evil life, etc.\n\nXIII. — If, with the Savior or John already preaching, the Law ceased, how is it that the Savior says: I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them? For if it ceased, how was it not abolished or destroyed, since it lost the authority to act? The sayings of the Prophets concerning the Savior's advent were fulfilled when he came, etc.\n\nXIV. — John [sends] to the Lord: Are you the one who is to come, or do we look for another (Matthew 11)? He acts the case of his disciples in his own person. For John did not doubt, who had said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold he who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29): but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sent them, so that he might confirm from the Savior's own mouth what he himself was teaching about him; so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt.","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":27,"ref":"p27","source":"XV. — Quare Lex et Prophetæ usque ad Joannem, et post recte cessasse dicuntur (Matth. XI. 13)? Quia jam de quo prophetabant, advenit. Quare Lex usquc ad Joannem, cum Apostolus dicat, Legi nos subditos debere esse: Quæ autem, inquit, sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt (Rom. XIII, )?\n\nLegis quidem unum nomen est, sul tripartitam habet inetelligentiam. Prima enim pars Legis de Deo est. Sic enim Lex a lectione dicta est, ut de multis quid eligas scias. Inter errores ergo positi accepcrunt ut eligant vermi, id est reprobato diabolo eligant Deum, Secunda autem Legis pars hæc est, quæ scilicet præceptis continetur, quae sic incipit, Honora patrem et matrem. Tertia vero in neomeniis et in habbato est, et in escis discernendis ac cligendis, et in circumcisione et in hostiis pccuduin offerendis. Ilanc itaque Legem dicit usque ad Joannem, non IItu'a servandam. Sic enim data est, ut completo tempore cessaret, nee enim fuit ab initio, sed ex causa data ad tempus est, ut adveniente Salvaiore cessarEt Lex. Ergo de Dco manct tam Lex præceptorum quam natura ejus quai sine dubio cst, ab ipso aboleri non potest. Per ipsum cnim proficitur ad promissum præmium. Timor cnim sollicitudinem parit.","english":"XV. — Why are the Law and the Prophets said to have rightly ceased up to John, and after him (Matthew 11:13)? Because the one of whom they prophesied has now come. Why [is it said] the Law [was] up to John, when the Apostle says that we ought to be subject to the Law: \"But those which are,\" he says, \"are ordained of God\" (Romans 13)?\n\nThe Law indeed has one name, but it has a threefold understanding. For the first part of the Law is concerning God. For thus the Law is called from \"reading,\" so that from many things you may know what to choose. Placed therefore among errors, they received [the command] that they should choose the true [one], that is, with the devil rejected, they should choose God. But the second part of the Law is this, which is contained in the precepts, which begins thus: \"Honor your father and mother.\" The third truly is in the new moons and in the sabbath, and in discerning and choosing foods, and in circumcision and in offering sacrifices of cattle. This Law therefore he says [was] up to John, not to be kept as a burden. For it was given thus, that when the time was completed it should cease; nor indeed was it from the beginning, but for a cause it was given for a time, so that with the Savior coming the Law should cease. Therefore concerning God both the Law of the precepts remains and its nature, which without doubt exists, cannot be abolished by him. For through him it is advanced to the promised reward. For fear gives birth to anxiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"XVI. — Cum Salvator baptismum Joannis dc cœlo dicat, cur Nicodcmo, cum de baptismo loquitur, dubitanti ait: Si terrestria, dixi vobis et non creditis? eic.\n\nQuod dixit, Si terrestria dixi vobis, et non creditis, non pertinet ad baptismum, etc.\n\nXVII ((). Quid cst ut Salvator mulieri alienigenæ, id est Chananææ, inter initia misericordiam denegaret (Matth. xv, 22-28), cum et Centurioni alienigenæ, et leproso qucm ipse Jesus alienigenam dixit, beneficium impertiendæ salutis non negavcriL (Luc. vn, 2-10, et XVII, 12-19)?\n\nDignum factum Salvatoris ipsa causa designat. Absurdum enim erat, et ad injuriam promissionis PaIrum proficiebat, si mulier quæ Judæorum Deum non confessa fuerat, acciperet beneficium promissum pendi confitenti Deum. Inter initium ideo negatum est Illi. At ubi autem cervice Bexa Salvatoris verbis fidem non negavit, sed confessa est Judæos credentes esse filios, Gentes autcm canes vel servos, per quod junxit se fidei dominicæ; quia servi domiuum indicant, et dominus non est sine servis: unitas facta est subjecti et subjicicniis. Ilincest unde meruiteonsequi quodprecata est. Centurio autem qui beneficium a Salvatore incunctanter accepit, olim se Dei rebus infeccrat. Denique dicunt majores Judæorum ad Dominum: Dignus eat ut præstes illi; diligit enim gentem noatram, et synagogam ipse ædificavit nobis. Leprosum vcro alienigenam dixit Dominus, non fide, sed natione.","english":"XVI. — Since the Savior says that John's baptism is from heaven, why does he say to Nicodemus, when he speaks of baptism and Nicodemus doubts: \"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe\"? etc.\n\nWhat he said, \"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,\" does not pertain to baptism, etc.\n\nXVII. — How is it that the Savior at first denied mercy to the foreign woman, that is, the Canaanite (Matthew 15:22-28), when he did not deny the benefit of imparting salvation to the foreign centurion and to the leper whom Jesus himself called a foreigner (Luke 7:2-10, and 17:12-19)?\n\nThe very reason designates the Savior's deed as fitting. For it was absurd, and it contributed to the injury of the promise of the Fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews should receive the benefit promised to one confessing God. For that reason it was denied her at first. But when she bowed her neck and did not deny faith in the Savior's words, but confessed that the Jews who believe are sons, while the Gentiles are dogs or servants—by which she joined herself to the Lord's faith, because servants point to a master, and a master is not without servants—a unity was made of the subject and the one subjecting. Hence it is that she deserved to obtain what she asked. But the centurion, who received the benefit from the Savior without delay, had long before devoted himself to God's affairs. Finally the elders of the Jews say to the Lord: \"He is worthy that you grant it to him; for he loves our nation, and he himself built the synagogue for us.\" But the Lord called the leper a foreigner, not in faith, but in nation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Erat enim Samaritanus, quos constat ex origine esse Babyloniorum. £t hic tamen non siue confessione consecutus est beneficium: quia dictum ent discipulis a Domino: In viam gentium ne abieritis, et in civitatem Samaritanorum ne introieritis, sed ite potius ad oves quæ perierunt domus Israel (Matth. x, 5,6); hoc cst, ut non prius praedicaretur Samaritanis et Gentibus quam Judæis, quorum fuerat promissio hæc. At ubi Judæi coeperunt rcpudiare lidem (hristi, tunc et Samaritana: se obtulit Salvator, et post cruccni Centurioni Cornelio: a Chananæa autem requisitus suscepit eam; quia non erat adhuc tempus, ut offerretur illis saltis.\n\nX VIII. — Quomodo probatur quod dixit Salvator, quia post tres dies et post tres noctes a mortuis resurgeret; cum utique coena pura passus, illucescente dic dominico, cum adhuc tenebræ essent, resurrexerit? Unde numerus dicrum oL noctium noa convcnisse videtur.","english":"For he was a Samaritan, and it is established that the Samaritans were of Babylonian origin. Yet even this man obtained the benefit not without confession, because it was said to the disciples by the Lord: \"Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into a city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\" (Matt. 10:5-6); that is, so that it should not be preached to the Samaritans and the Gentiles before the Jews, whose promise this was. But when the Jews began to reject the faith of Christ, then the Savior also offered himself to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to Cornelius the centurion; but being sought by the Canaanite woman, he received her, because it was not yet the time for him to be offered to them.\n\nXVIII. — How is it proved that the Savior said that he would rise from the dead after three days and after three nights, when indeed, having suffered on the pure supper, he rose on the dawn of the Lord's day, while it was still dark? Hence the number of days and nights does not seem to fit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Præscius Salvator omnium quæ in se futura erant, hæc protestatus est, etc.\n\nXIX. — Quare Salvator, Orate, ait, ne fiat fuga vestra hieme vel sabbato (Matth. XXIV,: cum tempus persecutionis hujus differri non possit, dicente Apostolo, Qui revelabitur in suo tempore (II Thess. II, 6, 8); et iu Actibus Apostolus inquit, Definiens tempora et terminos habitationis eorum (Act. XVII, 26)? Et cur hieme fugam vcl sabbato non expedire significat?\n\nIlieme tuta fuga non est: frigora enim sunt, imbres assidui, ningit, gelat, flumina exeunt; ideoque fugientibus pergrave est. Latere enim in silvis non possunt, neque in montibus, neque in speluncis. Sabbato autem juxta Judæos longius a civitate exire nou licet, nec altum ascendere, ac per hoc fugi sabbato non potest 1. Quomodo hæc tempora fugam tu. tam non faciunt, propter impedimenta supra dicta; ita et fuga nostra tuta non crit, si nos obligatos impedimentis carnalibus invenerit prædicta persecutio Detinent enim homines quasi compedes desideria sæcularia, id est facultates mundanæ, ne edicta diaboli possint effugere. Ideo ergo orandum est ne tempore quo fugiendum est, hiemis et sabbati in nobis ratio inveniatur, sed ut liberos nos ab his impedimentis Dei præstet auxilium, ut non sit quod nos desiderio sui captos mancipet mundo.","english":"The Savior, foreknowing all things that were to happen concerning him, testified these things, etc.\n\nXIX. — Why does the Savior say, \"Pray that your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath\" (Matt. 24), since the time of this persecution cannot be deferred, as the Apostle says, \"Who will be revealed in his own time\" (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); and in the Acts the Apostle says, \"Defining the times and the boundaries of their habitation\" (Acts 17:26)? And why does he signify that flight is not expedient in winter or on the sabbath?\n\nFlight is not safe in winter: for there are colds, constant rains, it snows, it freezes, rivers overflow; and therefore it is very grievous for those who flee. For they cannot hide in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. But on the sabbath, according to the Jews, it is not permitted to go far from the city, nor to ascend a height, and for this reason one cannot flee on the sabbath. Just as these times do not make flight safe, on account of the impediments mentioned above, so also our flight will not be safe if the aforementioned persecution finds us bound by carnal impediments. For worldly desires, that is, the resources of the world, hold men back like fetters, so that they cannot escape the edicts of the devil. Therefore it must be prayed that in the time when flight is necessary, the condition of winter and sabbath not be found in us, but that God's help preserve us free from these impediments, so that there be nothing that, having captured us by desire for itself, enslaves us to the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Quoniam ergo de novissima persecutione loquebatur Salvator, quæ futura est ab Antichristo; ideo hiemem posuit, quia nerissimum tempus est: et sabbatum similiter, qnia postremus dies est, ut sicut his temporibus aspera c' difficilis fuga est, ita significaret illo tempore tam graves futuras persecutiones et pressuras, ut vix aliquis cas possit effugere.\n\nXX.— Salvator cum se passurum diceret, et post tertium diem resurrecturum adjecit, Et postquam resurrexero, præcedam vos in Galilæam, ibi me videbitis; et angelus mulicribus similiter (Matth. XXVI, 32, et XXVIII, 7): cum tamen inveniatur a mulieribus et a discipulis suis in Jerusalem.\n\nVerba Salvaturis retractare infidelis cst: sed te video non de verbis Salvatoris dubitare, sed sensum rcquirere, quare cum in Jerosolymis post passioncm suain visus sit, dixit se in Galilæa ab his videri. In Jerosolyma visus at, sed particulatim ad recreandos animos discipulorum: in Galilæa vero ab ominibus simul. Ergo qui in Jerusalem visuri illum erant per partes, in Galilaeam illis constituit ut simul omnibus appareret, et ad ordinandam disciplinam darct præcepta.","english":"Since, therefore, the Savior was speaking of the final persecution, which is to come from Antichrist, he therefore mentioned winter, because it is the most bitter season, and likewise the sabbath, because it is the last day, so that just as in these times flight is harsh and difficult, so he might signify that in that time the persecutions and pressures would be so severe that scarcely anyone could escape them.\n\nXX. — When the Savior said that he was to suffer and added that he would rise again after the third day, \"And after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see me\"; and the angel said the same to the women (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7) — yet he is found by the women and by his disciples in Jerusalem.\n\nTo retract the words of the Savior is the mark of an unbeliever; but I see that you are not doubting the Savior's words, but seeking 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 piecemeal, to refresh the minds of the disciples; in Galilee, however, by all at once. Therefore, to those who were to see him in Jerusalem in parts, he appointed Galilee, so that he might appear to all of them together and give precepts for ordering discipline.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"XXI. — Tres evangelistæ sexta hora crucifixum dicunt Salvatorem, Marcus vero evangelista tertia hora dicit crucifixum. Sed quidam strenui (industria sua) tertia bora sententiam datam dicunt, ac per hoc tertia horn crucilixum. Data enim quis sententia jam mortuus babetur. Sed constat post quintam horam in sextam Pilatum sedisse pro tribunali, et sic sententiam dcdisse, sicut Joannes ostendit.\n\nObscuris vcra involvere non cst bonum. Nam tres evangelistas verum dixisse ipsa concordia obteStatur. etc.\n\nXXII. — Si idco Salvator baptizatns est ut exemplo esset, quare circumcisus cæteros prohibuit circumcidi?\n\nCircumcisio usque ad Christum indulta est. Abraham autem circumcisionem in Christo promisso accepit, etc.\n\nXXIII. — Judæis accusantibus discipulos eo qnod facerent contra legem sabbati, spicas vellendo, Salvator exemplum protulit David, dicens: Nescitis quid fecerit David cum esurireU quomodo accepit panes propositionis et manducavit, et dedit his qui secum erant, quod non licebat nisi solis sacerdotibus? Quod exemplum non excusare videtur discipulos, sed possunt tam hi qnam David prævaricatores vidcri.","english":"XXI. — Three evangelists say that the Savior was crucified at the sixth hour, but the evangelist Mark says that he was crucified at the third hour. But certain vigorous men, by their own diligence, say that the sentence was given at the third hour, and that for this reason he was crucified at the third hour. For once the sentence has been given, a man is already considered dead. But it is established that after the fifth hour, at the sixth, Pilate sat on the tribunal and thus gave the sentence, as John shows.