Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

Question 1. Why did God abolish the ancient worship as not pleasing to himself, and introduce in its place the worship of the Christians as pleasing to him, when the orthodox, who alone are pleasing to God, are not equal in number to the Greeks and Jews and all the heretics, but are fewer? What is the proof that it was not through poverty of power that the one who chose this worship in place of that one left the error unrooted? And how is the abolition of that worship not useless, when much error still holds the world? Answer, or solution of the question. When God abolished the ancient worship and purposed through the old covenant to introduce the new in its place, if he introduced this in place of that, first, being proclaimed by divine words attested by divine powers, he abolished Judaism and Hellenism; later, by works likewise becoming divine powers, he brings about the eradication of all error among men and demons, and with this he abolished the worship and wickedness of all the evil heresies of faith and practice in the world. But if not all who received the worship keep and hold the same opinion about the same matters, but some rightly and others not rightly, this is not a charge against God of poverty of power—that those who do not rightly understand what they believe do so from their own negligence or some other weakness—but it is due to their negligence.

It has been said in the worship that is being introduced, concerning the fewness of the orthodox, at one time, "Many are called, but few are chosen," and at another, "Narrow and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Likewise also concerning the heresies, which the Lord in his own parables calls tares and rotten fish. If, therefore, nothing false is found in the worship of the Christians, as the truth of the facts bears witness, since it makes the things that are to come believed from the things that have gone before, then no pretext at all is left for slandering God on account of poverty of power, or for calling the worship introduced in place of worship useless—the worship that is now destructive of Judaism and Hellenism, and later also of the heresies. Question 2. If the prophets and apostles foretold the things that were to come to pass—such as trophies of wars, the assault of enemies, and the destruction of cities by those who attack them—and the oracles of the Greeks also foretold them, how are those who are superior to these recognized from among the outsiders, when from each side of the things that are to come

Was there a prediction? Answer. All these things belong to the same God—both the foretelling of words and the fulfillment of deeds—who foretold through the prophets and apostles what he was going to do; and in the same way he himself also foretold through those outside piety what he was going to do. For just as through the seer Balaam he blessed Israel and cursed its enemies, doing both through the foretelling of things to come, so too through divination he foretold to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon the capture of Jerusalem, as the prophet Ezekiel says: "And the king of Babylon shall stand at the ancient road, at the head of the two roads, to practice divination, to shake the arrow, to inquire among the graven images, and to look at his right side; and it came to pass against Jerusalem," and the rest. In the same way, through the seers among the Greeks, he himself foretold whatever received fulfillment through deeds. But the difference between the prophets and the seers is great: first, that the God whose name the prophets and apostles prophesied by—of this God they had the knowledge and the faith and the worship, and all that the prophets foretold concerning the overthrow of the Greek gods and oracles and the establishment of Christian affairs received fulfillment; and then, that none of the things the seers foretold—whether against the God of truth and those who worship him, or in support of the establishment of Greek affairs—received fulfillment.

And witness to these things is the destruction of the Assyrians, who, starting from their own oracle, said that they had not come up against this land to desolate it without the Lord: "The Lord said to me, Go up and desolate it"; and having gone up, contrary to the oracle, they were destroyed. Question 3. If all who have sinned are punished in the resurrection, but more so those who knew the will of God and did not do it, what is the advantage of the Christian over the Greek, of the baptized over the unbaptized, of the orthodox over the non-orthodox? Answer. According to the apostle Paul, the believer who does not provide for his own is a denier of God and worse than the unbelievers; the one who does not, together with knowledge and faith and baptism, bring in his manner of life as a mark of discipleship to Christ, but has a form of godliness while denying its power, is worse than the unbelievers. Thus, to sin with knowledge is as much worse than to sin without knowledge as an inexcusable sin is worse than a sin that has an excuse. Question 4.

If the heretics hastened with all their power to know and guard the truth of the doctrines and could not, how is it not unjust to subject them to punishments as though they had fallen away from the truth? Answer. The heretics did not seek the truth with all their power to such a degree that, even when it was demonstrated to them by those who had found it, they neither listened nor endured to receive it. And if this defense were true, they ought to forgive one another for erring, as having established their heresies through weakness of power and not through wickedness of mind—heresies that fight both against themselves and against the truth. But as it is, inasmuch as they condemn one another for a mindset alien to their own, they are clearly shown that all heresies have received the occasions of their establishment from love of glory or from the antipathy of the heresiarchs; for which reason the leaders of the heresies were called grievous wolves by the apostle. And that it is impossible for one who seeks the truth with his whole heart and power to fail to find it, the Lord bears witness, saying: Everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks will find, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Question 5. If powers are active in the churches of the heretics, such as healings of diseases and expulsions of unclean spirits, abundance of the fruits of the earth and gushings of oil, how is it not necessary that they be confirmed in their error by these things? Answer. Just as the sun's rising upon the evil and the good and its raining upon the just and the unjust is not a confirmation of the evil and unjust in their wickedness and injustice but a preparation for just punishment, so too the activity of certain powers among the heretics is not a confirmation of them in their error. For if the working of powers were a proof and sign of piety, the Lord would not have declared those who said, "Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many mighty works?" to be reprobate and unworthy of fellowship with him, saying to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!" Did he not say this, having taught us to feed and give drink to the hungry and thirsty? Much more does he himself do the like of what he taught us, heaping fire upon the heads of those who did not worthily acknowledge the giver of faith?

Question. If the passible is displayed in those who feel pain and those who feel pleasure, and in the judgment the sinners belong to the one and the righteous to the other, how is it true that the one who says that impassibility is brought to human beings after the resurrection? Answer. We say that they will rise impassible, because in respect of what we are by nature we do not admit change, neither into the things that are opposed according to being and not being, nor into the contraries according to more and less; for example, we are not turned from joy into grief, nor do we rejoice in the same good sometimes more and sometimes less, even if we rejoice more in a greater good and less in a lesser; but even so, according to the proportion of the goods, the quantity of joy remains unchangeable. And this applies to those who rise to life; but for those who rise to judgment the same account holds, whenever they are released as from the death of judgment; for of those who rise, some rise to life and some to judgment. Question 7. If it is a mark of change to receive the good and the base things into thought, how are those who are punished unchangeable, even when they reckon the relief of the righteous, or again those who happen to be in relief, when they think on the punishment of sinners? For then each gives the greater perception in the other, when the juxtaposition of contraries occurs.

Answer. In the age to come, the quantity of sensation, whether of honor or of punishment, is fixed by measure, and it is not possible for sensation to receive increase or diminution by the comparison of opposites. For all things there are unchangeable, both in quality and in quantity. Question 8. If we have received from God both the knowledge of good and evil and our being, how is he not the cause of each, who has implanted in our nature both the knowledge of both and the power for their fulfillment? Answer. God has given us not only our being and the power to know and to do good and evil, but he has also granted us free will and has made us masters of choosing by preference whatever seems good among the things known; and he has placed our being good or evil not in the knowledge of the things known but in the choice of the things chosen. Therefore God is not the cause of our being good or evil, but our free choice is. For just as one who sees a prostitute and knows that she is a prostitute is not a fornicator because of the knowledge, nor, even if the knowledge stirs up the passion of desire, is he a fornicator on that account, but if the free choice consents to the passion, then he is a fornicator either in deed or in disposition, so also it is not the knowledge of good and evil men that is the cause of their being good or evil, but the free choice, which has chosen what seems good according to preference.

Question 9. If God has given the things previously mentioned, and crowns and punishes each person according to their actions, how does he do both justly, when both come from the human being himself? Answer. The "by us" and the "within our power" differ from one another. We are male and female, but it is within our power to be chaste or fornicators. We are therefore crowned or punished because of what is within our power; for the things to which our choice leads us, it is for these that we are either crowned or punished. For God has given us powers for acting, but he has subjected these to the authority of choice, and God's judgment is according to choice, as the governing principle of the powers of choice within us, and not according to nature. We have received from God the power to act and not to act: to act justly, and not to act unjustly. When, then, we act and do not act in this way, we are justly crowned; but when we transfer acting and not acting to the opposite, we are justly punished.

Question 10. If the things said bodily by the poets about the gods among the Greeks and by the prophets about God have another meaning by a different allegory, how is it that both are shown to be myth? Answer. The things said allegorically by the prophets about God were spoken by way of reference from things natural to things not natural, as for instance, "The Lord smelled a sweet savour." In the case of human beings he smelled naturally, but in the case of God it is said by catachresis and not naturally. But the things said mythically by the poets about the gods are not said by way of reference from things natural to things not natural; for a human being does not swallow a human being naturally, so that we might understand by way of reference also Cronus swallowing Zeus; but the myth about Zeus being swallowed has nothing other than falsehood. Question 11. If the container is greater than the contained in essence, but less in worth, as for instance heaven and earth than angels and human beings, a house than those who dwell in it, and a body than the soul, and God contains the universe, how is he not inferior to the universe by the account of unworthiness?

Answer. This argument is not universal; therefore it was not soundly put as a question either. For those things whose opposite can be found through the same means do not possess the necessary, nor do they possess the credible. For there are certain things that are contained and are lesser than the things that contain them, both in substance and in worth, as the pips are lesser than the fruits. Furthermore, the things said to be containing contain the contained by their very being; but God alone contains the whole by his will. And other containing things themselves need that which contains them; but God does not need that which contains him. And for other contained things, their being and their remaining do not come from the things that contain them; but for the whole, both belong to it from God. And the things said to be containing exist because of the things contained; but God does not exist because of the whole. Therefore God is greater than the whole, both in substance and in worth. Question 12. If that which contains exists for the guarding and preserving of what is contained, how is it that God, containing the whole, does not contain the whole for the guarding and continuance of evil? For evil is observed in a part of the whole.

Answer. Every work is God's, and God, keeping every work of his own, keeps it; and just as God did not make anything evil by nature, so he does not keep anything evil by nature. Question 13. If the resurrection comes about for the requital of each person's deeds, how is it that infants, or even those who died in the womb, do not rise again to no purpose, since they receive neither recompense for works nor are able to experience relief or affliction because of the immaturity of their age? Answer. For one who believes that "it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power" is true, it is both possible and fitting to believe also in the resurrection of infants. For he who grants them incorruptibility is able also to bestow on them the perceptive power of the good things that are present. If there is no resurrection of these, God will be found to have fashioned them in vain; but if God does nothing in vain, then it is necessary that infants too come into being through the resurrection. And how is it not out of place to condemn Herod for the avenging of the infants' murder, when the infants are not the ones avenged? The leaping for joy of John the Baptist in his mother's womb bears witness to these things, and the hymn of infants and nursing babes.

Question 14. If the baptism given by the heretics is false and vain, why do the orthodox not baptize a heretic who flees to orthodoxy, but leave him in the counterfeit baptism as though it were true? And if he happens to have received ordination from them, they themselves accept this too as valid. How then do the one received and those who receive him remain blameless? Answer. When a heretic comes to orthodoxy, his error is corrected: his false belief by the change of his mind, his baptism by the anointing of holy myron, and his ordination by the laying on of hands, and nothing of the former things remains unresolved. Question 15. If Job did not sin when he cursed the day, it is clear that he was heard as a righteous man. And if he was heard, God overturned his own decree, and one must seek in the divine Scripture the destruction of that day. But if he was not heard, how should one not say that, being a sinner, he was disregarded? For God will do the will of those who fear him. But concerning sinners it has been said, Even if you multiply your prayer, I will not listen to you.

Answer. Job's intent in the aforementioned curse was as if he were saying: Would that that day on which I was born had been cursed with this curse! Why? So that, he says, I had not been born. For it is not possible for anyone to be born on such a day, so cursed as that. This curse, then, is not so cursed as to await its outcome; for if the curse had been made in such a way as to await its outcome, he would have retracted his own utterance, once he had been released from his afflictions and had come into better circumstances. At any rate, because of the excess of his affliction he uttered the words of his heart; and since it was from him, it is clear that he no longer held the same opinion about that same day. Question 10. If according to our nature whatever is begotten is consubstantial with the one who begot it, how is it not also according to this nature that whatever has been begotten is later in existence than the one who begot it? And if the second is not so, then neither, surely, will the first be understood by us in the same way in the case of the divine generation. Answer.

