Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

Others too become sharp and ready for the apprehension of things that exist by nature, and this from divine grace, as it is written, "The Lord gave Solomon breadth of heart, as the sand by the shore of the sea"; and as it is written, "To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge." Question 107. Since the songs were invented by the unbelievers for deception, but to those under the law were introduced through the mind as childishness, why do those who have received the perfect things of grace and teachings foreign to the ways that have been mentioned use songs in the churches, like the children under the law? Answer. It is not simply singing that is fitting for children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clappers; therefore in the churches the use of such instruments and of the other things fitting for children is preferred over the songs, and simple singing has been left behind. For it sweetens the soul toward a burning longing for what is given in the songs, it lulls to rest the passions that rise up from the flesh, it drives away the evil thoughts cast into us by the unseen enemies, it waters the soul for the bearing of fruit of divine goods, it makes the champions of piety noble for endurance in dangers, and it becomes a healing of all the sorrows of life for the pious. A sword

Paul calls this [gift] of the Spirit, in which he arms the soldiers of piety against the invisible enemies; for it is a word of God which, when pondered and given and struck forth, becomes a driver-away of demons. Such things, then, are perfective of the soul in the virtues that accord with piety, coming to the pious through the church's chants. Question 118. If involuntary ignorance draws forgiveness, as we are taught by the Scripture, how is it that the Jews of old, who crucified Christ out of ignorance, experienced very many unbearable evils, as Josephus testifies in his account On the Capture [of Jerusalem], while those of the present who disobey Christ himself have been driven from their own homeland, scattered over all the earth, and handed over to the nations for dishonorable slavery, as the facts cry out more clearly than any monument? And he establishes the ignorance in both cases—sometimes the Lord, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing"; sometimes the apostle, saying, "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." And this concerns the Jews of old; but concerning those of the present, he says, "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Answer. When involuntary ignorance is regarded as knowledge by those who are ignorant, then the outcome of the thing done in ignorance shows whether it was truly knowledge or rather error and ignorance. But when the supposed knowledge is shown by the outcome to be ignorance of the matter, if the one who was ignorant remains in the same ignorance, he draws no forgiveness but rather unavoidable punishment. That the Jews crucified Christ in the belief that he was opposed to God and that they had God as an ally in his destruction is clear to everyone; for they would not have crucified him if they had known that after death God would raise him from the dead. But when he was raised from the dead by God, he showed that the supposed knowledge of the Jews against Christ was in truth ignorance. Since, therefore, after the Lord rose from the dead and it was shown that neither had God become an ally of the Jews in the death of Christ, nor does Christ remain unraised in death according to the expectation of those who crucified him, the Jews still remain in disobedience; for this reason they were not worthy of forgiveness. For to silver over his resurrection and regard it as a theft, and to prevent the apostles from performing divine works in his name by the power of the Holy Spirit, is not the forgiveness that involuntary ignorance draws with it, but the punishment that knowingly chosen hostility to God draws with it.

For if the Jews crucified Christ in this hope—that his teaching would not prevail and Judaism would not be dissolved—how is the failure of both not a release from the involuntary ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ? And the saying, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," was spoken with this meaning: that, having come to know that they crucified me in ignorance, they also ask for a ransom for their own transgressions, and you would grant it to them. For forgiveness is not given to one who thinks his own sin is not sin but righteousness. And what was said to Paul—"I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge"—was said with forbearance, by the condescension of the word, becoming weak to the weak, so that, as it is said, he might save the weak. Question 109. If God promised to give the gift of resurrection to all who have died, and all who have risen from the tombs are going to stand before the judge, how will the Lord's judging the dead and the living be fulfilled? And how will the dead be able to be judged, whose bodies have been cast into tombs, while their souls are separated from their bodies? Answer.