\n\nIt is not good to wrap true things in obscure words. For the very agreement of the three evangelists testifies that they spoke the truth. etc.\n\nXXII. — If the Savior was baptized for this reason, that he might be an example, why, having been circumcised, did he forbid others to be circumcised?\n\nCircumcision was permitted until Christ. But Abraham received circumcision in Christ, who was promised, etc.\n\nXXIII. — When the Jews were accusing the disciples because they did things contrary to the law of the sabbath by plucking ears of grain, the Savior brought forward the example of David, saying: Do you not know what David did when he was hungry, how he took the bread of the presence and ate it, and gave it to those who were with him, which was not lawful except for the priests alone? This example does not seem to excuse the disciples, but both these men and David can be seen as transgressors.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"Notuit Salvator de tempore impleti sabbati præjudicare Judæos, etc.\n\nXXIV.-Cnr Salvator discipulos suos filios tonitrui appellavit (Marc. III, 17), qui plus magis videantur lilii Deidici? tonitrua enim dicuntur collisione nobium fieri.\n\nQuoniam tonitrua terrorem incutiunt, hac causa filios tonitrui discipulos appellavit, qunsi ejus filii, qui timendus sit. Quamvis enim tonitrna collisione nubium fiunt, volunlatc tamen Dei flunt, et sunt terribilia.\n\nXXV.—Quid est ut secundum Marci evangelistæ relationem, Christi non sit impleta voluntas: Intrans, enim, inquit, in domum, voluit neminem scire, et non potuit lutere? Si ergo voluit latere et non potuit, infirmata voluntas ejus est.\n\nHoc qaod per compendium propositum est, ut pas sensum pi sset occulere, etc.\n\nXXVI. — In Evangelio legimus angelum dicere ad Mariam matrem Domini, quod regni ejus, id est Christi, non erit finis (Luc. I, 33). Et Daniel eadem diCit: ait enim: Tunc exsurget regnum in aternum, quod nanquam corrumpetur (Dan. VII, 14). Contra Apostolus de Dotto: Cum tradiderit, inquit, regnum Deo et Patri (1 Cor. xv, 24) Quomodo regnum æternum habebit, quod traditurus dicitur Deo et Patri?","english":"He made known that the Savior prejudged the Jews concerning the time of the completed Sabbath, etc.\n\nXXIV. — Why did the Savior call his disciples sons of thunder (Mark 3:17), who seem rather to be sons of God? For thunders are said to be made by the collision of clouds.\n\nBecause thunders strike terror, for this reason he called the disciples sons of thunder, as if they were sons of him who is to be feared. For although thunders are made by the collision of clouds, they nonetheless happen by the will of God, and they are terrifying.\n\nXXV. — What does it mean that, according to the account of the evangelist Mark, Christ's will was not fulfilled: \"Entering,\" he says, \"into the house, he wished no one to know, and he could not be hidden\"? If therefore he wished to be hidden and could not, his will was weakened.\n\nThis was set forth in brief so that he might conceal the sense of the passage, etc.\n\nXXVI. — In the Gospel we read that the angel said to Mary the mother of the Lord that of his kingdom, that is, of Christ's, there will be no end (Luke 1:33). And Daniel says the same: for he says, \"Then a kingdom shall arise forever, which shall never be corrupted\" (Daniel 7:14). On the other hand, the Apostle says of the Lord: \"When he has delivered,\" he says, \"the kingdom to God and the Father\" (1 Corinthians 15:24). How will he have an eternal kingdom, which he is said to be going to deliver to God and the Father?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"In causa Patris et Filii, id est, Dei ct Christi, traditio non abolitio intelligitur. Considera enim quomodo Pater tradiderit Filio regnum, ipso hæc Domino protestante: Omnia enim, inquit, milii tradita sunt a Patre meo (Matth. II, 27). Si Pater ergo desiit habere cum tradidit, potes! et de Salvat dici quia cum tradidit, amisit. Nam Filius postquam traditum sibi a Patre regnum dixit, Patrem adhuc præferens ait: flcec eat autem vita æterna, ut cognoscunt te solum et verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. xvu, 3). Secundum hunc igitur sensum et Filius non amittit regnum cum tradit, ut hæc vera sint; et angelus et Danicl non discrepare ab hoc sensu dicantur. Qui horum enim testimonium retractandum putat, perUdia plenus est. Sed nunc videamus Inanentes in hac fide, quid sit tradere Filium Patri regnum: hoc enim cst quod inter cætera alio loco dicit Apostolus: Tunc et ipse subjectus erit ei qui subjecit ei onia, ut sit Deus omnia iti omnibus (I Cor. xv, 28). Subjectio igitur hæc, ipsa est traditio regni. Itaque hoc loco interpretatio videtur necessaria, ul ct subjectus Patri Filius nan negetur, et nihilominus æternum regnum habcre dicatur. Hoc est regnum Filii, quia in nomi. e Jesu omnia genua flectuntur, cœlestia, terrestria, et inferna (Philipp. n, 10).","english":"In the case of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and of Christ, it is understood as a handing over, not an abolition. For consider how the Father handed over the kingdom to the Son, the Lord himself declaring this: \"For all things,\" he says, \"have been handed over to me by my Father\" (Matthew 11:27). If, therefore, the Father ceased to have it when he handed it over, you may also say of the Savior that when he handed it over, he lost it. For the Son, after he said that the kingdom had been handed over to him by the Father, still preferring the Father, says: \"But this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent\" (John 17:3). According to this sense, then, the Son also does not lose the kingdom when he hands it over, so that these things may be true; and the angel and Daniel are said not to disagree with this sense. For whoever thinks that their testimony must be retracted is full of treachery. But now let us see, for those who remain in this faith, what it is for the Son to hand over the kingdom to the Father: for this is what the Apostle says in another place among other things: \"Then he himself will also be subject to him who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all\" (1 Corinthians 15:28). This subjection, therefore, is itself the handing over of the kingdom. And so in this place an interpretation seems necessary, so that the Son may not be denied to be subject to the Father, and nevertheless may be said to have an eternal kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Son, because at the name of Jesus every knee bends, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Philippians 2:10).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Quod etiam firmat Petrus apostolus, dicens: Non est aliud nomen datum sub cælo, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri (Act. iv, 12). Et ipse Dominus discipulis ait: Usquemodo nihil petistis in nomine meo; petite, et ego faciam (Joan. xvi, 24). Sic regnat Filius, cum omnia in nomine ejus salvantur, et dantur quæ postulantur usque ad finem mundi. Postquam vero oinnia Christum fue. rint confessa, sive vi, sive voluntate, et substrata potentiæ ejus cui restiterant, mysterium unius Dei cunctis manifestabitur, et omnis gratiarum actio referetur ad Patrem, ex quo sunt omnia; ut cessante prædicatione uuus Detis sciatur in mysterio Trinitatis. Cum enim omnes potestates, omnes principatus ct Dominationes Christo genu flexerint, tunc Filius manifestabit non sc esse a quo sunt omnia, sed Filium ejus, et illum in se videri. Hæc est subjectio et reg i traditio. Ostendens enim Patrem esse a quo sunt omnia, subjecit se illi cum de eo se dicit essc. Tanta enim majestas et claritas in adventu Filii videtur, ut omnes potentiæ ct chori Angelorum hunc singularem putent Deum. Salvator autein cum se non illum esse dixerit, qui dicitur Pater, sed Filium ejus, regnans tradit regnum Patri. In bac re manifestaca est et subjectio, et regni traditio; quia et cum a Patre se proditetur esse, quidquid babeL, Patris confitetur esse. omnem summam referens ad eum.","english":"The apostle Peter also confirms this, saying: There is no other name given under heaven in which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And the Lord himself said to his disciples: Until now you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and I will do it (John 16:24). Thus the Son reigns, since all things are saved in his name, and what is asked is given until the end of the world. But 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 every act of thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from whom are all things; so that, when preaching ceases, the one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, all principalities and dominions have bowed the knee to Christ, then the Son will make manifest that he is not the one from whom are all things, but his Son, and that he is seen in him. This is the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom. For by showing that the Father is the one from whom are all things, he subjected himself to him when he says that he is from him. For such majesty and brightness is seen in the coming of the Son that all powers and choirs of angels think him the one God. But the Savior, when he has said that he is not the one who is called the Father, but his Son, reigning hands over the kingdom to the Father. In this matter both the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom have been made manifest; because, in declaring that he is from the Father, he confesses that whatever he has is the Father's, referring the whole sum to him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"XXVII.— Salvator ait, Si quis non reliquerit omnia sua, id est, domum, et agrum, ct cætera, non potest meus discipulusesse: et contra evangelista, Veuit, inquit, Joseph ab Arimathia, homo dives, qui et ipse discipulus erat Jesu, exspectans regnum Dei (Luc. XIV, 33, et XXIII, 50, 51). Quid est ut evangelista profiteatur eum discipulum quem Salvator negavit? Nam et Zachæus dives erat, et Cornelius Centurio dives, et mulieres quæ idUs ministrabant de facultatibus suis.\n\nHunc sensum paucis absolvit Apostolos, dicens: Qui habent, quasi non habentes sint; et qui ntuntur hoc sæculo, quati non utantur; et qui emunt, tanquam non possidentes (4 Car. VII 34, 31). Qod ergo hæc sic Ita. het, quasi non habeat, reliquisse ridetur. Quando cnim non præsumit de his, aleque se jactat4 sed humiliter incedit, non tantum habitu, sed et mente, dispensatorem se harum et ministrum intelligens, omnia sua reliquisse videtur. Hoc enim relinqui dicitur, quod a desiderio reeedit, et gratiam non habet.","english":"XXVII. The Savior says, If anyone has not left all that is his—that is, house, and field, and the rest—he cannot be my disciple; and on the other hand the evangelist says, Joseph of Arimathea came, a rich man, who was himself a disciple of Jesus, awaiting the kingdom of God (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). How is it that the evangelist acknowledges as a disciple one whom the Savior denied? For Zacchaeus too was rich, and Cornelius the centurion was rich, and the women who ministered to him out of their means.\n\nThe Apostle disposes of this sense in few words, saying: Those who have, let them be as though they had not; and those who use this world, as though they did not use it; and those who buy, as though they did not possess (1 Cor 7:29–31). Therefore, that this man is thus, so to speak, as though he did not have, he is seen to have left. For when he does not presume upon these things, nor boast himself, but walks humbly, not only in outward bearing but also in mind, understanding himself to be their dispenser and minister, he is seen to have left all that is his. For that is said to be left which has departed from desire and holds no favor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"XXVIII. — Si Lex et Prophetæ usque ad loannem quomodo Salvator ad sacerdotes mittit offerri munera pro emundatione?\n\nHoc spcutns ea apostolus Paulus. Cum enim prædicaret jain non oportere circumcidi quemquam, etc.\n\nXXIX.— Si Lex et Prophetæ usque ad Joannem, ex quo regnum cœlorum prædicatum est (Luc. XVI, 16); ipse est enim inchoator novae prædicationis; cur baptisma ejus cessavit?\n\nBaptisma Joannis coeptum non cessavit, sed additum est ei quod deerat. Joannes enim tantum baptizavit, non Spiritum sanctum credentibus dedit: sicut et ipse de Salvatore dicit, Ego baptizo VOl in aqua in pænitentiam, ipse autcm vos baptizubit in Spiritu sancto (Matth. III, 11). Hoc est quod dicit: Per me remissio peccatorum, non tamen datur Spiritus sanctus, ut pur ificati lilii dicamur; hoc enim Salvatori reser- ' vatum est, utpote Domino, ut filii Dei non fierent, nisi accepto a Filio Dei Spiritu sancto. Effectus ergo baptismi Joannis, quod tacite operabatnr sine interrogatione, non tainen sine Salvatoris mentione, ut firmum esset quod agebat, Trinitatis est donum: quod dignatio Salvatoris ostendit, dans formam trium nominum, quae a primordio sub unius Dei nomine vel persona unum opus et indifferens operata sunt. Interpretatio ergo accessit ad baptismum Joannis cum significatione latentis dudum mysterii: accessit et amplius donum, ut baptizati accepto Spiritu sancto sint filii Dei.","english":"XXVIII. If the Law and the Prophets were until John, how is it that the Savior sends gifts to be offered by the priests for cleansing?\n\nThe apostle Paul discusses this. For when he was preaching that no one ought now to be circumcised, etc.\n\nXXIX. If the Law and the Prophets were until John, from which time the kingdom of heaven was preached (Luke 16:16)—for he is the initiator of the new preaching—why did his baptism cease?\n\nThe baptism of John did not cease after it had begun, 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 of the Savior: I baptize you in water for repentance, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). This is what he says: Through me there is remission of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that we may be called purified sons; for this was reserved for the Savior, as for the Lord, that they should not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God. Therefore the effect of John's baptism, which he performed silently without questioning, yet not without mention of the Savior, so that what he did might be firm, is the gift of the Trinity—which the condescension of the Savior shows, giving the form of three names, which from the beginning under the name or person of one God have wrought one and the same work. So the interpretation was added to John's baptism together with the signification of the mystery long hidden; and a greater gift was added besides, so that the baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Amplificatum ergo est, non evacuatum.\n\nXXX. -In Evangelio Joannis, Lex, ait, per Moysen data est; gratia autem et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est. Si ergo per Christum veritas facta est, ante non fuit. Si ante non fuit, quomodo a Deo dati Lex. dicitur, in qua veritas non erat?\n\nVidendum est quid sit, Lex per Moysen dala est. Pc;r Moysen autem Lex data, manifesta habet precepta, etc.\n\nXXXI.— Sabbatum certe Lex est vel pars Legis; quomodo ergo non evacuata Lex est, dicente evangelista, Non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrm suum dicebat Deam (Joan. v, 18).\n\nSolvit sane sabbatum Salvator, sed sine præjudicio dali sabbati. Dum enim sabbati jam tempus cessaret, Judei antem sabbatum adhuc manere assererent, Salvator sabbatis operans, et infirmo lectum suum sabbatis portare praecipiens, secundum sensum Judæorum sabbatum solvebat. Nam juxta veri fidem tale est si dicatur quod jam cessaverat, quale cst si dicatur de aliquo qui expræfectus dicendus est, et injuriam passus fuerit, quia præfectura iujuriam passa est. Non ergo sabbatum solutum est, sed homines qui impudenter sabbati auctorilalem vindicabant, delusi sunt, cum jain sabbato successisset nova Lex.","english":"It has therefore been enlarged, not abolished.