We, since we have existence as prior to birth, give birth after existence; but God generated at the same time as existing. Therefore there is no after-existence of an offspring in God, since there is no prior existence of generation either. Question 17. If the union of the divine hypostases is indivisible, how can three hypostases and three persons be named, and not rather one hypostasis with three names or three persons? Answer. Of the divine hypostases, the one of essence is indivisible, but the three of them is divisible. Therefore the three hypostases are three by their distinctive names; and the hypostasis which we call Father, we no longer call the same hypostasis also Son, but another. For we say that the triad of names belongs to the triad of hypostases, not to their unity. Therefore God is one by the one and indivisible essence, but the persons are three by the division of the hypostases. Question 18. If "God" is indicative of the essence, but "Father" of the person, how is saying "Son of God" the same as saying "Son of the Father"?

Answer. If we speak of the Son in a separated way, sometimes as Son of the Father and sometimes as Son of God, we never understand him as separated. The Son is therefore Son of the Father, of God who is Father in essence. And saying "Son of the Father" is the same as saying "Son of God," since whatever belongs to the person belongs also to the essence of the person. Question 19. Whether the observation of pulsations is among the things forbidden by the pious, and why the pious, wishing with all their might to reject this, are unable to do so, since it indicates either a cheerful or a gloomy outcome. And if this is a bad thing, how does it occur contrary to our intention? But if it is good, which I do not think, for what reason has it been forbidden? Answer. The foreknowledge of future things belongs to the soul when it is illuminated by the divine Spirit for the knowledge of things hitherto unknown, and not to the involuntary motion of the body. But the pulsation is a bodily affection arising from the coursing of the natural spirit in the body, which exists in all living things. Therefore the saints judged such a bodily movement unworthy to be a criterion of future things. And just as sneezings of the nostrils and noises of the ears occur contrary to our intention, so too does the pulsation. Moreover, for those who have received the hope of the future state and have one goal, to look toward it at all times in readiness, it is superfluous to foreknow here the cheerful or the gloomy through pulsations.

And if the same pulsation that foretells wealth occurs to the man of ordinary life and to the ascetic, how is the foretelling of wealth by pulsation not falsified by the ascetic's disposition, which chooses not only not the acquisition of things not present but not even the possession of things present? Question 20. If fishermen take fish from the waters unto death and corruption, how is it that the Lord Christ, who was about to lead men into eternal life through the apostles, promised to make them fishers of men? Answer. Since the men caught by the apostles with the net of the kingdom had to die to their former life in sins, for this reason the Lord compared the catching of men to the catching of fish; and he added "unto life," supplying what was lacking in the example to that which was indicated by it. Question 21. If monks, held by a sober reason, have turned away from the pleasures of marriage, why do they suffer involuntary things in fantasies during sleep, and not only in chance ones, but sometimes they think in fantasy that they converse with mothers and sisters? With what, then, should one deal for deliverance from such a war? And if the one who has been warred against must [partake] of the mysteries

to abstain from them, and, if it is necessary to approach them, either after bathing or after using some other such thing, so as not to be cleansed in a Jewish manner, teach; since there is much inquiry about this even from them. Answer. Since those who are devoted to God have a wakeful adversary, who by every means in his power contrives to place blame upon the pious, for this reason they suffer involuntary things in their sleep. And yet the adversary knows that in matters not within our control we are neither praised for honorable things nor blamed for shameful things (for praises and blames pertain to things done by us with the assent of reason), and that dreams are among the things not within our control; nevertheless, even through dreams he stirs up in us the activities of both, both the honorable and the shameful, holding these hopes within himself: that either by the working of honorable things he might rouse us to vainglorious boasting over things we have not done, or by the working of shameful things he might be able to find us delighting in an unlawful deed. But to see such dreams is not within our control; yet to be delighted at the deed thus involuntarily done, or to be grieved by it, this is within our control. And so, if he finds us delighting in the involuntary deed, the adversary boasts as a victor; but if he finds us grieving, he is made vain, defeated in his design. Sufficient, then, for deliverance from the evil device is to grieve over what has happened involuntarily and to wash away with tears the foulness of the phantasies thus involuntarily arising in us. But that those who suffer such involuntary things should abstain from the communion of the divine mysteries is not at all just.

If not, in this respect we abolish the difference between evils that are wished for and evils that are not wished for. Question 22. If the Master Christ declared that the tares grow together with the wheat, how is it that the tares have multiplied, while the wheat has almost failed? And what is the proof that what has failed is wheat? And how has the prediction of their growing together not proved false? Answer. This is the proof that what has failed is wheat: the prediction from him that says, "Because lawlessness has multiplied, the love of many will grow cold." And again: "In later times some will fall away from the faith and attend to deceiving spirits and teachings of men." And again: "They turn away from the truth, and will be turned aside to myths." And again: "Fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, to draw away the disciples after themselves." But that the wheat does not fail until the end of the age, the Lord makes clear when he says, "But for the sake of the elect, whom the Father chose, those days will be shortened." But if something has happened to the wheat that was not spoken of concerning

Since it is increased and diminished, it is clear that the account concerning it is false; but if from the beginning of the proclamation until the consummation of the age all things that will befall it have been given through the prophecies, it is evident that the account concerning it is in no way false. But if the tares exist, the wheat must also exist; for from their juxtaposition the wheat is recognized for what it is, and likewise the tares; and if one of the two does not exist, neither is the other recognized for what it is. Question 23. If before the passion the Lord prayed that the disciples be sanctified by the Father, but after these things Judas perished, how does the prayer offered on their behalf appear to have been received? And how is that also shown to be true, "I knew that you always hear me"? Answer. The perdition of Judas came to pass from that time when Christ, having taken the morsel and dipped it, gave it to him; and Judas, having taken the morsel, Satan entered into him, and he went out and separated himself from the rest of the disciples. But the prayer on behalf of the disciples was made after the departure of Judas; and this is shown from the prayer itself, when the Lord, having prayed, said: "Those whom you have given me I have guarded, and none of them perished except the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." First, then, came the perdition of Judas, later the prayer on behalf of the disciples, and then the passion of the Savior. Question 24.

If God is the creator and master of creation, how can the works of Apollonius be in the parts of creation? For, as we see, they hinder the surges of the sea and the blasts of the winds and the onrush of mice and wild beasts. And if the wonders done by the Lord are reported only in the narrative, while those done by that one are very many and are displayed in the very facts themselves, how does he not deceive those who see them? And if this has come about by divine permission, how has such permission not become a guide to Hellenism? But if not this, how have those things been done not by the power of demons? And again, if God, as one who takes pleasure in the good that is done, cooperated with that one, why were such things not done through prophets or apostles? But if he was not pleased with it as something base, for what reason did he either not immediately prevent the base thing or shortly afterward not destroy it, but permitted it to prevail until the end of the days of creation? Answer. Apollonius, as a man learned in the natural powers and in the sympathies and antipathies within them, performed his works according to this knowledge, not according to divine authority; therefore in all his accomplishments he needed the procurement of suitable materials, cooperating with him for the fulfillment of what was being accomplished. But our Savior Christ, performing his wonders according to his own divine authority, in no way

did not need matter, but his commands and declarations were followed, and things followed them. And the works performed by Apollonius, since they were done according to the knowledge of natural powers for the bodily activity of humans, the Lord did not overturn; but the demon himself established in his image, who deceived humans in the oracles to worship and honor Apollonius as a god, he silenced, having abolished his oracles; together with him he also brought down the dominion of the other demons honored by the Greeks in the name of gods, as the facts are seen to be. And having in these things the marks of the divine power of Christ, one must not say that the miracles of Christ lie in mere narrative. Question 25. If Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in deeds and words, as the divine Scripture says, how did this same blessed prophet pursue astronomy and geometry and astrology and the things that follow these? For the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time was teaching the doctrines of error. Why then is he admired by the Scripture for such words or deeds?

Answer. Divine Scripture marvels at the prophet for the power of his words and deeds, not because of the words and deeds in themselves; for those things were in themselves unworthy of the prophet's praises. But since through both he was conspicuous to the Egyptians—through his education in letters and through the worldly splendor of his life—and since he honored the piety toward God above both, for this reason divine Scripture marveled at him. But astronomy and astrology and geometry were at that time reckoned by the Egyptians to be vulgar, pedestrian, and marketplace subjects. Honorable among them at that time were the subjects called hieroglyphic, which were handed down in the inner sanctuaries not to just anyone but to those approved; and even if the prophet had knowledge of these, he no longer had their use either, as being opposed to the Hebrews' way of life according to God, for which reason, despising all the royal power in Egypt, he chose to be mistreated together with the people of God. Question 20.

If all the waters were turned into blood by Moses, how does Scripture add, "And the magicians of the Egyptians did likewise"? For either it is false that all the waters were turned into blood by Moses, or again that the magicians did likewise. And the same account applies to the rest of the wonders done by them. Answer. When all the waters upon the earth had become blood, the Egyptians were compelled to dig wells round about the river and to draw water and to give drink from it to themselves and their animals and their livestock. From this water drawn from the wells the magicians made blood, and in no way is the account false. And the wonders done by Moses, since they were done by divine power, came about by a change of the nature of what was set before them into the nature of what was accomplished; but those done by the magicians came about by the operation of demons, who deceived the eyes of the beholders, so that they saw what was not a snake as a snake, and what was not blood as blood, and what were not frogs as frogs. Question 27.

Did Moses not teach things contrary to himself, on the one hand bringing the bones of Joseph with him, and on the other loathing as unclean the one who touches a corpse? And if there was some reasonable cause in his case, let us now learn it. But for what reason did Scripture not state the cause for which Moses, doing those things, taught these? Answer. Since Joseph, when he was dying, put the sons of Israel under oath concerning the removal of his bones, and both things lay before Moses to be kept—not to transgress the oath and not to touch a corpse—for this reason, by the relaxation of the law that says not to touch a corpse, he kept the oath unbroken; for it was impossible for him to keep both unbroken, both the law and the oath. By the greater keeping of the oath, then, he dissolved the lesser keeping of the law; for everywhere the lesser evil is preferable to the greater. And many such things are found in the divine Scripture, which God does not reckon as sin for those who transgress them because of the necessity that has befallen them in these matters, such as the circumcision on the eighth day and the seven-day encirclement of Jericho and the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath, which involve the dissolution of the Sabbath. Further, if the prophet appointed those who, in succession, carried the bones of Joseph, and who were unclean for seven days, to be cleansed by the observance of this number in the place of purification according to the law of Moses, the prophet did nothing contrary to what he said. But to inquire why the prophet did not state the cause of these things is like saying why all the Scriptures were not handed down translated by those who set them forth.

Since the meaning of the matter is contained expressively in the narrative of the matter. For the Scripture did not deem it fit to declare this by way of exposition. Question 28. When the Lord was refuting the pretentious piety of the Pharisees, he said that they are whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness; and in the Law the one who touches a dead body was reckoned unclean, as though he were doing something absurd, and we loathe both the dead and their tombs, since the dead body is called unclean by both the old and the new covenant. How then did Christ not act contrary to both, when raising the widow's son he touched the bier, and grasped the hand of Jairus's daughter? For even if both were ultimately raised, nevertheless their dead bodies received the touch. Answer. The dead bodies of the fallen and their tombs are loathed because of the heavy stench that attends them, and not because of the death. For if they loathed the bodies of the dead simply because of the death, then it would not have been right to use parts of dead animals for the needs of the living, such as hides and horns and hair and gall and fat and flesh, which no argument can exempt from the death that belongs to them.