\n\nXXX. In the Gospel of John, he says, the Law was given through Moses; but grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ. If, therefore, truth was made through Christ, it did not exist before. If it did not exist before, how is the Law said to have been given by God, in which there was no truth?\n\nWe must consider what it means that the Law was given through Moses. But the Law given through Moses has manifest precepts, etc.\n\nXXXI. The Sabbath is certainly the Law, or a part of the Law; how then has the Law not been abolished, when the evangelist says, He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling his Father God (John 5:18).\n\nThe Savior did indeed break the Sabbath, but without prejudice to the Sabbath that had been given. For while the time of the Sabbath was now ceasing, yet the Jews asserted that the Sabbath still remained; the Savior, by working on the Sabbaths and by commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the Sabbaths, was breaking the Sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For according to the truth of the faith, to say that it had now ceased is like saying of someone who is said to have been removed from office and to have suffered injury, because the office suffered injury. The Sabbath, therefore, was not abolished, but the men who impudently claimed the authority of the Sabbath were deceived, since the new Law had now succeeded the Sabbath.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"XXXII — Si arbitrio proprio vivimus, cur Salvator, Nemo, inquit, venit ad me, nisi l'ater qui misit me, traxerit eum: et non discordans ab his Apostolus, Neque volentis, inquit, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei? His utique perturbari videtur arbitrium liberæ voluntatis. Si enim nemo vadit, nisi tractus, non erit illius delictum, qui non vadit quia non est tractus. Et si nm qni petit et currit, accipit, sed cui vult dat Deus, sine culpa erit et crimine qui vult ct non obtinet; et ad illum redundat crimen qui pctentem spernit.\n\nNullo gcnerc ex his arbitrii causa potcrit turbari. Etenim dicta ad causam referas qua dicta sunt, etc.\n\nXXXIII.—Quidest utcum Salvator omnes prope verbo curasset, caeco tamen per lutum de sputo factum oculos reformarit (Joan. ix, 6. 7)?\n\nHoc Salvator ad confusionem illorum fecit, qui Creatorem accusant. Quando enim non aliter vitium accidens corpori emendavit quam Conditor fecit, auctorem operis hujus commendavit. Per id enim emendavit, quo erat conditum. Omne enim quod fit, si lapsum per id quod fuerat factum reformetur, rectum factum probabitur. Si enim Salvator per hoc se Deum testatur, quia damna et vitia corporis emendavit, quanto magis Deus est qui ipsius corporis inventor est?","english":"XXXII. If we live by our own will, why does the Savior say, No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me has drawn him, and why does the Apostle, not disagreeing with these words, say, It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy? By these words the freedom of the will seems certainly to be disturbed. For if no one goes unless he is drawn, the fault will not belong to the one who does not go, because he has not been drawn. And if not the one who asks and runs receives, but God gives to whom he wills, then the one who wills and does not obtain will be without blame and without crime; and the crime redounds to the one who despises the one who asks.\n\nIn no way can the cause of free will be disturbed by any of these things. For you should refer the words to the cause for which they were spoken, etc.\n\nXXXIII. What is the meaning of the fact that when the Savior had healed almost all by a word, he nevertheless restored the eyes of the blind man by clay made from spittle (John 9:6-7)?\n\nThe Savior did this to confound those who accuse the Creator. For when he corrected a defect that had befallen the body in no other way than the Creator made it, he commended the author of this work. For he corrected it by that through which it had been created. For everything that is made, if when it has fallen it is reformed through that by which it had been made, will be proven to be a right work. For if the Savior testifies that he is God by this, because he corrected the losses 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":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"XXXIV.— Quid est qnod Salvator ait, Ego sum janua; qui ante me fuerunt, furca sunt et latrone. (Joan. x, 7, 8)? Quod dictum vidctur Prophetas putsare.\n\nQuia nemo vadit ad Deum Patrem, nisi per fidem Christi, idcirco se januam dicit Salvator regni cœlo rum. Si ergo januae verbis utitur, quid opus crat ut de anterioribus diceret, Quotquot ante me fuerunt; cum nulla quæstio de pr;etcritis verteretur; sed utique quasi præsens janua de præsentibus quæreretur? De Judæis enim dicit Salvator, qui non per fidem, scd per justitiam Legis in regnum Dci se inlrarc putabant. Ante Salvatorem euim venientes, id est anie illum stantes, obtrectabant ei contradicentes, ut eliam alios a fide ejus averterent. Unde fures et lalroncs appellati sunt. Nam eo tempore hæc dicta sunt, quo Pharisan disceptabant cum illo qui crat ex cæco illumina-tus, cui Salvator oculos reddidit quos natura negaverat, per volcbant a fide Salvatoris avertere, dicentes non per hunc posse, quia sabbatum violat, sed per justitiam Legis intrari in reguum Dei. Tunc Salvator: Ego sum, inquit, janua; per me si quis introibit, pascua inveniet: si quis autem aliunde intrare volucrit, ille fur est et latro. Quomodo hoc ad personam pertinet Prophetarum? Numquid Prophetæ contra Christi doctrinam per justitiam Legis sinc lide Deum promereri posse dicebant, qui Christum in carne veuturum scierunt?","english":"XXXIV. What is it that the Savior says, I am the door; those who came before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:7-8)? This statement appears to accuse the Prophets.\n\nBecause no one comes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, for this reason the Savior calls himself the door of the kingdom of heaven. If, then, he uses the words of a door, what need was there for him to say of those who came before, As many as came before me; when no question was being raised about things past, but surely a door, as it were present, would be inquired about with respect to things present? For the Savior is speaking of the Jews, who thought that they would enter the kingdom of God not through faith, but through the righteousness of the Law. For coming before the Savior, that is, standing before him, they disparaged him by contradicting him, so that they might even turn others away from faith in him. Whence they are called thieves and robbers. For these things were said at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with the man who had been illuminated from blindness, to whom the Savior restored the eyes that nature had denied, and they wished to turn him away from faith in the Savior, saying that one could not enter by this man, because he violates the Sabbath, but by the righteousness of the Law into the kingdom of God. Then the Savior said: I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he will find pasture; but if anyone wishes to enter from elsewhere, he is a thief and a robber. How does this pertain to the person of the Prophets? Surely the Prophets did not say, contrary to the teaching of Christ, that one could merit God by the righteousness of the Law without faith—they who knew that Christ would come in the flesh?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Hoc ergo de praesentibus dixit, ut quicumque ante ipsum fuerunt, astantes vel sedentes, fures intelligantur et latrones. Sevocantes euim illum qui fuerat cæcus, volcbant eum a fide Salvatoris acer. iere, dicentes: Da honorem Deo; nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est. Quos ille arguit, dicens: A sæculo nunquam fuit auditum. quod aperuerit quis oculos cæci nati: nisi hic esset a Beo, non poterat facere quidquam (Id. IX, 24, 52, 33).. De hoc ergo, quia perseveravit in fide; et de illis qui dixerunt, Hæc verba non suut dæmonium habentis; numquid potest dæmonium cæcorum oculos aperire? dixit Salvator, Sed non audierunt eoa oves (Id.,8, 9, 21): illos utique quos fures ct latrones appellavit. Nam quomodo non audierunt Prophetas oves, cum constet Scripturis omnes bonos ob disse Prophetis, et malos pseudoprophetis?\n\nXXXV.—Quid est ut admirabilem et incognitam virtutem facturus, Lazarum scilicet a mortuis resuscitaturus, fleret, aut locum ubi positus erat quasi ignarus quæ reret (Joan. XI, 51, 55)?","english":"He therefore said this concerning those present, so that whoever were before him, standing or sitting, might be understood as thieves and robbers. For drawing aside the man who had been blind, they wished to tear him away from faith in the Savior, saying: Give honor to God; we know that this man is a sinner. Him he rebuked, saying: Never since the beginning of the world has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind; unless this man were from God, he could do nothing (John 9:24, 52, 33). Concerning this man, then, because he persevered in the faith; and concerning those who said, These words are not those of one who has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind? the Savior said, But my sheep did not hear them (John 8:9, 21): those, certainly, whom he called thieves and robbers. For how did the sheep not hear the Prophets, when it is established by the Scriptures that all the good obeyed the Prophets, and the evil obeyed false prophets?\n\nXXXV. What is it that, about to perform an admirable and unheard-of miracle—namely, to raise Lazarus from the dead—he wept, or asked where the place was in which he had been laid, as if ignorant? (John 11:51, 55)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Salvator Deus et homo est, ac per hoc duas vices egit semper: ut quia hominis affectus habet, ploret; sed quia et Deus erat, hunc quem flevit resuscitavit. A minimis ergo semper ad majora venitur, ut quia homo cernebatur, hoc reprobaret esse quod vidcbatur; Deum autem se opcribus asserebat.\n\nXXXVI.—Cum Salvator dicat, Ego pro eis rogo, quos mihi dedisti; non pro mundo rogo ( JoaM. XVII, 9); Joannes apostolus contra, Habemus, inquit, advocatum apud Putrem, deprecatorem pro peccatis nostris, ct non solum pro nostris, sed pro universo mundo (1 Joan. II, 1,2): boc contrarium vidctur.\n\nQuamvis non longe discrepet sensus, tamen aliud est quod dicit Salvator, ct aliud quod aflirmat apostolus Joannes. NaM Salvator rogat pro discipulis, ut a mali infestatione tuti præstentur: denique sic dicit: Non rogo ut tollas eoa de mundo, sed ut serves eos a malo. Apostolus autem Joannes aliud genus precationis inducit: ait namque: Hubemus advocatum, qni paulilat pro peccatis nostris, et totius mundi. Pro Christianis ergo duplici genere postulatur; quia ct pro peccatis illorum oratur, et ut tuti a diaboli infestatione prestentur. Pro liis atHena qui non crədunt v haec sola deprecalio est, ut cum pro peccatis suis et perfidia plecti mererentur, bonitas et patientia exspectet illos, si forte velint corrigi.","english":"The Savior is both God and man, and accordingly he always played two roles: because he has human feeling, he wept; but because he was also God, he raised up the one for whom he wept. Therefore one always comes from the least to the greater, so that, since he was perceived as a man, he might show that he was not what he appeared to be; but he asserted himself to be God by his works.\n\nXXXVI. — Since the Savior says, \"I pray for them, whom you have given me; I do not pray for the world\" (John 17:9), the apostle John says on the contrary, \"We have an advocate with the Father, a pleader for our sins, and not only for ours, but for the whole world\" (1 John 2:1-2): this seems contradictory.\n\nAlthough the meaning is not far different, nevertheless what the Savior says is one thing, and what the apostle John affirms is another. For the Savior prays for his disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of evil; and indeed he says thus: \"I do not pray that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil.\" But the apostle John 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, petition is made in two ways: because prayer is offered both for their sins, and that they may be kept safe from the assault of the devil. For those others who do not believe, this alone is the plea: that, when they deserved to be punished for their sins and unbelief, the goodness and patience of God may await them, if perhaps they wish to be corrected.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Non enim postulatur ut ignoscantur illis peccata diffidentibus, sed ut dilationem accipiant longum, ut si se emendaverint, dimittantur illis delicta. Hoc ergo postulat pro illis Salvator, quod diximus.\n\nXXXVII. - Quid est ut Salvator dicat Mariæ volenti se tangere caussa gaudii, Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem (Joan. xx, 1-17); cnm Iugatur a cæteris mulieribus et tactus et adoratus?\n\nIndignantis verba sunt dicentis, Noli me tangere. Quamvis enim desideraret Salvatorem, aliis tamen resurrectionem ejus credentibus, haec ad monumentum stabat plorans, quam jam gaudere oportucrat. Audierat enim. a Joanne et Petro apostolis resurrexisse Dominum. Sic enim habes: Et vidit linteamina et sudarium in unum locum, et credidit: nondum enim sciebat Scripturam, quia oportebat eum a mortuis resurgere. Sed Maria quia non illum videbat resurrexisse, non credebat. Nilnius enim amor dubitare illam faciebat. Deliique quos diligimus, si incommodum patiantur, non eos evadere credimus: quos autem odimus, si jau prope mortem sint, incredulum nobis est. Mariæ ergo, quoniam obstupuerat et moerorem patiebatur per ainorem, quam oportuerat sequi discipulorum fidem, primum se ostendit Dominus, ut desineret a mœrore, non tamen sinc indignatione. Hinc audit, Noh me tangere: hoc est, Carnalem sensum quæris; ahsline te, et spiritualia sequere quæ non videntur.","english":"For it is not asked that sins be forgiven those who distrust, but that they receive a long delay, so that if they amend themselves, their offenses may be forgiven them. This, therefore, the Savior asks on their behalf, as we have said.\n\nXXXVII. — What does it mean that the Savior says to Mary, who wished to touch him for the sake of joy, Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:1-17), when he was both touched and adored by the other women?