But if these things too are dead, yet are not loathed because of the use derived from them, how is it not among the most absurd things to regard these as clean because of the use derived from them, but to loathe the bodies and tombs of the holy martyrs among the Greeks, though they are preservative against the plots of demons and healing of diseases that are incurable by the medical art? And the Lord likened the feigned piety of the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, because just as the stench and uncleanness of dead bodies is loathsome to the understanding of the living, so also the lawlessness of those men is loathsome to the understanding of the pious, being in a certain manner a deadening and stench and uncleanness of their soul. For just as, when the soul is separated from the body, the body is dead and foul-smelling and unclean, so when the fear of God is separated from the soul, the soul is dead and foul-smelling and unclean. And the Lord did nothing in opposition either to the old or to the new. For he was not under the law when he raised the dead mentioned in the question. For from his baptism the Lord began the evangelical conduct of life, which is outside the keeping of the law; therefore he was not defiled by touching the dead man. But according to the new, those things alone were defiling to men—the evils that proceed out of the heart; but touching a dead man does not defile a man. Question 29.

If the house where the Lord was had been filled, when the paralytic was about to be healed, and for this reason those carrying him were compelled to break up the roof and through it to lower the sick man, how were the crowds gathered in the house not struck when the roof was being broken up? Answer. Those in the house, perceiving that the roof was about to be stripped off, certainly withdrew. For those stripping off the roof were not so senseless as not to shout to those in the house to withdraw so that they might not be struck. Nor indeed was the whole roof needed to be stripped off, but only as much as sufficed for the lowering of the paralytic. Question 30. If a guardian angel accompanies each human being, as the divine Scripture says, and human beings sometimes underwent increase and sometimes diminution, as in the case of the flood and the other calamities, on account of their own deeds—those who are incapable of increase and diminution, what ministry did they then fulfill, since each of the angels had received a ministry from God from the beginning?

Answer. All the angels, both rulers and those ruled, fulfill a ministry that is necessary for the heavens and for the things that exist on account of man; but those who have received the ministry of attending upon men as guardians are always increased, and are never diminished. For either they attend upon the composite whole, I mean the soul and the body, or they attend upon the soul after the soul's departure from the body until the time of the world's restoration. But before they were appointed to attend upon men and to guard them, they ministered in the other ministries on behalf of men to their own rulers. Question 31. If by a divine nod the clouds send down rain upon the earth, why are the clouds, by those called cloud-chasers, made by certain incantations to hurl hail and immoderate rains wherever they wish? Answer. Since you testify according to the holy Scriptures, it is incredible that the rains come from incantations. For you yourself, who have asked this question about this matter, have not made the inquiry from things you have seen happening, but from things you have heard.

Question 32. If God created our nature mortal, how do you say that "God did not make death"? Answer. It is not the case that whatever is mortal by nature must in every way necessarily die; and the proof of this is that Enoch and Elijah, though mortal by nature, still remain in immortality, having become higher than the words "Dust you are and to dust you shall return." True, then, is it that God made our nature mortal, and that death entered the world through man's disobedience. For if God had made death just as he made our nature mortal, death would not have come about through disobedience; and if God had not made disobedience, neither then would he have made death. Question 33. If the nature of men, as being mortal, recognizes its own proper limit, but the time of each individual is not determined by any fixed boundary—which those outside the faith call fate—how were times added to Hezekiah? For what is added is clearly taken from a number previously ordained. Whence, then, is the indefiniteness of time shown in the case of those who die?

Answer. That the time of each person's life is not fixed is shown from the scriptural voices as follows: "If," it says, "a man finds in the field a young woman who is betrothed and, having forced her, lies with her, put the man to death, but do not put the young woman to death. For in the same way that a man strikes his neighbor, and when he strikes him there was no one to help, so this matter happened. And the young woman cried out, and there was no one to help her." Now divine Scripture would not have compared the forced lying-together to the forced killing, if death were fixed; for what is fixed by God is both without force and cannot be transgressed. But if this is so, it is clear that the years of life were not added to the foreordained life of Hezekiah, but to his years that had previously run on without a fixed limit, the end of which was coming about through the mortal suffering, when God healed him from the suffering and restored him to life. Question 34. If, as some say, the flood did not occur in every place of the earth, but only where the people of that time lived, how is it true that the water rose fifteen cubits above all the high mountains?

Answer. It does not seem to be true that the flood occurred over the whole world, unless perhaps the places where the flood occurred were lower-lying than the rest of the earth. Question 35. If God is the creator of all irrational animals, why did he declare that what has a cloven hoof and chews the cud is clean? And again, why is what chews the cud but does not have a cloven hoof, such as the camel, reckoned among the unclean, and what has a cloven hoof but does not chew the cud, such as the pig, counted among the unclean? And among the fish, why the scaleless? And why have birds been divided, although some of them are clean, if indeed those who eat and do the same things as the unclean are permitted? Answer. By nature all animals are clean and were made good by God from the beginning, according to what is said: "And God saw all things that he had made, and behold, they were very good"; and they obtained the divine blessing that says: "Increase and multiply." But since God wished to place the Jews, as it were, among all things eaten under the yoke of the slavery of the law, for this reason he named some of the animals and birds and fish clean, whose slaughter and eating he permitted to the Jews, and he named others unclean, from whose eating he restrained them. So these are called clean and unclean: clean by nature, but unclean by the law. And again, in another way they are called clean and unclean for this reason: because in Egypt at that time all the animals

...except for the pig, they were deifying, for this reason he named some of the animals clean and others unclean; and the clean ones he permitted them to sacrifice, but the unclean ones he forbade them to eat, showing through both that they were unworthy of the name and honor of God—both through being sacrificed and eaten, and again through being called unclean. Question 30. If the divine nature is incapable of change, why does he say concerning Saul's anointing that he repents, and concerning the destruction of Nineveh that he repented? Answer. The Lord God, both in his being and in his doing the actions that befit him, is unchangeable. But foreknowing the changes of those who change for the benefit of those under his providence, he changes circumstances; therefore he is unchangeably disposed both to forgive and not to forgive. For he unchangeably forgives those who correct their own faults, but to those who remain incorrigibly disposed toward evil he unchangeably does not forgive. The phrase "I have repented" reveals his unchangeable disposition with respect to not forgiving, while "the Lord repented" makes clear his unchangeable disposition with respect to forgiving. For God is unchangeable and always remains in the things that befit him to do; he never admits a change into doing things that do not befit him.

Question 37. If John's baptism was not according to the law, as indeed these things were not, how was it not contrary to the law, and how was it received by those who were under the law? And how were those who were under the law not lawbreakers, having received a baptism contrary to the law? But if the baptism of grace happened to be under the law, being called neither according to the law nor above the law nor contrary to the law, by what standard will it be found to have come about? Answer. John's baptism was a prelude to the gospel of grace; therefore it was not above the law. Nor was it possible for those who had sinned under the law to receive forgiveness in it through repentance and faith in Christ. Question 38. If John wished to assure his disciples concerning Christ, that he is the one, when he sent them to him (for some have said this), why did he not speak to them by way of declaration, but brought a question through them to Christ? But if he himself, because he had been cast into prison, was brought from various considerations into doubt concerning him (for others too have said this), why does he ask as though he had not yet known him as having come? For the words "Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another?" give the impression that Christ had not yet arrived, but was expected to come. For being convinced of this, he would not have asked: "Are you the Christ, or

Is it someone else besides him? Answer. Since various reports were circulating about the wonders Jesus performed—some saying, "It is Elijah who does these things," others, "Jeremiah," and others, "Some other of the prophets"—John, hearing these reports in prison, sends his disciples to learn whether the one performing the signs is himself the one testified to by him, or whether it is someone else, the one rumored by the many. And Jesus, knowing John's purpose, in the presence of John's disciples performed many wonders, persuading them and through them John that he himself was the one who had also done the wonders reported in the name of others—the one testified to by him. Question 39. If the Lord Christ promised after his own exaltation to draw all people to himself, how is it that not all ran to faith in him? And how is he who promised to draw people to himself not in conflict with "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him"? Answer.

Every account is judged by its own end. And the end is to draw all to himself, when he has abolished every rule and authority and power. It is necessary, then, not to demand the things of the end before the end. And the Father draws to the Son by giving also to the Son authority and power to be able to draw all to himself. So it is not at one time the Father drawing to the Son and at another time the Son drawing to himself; therefore there is nothing contradictory in the accounts. Question 41. If the demons dwell continually in those who are demon-possessed, how do they cause harm to others? And if they do this by departing for a short time from those who suffer, how is it that when they are driven away from them by an invisible power, they no longer show traces of their own presence in them? Answer. It is impossible for one possessed by demons to do anything with the demon absent; for whatever he does, he does by the presence of the demon when present, and when the demon has departed, not even his traces are present; for the invisible power that drives him away instills in him fear of approaching the healed person any longer. Question 42.

If it belongs to God alone to give life and strength to bodies, how do the demons do this, strengthening the bodies of those possessed, so that they break their bonds and chains? For he was bound with chains and fetters, and breaking the bonds he was driven by the demon into the wilderness. Answer. The demon did not give the body the power to be able to break and shatter the bonds and chains, but the demon himself broke and shattered the bonds and chains, even if the divine Scripture attributed the works of the demon to the one possessed. Question 42. If the demons do not have authority over the parts of creation, why, when the oracles were disobeyed, did they bring punishments upon the Greeks, and when the idols were worshipped, did they withhold these and provide good things to them instead? From where, then, is it possible for them to have understanding of either? Answer. It was a custom among the demons, for the deception of humans, to attribute to themselves both the name of God and his strength. But that the demons do not have strength to defend the disobedient and to benefit the obedient is shown from the dissolution which Hellenism suffered under Christianity. For it was plainly seen that Hellenism used no other power against Christianity except that through the hand of men and swords; for if Hellenism had possessed divine power fighting on its behalf when it was being destroyed, it would not have used human power to save itself, having vainly expected its own gods, from the dissolution—

This is the greatest proof of the weakness of the demons and that they could never accomplish divine works—works that are punitive for the disobedient and beneficent for the obedient. Moreover, if all healing is of the living and the sentient, how is it not plainly false that "when their idols were healed, they held back their punishments"—idols that neither live nor perceive, but are insensible both to the healings and likewise to the disobedience of the oracles? Question 43. In the time of the flood, he says that two by two and seven by seven were brought into the ark without reason, not four and fourteen from the unclean and the clean; and some have said four, and some that only two unclean—which of the two is truer? Answer. He who said four and fourteen spoke more truly than he who said two and seven; for "two by two" he said in place of two male and two female, and "seven by seven" in place of seven male and seven female. And the unclean were two by two. Question 44.

Since Isaiah and Ezekiel beheld the vision of the many-eyed creatures, was one and the same thing revealed to both, or was one thing shown to the one and another to the other? And what was it that was shown? Answer. Through the vision seen by the prophet Isaiah, the mystery concerning Christ was signified—him who sits upon a throne of glory and by the eating of his holy flesh works purification of the sins of impious men, of those who in all the earth glorify the holy and consubstantial Trinity for the greatness of the divine gifts, by whose name having been baptized they were justified, receiving the hope of participation in the heavenly and eternal good things. For the coal which the prophet saw brought to his unclean lips for the cleansing of lawlessnesses and sins was a token of the master's flesh, which cleanses the conscience of those who eat it from all impiety. And through the vision seen by the prophet Ezekiel, he signified the things that were to befall Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, which were an encouragement to the Israelites who were in captivity in Babylon. And the prophet saw four-faced creatures, having likenesses of a man and a lion, a calf and an eagle; and the prophet Daniel also says concerning Nebuchadnezzar that his nails grew like an eagle's and his hair like a lion's, and they fed him grass like the calf, and a man's heart was given to him.