\n\nThe words are those of one who is indignant, saying, Do not touch me. For although she loved the Savior, yet while the others believed in his resurrection, this woman 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 so you have it: And he saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and he believed; for he did not yet know the Scripture, that it was necessary for him to rise from the dead. But Mary, because she did not see that he had risen, did not believe. For a more abundant love made her doubt. And indeed, those whom we love, if they suffer misfortune, we do not believe that they have escaped it; but those whom we hate, if they are already near death, it is incredible to us. To Mary, therefore, because she was stunned and was suffering grief through love, when she ought to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord first showed himself, so that she might cease from grief, yet not without indignation. Hence she hears, Do not touch me: that is, you seek a carnal sense; withdraw from yourself, and follow spiritual things which are not seen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Nondum enim, inquit, ascendi ad Patrem. Tale est hoc, quale illud beati Joannis Baptistæ mittentis discipulos suos ad Jesum, et dicentis: Ite, dicite, Joannea Baptista misit noa ad te, dicens, Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus (Luc. VII,, 20)? Sub sua persona, discipulorum suoruin agit causam. Nee enim Joannes dubitabat, qui dixerat, Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi (Joan. I, 29): sed al discipulis suis satisfaceret, mittit illos suis verbis, ut Salvatoris ore firmaret quod ipse de illo docebat, ut post excessum suum sine dubitatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur. Ita et Salvator in se1 Mariam arguit, dicens, Nondum ascendi ad Patrem: id est, Adhuc cor tuum humi pressum est, quæ si nou vides, nou credis. Si enim ad Deum eor elevasset, resurrexisse Dominum cum discipulis credidisset.\n\nXXXVIII. — Quomodo intelligitur, quod dirente Maria ad angelum, Et unde hoc sciam, qnia virum non cognovi? respondit Gabriel angelus, Spiritus sanctus superveniet in, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi?","english":"For he says, I have not yet ascended to the Father. This is like that passage concerning blessed John the Baptist, who sent his disciples to Jesus and said: Go, tell John the Baptist sent us to you, saying, Are you the one who is to come, or do we await another? Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples. For John was not doubting, who had said, Behold the Lamb of God, behold the one who takes away the sins of the world; but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the mouth of the Savior he might confirm what he himself was teaching about him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. So too the Savior reproves Mary in his own person, saying, I have not yet ascended to the Father: that is, Your heart is still pressed to the ground, and unless you see, you do not believe. For if she had raised her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples that the Lord had risen.\n\nXXXVIII. — How is it to be understood that, when Mary said to the angel, And how shall I know this, since I do not know a man? the angel Gabriel answered, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Ambigenti Mariæ de conceptu, possibilitatem angelus praedicat dicens, etc.\n\nXXXIX. — Qua ratione Magi Chaldæi per stellam apparentem Christum regem Judæorum natum intellexerunt; cum stella indice temporalis rex designetur?\n\nHi Magi Chaldæi non malevolentia astrorum cursum, sed rerum curiositate speculabantur, etc.\n\nXL. — Quid sibi vult ut Isaias propheta de Christo dicat, Qui peccatum non fecit; contra autem Apostolus, Qui peccatum, inquit, nesciebat, peccatum pro nobis fecit?\n\nQuantum ad propositum pertinet, non solum verba discrepant, sed et personæ diversae sunt, etc.\n\nXLI. — Certe qui filius Dei non est, diaboli est: semper ergo filius est, sed aliquando De!. aliquando diaboli. Quid ergo nascimur, requirendum est utrum filii Dei, an diaboli, an aliud tertium, si possit admitti.\n\nDominus cum filii Israel sæpe delinquerent educti de Ægypto, iratus, nullum illorum terram promissionis intrare permisit. etc.","english":"To Mary, who was uncertain about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying, etc.\n\nXXXIX. — For what reason did the Chaldean Magi understand through the appearing star that Christ, the king of the Jews, had been born; since by the sign of a star a temporal king is designated?\n\nThese Chaldean Magi were observing the course of the stars not out of malevolence, but out of curiosity about things, etc.\n\nXL. — What does it mean that the prophet Isaiah says of Christ, He who did no sin; but on the other hand the Apostle says, He who knew no sin, he made sin for us?\n\nAs far as the matter at hand is concerned, not only do the words disagree, but the persons are also different, etc.\n\nXLI. — Surely whoever is not a son of God is a son of the devil: therefore he is always a son, but sometimes of God, sometimes of the devil. What then we are born as must be inquired into—whether sons of God, or of the devil, or something else third, if it can be admitted.\n\nWhen the sons of Israel, having been led out of Egypt, often sinned, the Lord, angered, permitted none of them to enter the land of promise. etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"XLII. — Quarendum an Spiritum sanctum habuerint Apostoli tempore illo quo fuerunt cum Domino, etc.\n\nIn his omnibus qum proposita sunt, non una est causa. Breviter eniut singularum causarum significate sunt formæ, etc.\n\nXLIII. — Qua ratione responderi possit Arianæ impietati simpliciter ex Lcge.\n\nSi rationi fides accommodetur, ipsa nominum ratio Patris et Filii ostendet unitatem, etc.\n\nXLIV.— Cum Salvatorem natum profiteamur, quid est ut Apostolus factum eum dicat ex semine David (Rom. 1, 3); cum aliud sit fier i, aliud nasci?\n\nQuanquam hoc loco possit factura nativitatis intelligi: factura enim a generatione distat quidem; sed in aliis causis non ubi carnis et corporis vertitur ratio: Apostolus tamen nun sine causa taliter verbis locutus est; quia et in alio loco, Factum, inquit, ex muliere (Galal. IV, 4). Aliquid crgo significavit hoc dictu. Quoniam enim non humnno semine concreta caro Domini est in utero Virginis, ut corpus effecta, sed eflectu et virtute sancti Spiritus; ideo sic locutus est Apostolus. Aliud cst enim semine admixto sanguinem coagulare, et generare, et aliud non permixtione, sed virtute procreare. Ideo facium potius dixit quain ecnitum 1.","english":"XLII. — It must be asked whether the Apostles had the Holy Spirit at that time when they were with the Lord, etc.\n\nIn all these matters that have been set forth, the cause is not one. For briefly, the forms of the individual causes have been signified, etc.\n\nXLIII. — By what reasoning the Arian impiety can be answered simply from the Law.\n\nIf faith is accommodated to reason, the very meaning of the names Father and Son will show their unity, etc.\n\nXLIV. — Since we profess that the Savior was born, why is it that the Apostle says he was made from the seed of David (Rom 1:3), when it is one thing to be made and another to be born?\n\nAlthough in this passage \"making\" can be understood as \"birth\": for \"making\" does indeed differ from \"generation,\" but not in other causes where the reckoning of flesh and body is at issue. Nevertheless the Apostle did not speak in this way with these words without cause, because also in another place he says, \"Made from a woman\" (Gal 4:4). Therefore by this saying he signified something. For since the flesh of the Lord was not formed in the womb of the Virgin from human seed, so as to be made a body, but by the effect and power of the Holy Spirit, for that reason the Apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing to coagulate blood with seed mingled in, and to generate, and another to procreate not by mingling but by power. Therefore he said \"made\" rather than \"begotten.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"XLV.— Si ex semine David Christus Dei factus est Filius secundum carnem, hoc est natus jam Filius Dei est in utroque, quia sanctificatus natus est: quomodo ergo postquam baptizatus est, dictum ei a Deo est, Tu es Filius meus, ego hodie genui te?\n\nChristus Filius Dei secundum spiritum ex æterno est, juxta carnem autem Dei Filius ex semine David est ex nativitate, etc.\n\nXLVI. — Apostolus Legem datam a Moyse, et sanctam, et justam, et bonam, et spiritualem ape pellal (Rom. VII, i!, 14). Alibi dicit, Lex enim iram operatur; et, Ubi non est Lex, nec prævaricutio (ld. IV, 15). Sine enim his esse, securitas est.\n\nIpse dicta conferens, satis tibi debueras facere. Nam sic solent dubii facere quæstiones, ut unius dicta, aure las nan cst reprehendere, pugnantia et inimica quærantur. Si enim Apostolus Legem sanctam, et justam, et bonam, et spiritualem vocat, vir omni laude præcipuus. et undique veritate munitus. sufficeret hoc ad fidem, et lIc hoc quod videtur in verbis contrarium, sine obstinatione et invidentia quærendum erat. Propositio eui... hæc impunitatem peccandi vult. Natu Apostolus utique cum legem fidei pro temporis merito et gratia præferret apud Romanos, qui sub lide Christi ill Legem fuerant iuducli.","english":"XLV. — If Christ was made the Son of God from the seed of David according to the flesh, that is, he was already born the Son of God in both respects, because he was born sanctified: how then is it that after he was baptized, it was said to him by God, You are my Son, today I have begotten you?\n\nChrist is the Son of God according to the spirit from eternity, but according to the flesh he is the Son of God from the seed of David by birth, etc.\n\nXLVI. — The Apostle calls the Law given by Moses both holy and just and good and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). Elsewhere he says, For the Law works wrath; and, Where there is no Law, neither is there transgression (Rom. 4:15). For to be without these things is security.\n\nYou should have been satisfied by comparing these sayings yourself. For so those in doubt are accustomed to raise questions, that from the words of one man they seek to censure, and to seek out things that are conflicting 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 should have sufficed for faith, and that which seems contrary in his words should have been sought without obstinacy and envy. The proposition of this one... wants impunity for sinning. For the Apostle, when he preferred the law of faith according to the merit of the time and grace among the Romans, who under the faith of Christ had been brought in under that Law.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"In legem dico, non eam quæ naturalis est: nam utique in legem erant Romani, quam de Athenis decemviri missi, et post alii duo attulerunt, quæ in duabus I tabulis scripta est, quæ in Capitolio obrutæ sunt; sed eam quæ factorum appellatur, ut circumciderentur, sabbatum observarent ct neomenias. discernerent escas, circa mundanda vasa essent solliciti, et cætera qua' continentur in Lege hujusmodi. Hanc ergo Legem dicit iraiu operari: propterea enim irato Deo addita sunt hæc, ut oneri essent perfidiæ Judæorum. De tantis enim necesse est ut aliquid præreat. Unde apostolus Petrus: Quid, inquit, imponitis jugum super cervicem frutrum, quod nostri, nequenos potuimus portare (Acl. xv, 10)? Denique dicit Deus pcr Jeremiam prophetam: Dedi illispræcepta non bona(EzechXX, 25). Post enim offensiones multas et tentationes in Deum et conlumclias factas Moysi et detractiones de Deo. hæc data sunt, quæ observarent, ut premeretur dura cervix eorum, ct quocumque se cnnverterent, Legem haberent, ut nullum eis esset rdrigerium Ut ergo ab hac illos Lege tolleret Apostolus, Ubi, ait, non tat Lex, nec prævaricatio: ut securi per compendium possint Dco servire spiritualiter. Quia, inquit, legem Judæorum servantes, necesse est nt prævaricetis. Tanta enim sunt præcepta, quæ impleri impossibile est. Nam quomodo de isia lege diceret, quæ naturalis est?","english":"I speak of the law, not the one that is natural; for the Romans were certainly under the law that the ten envoys sent from Athens, and afterward two others, brought, which was written on two tables and buried in the Capitol; but I mean the law that is called of works, that they should be circumcised, observe the sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be anxious about cleansing vessels, and the other things of this kind contained in the Law. This Law, then, he says works wrath; for on this account these things were added when God was angry, so that they might be a burden to the perfidy of the Jews. For out of so many things it is necessary that something should be transgressed. Whence the apostle Peter says: Why do you impose a yoke on the neck of the brethren, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Finally God says through the prophet Jeremiah: I gave them commandments that were not good. For after many offenses and temptations against God, and the insults and slanders against Moses and the detractions concerning God, these things were given for them to observe, so that their hard neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned they would have the Law, so that there would be no relief for them. Therefore, to take them away from this Law, the apostle says: Where there is no law, neither is there transgression; so that they may securely serve God in the spirit by a shortcut. Because, he says, if you keep the law of the Jews, it is necessary that you transgress. For so great are the commandments that it is impossible to fulfill them. For how could he say this of that law which is natural?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Nan Moyses idco scripsil, ut auctoritatem illius firmarcl, non quia anie non erat, cum legamus vindicatum esse ante Moysen; sed ut exponeret Romanis non debere vlvere jam sub Lege, quos sub Lege agere expediebat. Nee aliter enim possent servare justitiam. Dcniquc dicit ad eos: Vis non timere potestatem? Bonum fac; ei, Qui contemnunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt (Kom. XIII, 3. 2). Sp ritualem ergo hanc legem dicit, quam ct sanctam, et justam, et bonamostendit. Hæc est quam naturalem diximus, quæ prohibet peccare: dux cst enim bonæ vitai. Huic addita Lex fidei perfectum hominem facit. Nam quia communi nomine nuncupatur lex hæc quam naturalem dixi, et illa quæ factorum lex dicitur 1, contra Legem loqui videtur Apostolus. Sed nc hanc exinanire videretur, sinc qua vita hæc gubernari non potest, dicit, Scimus quia Lex spiritualis est: ut illam quan exinanit, lex sabbati, et circumcisionis, et escarum, et neomeniarumsciretur. Illa enim idcirco spiritualis dicitur, quia omma punit peccata 2.","english":"For Moses wrote this in order to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read that vengeance was exacted before Moses; but in order to explain to the Romans that they ought not now to live under the Law, whom it was expedient to act under the Law. For otherwise they could not keep justice. Finally he says to them: Do you wish not to fear the power? Do good; and, Those who despise acquire condemnation for themselves (Rom 13:3, 2). He therefore calls this law spiritual, which he shows to be both holy and just and good. This is the one 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 perfect man. For since by a common name this law is called, which I have called natural, and that which is called the law of deeds, the Apostle seems to speak against the Law. But lest he seem to empty this one, without which this life cannot be governed, he says, We know that the Law is spiritual: so that the law which he empties—of the sabbath, and of circumcision, and of foods, and of new moons—might be recognized. For that one is called spiritual for this reason, because it punishes all sins.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"XL VII. — Qua ratione sapientia carnis inimica est Deo; vol quæ est ipsa sapientia quæ lcgi Dei non est subjecta (Rom. VIII, 7)?