But by this vision he instills a certain encouragement in the Israelites, who were looking toward the mighty and exceedingly strong dominion of the Babylonians and were in despair that they could no longer obtain freedom from such captivity. So then, in order that God might remove the Israelites from this despair and prepare them to look toward his own dominion, he shows the prophet the yoking together of a tame and a wild animal, and the joining of a heavy-bodied creature and a bird. For the tame animal is man, the wild animal is the lion; the heavy-bodied animal is the calf, and the bird, a light creature, is the eagle. In those, then, he makes clear the transition of the kingdom from wildness to tameness; in these, the change from the heaviness of slavery to freedom. For the calf is under the yoke, but the eagle is free from the yoke. He also shows the prophet a wheel within a wheel, signifying by them the leading away of the Jews into captivity and their leading back to their own land.

Question 45. Why does the divine ordinance use the title "son of man" in the case of Ezekiel, which it did not do in the case of the other prophets? And did the same prophet behold the worldwide resurrection in the dry bones, and did the bones truly rise up, becoming perfect human beings, as the book of the same prophet teaches? Answer. Because the resurrection of the dead was about to be foretold in a vision through the prophet Ezekiel—the resurrection that was to take place in reality through the son of man, according to what was said: "The hour is coming and now is, when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the son of man, and those who hear will live." For this reason he is called by the name "son of man." Just as Joshua, the son of Nun, when he was about to command the sun and the moon to stand still by his own authority, received the name of Jesus, which is honored by creation through the obedience of his command, so too Ezekiel receives the name "son of man" and through the vision raises the dead by the power of the title. And in the case of Ezekiel everything was a vision—both the bones and their resurrection. God shows this vision to the prophet, first of all signifying through it the universal resurrection from the dead that will come about through Christ, and then for the encouragement of the Israelites, who had despaired of themselves in their enslavement, that they would be free from the kingdom of the Babylonians.

For just as dead bodies lying in tombs have no hope of resurrection, so they considered themselves to be in Babylon, without any hope of return. The same prophet makes this clear in what he says: "And the Lord spoke to me, saying: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say: Our bones have become dry, our hope has perished," and so on. Question 46. If all the things of life are good, why are those who abstain from them praised in the Scriptures, and those who cling to them condemned? But if they are evil, why have evil things been yoked together with our life, and this when the Creator is good? Answer. Abstaining from the good things of life is not simply praiseworthy, nor is clinging to them simply blameworthy; but each, when done with fitting reason, both abstaining and clinging to them, is praiseworthy; but when done in the opposite way, both are blameworthy. That nothing evil by nature has been yoked together with our life, divine Scripture makes clear when it praises the creation of the created things, saying: "And God saw all things whatsoever he made, and behold, they were very good." But when we pervert good things willingly, evil things come to exist. For evil is not in what is healthy, since the good things in it remain and do not overturn it; so that nothing is evil except by the perversion of the good. Nothing evil, therefore, has been yoked together with our life; for evil things are evil by irrational use and not by nature, and it is a matter of choice whether to use them well or badly. Question 47.

If the elements have no perception, why does Moses call heaven and earth to witness to the people, and Isaiah, when accusing the same people, command them to hear? Answer. What is said to heaven and earth is said to the rational beings in them, just as what is said to a city is said to its citizens, as in "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her." For it was not the city that killed and stoned, but the citizens. Question 49. Why did the Lord say to Mary after the resurrection, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father"? If, then, before the ascension it was not permitted to anyone to touch him, how did he shortly afterward permit the disciples and Thomas to do this? But if it was permitted, why did he forbid Mary shortly before what he was about to permit to many shortly afterward? Answer. "Do not touch me" was said to Mary by the Savior in the sense of "Do not follow me," so as to be with me continually in the manner of life I had before my cross. For he wished gradually to wean the disciples from the sight and presence of his body; therefore he was neither visible to the disciples at all times during the days he spent on earth after the resurrection, nor did he make himself entirely invisible to them, but at intervals he did both—both being seen by them and not being seen. Question 49.

What is the proof that only two beasts and cattle, male and female, were brought forth in the creation of the world, since some of the pious have said this to establish that the leathern tunics were not given by God to the first humans from the skins of irrational animals? Answer. In each kind there are certain things that are the originators of the kind, and the originators of the kind are works of God, while the things under the originators of the kind are works of nature subsisting through seed and generation; it is clear that God did not make, of each kind, except the one male-female pair. But God made the leathern tunics not in a human way but in a creative way; for he did not slaughter animals and sew their skins together to make tunics, but he created the leathern tunics themselves. But perhaps someone will say, If God created the leathern tunics after the seven days of creation, how does the divine Scripture say that God rested on the seventh day from all the works that he had begun to do? He rested from creation, that is, from making the things that are not; but the skins, which he now makes, he did not now begin to make, but in the making of the animals their skins also came into being long ago. In accordance with these things also is the passage, And the Lord God still formed from the earth all the cattle and the beasts of the earth, and brought them to Adam, and the rest; for the word still signifies their second generation.

Question 50. Since formerly the children, but now we ourselves, in singing have used the word hosanna and the word alleluia, what is the interpretation of these? Answer. The interpretation of alleluia is "praise with songs the One who is," and of hosanna, "greatness that is supreme." Question 51. If the divine nature is immutable, how is it that when blasphemed and when spoken well of, it has often rendered to both the recompense worthy of each one's deeds? Answer. God, remaining in his own perception and righteousness immutably, renders to each according to worth; yet he does not do this by way of alteration upon discovering it, but always having it, he possesses immutability in these matters; and holding it in equal order, he holds it concerning both blasphemers and those possessed by insensibility or injustice, which are things alien to him. Question 52. Saul, moved by pious zeal, destroyed the ventriloquists; why then was he brought to the point of seeking a foretelling from a ventriloquist? And did that woman really bring up Samuel, since the Scripture says this? And that she speaks truth, but the matter is plainly impious.

Answer. He who does something with divine zeal does not fight against God. But Saul, having conceived a suspicion regarding David, that God had transferred his kingdom to him, contrived by every means to kill David, so that the divine sentence might not be carried out against him. And he destroyed the ventriloquists, hoping by this to reconcile God, so as to reverse the verdict of his own household that had rejected him from the kingdom—not hating the impiety of the ventriloquists, but loving the kingdom. And since God did not accept his purpose, for this reason he abandoned him to petition for the things whose removal he had undertaken with no good purpose. But all the other things that happened by the ventriloquist were according to the operation of the demon who presented to the sight of the beholders the appearance of Samuel, who was not there. But the truth of the words came from God, who granted the demon to appear in the form of Samuel to the ventriloquist and to show the revelation of what was to come. And since Saul did not listen to Samuel, who had told him of the removal of the kingdom, but even after the divine sentence that rejected him from the kingdom still laid claim to the kingdom, for this reason God judged him unworthy to have the future foretold to him through those consecrated to him, just as he also did in the case of Ahab, king of Israel, who disbelieved the prophets of truth and believed the false prophets; for which cause he sent him a lying spirit, as the book of Kings says, and Ahab, having believed and been deceived, went to Ramoth and did not return alive.

Question 53. If male and female were created for the sake of procreation, when the resurrection comes, will humans rise possessing the difference of the procreative parts? And if so, how is it not superfluous to bring along members that are inactive? Answer. Even if the generative parts are not useful for procreation after the resurrection, they are useful for the remembrance that it was through such parts that humans received their generation and growth and continuance; for through them we are led to the thought of the great wisdom of Christ which created these things, and that humanity is increased through death, and of the preservation of our race in immortality by the succession of those who are born. Question 54. If Moses foretold the punishment that was going to be brought upon the people because of their transgression, why did he speak these things with a song, since songs are known to produce relaxation rather than benefit in humans? Answer. The rhythms of the melodies were fitted to the narratives contained in the songs, leading the souls to the choice that was appropriate to the things given. For either they recount in mournful strain the dreadful sins of the people and the bitter punishments brought upon them, or they sing in glad strain the kindly consolations of God and the deliverance that clearly appeared through him to the people when they repented. Question 55.

If the art of medicine is very beneficial to humans, how was the discovery of such a good thing brought about through opposites? Answer. Many remedies for bodily diseases have been discovered also by the pious, and by King Solomon, but none of those outside piety had the understanding of the medicine of souls. Question 55. If infants at the end have neither praise nor blame from works, what is the difference in the resurrection between those baptized by others and having done nothing, and those not baptized and likewise having done nothing? Answer. This is the difference between the baptized and the unbaptized: that the baptized attain the goods that come through baptism, while the unbaptized do not attain them; and they are deemed worthy of the goods that come through baptism by the faith of those who bring them to baptism. Question 57. If Moses set forth to us the creation of two heavens, how does the Scripture teach us the existence of more, sometimes saying, "the heavens of heavens," and sometimes, "The heavens were opened to him," and, "I see the heavens opened," and, "He was caught up to the third heaven"—and it did not say, "to the third part of heaven," but absolutely, "to the third heaven"? And you will find many things similar to these in the Scripture.

...sia. How then do they not say things contrary to themselves, yet in both respects speak the truth? Answer. Moses indeed spoke of heavens, but he did not specify their number, neither one nor two nor more. But the divine Scripture was going to call the spaces that lie above in the air "heavens," as in "the birds of the heaven," and "bread from heaven," and "the stars of the heaven." From the sequence, then, of the expressions that are set down, we understand the heavens to be two in essence, but more in their spaces; and when the heavens are understood in this way, no contradiction will be supposed in the statements. Question 58. To attribute ignorance to Christ is impious; it is clear that he has perfect foreknowledge of all things. How then is he not the cause of Judas's betrayal and of Peter's sworn denial, since he foreknew these things but did not prevent them? And the same argument would apply concerning the fall of the devil and of the first-formed man from God. Answer. It was necessary that Christ be betrayed by one of his own disciples, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled; it is clear that Christ is the cause of the fulfillment of the Scripture, and not of Judas's betrayal; for Judas himself was the cause of that betrayal, which God, foreknowing that it would come to be, foretold through the Scripture. And foreknowledge is not the cause of what is going to be, but what is going to be is the cause of the foreknowledge; for what is going to be does not follow upon the foreknowledge, but the foreknowledge follows upon what is going to be, and in no way is the one who foreknows the cause of what is going to be. So then, Christ is not the cause of the betrayal, but the betrayal is the cause of the Lord's foreknowledge.

And the same account applies to the devil and the first-formed man. Question 59. If the sun is hidden in the night, how is the heaven not shown to be a sphere? For the divine man from among the philosophers said that the sun is hidden from our sight, not by a body. This heaven lies upon the earth; and the one, being light, is borne upward, while the other, being heavy, is borne downward; therefore by their mutual attraction they are held together. But if this is true, since the whole celestial circle serves for the illumination of the universe, so that the luminaries may exist and shine always, how then are they hidden? Answer. If it is agreed that many other things are on the same and equal plane and are hidden from sight because of the length of the distance—for example, ships at sea not seen by one another, since the expanse of the waters limits the sight so that it does not extend beyond the horizon—what wonder if the hiding of the luminaries also happens for the same cause? But if by mutual attraction the heaven...

that the heaven and the earth stand apart from mind and earth—for in the case of the first heaven and the earth this can be conjectured because they came into being together, but in the case of the firmament and the earth this can no longer be understood; for the earth stood before the firmament, supporting the whole liquid substance without the firmament's counter-pull; for the firmament came into being later than the earth. Question 60. Whether the difference in forms is useful to us here because of the body's needs and occupations and dealings—since the body rises in the resurrection without need—if we rise with the same difference of forms, how is this not useless? And if in the same likeness, what is the proof of this? And how does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man not show the difference of forms? For from it this is entirely clear. And if some should say that some knowledge was given to him for the recognition of Lazarus and Abraham, from where will they establish this also in the case of the Lord, when the bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep rose and appeared to many? Certainly each became easily recognizable to those who knew him by his own form.

Answer. There are many reasons why those who rise should rise in their own form. First, to demonstrate the great and divine knowledge of God—that in so vast and countless a multitude of those who rise, each one's own form can be preserved. Then, so that he not be thought to be creating new men and not raising the dead, for this reason each of those who rise has his own form. For if the forms of the wrongdoer and the wronged are unknown, the justice of the judgment is destroyed. Moreover, if the uses for which the difference of forms became necessary were dissolved, this difference would be found superfluous and useless; and the difference of names is likewise superfluous and useless. How then does the rich man call Abraham and Lazarus by name, if persons are not recognized by the difference in name? Now the account concerning Lazarus and the rich man is neither a parable nor a history—since a parable is a discourse containing a likeness of a thing that has happened to what will be, while a history is a discourse containing a narrative of a thing that has already happened—for neither does the recompense for what each has lived occur before the resurrection, nor after the resurrection is it true that "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Rather, the account concerning Lazarus and the rich man is an outline of a discourse that contains the teaching that after the soul's departure from the body, men cannot obtain any benefit by providence or effort.

Question 61. If God alone is immortal according to the apostle, how is it true according to him that "We shall not all sleep"? Answer. God is said to be the only one having immortality, because he does not have it by the will of another, as all the rest who are immortal do, but from his own essence. Question 62. If the creation of the luminaries took place on the fourth day, and the number of days is constituted from the days themselves, how do the three days before the production of the luminaries not show the number of days after the production of the luminaries to be doubtful? Answer. From the production of light came the separation of light and darkness, and from the separation of light and darkness day and night came into being. But before the making of the luminaries, the dominion of light according to God's decree made the day, and the dominion of darkness made the darkness, that is, the night. But when the luminaries came into being, they were appointed to have dominion—the one over light and day, the other over darkness and night. For the Creator assigned the light, together with its defined dominion, to the greater of the luminaries, and such days as the light now makes with the luminary, such it also made before the making of the luminaries, according to the decree of God who defined its dominion as twelve hours; that decree urges the sun to its original measured twelve-hour motion.

Question 63. Since some have interpreted "In the sun he set his tabernacle" in various and unclear ways, explain its clear meaning. Answer. We said in the earlier passages that divine Scripture is known to call "heavens" either those by nature, such as the first heaven and the firmament, or the regions in the air. So then, "In the sun he set his tabernacle" means: He set the heavens as a tabernacle for the sun. For the transfer of the phrase from the Hebrew language into the Syriac language was made thus: "In them he set the tabernacle of the sun." And the prophet David makes this same thing clear through another psalm, saying: "Who stretches out the heaven like a skin" (for the stretching out of skins makes a tent), showing by the variety of essences and the difference of uses that they are created; for uncreated nature has no natural difference from uncreated nature, but to be such or such for the sake of use is foreign to uncreated nature. Question 64.

If Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days, and so too Christ in the heart of the earth, how is it that the Lord's death was not merely in appearance? For Jonah, though he did not die, was thought to have died. But if the Lord truly tasted death, how is the figure of Jonah not falsified? Answer. He did not compare death with death, but the Savior's three-day stay in the tomb with Jonah's three-day stay in the sea monster. Besides, if the things concerning Jonah were in all respects like those concerning the Savior, those things could no longer be a type or image of these. The truth must therefore have something more than the type, according to what is said: "A greater than Jonah is here." The figure of Jonah is understood to be a truthful pattern of the things concerning the Savior in this way: that just as Jonah had the three-day return from the sea monster as a sign of faith that he had been sent by God as a herald of the destruction of the Ninevites, so too the Savior had the three-day resurrection from the tomb as a sign of faith that he had been sent by God as a herald of the kingdom of heaven. Question 65.

Since some say that the Lord's betrayal took place on the fourth day, conjecturing this from the quantity of things done at that time, what is the proof of the day on which the betrayal took place? Answer. The proof that Christ was betrayed not on the fourth day but on the fifth is this. In the night in which he was betrayed, in that same night he was judged and condemned by the chief priests and elders; and at the morning following that night they handed him over to Pilate; and on the day on which Pilate received him, on that same day he also crucified him; for having received him at the morning of the Preparation, at the sixth hour of the same Preparation he crucified him. It is necessary, therefore, not to add the inconsistent by conjecture to the hours defined in Scripture. For Matthew the evangelist says thus: "When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and having bound him, they led him away and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor." Likewise also John the evangelist says: "They lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium; and it was early." And again: "Pilate therefore, having heard these words, brought Jesus outside, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called the Stone Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha; and it was the Preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour." So then, in the night he was betrayed and judged and condemned by the chief priests, but in the morning he was handed over to Pilate and at the sixth hour of the Preparation he was crucified, it is clear that the betrayal took place on the fifth day.

Question 57. Since the Lord continually calls himself Son of Man and not son of a woman, and for this reason those who are foolish attempt to show that the Lord's birth came about from marital union—for "of Man," they say, is not the name of a female but of a male—by what arguments, then, shall we refute such slander, which is spoken in vain? Answer. If the Lord's birth had come about from marital union, the Scripture would not have said, "As it was supposed, the son of Joseph." For the phrase "as it was supposed" has no place in the case of those born from marital union. But to overturn by means of one obscure and defective expression all those expressions which plainly proclaim that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin is among the most absurd things. For the refutation of their vain attempt we have used arguments such as these. If, because Christ did not call himself son of the woman, he is therefore not the son of the woman—obviously—then also, because he did not call himself son of some man, he is not the son of some man. But if Christ is not the son of some man, then by necessity he is not the son of a man either. Further, if Joseph was designated son of Heli according to the law without marital union, since God willed in this way to give Joseph as a son to Heli, what is absurd about his thus giving a son to Joseph also without marital union?

For this reason divine grace beforehand arranged for the virgin to be betrothed to a man who had two fathers, one by nature from marital union, the other by law without marital union, prefiguring in that man's birth the birth of Christ—who was born of the Holy Spirit as a son to God, and born of the wife of Joseph as a son to Joseph. "The Holy Spirit," he says, "will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy one born of you will be called the Son of God." But if the one born of the wife of Eli is a son of Eli according to the law of God, much more is the one born of the wife of Joseph, according to the divine good pleasure, a son of Joseph without marital union. Question 67. Since Isaiah, prophesying of the Lord Christ, says, "Who will declare his generation?"—is this saying to be understood of a generation hard to declare or indescribable, and of his divinity or of his flesh?

Answer. The generation of Christ according to the flesh is traced in a genealogy, and its manner is proclaimed in the scriptural narrative; for it is from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. But his generation according to his divinity is without genealogy, and therefore also beyond narration. The prophetic utterance, then, indicates that the generation is beyond narration, not that it is hard to narrate. Question 67. If the blood of a man is not the soul, because when that is poured out the living being perishes, by what arguments and examples is it shown that the soul in the body is something else, both in creation and invisible? Answer. Since we have the utterances of the Creator of creation which distinguish the soul from the body, they ought not to demand examples more trustworthy than these for the demonstration of the truth of what is sought. For the fact that he gave to the devil authority over the whole bodily constitution of Job to strike it as he wished, and restrained him from touching his soul, shows that the incorporeal soul is something other than his smitten flesh. Likewise also the saying, Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, makes clear that there is something of the slain man that remains in immortality even after the death of the body. So it is absurd to say that the blood which is poured out and corrupted is the soul. It is evident, therefore, that the soul is invisible to men by its own nature.

Question 69. Why does the number seven admit of variation? For on the Sabbath, for the most part, the air changes, and a person's advancement according to age receives its progress in this number, teeth indeed growing in the seventh month, and in the same year these being changed, and again, having been doubled, acquiring seminal power; and, to speak briefly, the number of seven brings about the growth and the end of human beings, and makes a distinction of diseases, and in the law it possesses the reverence of the remaining numbers. Answer. The fulfillment of the works of nature comes about in relation to the power of nature, and not in relation to the temporal presentation defined by a week of months or years. Therefore the works of nature named in the question are often brought by nature to their proper perfection sooner or later than the numbers seven; which would not happen if nature followed the week and not the week nature. The week, then, is not the cause of the fulfillment of the works of nature, but the power of nature is the cause of the week, according to which it [nature] receives [the ability] to accomplish its proper works. Likewise also concerning the other numbers of months and years, through which the work of nature is fulfilled in the remaining animals and plants, the power of nature is the cause of the equal time, and of the greater and the lesser. But the number seven is more revered in the divine Scripture than the remaining numbers, because in it is the whole time both of the making of the world and of the rest of the one who made it: six of the making, and one of the rest.

So then, in order that the memory of the creation of the world might be preserved among men, for this reason he ordained that the number seven be found more honored than the others in the divine Scripture. Question 70. If rejoicing and exulting over charisms is forbidden as producing arrogance, while humility and gentleness are handed down by the divine Scripture to those who have received them, how are the gifts not useless to them, since they are not able at present to give them a perception of their own good? Answer. He forbids rejoicing over charisms together with arrogance, as being destructive of right rejoicing; but rejoicing over charisms together with gentleness he not only does not turn away from, but on the contrary he even permits such joy, sometimes when the Savior says: Rejoice that your names have been written in the heavens; and sometimes when the apostle says: Brothers, rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice; let your gentleness be known to all men—by the doubling of "rejoice" showing the intensity of the joy. Therefore neither does joy destroy gentleness, nor does gentleness destroy the perception of joy, but by each the other is preserved. Question 71.

Since some have said, conjecturing about the constitution of the world, that it will last only six thousand years, let us learn whether this is shown to be true by clear examples, and whether it is from the divine Scripture, and whether it is unclear. Answer. It is possible to infer from many scriptural utterances that those who say the time of the present constitution of the world is six thousand years speak the truth, since it says at one time: "In these last days he spoke to us in a Son"; and at another: "on whom the ends of the ages have come"; and at another: "When the fullness of time came." And all such utterances were spoken in the sixth thousand. Question 72. If each one is shown to be generous precisely when he grants to his neighbors the good that he knows or is able to do, how is God not envious, since he was able to make all things gods and did not make them, seeing that God is good? But if he is not envious, but being unable, he did not do this—for one of the two must be said. Answer. God is not like those who grant to their neighbors the good things that they are able to do or know. For what is near to God does not need God for a supply, for it has equality with him in all things. Moreover, if God made only gods, he would not have made the world; for the world necessarily needs its parts, which differ from one another by position in exaltation and subordination. Moreover, if nothing of impossible things comes to be, and it is impossible for God to come to be (for God is uncreated and unmade), how is it not unreasonable both to say that God is not envious, because he does things that are not possible? Moreover, God is good, because he is uncreated and a creator;

But none of created things can become uncreated in essence, that is, God. This question seems to resemble the argument that says: The eye is beautiful and more honorable than the feet; but if God is without envy, why did he not make the feet eyes? For this argument also draws the same irrational absurdity, namely that God did not make the feet eyes either through envy or through inability. Question 73. If the good appears good only when it is compared with evil, and the world is good, it is clear that what is not world is evil, that is, what is before the world. And if both are from God, that is, what is before the world and the world, how is it that both are not from him, that is, the good and the base? But if one is from him and the other is not from him, how is what is not from him not automatic and not under him? And how is the one who says, "For all things are from him," telling the truth? For in "all things" are included both the things that formerly were not and the things that now are. Answer. Evil is nothing other than the deviation of the good; therefore evil is later than the good, for it is a deviation of the good. But it is clear that the good appears good not from comparison with evil, but from its own nature. What was before the world, being altogether non-existent, was neither good nor evil; therefore nothing is compared with what is thus non-existent. Moreover, what is altogether non-existent is neither from God nor from another, nor is it automatic. Before the world, then, there was nothing other than God; therefore, since comparison is of existing things with existing things, the world is not compared with what is not world, nor is what is not world contained in the world.