\n\nNon discrepat sensu quæstio hæc a superiore. Nam carnem dicendo, quid significet declaratum est; unde quae sit ejus sapientia, lacile possit dignosci. Diximus ergo elementa omnia carnem appellari, id est visibilium substantias: quorum ratio talis est, ut nibil æstiment posse lieri sine commixtione spirituali et simplici, potentiae rationem horrentes ac fatuam indicantes. Hi euim qui de spiritualibus diffidenies, carnalia sequuntur, nihil aliud sapiunt ac putant verum, quam ratio continet elementorum: utneque virginem peperisse, neque caruis credant resurrectionem; qui:, hoc ratio carRis, id est elementurum, non recipit. Omnia enim quae gignuntur in tempore, permixtione operantc generantur: et emortua et resoluta corpora non posse rursus reddi ad vitam, quia unumquodque elementum permixtione discreta revertitur in propriam naturam, Ilis modis inflati, negant futurum vel factum quod credimus: ac per hoc asseveratio illorum inimica est Deo, dum stultum et inane putat quod fecit et facturum se promisit Deus.","english":"XLVII. — For what reason the wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God; or what is that very wisdom which is not subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7)?\n\nThis question does not differ in meaning from the preceding one. For by saying \"flesh,\" what it signifies has been declared; hence it can easily be discerned what its wisdom is. We have said, then, that all the elements are called \"flesh,\" that is, the substances of visible things: whose reasoning is such that they think nothing can come to be without a spiritual and simple mixture, shrinking from the principle of power and judging it foolish. For those who, distrusting spiritual things, follow carnal things, know and think nothing else to be true than what the reasoning of the elements contains: so that they believe neither that a virgin gave birth, nor the resurrection of the flesh; which the reasoning of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not accept. For all things that are begotten in time are generated by the working of mixture; and bodies that have died and dissolved cannot again be restored to life, because each element, when the mixture is separated out, returns into its own nature. Puffed up in these ways, they deny what we believe either will be or has been: and thereby their assertion is hostile to God, while it judges foolish and empty what God has made and has promised he will make.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"XLVIII. — Apostolus dicit de principibus et petestatibus hujus saeculi, quod a cognovissent, nunqnam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent: e contra Marcus evangelista de demonibus ait, Sciebant enim jpsum esse. Si dæmones sciebant, quomodo potestates ignorabant?\n\nQuibusdam videtur principes et potestates hujus & uculi Judaeorum majores et priucipes dixisse, etc.\n\nXLIX. — Quem spiritum Apostolus salvandum asserit, cum dicit, Tradidi hujusmodi heminem satanæ in interitum carnis, etc. (1 Cor. Y, 5)?\n\nInteritus caruis est, cum quis veluptatibus et desideriis carnalibus deditus, gehennam sibi procurat: interitum enim et opere cartis acquirit. Es his enim totus fit carnalis, quia sicut secundum legem vivens totus homo spiritualis efficitur, ut etiam caro hoc dicatur quod anima: ita si secundum desiderium mundi et voluptates libidinumvivat; totus homo tit caro, proficiens in interitura carnis; id est, ut sicut caro, proptera quod fluxa et corruptibilis et mortalis ost, amissa anima deformatur carens figura, defluit in interitum; interit euim cum vigorcin omninim membrorum amittit: sicet anima de tali corpure dcformata cst, majus vigore despecta erat in pœna cern corne, in qua se vitiis maculavit. Ut..ullus profectus sit carni per animam: sed interitum habeat anima per carnem, quia non corpus gubernavit, spiritualiter, cum regina data sitcarni, sed a,-, decet ' opera earnalia.","english":"XLVIII. — The Apostle says of the principalities and powers of this world that if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty; on the other hand, Mark the evangelist says of the demons, \"For they knew that he was.\" If the demons knew, how did the powers not know?\n\nTo certain people it seems that the principalities and powers of this world means the elders and leaders of the Jews, etc.\n\nXLIX. — What spirit does the Apostle assert is to be saved, when he says, \"I have delivered such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,\" etc. (1 Cor. 5:5)?\n\nThe destruction of the flesh is when someone, given over to carnal pleasures and desires, procures hell for himself: for he acquires destruction even by the works of the flesh. For from these things the whole man becomes carnal, because just as one who lives according to the law becomes wholly a spiritual man, so that even the flesh is called what the soul is, so if he lives according to the desire of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, advancing toward the destruction of the flesh; that is, just as the flesh, because it is fleeting and corruptible and mortal, when the soul is lost is disfigured and deprived of its form, and flows away into destruction—for it perishes when it loses the vigor of all its members—so also the soul is disfigured by such a body, and being despised with greater vigor was in the punishment of the flesh, in which it defiled itself with vices. So that there is no profit to the flesh through the soul, but the soul has destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually, when it was given as a queen to the flesh, but rather did the works of the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Talem igitur hominem cum Eeclesia abjecit, spiritum habet salvum, sanctum sciliret, qui Ecclesiæ curator est: quia si passi rucrint talem inter se babere qui uxorem patris polluit libidine, ut lege cuM possint compellere, M contaminet onmes, et Spiritus sanctus recedat ab Ecclesia propter pollutum; non habebit salvumspiritum Ecclesia. Quod enin amittitur, non est salvum, ct in die Domini nudi ab spiritu invouli, inter filius Dei computari non poterunt. Spiriius etenim testimomum perhibet quod sumus filii Dei(Rom. VIII, 16). Hæc Apostolus ad plebem loquitur, quia adhuc episcopi Ecclesiis non erant locis omnibus ordinati. Ideo plebem jubet hoc facere quod facturus esset si illic erealus fuisset episcopus, ut conspirantes in unum, ejicerent illum de coctu suo, ne consentire viderentur eperibus ejus. Quia qui non arguit eum quem potest, sed recipit quasi non errantem, dclinquendi iui fomitem præstat, qua cauSa contaminatur et ipsefugans a sc Spiriuun sanctum. Ad Thes alonicenses namque simili modo inter cætera dicit: luteger spiritusvester, et anima, et corpus sine querela ill adventu Domini nostri serve ur (I Thess. v, 25). Ipse idem sensus cst: huc est enim salvum esse, quod integrum. Nam dicit rex ad Danielem, Salvauc sunt signa Daniel? ct ille respondit, Salva, rex (Dan. XIV, 16); id est, integra: ut nobis sit inieger spiritus, eum non nosdeserit.","english":"Therefore, when the Church has cast out such a man, she has a spirit that is saved—that is, holy—since it is the guardian of the Church. For if they had allowed such a man to remain among them, one who defiled his father's wife with lust, so that by law they could compel him, he would contaminate them all, and the Holy Spirit would withdraw from the Church because of the polluted man; the Church would not have a saved spirit. For what is lost is not saved, and on the day of the Lord, stripped of the spirit, they will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit himself bears witness that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:16). The Apostle says these things to the people, because bishops had not yet been appointed to the churches in all places. Therefore he commands the people to do what a bishop would have done if he had been appointed there, so that, agreeing as one, they might cast him out from their assembly, lest they seem to consent to his deeds. For whoever does not rebuke a man when he can, but receives him as though he were not sinning, provides fuel for his sinning, and for this reason he too is contaminated, driving the Holy Spirit from himself. For to the Thessalonians he says in like manner among other things: May your spirit and soul and body be preserved without blame at the coming of our Lord (1 Thess. 5:23). This is the same meaning: for to be saved is to be whole. For the king says to Daniel, \"Are the signs saved, Daniel?\" and he answered, \"Saved, O king\" (Dan. 14:16); that is, whole—so that our spirit may be whole when it has not abandoned us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Quos enimspiritus deserit, jam non crunt integri in causa regenerationis; quianon habent cum, pcr quem lilii Dei vocabantur. Nec boc est contrarium, si Spiritum sanctum dicamus, nobis peccantibus nos deserere, et integrum nen esse. Ideo enim integer non est, dum nos deserit qui dux et rccior noster crat; quia si caput nestrum est, ei uos membra ejus. Cum autem adversum aliquid facimus, non illc nos, sed nos illum videmur deserere. et tunc ille videtur integer nou esse, cum nos amittit. Hoc enim veruin ac manifestum esi, quia nonille se a nobis avertit, sud nos ab illu cum peccamus. Et ad Colossenses inter cætera att: Ex quo omne corpus subministratum et productum crescit in incrementum Domini (Coloss. II, 10). Quod juxta sonum verborum si accipiamus, non convenit: nec euim Deusaliquid dehabet, ut crementum facial per nos. Sed uos dum revertimur ad auctorem vitæ nostræ, et confitemur illum, acquireus nos ad salutem, crementumfacit in uobis divinitas: ideo in eis qui ab eo recedunt, detrimentum est. Hoc est crgo integrum non esse, quod est et detrimentum facere.","english":"For those whom the spirit abandons are no longer whole in the matter of regeneration, since they do not have him through whom they were called the children of God. Nor is this contrary to the claim that we say the Holy Spirit abandons us when we sin, and is not whole. For he is not whole for this reason: he abandons us while he was our guide and ruler; for if he is our head, we are his members. But when we do something against him, it seems not that he abandons us, but that we abandon him, and then he seems not to be whole when he loses us. For this is true and manifest, that he does not turn himself away from us, but we from him when we sin. And to the Colossians he says among other things: From whom the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows into the increase of the Lord. If we take this according to the sound of the words, it does not fit; nor indeed does God lack anything, such that he makes increase through us. But when we return to the author of our life and confess him, he gains us for salvation, and the Godhead makes increase in us; therefore in those who withdraw from him there is loss. This, then, is what it means not to be whole, which is also to cause loss.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"L. — Cum multa peccata in corpus admitti videantur: omnis enim qui sibi cx quacumque parte corporis vim intulerit, in corpus utique suum pec'cat; est enim qui se abscidit, cst qui laqueo vitam finivit, est qui ferrum in se.injecit:quare Apostolus, Omne, inquit, peccutum quodcumque fecerit homo, extra corpus est; gui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum, peccat (I Cor. VI, 18).\n\nImperitum putas fuisse Apostolum, aut vim dicti explanari desideras? Nam Apostolus Corpus dicens, non singularem hominem significavit, Sed simul comprehendit et feminam; qnia porrio Viri cst mulier. Nam omnia supra dicta facinora, quæ violenter in se unusquisque admittit, non totum maculant corpus; singularis enim peccat, ac per hoc solus fit nus. In fornicatione autem totum polluitur corpus; quia consensus contaminatiOniS et virum tenet et feminam: ideo grave delictum esse fornicationem. Pessime enim peccatur, cOm quis facinori suo socium quærit ad perditionem. Si enim ut bene vivens etiam pro eo præmium accipiet, quem luerum fcCit; Ct malus non tantum in sc, scd et iri illo fit reus, quem participem voluit habere damnationis: quanto magis qui fornicatur, quem constat uno delicto scipsum bis quodammodo contaminare? Si eniti in carnem, quæ ex se est peccat, bis utique scipsum adulterat.","english":"L. — Since many sins are seen to be committed against the body—for everyone who inflicts violence on himself from whatever part of the body, sins against his own body; for there is one who cuts himself, one who ended his life by a noose, one who threw a sword into himself—why does the Apostle say, Every sin whatsoever that a man does is outside the body; but he who commits fornication sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18)?\n\nDo you think the Apostle was unlearned, or do you wish the force of his statement to be explained? For when the Apostle says \"body,\" he did not signify the individual man alone, but comprehended the woman together with him, because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the crimes mentioned above, which each person violently commits against himself, do not defile the whole body; for the individual sins, and through this he alone becomes defiled. But in fornication the whole body is polluted, because the consent to contamination holds both the man and the woman; therefore fornication is a grave offense. For one sins most wickedly when he seeks a partner for his crime unto perdition. For if one who lives well will even receive a reward on behalf of him whom he has made a gain, and the wicked man is guilty not only in himself but also in that one whom he wished to have as a partner of damnation, how much more does the fornicator, who is shown to contaminate himself twice, as it were, by one offense? For if he sins in the flesh, which is from himself, he surely adulterates himself twice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Si quis anten, quæstionem hanc transfigurare se putat, ut autad Ecclesiam, aut ad corpus Christi dictum huc aptet, non stabit. Improprie enim dicetur, et Novatiano erit similis, qui ut causam furoris sui astruat, pronuntiat eum qnifornicatur, non in corpus suum peccarc, sed iri Ciiristi, quia Christiani membra ei 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 quavis parte hæret in laqucum, et non evadit. Si criim qui Tornicatur, in corpus Christi peccat, cætera peccata non erunt inChristum admissa: ut si christianus fratrem occidat, 'aut sacrificet idolis, vel aliud genus peccati admittat: quia omne peccatum extra corjus cst, excepta fornicatione. Si autem omne peccatum non est extra corpus, sed quodcumque fuerit, in Christum admittitur; qui furatur, aut qui perjurat, ct qui mentitur, aut qui percutit fratrem, aut aliud tale admittit, in Christum vel in Spiritum sanctum dicitur peccare, quod valde absurdum est: et tamen Apostolus Ecclesiae membra corpus Christi appellat I, ita ut nos invicem simus membra. Quomodo crgo qui fornicatur, in suum corpus peccat, et uon magis in Christi?","english":"If anyone thinks to twist this question so as to apply what is said either to the Church or to the body of Christ, he will not stand. For it would be said improperly, and he will be like Novatian, who, to establish the cause of his madness, declares that the fornicator does not sin against his own body, but against Christ, because Christians are members of his body, which is Christ—so that fornication is the same as sacrilege, and such a one is said to sin against Christ, just as one who denies Christ. This is indeed weak and fragile, because from whatever side it is caught in the snare, it does not escape. For if the fornicator sins against the body of Christ, then other sins will not have been committed against Christ—for example, if a Christian kills his brother, or sacrifices to idols, or commits some other kind of sin—because every sin is outside the body, except fornication. But if every sin is not outside the body, but whatever it is, is committed against Christ, then the thief, the perjurer, the liar, the one who strikes his brother, or one who commits any other such thing, is said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is utterly absurd. And yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Christ, so that we are members of one another. How then does the fornicator sin against his own body, and not rather against Christ's?