For that which is not a world is nothing, but that which contains is something. And when we say that God made the things that are out of that which is not, we do not give to that which is not a position of being, but the complete removal of that which is not. Question 74. If, because Hellenism has been conquered by Christianity, Hellenism has no hope of recall, how is it that true religion, which was formerly conquered by Hellenism, has now received recall? For that the truth prevailed before the error, the divine Scriptures testify, showing that Adam and many after him in succession served not idols but God, even if some of them were found in improper deeds. Answer. The end of the present state is the judgment of the impious through fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles say, and also the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in his epistle to the Corinthians; and this judgment comes about through Jesus Christ, who was crucified by the Jews, who reigns eternally over the Christians with an endless kingdom, which was given to him according to the prophet Daniel; for this reason Hellenism has no hope of recall. And besides, if, when the dominion by which Hellenism ruled the people of God was dissolved, it is in no way again

took it up, how does it not now vainly expect the recall of its former dominion? And for what reason does Hellenism expect the recall of its former dominion? Certainly so that by torments it might compel the Christians to fall away from the worship and faith of the Son of God, and to attend to and follow the religion of the demons. But these torments, which Hellenism had also used before, hoping by them to keep itself unbroken, put an end to Hellenism, but established Christianity more firmly. Question 75. If the soul, having been released from the body, does not receive its recompenses until the resurrection of bodies, is it then in the meantime subject to examination until the resurrection? Answer. No; the condition that souls have here with the body, this same they have also after their departure from the body from here. For here all the things of union are common to both the righteous and the unrighteous, and there is no difference among them in this respect: such as being born and dying, being healthy and being sick, being rich and being poor, and the other things similar to these. But after the departure from the body, immediately the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous takes place. For they are led by the angels to places worthy of them: the souls of the righteous to paradise, where there is converse and vision of angels and archangels, and by sight also of the Savior Christ, according to what is said: Being absent from the body and present with the Lord.

But the souls of the unjust are kept in the places in Hades, as it is said concerning Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Hades below was embittered at meeting you, and the rest. And they are guarded in places worthy of them until the day of resurrection and recompense. Question 76. If there is no recompense of works before the resurrection, what benefit accrued to the robber, since his soul was brought into paradise, and especially since paradise is perceptible, but the substance of the soul is not perceptible? Answer. The benefit that accrued to the robber who entered into paradise was to learn by works the usefulness of faith, through which he was deemed worthy of the assembly of the saints, in which he is guarded until the day of resurrection and recompense. And he has the perception of paradise according to what is called the conceptual perception, according to which souls see themselves and the things under them, and further also the angels and the demons; for neither does a soul understand or see a soul, nor an angel an angel, nor a demon a demon, but according to the aforementioned conceptual perception they see themselves and one another, and further also all bodily things. Question 77.

If the soul receives sensation through the cooperation of the body's senses, and sensible things happen to be both good and bad, how is the soul not without sensation when separated from the body? And if it is without sensation, it is clear that it has died; for insensibility and sensation distinguish the difference between the dead and the living. Answer. All created and rational essences have two apprehensive powers, the sensitive and the noetic; and the one called conceptual, by which they apprehend themselves and one another; and the noetic, by which they receive the knowledge of what is above them. So the souls do not receive the sensation of sensible things through cooperation with the body, but the soul itself, providing sensation by its own presence, makes the living being sensitive; and as it is in relation to the living being, it is sensitive, and as it is in relation to itself, it is sensitive, and the soul never becomes dead; for death belongs to the ensouled being, and not to the soul. So the ensouled being and the ensoulment need the cooperation of the body for the apprehension of sensible things, not the soul; for the ensouled being is one thing and the soul another, and one thing is that which is by participation and another that which is by essence.

Question 78. If God declared David to be according to his own heart, how did the same prophet afterward commit adultery and murder? And if these things are hated by God as base, why did God establish the race of the prophet from the adulteress, and cause the Lord Christ to be genealogized from her? And this being so, how does the Scripture speak truth when it says, The children of adulterers are imperfect? Answer. For David, who corrected his own faults through repentance, was found even in this to be as the heart of God, of him who does not will the death of the sinner as he wills that he turn and live. And the one whom he begot adulterously from the wife of Uriah, God put to death, because the children of adulterers are imperfect; but those born after him he did not put to death, because he took her as a wife after the removal of Uriah, with equity. And God, honoring repentance, established the race of David in those born from the wife of Uriah, and for the same cause he caused Christ to be born from her.

Question 79. If Josiah displayed the most fervent zeal for piety of all the kings of Israel and Judah, smashing the pillars of the idols and reducing the bones of the Greeks to ashes along with their idolatrous altars, and cutting down the groves of error root and branch, and causing those who burned incense and sacrificed on the high places to desist from doing these things, and exalting the divine worship, and making the people celebrate the festivals of the law splendidly, as the Scripture testifies—and yet he himself violently laid down his life by a Greek sword, and his children were led away captive to Babylon and given over to long-lasting slavery to the Greeks—how, in the face of these things, would the Greeks not speak the truth when they say that in return for his offenses against their objects of reverence such a bitter outcome befell him? And where shall we find that he received recompense for so many achievements? And for the benefit of which of those who came after were the calamities that befell Josiah and his people, of such magnitude despite such great achievements, handed down in Scripture?

Answer. The time of recompense for those who have succeeded in piety with virtue is not the present but the future, in which the recompenses remain forever beyond revocation for those who await them. But Josiah received a painful end to his life because he disobeyed the command of Jeremiah, who told him by God's command not to go out to meet the king of Egypt in war, as Jeremiah says. In order, then, that the Lord God might take him from this life clean of sins, for this reason he permitted him to pay the penalty for this disobedience by a Greek sword, for the instruction of subsequent men, both that they not disobey the prophets and that, if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and the impious appear? But if the sons of Josiah, while they remained in their father's piety, were taken captive, the argument of the Greeks would have a place, that in return for the sins Josiah committed against the objects of idol worship, his sons were taken captive. But if they departed from their father's piety, and took up the worship of idols and were taken captive while practicing idolatry, the argument of the Greeks is plainly false. Question 80.

Does the Scripture not teach us to be patient toward all? How then did Elisha not err when he put to death by a curse the boys who insulted him, and especially when he bore a grudge against innocent infants who knew no evil, and brought death upon them through wild beasts in return for a mere insult against himself? Answer. When correction does not come about through the patience of those who are insulted, then the severity that follows patience is most useful for those who cannot be corrected. One must not therefore slander the prophet for his severity. For he had seen that patience did not give those who sin any perception of their sin, and since those words which the boys spoke in dishonoring the prophet had been taught them by their parents, who had always held the prophets in hatred (for they said "Go up, baldhead!" in mockery of Elijah's assumption, as if to say: "Let a spirit take you too and cast you onto a mountain that cannot be climbed, just as it threw him, so that we may be rid of you as we were rid of him!"), for this reason, by the destruction

He scourged the parents of the boys, so that they might learn not to dishonor the prophets and through them God. Question 81. If every error has been abolished by the coming of Christ, how do the demons speak through those called ventriloquists? And how do they not present Christianity as cheap and worthy of contempt, when in the bodies of Christians they display some works of deceit and utter some oracles of divination? Answer. According to what has been said, not yet are all things subjected to him, until he abolishes every rule and authority, so that it is clear that not yet has every error of the demons been abolished; but in those who have believed in Christ, every error of the demons has been abolished, while in those who still disbelieve in Christ, the demons work their error. And the apparitions that ventriloquists use to speak and perform the oracles and works of divination are not real bodies, but the demons fashion the sight of those who see, so that they see as bodies things that are not bodies. Question 82.

If the Scripture nowhere showed the names of demons to men, how did the Jews in the Lord's time name Beelzebub as a known name, saying in this that he cast out demons? And how did the Master himself speak to his disciples of the demon's name as one known to them: "They called the master of the house Beelzebub"? And what is the interpretation of such a name? Answer. Just as men learned that demons exist from the demons themselves, so also they were taught their names by them. For first men sacrificed to the demons, and later the divine Scripture said, "They sacrificed to demons and not to God." And just as the Scripture appears to have said nothing about the existence of demons, yet it says, "They sacrificed to demons and not to God," so also, having said nothing about their names, it records the names of demons, both of Beelzebub and of Beliar. "What," it says, "is the agreement of Christ with Beliar?" For the names which the sorcerers used for the works set before them, these they necessarily learned from them; for in the manner of their worship, so also did they name the invocation of their calling. And the interpretation of these names has been spoken of by Origen in the Interpretation of Hebrew Names.

Question 83. If the Deity took no pleasure in the sacrifices of irrational animals, as some have said and as the present dispensation also teaches, why did he command Noah to sacrifice before the Law, and especially when idolatrous sacrifices were not yet being offered? But if he did take pleasure in them, why did their use cease after the Law? Answer. None of those who sacrificed irrational animals to God before the Law sacrificed according to divine ordinance, even if God appears to have accepted this sacrifice, showing by his acceptance of it that the sacrificer was well-pleasing to him. But the command to Abraham to take three-year-old animals, and likewise the ram which he offered in sacrifice on behalf of Isaac, was not because he took pleasure in his sacrifices, but for the sake of a need that foretold things to come. But to Noah God nowhere appears to have commanded him to offer to him the sacrifice of irrational animals. Question 84. If Elisha was heard to receive a double grace in Elijah, how is it that he performed neither simple nor double wonders, such as holding back rain and oppressing the land with famine, a heavenly descent of fire upon sacrifices, the slaughter of lawless priests, the consuming of fiftieth-captains, and the rest? From where, then, will Elisha be shown to have obtained his own request and Elijah's promise?

Answer. Elisha did not ask for the double portion of the spirit for the performance of the same works twice over, but for the strength simply to accomplish whatever needed to be done by him with a greater abundance of power. That he did not fail in his request the wonders wrought through him bear witness, some of which he performed doubly and some singly. For the raising of two dead persons, one while he was alive and one after he had died, indicated the double portion of the divine grace of the spirit that was in him, in comparison with the abundance in the remaining wonders, had he wished it. And in the case of Elijah the supply of oil was given according to need, but in the case of Elisha even beyond need. And Elijah brought fire down from heaven for the defense against enemies, but Elisha brought down horses and riders of fire from heaven for the help of Israel. Question 85. If the perfect resurrection is then, when the perfect man rises, how does the Scripture say after the Lord's passion that many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised? Which it did not say concerning the others whom the Lord raised, such as Lazarus and the son of the widow or the daughter of Jairus, but absolutely that he raised this one or that one. How then does it mention the resurrection of these bodies only, and add that they appeared to many? Which gives to the majority an occasion for suspicion of illusion. And if bodies truly animated rose, and whether they survived or died immediately, or remain in immortality and where, and what benefit the events concerning them give to those after them, teach. Answer.

We call this the perfect resurrection of the men who rise, when their souls are again settled into their bodies. Since all who have risen and all who are going to rise have risen perfectly by the Lord—for it is impossible for a resurrection of the dead to take place unless the soul is settled into its own body—therefore, even if the divine Scripture says that a certain person rose from the dead, or that bodies rose from the dead, we must understand through either expression the perfect resurrection, which comes about by the restoration of the soul to the body. And just as, when the divine Scripture says, "He who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to our souls and our bodies," it neither calls the resurrection imperfect nor gives any suggestion of illusion, but rather the faith of a perfect resurrection, so also, when it says, "Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised from the dead," it means the perfect resurrection. And the resurrection of these saints became a proof that the death of Christ is the ransom from the death of all men, both those in the present life and all the souls in Hades. For this reason they did not die again, but remain in immortality, just as Enoch and Elijah, and they are with them in paradise, awaiting the already eternal resurrection of Christ, which comes about by change, according to which, as the divine apostle says, "we shall all be changed." For the resurrection of anyone into immortal and incorruptible life has not yet happened, except for the Savior Christ; therefore he is proclaimed both firstborn of the dead and firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Question 80.