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"quia secundum Ecclesiæ mysterium non nostrum corpus dicimur, sed Christi; ei hoc longe a causa est, quia qui fornicatur, idco ih corpus suum peccat, quoniam totus Adam contaminatur.\n\nLI. — Cur Apostolus omnibus omnia se factum dixit (I Cor. IX, 22): quod factum adulatoris videtur ct hypocritae?\n\nAdulator ille est qui ideo dat Consensum, ne offendat cum qnem optat habere propitium. Qui enim propter scandalmn aliquid facit, qnod non quidem periculosum, sed superfluum sit, saluti studct illius quem scandalum pati non vult. Cum Paulus apostolus circumcidit Timotheum propter Judæos, et purificatus intravit in templum, talem se utique praestitit, ne illi qui æmuli crant traditionis paternae scandalum passi aut occiderent illum, aut religionem nostram sihi inimicam putarent. MinUs ergo admittere voluit, ut plus possit lucrari. Graviter enim potuerat peccarc, si non ut Juda um se fecisset in templum ire ad orandum: subjecit ergo se, ut illis prodesset. His autcm qui sub Lege crant, id est, Samaritanis, hac ratione, consensit, qua constat illos, libros Moysi recte confiteri esse a Deo, et circumcisionem et sahbata a Deo data. Ex his autem ostendebat illis Christum quem sperabant, hunc esse quem prædicabat. Sic enim habes dicente Samaritide ad Dominum, Scio quia Messias venit: cum ergo venerit, ille annuntiabit nobis omnia ( Joan. IV, ).","english":"because according to the mystery of the Church we are called not our own body, but Christ's; this is far from the case for him, because the one who commits fornication sins against his own body, since the whole of Adam is defiled.\n\nLI. — Why did the Apostle say that he became all things to all men (1 Cor 9:22), which seems the act of a flatterer and a hypocrite?\n\nThat man is a flatterer who gives his assent for this reason, lest he offend one whom he wishes to have favorably disposed. For whoever does something on account of scandal, which is indeed not dangerous but superfluous, is intent on the salvation of the one whom he does not wish to suffer scandal. When the apostle Paul circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews, and, having been purified, entered the temple, he certainly presented himself as such, lest those who were emulators of the ancestral tradition, having suffered scandal, either kill him or think our religion hostile to them. He wished, therefore, to concede the lesser things, so that he might gain the more. For he could have sinned gravely, had he not made himself as a Jew in going to the temple to pray: he subjected himself, therefore, so that he might benefit them. But to those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he consented for this reason, since it is established that they rightly confess that the books of Moses are from God, and that circumcision and the sabbaths were given by God. From these, moreover, he was showing them that the Christ whom they hoped for was this one whom he was preaching. For thus you have it when the Samaritan woman says to the Lord: I know that the Messiah is coming; when he has come, he will announce all things to us (John 4).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Juxta ergo hunc sensum persequebatur verb, librorum Moysi, qui dixit, Quia Prophetam vobis suscitabit Dominus Deus vester de fratribus vestris (Deut. XVIII, 15). His autem qni sinc l.cgc crant, et hac parte assensit, quia mundum dicunt factum a Deo, et hominum genus. Ait cnim: Sicut quidam ex vobis dixerunt, Hujus etenim genus sumus (Act. xvn, 28). Sic ergo facitis cst omnibus omnia, ut saluti eorum proficeret.\n\nLII.— Quid est quod dicit Apostolus, Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana; quasi optet hanc ficrit Et quæ est hæc humana tentatio? Nam per hanc ostendit esse et divinam tentationem. Discernendæ ergO sunt et quæ sin! ostendit.\n\nOmnis quaestio ut dilucidari possit, ad originem revocanda est. Apostolus autem cum de Judæorum perndia quereretur, etc.\n\nLIII. — Quid est quod dicit Apostolus, Nemo potest dicere, Dominus Jesus, nisi in Spiritu sancto (I Cor. xn, 3)? Ergo Photiuus, qui negat Christum Deum, potest Domiuum nostrum Jesum'Chri: stum in 'Spiritu sancto fateri? et Marcion ut Manichæus, qui negant Christum in cale venisse, hi in Spiritu sancto possunt dicere Dominum Jesum Chri. stum; vel meretrices et spurci: cum Spiritus sanctus non habitet in corpore subdito peccatis, et iri malevolam animam non intret sapientia (Sap. i, 4)?","english":"Accordingly, in this sense he was pursuing the words of the books of Moses, who said, \"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers\" (Deut. 18:15). But to those who were without the law, he also agreed in this respect, because they say that the world was made by God, and the human race. For he says: \"As some of you have said, 'For we are also his offspring'\" (Acts 17:28). So then he made himself all things to all people, that it might profit their salvation.\n\nLII. What is it that the Apostle says, \"Let no temptation take hold of you except what is human,\" as if he wished this to happen? And what is this human temptation? For through this he shows that there is also a divine temptation. Therefore the things that he shows must be distinguished.\n\nEvery question, in order that it may be clarified, must be recalled to its origin. But the Apostle, when he was inquiring about the destruction of the Jews, etc.\n\nLIII. What is it that the Apostle says, \"No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except in the Holy Spirit\" (1 Cor. 12:3)? Therefore can Photinus, who denies that Christ is God, confess our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit? And can Marcion, like Manichaeus, who deny that Christ came in the flesh—can these say in the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is Lord? Or can prostitutes and the impure, since the Holy Spirit does not dwell in a body subject to sins, and wisdom does not enter a malicious soul (Wis. 1:4)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Veritas non ex persona probatur, vel improbatur: quidquid enim bene ct verum dicitur, sine dubio in Spiritu sancto dicitur. Non ergo si quis tu uliis reus est, et in hoc illi præscribi debet, quod verum loquitur. Nec Illi tamen præscribitur, sed Christo Domino contradicitnr. Qui enim ncgatistum verum ditcre, Christo injuriam facit. 'Si autem verum dicitur, negeturque quod 'crum est in Spiritu sanCto dici, quod et Christus admittit (nemo enim bonorum vera dese dicentem arguit: nec enim ex revelatione ediscitur, quod per traditionem discitur); nemo verum dicens poterit improbari.\n\nLIV. — Apostolus dicit Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse: sic enim ait, Ergo omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus eat (II Cor. v, 14, ). Ipse vero Dominis ait, Venit Filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis ( Matth. xx, 28). Hoc modo contrarium.","english":"Truth is not proven or disproven on the basis of a person's character, for whatever is said well and truly is undoubtedly said in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone is guilty of certain things, it should not be held against him on this account that he speaks the truth. Nor is it held against him, but rather Christ the Lord is contradicted. For whoever denies that this man speaks the truth does injury to Christ. But if what is said is true, and it is denied that what is true is said in the Holy Spirit—which even Christ admits (for no one of the good accuses a man who speaks the truth, for what is learned through tradition is not learned through revelation)—then no one who speaks the truth can be disapproved.\n\nLIV. — The Apostle says that Christ died for all: for thus he says, \"Therefore all died, and he died for all\" (2 Cor. 5:14). But the Lord himself says, \"The Son of Man came to give his soul as a ransom for many\" (Matt. 20:28). In this way there is a contradiction.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Verba quidem diversa sunt, sed unus est sensus; quomodo 'iterum verba eadem diversum hahent sen*sum, utputa, Omnequod non est ex fide, peccatum est (Rom. XIV, 23); et, Lex, ait, non est ea fide ( Galat. III, 12), nec tamen peccatum est. Hos ergo quos multos dixit Salvator, ipsas Apostolus omnes significavit. Multi errim sunt, quia maxima pars ex omni populo ct gente creditura est Salvatori. Istos Apostolus 'credentes omnes nuncupavit. Sic enim inter cætera ait, Pro omnibus mortuus est; his utique qui crediderunt ct credituri sunt. Est etiam et pro ipsis mortuus, qui credere nolunt: sed dum illi beneficium non recipiunt, nolunt pro semortuum esse Christum; ac per hoc non videtur mortuus pro his, quibus nihil profuit, sed magis obfuit. Pro his antem rite mortutis dicitur, quibus acquisita victoria est, qui intelligentes mysterium, Deo gratias referunt, per Christum Dominum nostrum.","english":"The words are indeed different, but the meaning is one; just as, conversely, the same words have a different meaning, for example, \"Everything that is not from faith is sin\" (Rom. 14:23); and, \"The law,\" he says, \"is not from faith\" (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. Therefore those whom the Savior called \"many,\" the Apostle signified as all. For they are many, because the greatest part of every people and nation will believe in the Savior. These the Apostle called \"all believers.\" For thus he says among other things, \"He died for all\"—namely, for those who have believed and will believe. He also died even for those who are unwilling to believe; but since 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 it profited nothing, but rather harmed them. But he is rightly said to have died for those to whom victory has been obtained, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"LV (d.) — Cur apostolus Paulus Petrum coapostolum suum reprehendit, quod timens eos qui crant ex circumcisione, subtrahebat se a Gentilibus (Caiat. II, it, 14), cumet ipse timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione, accipiens circumcidit Timotheum, quod fieri prohibebat (Act. ivi, 5)? ct ipse ergo reprehendendus est?\n\nIncredibile est tantum apostolum in eo alterum reprehendisse, in quo se sciret succubuisse. Hoc a tam magno viro faCtum, non est fas credere; quia iis compulit qui carnaliter vivunt. Carct itaque apostoli Pauli factum reprehensione. Cum cnim prædi caret non circumcidi, volens autem Timotheum secum assumere, qui cum esset natus matre Judaea, patre autem Græco, et hoc Judæis esset scandalum, ut ex Judæa natum incircumcisum assumeret; tunc subjectioni se submisit ad horam, et accipiens circumcidit eum. Rem ergo superfluam fecit, permittente eo qui passus est. Quia enim crat ex matre Judæa, eruditus ab infantia in synagoga litteris sacris, id est voluminibus Hebraeorum, permisit circumcidi se, ut Judæis scandalum tolleret, quia zelum habebant generis sui. Denique cum Titus, inquit, esset Graecus, non est compulsus circumcidi (Galat. II, 5). Timotheum autem, quia de matre Judæa erat, sicut dixi, non sunt passi Judæi assumi inter doctores incircumcisum. Ad hoc illum assumpsit Apostolus, ut eum episcopum ordinaret, sicut fecit.","english":"Why did the apostle Paul reprove his fellow apostle Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles out of fear of those who were of the circumcision (Gal. 2:11-14), when he himself, also fearing those who were of the circumcision, took and circumcised Timothy, which he forbade to be done (Acts 16:3)? Is he too, then, to be reproved?\n\nIt is incredible that so great an apostle should have reproved in another what he knew he himself had yielded to. That such a thing was done by so great a man it is not right to believe; because he compelled those who live according to the flesh. The deed of the apostle Paul is therefore free from reproof. For when he was preaching that men should not be circumcised, yet wishing to take Timothy with him—who, since he had been born of a Jewish mother but a Greek father, would be a scandal to the Jews, that he should take an uncircumcised man born of Judea—then for a time he submitted himself to subjection, and took and circumcised him. He therefore did a superfluous thing, with the permission of him who suffered it. For because he was of a Jewish mother, instructed from infancy in the synagogue in the sacred writings, that is, in the books of the Hebrews, he permitted himself to be circumcised, in order to remove the scandal for the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race. Finally, he says, when Titus was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3). But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews did not permit to be taken in among the teachers uncircumcised. For this purpose the Apostle took him, that he might ordain him bishop, as he did.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Eruditus enim propheticis Litteris, ad asserendum Christum idoncus magister inventus est.. Apostolus enim Petrus non esset reprehensus, si se more Judæorum a Gentilibus segregasset, ne illis scandalo esse!. Sed hoc reprehensum est in apostolo Petro, quod cum ante Græcis credentibus gentiliter viveret, advenientibus ab Jacobo Judæis, timore subjectus ex Gentilibus credentibus judaizare debere docebat. Hinc audit, Si tu, cum sis Judæus, fenlililer vivis, quomodo cogis Gentes judaizare Dubitari enim fecerat de evangelica diaciplina: quod crimen est, dum quae ædificaverat, destruebat. Ideo simulationem hanc vocat apostolus Paulus, quem constat si circumcidisset Timotheum2, ut nontaceret rem se superfluam propter illorum scandalum facere, et ideo se cedere, propter quod matrem haberet Judaeam: nec cnim Judæi insisterent, nisi inventa occasione matris Judææ, quia hoc minime possent improbare Gentilibus, ncc habere facile de nis scandalum, qui non essent de genere Israel. Non ergo simulatione hoc ferit, sed violentia. Supra dicta enim causa simulationem habuit non minimam. Nam multi reprehensi sunt in hae causa, ita ut aliqui Judaeorum et Barnabas consentirent huic simulationi.","english":"For he was learned in the prophetic Scriptures and was found to be a suitable teacher to assert Christ. For the apostle Peter would not have been reproved if he had separated himself from the Gentiles according to the custom of the Jews, lest he be a scandal to them. But this was reproved in the apostle Peter, that when previously he lived in a Gentile manner with the Greeks who believed, upon the arrival of Jews from James, being subject to fear, he taught that one ought to judaize from among the Gentile believers. Hence he hears: If you, being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner, how do you compel the Gentiles to judaize? For he had caused doubt concerning the gospel discipline—which is a crime, since he was destroying the things he had built. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this a pretense, though it is agreed that if he had circumcised Timothy, he would not have kept silent about doing a superfluous thing on account of their scandal, and therefore he yielded, because he had a Jewish mother; nor would the Jews have insisted, except that an occasion was found in his Jewish mother, since they could by no means disapprove this among the Gentiles, nor easily take scandal from those who were not of the race of Israel. Therefore he did this not by pretense but by violence. For the cause mentioned above had no small pretense. For many were reproved in this matter, so that some of the Jews and Barnabas consented to this pretense.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"LYI. — Apostolus ait, Nos natura Judæi. De Judæis ergo Judæos nasci ostendit. Denique in cremo qui nati sunt, nun circumcisi Judaei erant. Non ergo circumcisio Judaeum facit, sed nativitas sub Dei crcatoris devotione progenita. Si ergo de Judæis Judæi nascuntur, et de Paganis Pagani nascuntur; etiam de Christianis Christiani nascuntur.\n\nNon onute quod nascitur, hoc est quod unde nascitur. Nam et aunim de terra nascitur, etc.\n\nLVII. — Quid opus erat ut Galatas arguens Apostolus hoc interponeret. Galatis enim post Evangelium ad Legem confugientibus inter cætera ait, Mediator autem unius non est, Deus autem unus est (Galat. III, 20): quasi Galatae unum Deum negarent. Quippe cum hac ratione inducti in Lege, ut unum Deum et singularem crederent: Christum autem ministrum tantum cx prædestinatione venisse ad dispeusandum donum gratiæ Dci.","english":"LVI. — The apostle says, \"We are Jews by nature.\" He shows, therefore, that Jews are born from Jews. Finally, those who were born in the desert were not circumcised Jews. Circumcision, then, does not make a Jew, but birth descended under the devotion of God the creator. If, therefore, Jews are born from Jews, and Gentiles are born from Gentiles, then Christians are also born from Christians.\n\nNot everything that is born is that from which it is born. For even a soul is born from the earth, etc.\n\nLVII. — What need was there for the apostle, when rebuking the Galatians, to interpose this? For to the Galatians, who after the Gospel fled back to the Law, he says among other things, \"But a mediator is not of one; but God is one\" (Gal. 3:20)—as if the Galatians denied that God is one. Indeed, since by this reasoning they were led into the Law, so as to believe in one God and a singular God; but that Christ came only as a minister from predestination to dispense the gift of God's grace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"Manifestum est sic inductos Galatas in Legem fuisse ut et Christum profitercutur, sed noH sicut diguum est, sed more Photini; ut quia unum Deum Lex prædicat, contra Legem sit si Christus Deus dicatur. Hoc commentum Judæorum est, qui magnalibus virtutum victi crediderunt post crucem Christi, itaut profitentes Christum, Legem tamcn servarent, quasi non esset animis spes in Christo ponenda. Hi sunt quos Apostolus falsos fratres appellat ( Id. II, 4, et II Cor. xi, 26). Iili ergo post Apostolorum traditionem, Galatarum sensum corruperant, ita ut Judapos eos iacerent sub nomine Salvatoris. Ilinc Apostolus Christum dicit venisse arbitrum circumcisionis et præputii, sicut dicit ad Ephesios: In uno nono homine faciens pacem ( Ephes. n, 45). Si ergo arbiter venit Christus, arbiter autem sic facit pacem inter duos, ut novam regulam ponat, auferens ambobus professiones, reconciliat eos, ut ejus sententiam secuti, amittant discordiam pristinam. Judæo enim circumcisionem vindicante, et Gentili praeputium, discordia fit. Cum vero hoc ambobus aufertur, fit pax. Si igitur sic se hæc hahent, quomodo vos, influit, Galatae Judæi facti, Christi arbitrium corrumpitis? Ideo dixit illis: Evacuati estis a Christo. Jus enim reconciliationis quod inter cos constituerat spernentes, ad pristinum Judæorum sensum conversi sunt, accusantes tan se quam reconciliatorem. Omne enim quod displicet, accusatur.","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 worthy, rather in the manner of Photinus; so that, because the Law proclaims one God, it would be against the Law if Christ were called God. This is a Jewish invention, of those who, overcome by the mighty works of virtues, believed after the cross of Christ, so that while professing Christ they nevertheless observed the Law, as if hope should not be placed in Christ for souls. These are the ones whom the Apostle calls false brothers (Id. II, 4, and II Cor. XI, 26). They, therefore, after the tradition of the Apostles, 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 arbiter of circumcision and uncircumcision, as he says to the Ephesians: Making peace in one new man (Eph. II, 45). If, then, Christ came as arbiter, but an arbiter makes peace between two in such a way that he establishes a new rule, removing the professions from both, he reconciles them, so that, following his judgment, they lose their former discord. For when the Jew claims circumcision and the Gentile uncircumcision, discord arises. But when this is taken away from both, peace is made. If, therefore, these things are so, how is it, he says, that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the judgment of Christ? Therefore he said to them: You are cut off from Christ. For despising the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former understanding of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler. For everything that displeases is accused.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Et quoniam hæc res Galatas ad Legem converti coegerat, ut unum Deum sinc mysterio fatcrentur, quasi Legi esset inimicum, si Christus Dcus diccretur; dicit, Arbitr r, hoc cst, mediator, unius non est, sed duorum uliquc: vos autem conversi ad Legem, arbitrum rccusastis, Deus tamen unus est. Quo dictonon sic se Christum Deum prædicare testatur, ut alterum Deum faccret, aut duos profiteretur, sed unum esse Deum, sicut et in Lege diclum cst. Quia Christus cum de Deo Deus pradicatur, non ad alterum proficit Deum: quia quod de Deo est, non se permittit alterum Deum dici. Sive enim Deus, sive quod de Deo est, uuus est Deus. Nihil cnim utique distat iutcr Deum, et quod dc Deo est. Est enin:iter. Ipse enim alter, propter personam, qua Filius nuncupatur: ipse vero idem, propter unitatem substantiæ. Nc reprehensibile videatur quia personam dixi, solent enim hoc quidam abnucre; sed Apostolum sequamur qui ait: Namquod donavi, si quid donavi propter vos in persona Christi ( II Cor. II, 10).","english":"And because this matter had compelled the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they confessed one God without the mystery—as though it were contrary to the Law if Christ were called God—he says, \"Now the mediator is not of one, but of two at least\": you, however, having turned to the Law, have accused the mediator; yet God is one. By this statement he testifies that he does not so preach Christ as God as to make another God, or to profess two, but that God is one, just as it is also said in the Law. For when Christ is preached as God from God, he does not advance another God, because what is from God does not permit itself to be called another God. For whether God, or what is from God, there is one God. For in no way is there any difference between God and what is from God. For it is likewise. For he is another on account of the person by which he is named Son; but he is the same on account of the unity of substance. Nor let it seem reprehensible that I have said \"person\"—for certain people are accustomed to reject this—but let us follow the Apostle who says: \"For what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ\" (2 Cor. 2:10).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"LVIII.—Si per Christum salus, et vera et perfecta cognitio, cur non ante venit, ut anteriores nostri qui in ignorantia fuerunt addiscerent veritatem? Denique post adventum Christi multi salvi facti sunt magis quam prius: unde si ante venisset, multo plurcs salvati fuissent. Si ergo ita est, reprehensibile videtur.\n\nSi ei cui nccessitas imminet, ante subveniatur, crit quidem gratus, non valde tamen poterit scirc quid sihi præstitum cst, etc.\n\nLIX. — Paganos sub clementis esse nulli dubium est. Qmd ergo Apostolus dixit, Eramus et nos sub elementis hujus mundi servientes. Si itaque ct J udæi sub elementis erant, quid differunt a Paganis?\n\nPagani non sub elementis serviunt, sed ipsis cicmentis. Colunt enim astra, ele.\n\nLX. — Quando Apostolus Galalisdicil, quos sic reprehendit et arguit per totam Epistolam, Estote sicut et ego, quia eqo sicut vos ( Galat. IV, 12): si ergo talem se præstitit qualcs illi erant, super fluum fuit dicere, Estote sicut et ego. An forte in quibusdam imitator illorum esse coeperat, et ill aliquibus vult illos sui similes existere?","english":"LVIII. 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? Moreover, after the coming of Christ many more have been saved than before; hence, if he had come earlier, far more would have been saved. If, then, this is so, it seems reprehensible.\n\nIf help is given beforehand to one upon whom necessity is pressing, he will indeed be grateful, yet he cannot fully know what has been bestowed upon him, etc.\n\nLIX. That the pagans are under the elements no one doubts. What then did the Apostle mean when he said, \"We also were serving under the elements of this world\"? If, therefore, the Jews also were under the elements, how do they differ from the pagans?\n\nThe pagans do not serve under the elements, but the elements themselves. For they worship the stars, etc.\n\nLX. When the Apostle says to the Galatians, whom he thus reproves and accuses throughout the whole Epistle, \"Be as I am, because I am as you\" (Gal. 4:12): if, then, he made himself 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 certain respects, and in certain respects he wishes them to become like him?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Quid illorum poterat imitari Apostolus '? aut quid illi deerat magistro gentium? Sed hortatur illos ut imitatores ejus siut: et quoniam uon cst impossibile, sic reprobat, cum dicit, Quia huc sum quod vos: homines euim estis, sicut et ego; ideo facite quod facio ego. Potest et ad illud referri, ut quoniam omnibus se omnia tactum dicit per assensum in quibus a vero non discrepabant, maxime Gentiles ( I Cor. ix, 22). Nec enim fuit aliquid eorum, quid jani fieri minime oportebat, prius autem recte factum crat, ut circumcisio, sabbatorum observatio, neomeniarum, escarum. Sed si quid gentiumprobavit, nou cessare jam debere ostendit. Mundum enim dicunt a Dco ct hominibus fabricatum: hoc semper stat. Si ergo in his consentiens illis lactus cst sicut et iili, hortatur illos ut simili modo et hi fiant sicut et illa est, consenlientes doctrinæ ejus.","english":"What could the Apostle imitate in them? Or what did the teacher of the Gentiles lack? But he urges them to be imitators of him; and since it is not impossible, he thus reproves them, when he says, \"Because I am what you are: for you are men, just as I also am\"; therefore do what I do. This can also be referred to that point, that since he says he became all things to all men by assent in those matters in which they did not disagree with the truth, especially the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:22). For there was nothing among them which ought by no means to be done now, but had formerly been rightly done, such as circumcision, the observance of sabbaths, of new moons, of foods. But whatever of the Gentiles' practices he approved, he shows ought no longer to cease. For they say the world was made by God and men: this always stands. If therefore, agreeing with them in these matters, he rejoiced as they also did, he urges them to become in like manner as he also is, agreeing with his teaching.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"LXI.— Quomodo liberi sumus arbitrii ac voluntatis, cum dicat Apostolus, Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus vero adversus carnem, ut non quæ vultis, ea faciatis ( Galat. v, )? Et si caro adversus spiritum concupiscit, mala est. Spiritus enim bona suggerit.\n\nCarnem non substantiam carnis hoc loco intelligas, sed actus malos et perlidiam significata in carne. Per id euim quod omnis error ex visibilibus et mundanis, caro autem cognata corum cst; ex clementis enim constat; omnem errorem carneli appellat: non solum adulteria, fornicationes et luxuriam, opera,dicit carnis, sed et idololatriam, et maleficia, et blasphemias, et talia. Numquid caro ad blasphemiam cogit aut idololatriam '? Nonne bac animæ vitia sunt, duin consentit errori? Recte autem agentibus dicit quod non sint in carne, sed in spiritu. Et utique ad hoc in corpure sunt2. Qui ergo bene ambulat, nec diffidit de spe fidelium, in carne positus, non esse dicitur in carne: male autem vivens et blasphemus, in carne dicitur esse, et caro; quia quomodo bene agentes spirituales sunt cum ips:, carne, sic male viventes carnales sunt cum ipsa anima. Hoc enim nuncupatur quod dicit. IIic itaque error, quem carnem appellat, concupiscit adversus spiritum, id est suggerit mala contra eumdem spiritum, qui est lex Dei. Ad duas cnim leges inducit, Dei et diaboli.","english":"LXI. How are we free in judgment and will, when the Apostle says, \"The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do what you will\" (Galatians 5)? And if the flesh lusts against the spirit, it is evil. For the spirit suggests good things.\n\nYou should understand \"the flesh\" in this passage not as the substance of the flesh, but as evil acts and perversity signified in the flesh. For since every error comes from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them—for it consists of the elements—he calls every error \"flesh.\" He says that not only adulteries, fornications, and lust are works of the flesh, but also idolatry, sorcery, blasphemies, and the like. Does the flesh compel one to blasphemy or idolatry? Are these not vices of the soul, when it consents to error? But rightly he says to those who act rightly that they are not in the flesh but in the spirit. And yet they are in the body for this purpose. Therefore the one 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 the one who lives evilly and is a blasphemer is said to be in the flesh and to be flesh; because just as those who act well are spiritual even with the flesh itself, so those who live evilly are carnal even with the soul itself. For that is what is named which he says. This error, then, which he calls \"flesh,\" lusts against the spirit, that is, it suggests evil things against the same spirit, which is the law of God. For he introduces two laws, of God and of the devil.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Unde spiritum dicit, propterea quod lex Dei spiritualis est, contra tarnem, hoc est contra vitia repugnare, ut hominem conservet Deo: lex autem diaboli, qui est error, contradicit per oblectamenta luxuriæ, et mundana dulcedinc. Ilis ergo repugnantibus medius homo est, qui cum consentit spiritui, non vult caro: cum aulcm manum dat carni, spernit spiritum, id est legem Dei co ntemnit. Consentientem ergo carni, spiritus revocat ne faciat quod vult: assentientem autem spiritui, caro sollicitat ne faciat quod putat utile. Sed spiritus recte et providenter contradicit et revocat, ut eripiat hominem a consiliis satanæ. Caro aulem quæ est lex adversa, idcirco sollicitat, et spiritui legis resistit, ut per fallaciam decipiat. Ideo ergo hæc Apostolus publicat, ut ostendat arbitrio humano cui rei voluntatem suam committat, non ut arbitrium libertatis exinaniat, sed docet arbitrium cui rei se conjungat. Si autem non est voluntatis arbitritium, neque lex diaboli quæ est caro, neqne lex Dei quæ est spiritus, invicem sibi adversando hominem consiliis sollicitarent. Qui enim sollicitat, suadet: qui autem suadet, nun vim infert, sed circumvenit: qui circumvenitur, fallaciis quibusdam voluntas illi mutatur. Si autem non esset liberurn arbitrium, nolens homo traheretur ad ea quæ nou vull.","english":"Hence he speaks of the spirit, because the law of God is spiritual, warring against the flesh, that is, against vices, in order to preserve man for God; but the law of the devil, which is error, opposes through the enticements of luxury and worldly sweetness. With these, then, warring against each other, man is in the middle: when he consents to the spirit, the flesh does not will; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he despises the spirit, that is, he condemns the law of God. Therefore the spirit calls back the one consenting to the flesh, lest he do what he wills; but the flesh solicits the one assenting to the spirit, lest he do what he thinks useful. But the spirit rightly and providentially contradicts and calls back, in order to snatch man from the counsels of Satan. The flesh, however, which is the adverse law, for that reason solicits and resists the spirit of the law, in order to deceive through falsehood. Therefore the Apostle makes these things public, so as to show to which thing the human will commits itself by its own judgment—not to empty out the judgment of freedom, but he teaches the judgment to which thing it should join itself. But if there were no judgment of the will, neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, would solicit man by their counsels in opposing each other. For he who solicits persuades; but he who persuades does not bring force, but circumvents; and when someone is circumvented, his will is changed for him by certain deceits. But if there were no free judgment, man would be dragged unwillingly to those things which he does not will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"LXII. — Si in Christo omnes thesauri sapientiæ et scientiæ sunt absconditi ( Coloss, II, 3), quomodo idem Salvator de die et hora futuri judicii dicit se nescire ( Marc. XIII, )? Si autem sciat, et dicit se nescire, videtur mentiri.