What is the meaning of the mina, the oiphi, the nebel, the gomor, the shekel, the royal (coin), the holy (coin), the stater, the drachma, the quadrans, the hormiskos, the didrachmon, the talent, the assarion, the seraphim, the bezel, the sabaoth, the adonai, the ephod? For the knowledge of both is necessary for us, since both are contained in the Scripture. Answer. It has been said by Origen, a man versed in the Hebrew language, that the interpretation of all the Hebrew names or measures borne in the divine Scriptures is (available). Having sought it out, you will find in it the interpretation of all the things you have asked about. Question 87. Why, before the slaying of the Baptist, did the Master shine forth in the working of miracles, as Matthew says, and the report about this reach all those in Judea, (but) how, after the slaying of the Forerunner, did Herod, hearing of the miracles done by Christ, say together with the Jews that it was John who had returned to life and was working the signs? For the blessed Mark recounts these things to us. Answer.

That not all who heard the wonders performed by the Savior heard them at one and the same time, but some earlier and others later, the statements of those who said that John was a worker of the wonders that were performed by the Savior after the removal of John bear witness. For they would not have said this if they had heard the wonders performed by the Savior before the removal of John. It was nothing surprising, then, if even Herod, after the removal of John, heard of the works of the disciples of Jesus, the works done in the name of Jesus. For Herod heard the name of Jesus at that time when Jesus sent out his disciples into the villages and cities to preach repentance and to heal diseases, as Mark the evangelist says. For John himself, before the raising of the widow's son, had not heard all that Jesus did in Galilee and in Jerusalem, although there were already many wonders performed by the Savior, both before John was cast into prison and after he was cast into prison. For at that time John sent his disciples to Jesus to learn whether he was the one who was expected to come. As Mark the evangelist says this, and Matthew the evangelist says that.

Question 88. If, as the divine Scripture teaches and we have believed, Christ, though born, committed no sin, how again is the Scripture true when it cries out with an oath that no one born has not sinned, nor anyone by nature has not transgressed the law? And how could an infant, whether it received its end at the same time as its birth or was granted a brief portion of life, have done sin and lawlessness, or the opposites of these? Answer. The statement "no one born has not sinned, nor anyone by nature has not transgressed the law" does not show to be false what was said concerning Christ, namely "He committed no sin." For this saying was spoken concerning one born of a man and a woman. But Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the holy virgin. And the saying is understood thus: no one who is by nature capable of sinning or transgressing the law has not sinned or not transgressed the law; and he is by nature capable of sinning who by his own free choice leads himself to do what he wishes, whether good or evil. But an infant, since it is not yet possessed of such a capacity, is clearly not by nature capable of sinning either. And the saying "For who shall be pure from stain? But no one, even if his life on earth be but one day" — in no way applies to an infant; for the Scripture used "life" in place of "conduct"; and as an infant has no conduct, so neither has it life.

Question 89. If the vessel that Peter saw in the vision contained all things, both clean and unclean, as the Scripture hands down to us—for the word "all" is inclusive of both of the things previously mentioned, just as it stands—and then the same apostle, when commanded without distinction to sacrifice and eat from what was shown, refused, saying, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean"—how is it not shown by such words that he rejects all irrational animals as unclean, and blames the one who permitted eating from them, as though he had commanded him to taste unclean food? Answer. From Peter's answer we learn what things were in the sheet—that is, the unclean things only—and the word "all" does not necessarily include the clean things as well; for it is possible that all the four-footed animals and the birds of the earth are called unclean. And the words "By no means, Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean" were his answer to the sight of all the things shown to him in the sheet, and not concerning certain ones. Therefore the vessel in which were all the birds and four-footed animals and creeping things is spoken by way of inclusion of the unclean, instead of "the vessel in which were all the unclean birds and all the four-footed animals of the earth." And just as, when the divine Scripture says, "The head of every man is Christ," the word "every" does not include both the believer and the unbeliever, but the believer only—for the believing man is the body of Christ, and Christ is called the head of the believing man—

Thus neither is the word "all" inclusive of clean and unclean things, but of unclean things only, through which was foretold to Peter the reception of the unclean nations, whose hearts God cleansed by faith in Christ. Question 10. If the patriarchs, moved by pious reasoning, took wives for themselves and their sons from their own kindred, how is it that Joseph and Moses acted contrary to the pious purpose of their forefathers, the one having married an Egyptian woman, the other a Midianite woman? Answer. The patriarchs, for fear that their sons should be turned aside from piety, did not permit them to take wives from among the Gentiles; but Moses and Joseph were above such fear. Therefore Moses and Joseph appear to have done nothing contrary to the purpose of the fathers in taking Gentile wives. For not only were they themselves not turned aside from piety by their own wives, but they also brought their own wives over to their own piety. Question 11.

If Adam before the transgression had not seen rational or irrational death, how did he fear death when it was threatened, as though he had seen it? And how did God threaten it to him as something known, when it was unknown to him? Answer. We call that being rational which has within itself the concepts of the things signified by words; clearly, then, Adam, being rational, had within himself the concept of death. And just as Adam, though he had not seen a rational being ashamed at his own nakedness, nevertheless was ashamed when he was naked, having within himself the name and concept of shame, so too he had within himself the concept of death, even though he had not yet beheld the thing itself in another. Therefore he reasonably feared death, knowing from its concept that it is opposed to life. Question 2. Since the Scripture speaks of judgments and ordinances, testimonies and law, commandments and precepts, teach whether both are the same as each other, or each has its own distinct meaning. Answer.

He calls "judgments" the words that distinguish things that should be done from things that should not be done, and "honor" the reward appointed for obedience, and "dishonor" that for disobedience. He calls "righteous ordinances" the uprightness of the judgments, distributing to each according to his worth. He calls "law" the written summary of the whole Jewish worship and way of life. He calls "testimony" the recompense for what has been done by those who received the law, through blessing and curse, which Moses, calling heaven and earth to witness, said would happen to the Jews if they obeyed or disobeyed. He calls "commandments" and "precepts" the words spoken in the manner of commands or precepts, according to the meaning of the divine authority of the one who commanded or enjoined these things. Question 93. If the back of heaven is loaded with waters, as the Scripture says, which some have said came to be because of the fiery nature of the luminaries, so that the heaven, being fattened by the waters lying upon it, remains unharmed by the underlying flame of the luminaries—how do those who say these things speak the truth, when the luminaries move not in heaven but under heaven? But if we say that they are in heaven, how do they have the power of motion, when the heavenly body has immobility? And if the stars receive motion together with heaven, how is the myth that calls heaven a sphere not true? But if this is unfitting, and what was said before about the luminaries is consistent to understand, how is the placing of the waters above not useless?

What will that [place] itself be at the consummation, when the righteous are above and the sinners below, about then to receive the rewards of things to be done? Answer. Even if the luminaries are under the heaven, yet the natural motion of the activity of the fiery substances is upward; therefore those who said that the back of the heaven is burdened with waters for the stability of the firmament have given a reasonable cause. And this alone is the cause of the waters being on the back of the heaven—that it is not overcome by the underlying flame of the luminaries, but also that it is weighed down below by the multitude of the waters on its back, and is not shaken by the violent motion of the winds, and that the extreme cold from them is sent downward, from which, when mixed with the extreme heat of the sun, the temperateness of the airs is produced for the preservation of the living creatures and plants on the earth. But at the consummation, humans do not receive the rewards of things to be done in the present heaven and the present earth, but in the new heaven and the new earth, according to what is said, as: The new heaven and the new earth, which I make, remain before me forever. And again: In the beginning you, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; and they indeed will perish, but you remain; and all will grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will roll them up, and they will be changed. And again: Yet once I shake not only the earth but also the heaven. But what is shaken indicates its removal, so that what is not shaken may remain immovable. Question 4.

The Lord foretells that the heaven will be rolled up like a book, and that the stars will fall upon the earth like leaves, and the prophet also announced things in agreement with these; how then is the complete destruction of the firmament not shown through those words? What, then, is the meaning of such words? And how can the elements be established as incorruptible? Answer. Just as divine Scripture once likened the making of the firmament figuratively to the stretching out of a skin, saying, "He stretches out the heaven as a skin"; and once to smoke made solid: "The heaven," it says, "was made solid like smoke"; and once to the curve of a vault: "He who stretched out," it says, "the heaven like a vault"—so also it likened its dissolution figuratively, sometimes to a book being rolled up, sometimes to an element dissolved by fire, as the apostle Peter says in his second catholic epistle, and sometimes to a garment growing old. For by the introduction of the better heaven, which is made new, it is necessary that the firmament be abolished, as being useless for that state, so that by its destruction even then those who have foolishly said that this heaven is unbegotten and eternal may come to know the vanity of the doctrine held concerning the unbegottenness and incorruptibility of the heaven. Question 95.

For our need and benefit the creation was brought forth, and likewise for our need some things are destroyed, while others will put on incorruption at the consummation; for example, cattle and birds and wild beasts are destroyed, but heaven and earth are released from corruption. And some things are destroyed, since our body rises without need of them, while the elements indicated remain in incorruption, since we who have done these things are to receive the recompense for them in them. How then are air and sea not useless, if they then remain incorruptible, when we need them neither for breathing nor for trade nor for eating fish nor for any other assistance from them, because the body is without need, as I said? Answer. According to the apostle Paul, God is passing away the form of this world; it is clear that of necessity all the other things that came to be for the sake of the form of the world will also be passed away together with the form of the world. But a new heaven and a new earth will be established, in which the recompenses for deeds done are to be given to the righteous and the unrighteous. And even if we do not then need the air for breathing, we will necessarily use it for motion and local removal. For we shall be caught up, he says, in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Question 87. If praise is given by God not for things done against one's will but for things done according to one's will, then the children who received death at Herod's hands because of Christ, and the crowds who, in the same account, when he was sitting on the beast and entering Jerusalem, uttered the hymn—do these have praise justly owed to them, since those children received slaughter against their will, and these crowds uttered that hymn in Jerusalem not by their own will but by divine grace? Answer. If suffering for Christ is a gift of God ("For to you," he says, "it was granted not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him"), and the infants also suffered for Christ, then they were deemed worthy of divine grace. Who, then, would not justly praise these things, which have been praised by God through the bestowal of divine grace—God who lavishes praise even on things done against the will? Moreover, if God repays affliction to those who afflict, in return for the praise of those who are afflicted for the sake of piety, then necessarily the infants slain by Herod are also praised with that praise which comes through the avenging of their afflictions. "It is just," says the apostle Paul, "with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, and to you who are afflicted, rest with us in his kingdom." Question 97.

If grace is called grace for this reason, that it more readily forgives those who transgress the law, how is what befits grace found more in the law? For the law, by certain purifications and sacrifices of irrational animals and various baptisms, releases those who sin from blame each time, whereas grace grants only one baptism. And if we fell into sins only once, we would need forgiveness only once; but since we sin many times, it is clear that we also need forgiveness many times—which not grace but the law knows how to provide through the aforementioned purifications and the rest. How, then, will it be shown that grace is more philanthropic toward sinners than the law, as has been said, when matters stand as they do? Answer. For such sins as contribute nothing to the harm of a community or of human life—for example, touching a corpse or a leper or any such thing—the law gives forgiveness through baptism and sacrifice. But for other sins that have been committed to the harm of a community or of human life, it gives no pardon for such sins, neither through baptism nor through the sacrifice of irrational animals, but it gives a just and worthy recompense to those who have sinned through the principle of equal retaliation. A soul, it says, for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But where the equality of recompense is unseemly, there it repays those who have sinned with death by fire or stone or sword: for it consumes the daughter of the priest who commits fornication by fire, the daughter of a layman by stone, and a married woman by the sword.

And the law has no power, out of love for humanity, through baptisms and sacrifices, to save any of such people. But the power of grace toward those who sin is very great; for if this grace had not overtaken King David when the law was still in force, after he had fallen into double deadly sins, opening to him the door of repentance, he would not have found in the law a saving love for sinners. This grace appointed in the world a proven physician of sinners, repentance, which is able to heal even those who stumble seventy times seven, if only they are willing to make use of the will of repentance. Question 98. The Lord does not present fear as necessary by what he says; for he says, "The one who fears has not been made perfect in love." How again does the same one teach his disciples, saying, "Fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna"? Answer. The statement "The one who fears has not been made perfect in love" was not spoken by the Lord, even if the one who said it spoke it in accordance with the Lord; but "Fear rather the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" was not spoken to abolish perfect love. For the one who, by the greater fear of God, dispels the lesser fear of men, does this by the love of God, so that the greater fear of God exists for the sake of not falling away from the beloved. For insofar as what is believed is precious, so much is it loved; and insofar as it is loved, so much does the one who loves fear its falling away, as long as he is in the struggle on behalf of the beloved. But when the struggle is dissolved, along with it is dissolved also the fear of the falling away of the beloved.