\n\nDictum hoc duplicem conti net sensum. In Christo cniin omnes thesauros sapientiæ et scientiæ sic dicit absconditos, ut qui habet Christum, pro onini sapicntia et scientia illi cedat3: ut scire Christum totum sit scire, et omnem sapientiam comprehendisse, sicut dicitur ad Colossenses, Nemo vos circumveniat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem, secundum elementa hujus mundi, et non secundum Christum: quia in Chrisio inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter: Hoc est, nihil indigere ad salutem, eum qni credit III Christum, sed illi hoc abundare; quia plenitudo diviintercæ tera ait: Nemo Et iterum in eadem cordis, etin superstitioneAngelorum, quæ videt extollensse, frustra inflatus mente carnis suæ, et non tenens caput ex quo omne corpus subministratum et productum crescit in incrementum Dei (Coloss. II, 8, 9. 19) Si itaque credentes in Christum, caput otius principatus et potestatisvenerantur, nullius indigent, sed totum quod ad salutem opus est habent; nihil illis oherit inferiore quæ ad salutem nihil conferunt nescire, quando id quod necessariumest norunt.","english":"LXII. If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Col 2:3), how does the same Savior say of the day and hour of the future judgment that he does not know it (Mk 13)? But if he does know it, and says he does not know it, he seems to lie.\n\nThis statement contains a twofold meaning. For he says that in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are so hidden that whoever has Christ yields to him in place of all wisdom and knowledge, so that to know Christ is to know all things and to have comprehended all wisdom, as it is said to the Colossians: Let no one deceive you through philosophy and empty seduction, according to the elements of this world, and not according to Christ; because in Christ dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily (Col 2:8-9). That is, the one who believes in Christ needs nothing for salvation, but this abounds to him; because the fullness of divinity... among other things he says: Let no one... And again in the same... of the heart, and in the superstition of angels, which he sees, exalting himself, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding the head, from which the whole body, supplied and knit together, grows with the increase of God (Col 2:18-19). If therefore those who believe in Christ venerate him as the head of principalities and powers, they need nothing, but have everything that is necessary for salvation; nothing does it harm them not to know lower things which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know that which is necessary.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Hujusmodi ergo totum scire, dicendi sunt, qui hoc sciunt quod illis proficiat ad salutem. Est etiam illud, qnia in Salvatore omnes thesauri sapientiæ et scientia: sunt absconditi.Omnia enim sacramenta Paterna ipsi sunt coomnem creaturam ipse metitur; et nec Pater judicat quemquam, sed omne judiciumdedit Filio (Joan.V, 22); et nemo scit quæ sunt in Deo nisi Spiritus Dei ( I Cor. II, 11,), qui est et Christi. Quo modo ergo et diem et horam futuri judicii nescire di cendus est.cujus Spiritus quæ in Deo sunt, novit de qou dixit quia de ejus accepit (Joan. XVI, 14, 15) Si ergo qui de ejus accepit novit quæ futura sunt, quo modo non sceit Christi qui misit Spiritum sanctum? Et potest fieri ut judex qui nesciat diem futuri judicii? quippe cum omnia signa dederit quando speretur. Forte etiam hos dicatur vere nescire, quibus dicit: Amen dico vobis, quod nescio vos (Matth. XXV 12) Nec virgines stultas et improvidas dicetur scire quia dixit etiam, ipsis dicentibus, Domine, Domine, aperi nobis Amen dico vobis, quod nescio vos. Causa ergo est ut dicat se nescire quod scit vos. Denique sic ait: Vigilate, quia nescitis quahora Dominus vester ventu rus sit (Id.XXIV,42).","english":"Of this sort, therefore, are to be said to know all things—those who know what profits them unto salvation. There is also this: that in the Savior all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. For all the Father's mysteries are his; he himself measures every creature; and neither does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to the Son (Jn 5:22); and no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:11), who is also Christ's. In what way, then, is he to be said not to know the day and the hour of the future judgment—he whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, of whom he said that he received from him (Jn 16:14–15)? If, therefore, he who received from him knows the things that are to come, how does Christ not know, who sent the Holy Spirit? And can it happen that the judge does not know the day of the future judgment—when indeed he has given all the signs by which it is to be hoped for? Perhaps those are also truly said to be unknown to him to whom he says: Amen I say to you, that I know you not (Mt 25:12). Nor shall the foolish and improvident virgins be said to be known by him, since he also said, when they themselves were saying, Lord, Lord, open to us: Amen I say to you, that I know you not. The reason, then, is that he says he does not know what he knows—you. Finally, he speaks thus: Watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come (Mt 24:42).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Ut ergo sollicitos nos et vigi lantes faceret, interrogatus nescire se dixit diem et horam futuri Judicii; sed ut nobis prodesset, negavit se scire quod scit.Ignorantibus ergo nobis quid prosit nobis, scire omninovolumus quod si scierimus, oberit nobis: Christus autem provisor salutis nostræ, ne audiremus quod contra nos esset dixit se nescire. Numquid si alicui in dolore posito gladium poscenti se ut perimat, qui habet respondeat se non habere, mendicii arguendus erit negans, quod si non neget sciat contrarium?\n\nLXIII. — Quid est ut cum Apostoli omnes curas sibi oblatas sanassent, propriis tamen infirmis medelam non dederint? Nam utique Epaphroditus usque ad mortem non ægrotasset (Philipp. II, 27), si intercessio Apostoli fuisset audita. Quis enim dubitit orasse hoc sæpe Apostolum, et non impetras se? Si enim auditus fuisset, statim infirmitas fuisset adempta?","english":"Therefore, in order to make us solicitous and watchful, when questioned he said that he did not know the day and hour of the future Judgment; but for our benefit he denied that he knew what he does know. For while we are ignorant of what profits us, we wish to know absolutely everything which, if we knew it, would harm us; but Christ, the provider of our salvation, said that he did not know, lest we hear what would be against us. Surely if someone in pain, asking for a sword to kill himself, were answered by the one who has it that he does not have it, will he be accused of lying for denying it, when if he did not deny it he would know it to be contrary?\n\nLXIII. — What is it that, when all the Apostles had healed the cares brought to them, they nevertheless did not give healing to their own sick? For certainly Epaphroditus would not have been sick even unto death (Philippians 2:27), if the intercession of the Apostle had been heard. For who doubts that the Apostle often prayed this, and did not obtain it? For if he had been heard, the infirmity would have been removed at once?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Signa et virtutesidcireo ab Apostolis factae sunt, ut infidelitas cogeretur ad fidem, ut videntes facta qua hominibus impossibilia sunt, Dei ex hoc esse prædicationem agnoscerent, et rationem esse in fide, virtute probarent: ut quoniam verbis semper contradiciturtestisvirtus posita est, cui cum verba cedunt,rationem esse in lide significat, quæ verbis ex. primi non potest. Inter fideles igitur non jam signa et prodigia sunt necessaria, sed spes firma. Postquam enim discitur. vera esse quæ promissa sunt, ad hoc se armai amnius, ut spretis præsentibus, futuris dignus existat, meritum sibi collocans per laborem; hoc Salomone testante, qui ait, Fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei,sta in justitia et timore, et præpara animam luam ad tentationem (Eccli. II, 1). Quoniam tentationibus proficit homo, hæc data sunt monita. Unde Apostolus: Per tribulationes, inquit, oportet nos intrare in regnum Dei ( Act. XIV, 21). Hæ tribulationum tenta-. tiones diversis modis accidunt, ut perseverans animus in accepta fide possit coronari. Non solum enim est, ut post fidei simplicitatem circumcidi se. pro elementis permitterent, neomenias colerent et sahbatum, elementis subjecti ac provocati erant, id est, gratiæ non Legis factorum 1. Et ne pseudoapostolis occasionem dedisse videretur, dicentibus aliud esse quod acceperant Galatæ quam veritatis habet traditio.","english":"The signs and wonders were therefore performed by the Apostles so that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that those who saw deeds impossible for men might thereby recognize that the preaching was of God and prove by the power that there was reason in the faith; so that, since words are always contradicted, the witness of power was set in place, to which when words yield, it signifies that there is reason in the faith, which cannot come from words alone. Among the faithful, then, signs and prodigies are no longer necessary, but a firm hope. For after one learns that the things promised are true, one arms oneself more earnestly for this end, that, despising things present, one may be found worthy of things future, laying up merit for oneself through labor; as Solomon testifies, who says, Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation (Sirach 2:1). Since a man profits through temptations, these warnings were given. Hence the Apostle says, Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). These temptations of tribulations come about in various ways, so that the soul persevering in the faith it has received may be crowned. For it is not only that after the simplicity of faith they allowed themselves to be circumcised on account of the elements, and observed the new moons and the sabbath, being subject to the elements and provoked, that is, not of grace but of the works of the Law. And lest he seem to have given an occasion to the false apostles, who said that what the Galatians had received was something other than what the tradition of truth holds.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"statim subjecit, Quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui qui vos conturbant, et volunt convertere Evangelium Christi. Aliud ergo crat, ad quod ab Apostolo vocati erant Evangelium, quan quod sequi coeperant inpulsu eudoaposiolorum: non tamen ahud erat quan' Christus tradiderat, ut vel per id in errorem se inductos esgnoscerent, et solam fidem sequerentur, profitente Christum Deum, et hunc sufficere ad salutem tri sendam, per quem fuerauL remissionem peccatorum adopti, non per Legem: quia sine Lege gratia Dal donat delicta.\n\nXI.- Non esse contristandum de mortuis Paulus apostolus signat (I Thess. IV, 12). Nam desperantium est contristari; et ipse, Infirmus, inquit de Epaphrodite, fuit prope mortem, sed Deus misertus est illi: non solum autem illi, sed et mihi, ne tristitiam super tristitiam haberem (Philipp. II, 27). Quomodo contristandum vetat, cum ipse contristandum se, si mortuus; fuisset, declarat?","english":"he immediately added, \"Which is nothing else but that there are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the Gospel of Christ.\" That, therefore, to which they had been called by the Apostle was something other than the Gospel which they had begun to follow at the urging of the false apostles; yet it was nothing other than what Christ had handed down, so that even through this they might recognize that they had been led into error, and might follow the faith alone, confessing Christ as God, and that he suffices for the salvation to be brought, through whom they had obtained the remission of sins, not through the Law; because without the Law grace grants sins.\n\nXI. — The Apostle Paul indicates that one should not grieve over the dead (1 Thess. 4:12). For it belongs to those who despair to grieve; and he himself says of Epaphroditus, \"He was sick, near to death, but God had mercy on him: and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow\" (Phil. 2:27). 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":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Aliter sc de morte Epaphroditi, si provenisset, contristandum significavit, et aliter prohibet contristandum. Nam hic propter solalium adjutorii ejus, quo utebatur in Evangelio, si mortuus fuisset, con tristandum se dixiL.Nos autem sic contristari prohibet, ne obitos quasi exstinctos et perditos lugeamus, desperantes de resurrectione. Aliud est igitur solatium rcquircre quasi absentis, et aliud dolere interitum jan non futuri. Hic cessat cousolalio, illic exclu ditur desperatio.\n\nXII. — Quid est quia occisis filiis Liae, qui sunt ex tribu Juda, Rachel filios suos plangere dicatur?\n\nRachel filii, quantum ad historiam pertinet, olim pro malefico suo opere Sodomitarum, et spurcitia quam in concubinam hominis levitæ opcrati sunt, exstincti fuerunt et erasi suut a reliquis tribubus, etc.","english":"He signified that he would grieve over the death of Epaphroditus, if it should come to pass, in one way, and in another way he forbids grieving. For here, on account of the consolation of his help, which he enjoyed in the Gospel, he said that he would grieve if he had died. But he forbids us to grieve in such a way as to mourn the dead as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, then, to seek consolation as for one who is absent, and another to grieve over the destruction of one who will no longer exist. Here consolation ceases, there despair is excluded.\n\nXII. — What is it that, when the sons of Leah, who are from the tribe of Judah, were killed, Rachel is said to lament her sons?\n\nThe sons of Rachel, as far as pertains to history, were once, on account of their evil deed of the Sodomites, and the foulness which they perpetrated against the concubine of the Levite, destroyed and erased from the remaining tribes, etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}