So until then the fear of God is necessary; for just as hating is destructive of love (for it is impossible for the same person both to love and to hate), so too is fearing; for it is possible for the same person both to love and to fear. Question 9. If God commanded in the law that the sacrifices of irrational animals be offered, so that by these humans might display the honor due to him, how do the Greeks, by sacrificing humans, show themselves more impious than they? This is what they claim was done by the ancients for the sake of greater honor, deeming the god believed among them worthy of greater honor, honoring him with the sacrifice of rational beings; for by as much as the rational is more honorable than the irrational, by so much is the sacrifice of the latter more august than that. And this is shown more clearly from the account of Jephthah, who, having offered his own daughter as a sacrifice, is mentioned by the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews in the list of the pious. Answer. One should not consider the sacrifice offered to God according to the law, that it is the blood of irrational animals, but how God accepted it when it was brought to him. For if he accepted the blood of irrational animals offered in such a way as if the one offering it had offered his own soul, it is clear that the sacrifice received the first rank from the good pleasure of the one who thus accepted it, and God received the first honor. And that the one who brought the blood of irrational animals offered it to God as his own soul, the divine Scripture testifies, saying: "Instead of the soul," it says, "of those who offer, the blood of their sacrifices is offered into the holy of holies.

Therefore the order of the sacrifice and the honor of God must be judged not from the nature of what is offered but from the disposition of the one who receives it, since God, because he spared the race of humans, did not wish to destroy humans by consuming those offered daily as sacrifice and to wipe out the race, but granted to humans both to increase and to remain, and to their sacrifices the greatest order. But the gods worshipped among the Greeks, being evil demons and haters of humanity, delighted in sacrifices that diminished and destroyed the race of humans; which is the greatest proof of the beastly inhumanity of the Greek gods, and of the godlessness of the Greeks, who, as they say, tried to honor their own gods by the destruction of the race of humans more greatly, or rather most shamefully. And the reason for which Jephthah was numbered in the list of the pious is this. Jephthah asked for victory over his enemies; and for this victory he vowed a thank-offering prayer without defining it, namely to bring as a sacrifice whatever came out of his house to meet him as he returned from war bearing the trophy. But the devil, having received the undefined nature of the vow, contrived from it to set a trap of transgression for Jephthah, and moved his daughter, who was his only child, to come out of the house with citharas to meet him, so that, if Jephthah spared his daughter, he would be compelled to make a cancellation of his vow. But nevertheless the devil, having set the trap, did not obtain the prey, since Jephthah considered the payment of the vow more honorable than the life of his daughter

of the prayer. But God allowed her to be offered as a sacrifice, not as taking pleasure in human blood, but for the instruction of subsequent humans, that they should never pray to God indefinitely. For many absurd things would be guarded against in such an indefinite prayer, and God, foreseeing that these should not come to pass, allowed the daughter of Jephthah to become a sacrifice; which was not primarily of the purpose either of God or of Jephthah, but somehow incidental to the indefiniteness of the prayer. Since, therefore, Jephthah, preserving his piety toward God, was shown forth through the sacrifice of his daughter, for this reason his remembrance has come to be in the catalogue of the righteous. Question 100. i. For the confirmation that the worship performed by the orthodox is true, the Lord at the beginning granted the grace of miracles in their churches. Why, when heretics who had worshipped in them departed from the orthodox themselves, did the divine gifts not depart from the churches together with the orthodox, but the worship of error was poured into the churches, while the things granted by God for the increase of orthodoxy had the same activity in the churches even among the heretics? Answer.

If the divine grace performed the gifts through heretics, whether living or dead, what happens would have a plausible difficulty. But if those who perform the divine wonders in the churches are holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs, it is clear that by the divine works God testifies to the world that the churches are theirs, through whom the wonders are accomplished—that is, of the orthodox. Question 111. If every rational person acquires knowledge by study, and the law of knowledge is to place the lesser before the greater—which, having prevailed among the Jews, is shown more clearly: they first received the teachings of the law, and then the gospels—how do we not learn inconsistently, being taught the greater before the lesser? I mean the lesser things of the law, and the greater things of the gospels. For since our nature and theirs is one, the order of learning should also be one, since even in studies, if the worse things do not come first, the better things are hindered. Answer.

The necessity that those subjects of study have, where if the learning of the lesser things does not come first, the better things are hindered—our subjects of study had this necessity, and it would be possible to learn our subjects of study in a non-sequential order. But since it is possible to learn our subjects of study even non-sequentially, it is clear that our subjects of study are freed from that necessity. And what has been freed from necessity, however it comes about, is beyond reproach in its non-sequential order. And this much, then, as regards the solution of the sophism in the question. But to the question itself we answer as follows: that we too are not taught non-sequentially, but just as the apostles learned—first the things of the law, later the gospels—so they also taught us. And their own voices bear witness to this, in which they proclaimed the gospel; for everywhere, having preached Christ from the law, they [taught] the later things from the first and the greater from the lesser. For "The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet from your brothers, like me," and "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet," and "That you did not abandon my soul to Hades, nor did my flesh see corruption"—these are voices of the law that foretold Christ in themselves, which the apostle also used when he preached the gospel to the Jews. And as regards learning, the gospels differ in no way from the law; but as regards the promise and its fulfillment, they differ. For what is the law? A gospel foretold. And what is the gospel? A law fulfilled.

Question 102. If the Creator has made nothing superfluous or deficient in the constitution of our body, why was the part of the foreskin cut off among the Jews as something superfluous? And for what usefulness did those before the coming of the Master Christ receive circumcision, not in another part, but in the generative member? And why, since they received it as useful, do we not likewise employ such a surgical operation? Answer. Since Abraham, being past hope of begetting children from his free wife because of his own old age and hers, received from God a promise of offspring, and believing God that beyond the time of his age he would become a father of the son born to him from the aged barren woman, for this reason God gave him the circumcision of the part of the foreskin as a seal of this faith—of the member that had become useless for procreation because of old age, but became useful for procreation because of Abraham's faith. And he passed this circumcision down to the whole race that came from the father who was born contrary to hope, established as an indelible memorial both of Abraham's faith and of God's power, who gives life to the dead and calls the things that are not as though they were. And we too are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ through baptism, putting off Adam, through whom we became sinners and died, and putting on Christ, through whom we were justified and rise from the dead; in whom, says the apostle, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the body of your flesh.

Question 103. If the one who has been commanded to do what is within his power receives praise or blame for doing it or not doing it, it is clear that the one who has not done what is beyond his power, since such things are impossible, is not liable. How, then, does God, by commanding what is beyond our power—that is, not to sin—subject the one who sins to punishments, when man is unable to fulfill the law? The apostle also testifies to this, saying, "No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law." Answer. What is impossible for every man is also impossible for a particular man; for example, to fly through the air like an eagle is impossible for a particular man, because it is also impossible for every man. And conversely, what is possible for a particular man, such as to sail, is also possible for every man. But if, as the divine Scripture says, some of those under the law have become blameless in righteousness, it is clear that it was also possible for all those under the law to become blameless in the same way according to the righteousness that comes from the law. For the blessed Paul the apostle says of himself, "According to the righteousness that is from the law, having become blameless"; and the blessed Luke the evangelist says of Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth, "They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." And what is all the righteousness according to the law? To love God above oneself, and one's neighbor as oneself—which is not impossible for men who are willing.

Therefore the statement "by works of law shall no flesh be justified" does not speak of the impossible because of inability, but because of the unwillingness to do what is possible. For it is by the will that we apply ourselves to what is possible, not to what is impossible; for praise or blame attaches to things that are possible and within our power, whether they are done or not done. And that we humans sin "because we do not choose, and not because we are unable," there is this sign: that not all humans fall into all the forms of sin, but some fall into this form of sin and some into that, and some into more and some into fewer, and some into none at all, like the righteous mentioned before. This would not have happened to humans—that some sin in one form of sin and never sin in another—if humans sinned through weakness of nature and not through unwillingness of choice. Question 104. If the law gives no room for repentance to those who have sinned in the case of crimes, but brings upon them an inexorable danger, how is it that the prophet David, having committed adultery and murder, was deemed worthy of pardon contrary to the law? And if pardon is good, why has the unpardonable been joined to the law? But if it is base—which I do not think—how has the provider of good things granted the base thing to the prophet? Answer.

If the law does not give the sinner room for repentance in the case of accusations, how is it that in the ninety-seventh question the law has been set before grace, so that one might be more ready and more humane toward the forgiveness of sins for those who sin, whom each day through baptism and the sacrifice of irrational animals he releases from blame—but now, in the question presently before us, no humanity has been left to the law, but rather unforgivability has been yoked together with it, bringing upon the sinner an inexorable danger? And to the end that the opposition of the questions not go unremarked, let these things be said; but to the question we answer that even if the law has unforgivability, yet grace has also given repentance to the sinner. For "your hands are full of blood, but wash and become clean," and "if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow," and "I do not will the death of the sinner, but that he turn and live"—these are voices of divine grace calling sinners to the law's well-being, having received through repentance the forgiveness of their former sins. Good, then, is forgiveness, and a gift of divine grace; yet it is neither according to the law nor against the law, but above the law and on behalf of the law: above the law, because it is grace; on behalf of the law, because through repentance it leads sinners to the law's well-being, just as it did David also.

Question 115. If the help that comes through prayer is necessary for all human beings because of the weakness of nature, but these things do not belong to the Lord Christ, inasmuch as he is Lord and possesses a power sufficient for all things, why do we learn from Scripture that Christ prayed more frequently than the apostles? Answer. Just as the Lord, having hungered and thirsted and grown weary, and having wept and sweated, although he was able by the abundance of his power to endure none of these things, yet willingly endured the weaknesses of nature in order to provide a token of his human nature, so also he prayed for the same reason. For if, when he had willingly endured the infirmities of his own nature, some dare to say that he is not of our nature, how would they not have said this very thing with an abundance of proof, if it had happened that he in no way prayed to God and Father? And since there had been no doubt at all about the apostles, whether they were human beings, but doubt was going to arise about the Savior, for this reason the divine Scripture proclaimed more frequently than them and than the rest of human beings that he also prayed. For if, having become superior to the weaknesses of the flesh through the resurrection, as high priest of our confession he intercedes with God on our behalf, how much more, while he was still subject to the weakness of the flesh, did he need a great and strong cry and tears, with which he offered his supplication to the one who was able to save him from death? Question 116.

If the flesh of all human beings has one substance and the soul one substance, how is one person sluggish while another is sharper in understanding? But if the soul is the cause of such a difference, one must suppose that the substance of souls differs in accordance with the difference in understanding; and if the flesh is the cause, the same account will apply to it as well. But if it is from some humor—such as dry or moist or hot or cold—when one of the two is in excess or deficiency, the other becomes more dominant, such as folly or prudence, whence or how has the predominance of such a quality come about, which has prepared the intelligent or the unintelligent in us to prevail? Answer. Some have assigned as the cause of sharpness or sluggishness of thought the good or bad temperament of the elements of which our bodies are composed, and the symmetry of the organic parts, and they seem to have correctly assigned these causes. For there are some who in youth are productive and receptive of thoughts, but in old age, changing to the opposite, become sluggish in thought; and this is a sign that good and bad temperament is the cause of such participation. Likewise also those who are very large-headed, called heavy-headed, because they do not preserve a symmetrical proportion to the other parts of the body due to excess of smallness or greatness, are themselves unfit to be able to be productive and receptive of thoughts.