Not all," he says, "will we fall asleep." He will judge, then, the living—those living at that time—and the dead—those raised from the dead. "The hour is coming," he says, "and now is, when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have done good will come forth to a resurrection of life, but those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment." It was necessary, then, in accordance with the trustworthiness of the word, to contemplate the possibility of the matter and not to be at a loss with an irrational perplexity. Question 101. If the Lord promised to give a hundredfold to those who leave father or mother or children and the rest, will such persons also receive a hundred wives? And how is it, when many who left the things said for the sake of the commandment have died in poverty and solitude and desolation, that this promise has not proved false? Answer. Just as he calls fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters those who, by a disposition of affinity, receive Christ, having left father and mother, brothers and sisters, so too he calls a wife the woman who, at the time of the abandonment for Christ's sake, is provided for by the one who has left his wife by nature. But the Church of the Lord Christ, which from the beginning of the Christian preaching was persecuted and plundered for many years by the Greeks and Jews who opposed her, from where did she receive so great an increase, both in spiritual and in human things, as we see, if not from the divine and living voice of the Savior, which promised in accordance with multiplication and brought about the recompense in her?

Whence is it that rich men and women, carrying their own possessions with them into the desert, sought out the ascetics there and supplied their needs, as we have learned from the history of the holy men of old, and the Lord Christ did not through them bring his own promise to fulfillment? Question 111. If the apostle used the example of seeds in his letter to the Corinthians as a principal proof for the establishment of the resurrection of bodies, how will those who have been cut or burned rise again, since seeds do not sprout after cutting or burning but are utterly destroyed? Answer. Since nature is what produces the things that come from seeds, having received a measured power from the Creator, it is necessary that the seeds be suitable for producing the things that come from them; therefore if the seeds are burned or cut, they become useless to nature for producing the things that come from them. But God does not have a measured power; for this reason nothing is unsuitable to him for producing all that he wills, nor is he hindered by the cutting and burning of bodies from bringing about their resurrection. For God does not work by the law and measure of nature, but by the authority of a will that is at no loss for producing what it wills to make.

But the apostle used the example of seeds as a confirmation of the resurrection of the dead, so that by analogy he might establish the doctrine of the resurrection: that just as we do not disbelieve the sprouting of the seed, seeing it in the earth after it has died and cast off its nature as a seed, so we ought not to disbelieve the resurrection of the dead; for God, who has given to nature the power to produce the sprout through the seed, is much more able himself to raise the dead from death. Question 112. Whether the apostles supposed the kingdom of Israel to be earthly glory and luxury and ease, as some have said; why, when the Lord was asked by them about this, did he not only not correct them, but even tightened their ignorance, saying to them: "It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in his own authority"? And this answer confirms their question. Answer. This also is one of the things that could not be known by the apostles before the coming of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." But having learned from the Spirit that "God will destroy both the belly and the foods," they were transferred from the Jewish supposition to the understanding that befits the state of those who rise from the dead, in which there is neither eating nor drinking nor marriage, but the sons of the resurrection will be equal to the angels.

Therefore the saying, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by his own authority," does not have the form of an affirmation on the part of those who asked in their assumption of ignorance, but is aporetic regarding both—both the assumption of those who asked concerning the time and that concerning the manner. And the apostle Paul also makes clear the manner of that state when he says: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Question 113. If we then understand "perfect" in the customary sense when all things have been acquired perfectly, and "perfect" in the absolute sense as that which does not admit any addition or increase in any respect, how is it that God, who existed before the creation but afterward made the creation, thus received the name and the reality of "Creator," and from being God has admitted increase and coming-to-be in becoming also Creator? Answer. One thing is to be the same, and another thing is to be of another; "to be the same" is without relation, but "to be of another" is relational. Since, therefore, the perfection of God lies in his being the same, for this reason his being of another does not increase him. And just as being the beginning of number contributes nothing to the one with respect to its own perfection (for even when it was not the beginning of number it was perfect, and when it became the beginning of number it was not increased), so also God was perfect before the creation, and after the creation he was not increased.

Nothing, then, of the things that through creation magnify God (for you are the same, it says), but the relation he has toward creation in many ways (for you are greatly exalted above all gods, it says), for as father and master and judge and shepherd and things like these. And just as God, not having made more worlds, although he is also able to do this, was not shown by this to be imperfect in his perfection with respect to being exalted, so if God was not diminished by not making more worlds, neither then was he increased by making one world. Question 114. If being in potential is inferior to being in actuality, how is the maker of the world, who before the making of the world was a maker in potential and not in actuality, not subject to the name of diminution? Answer. For those whose potential exists by some natural necessity of actuality, the potential of these is inferior to the actuality; but for one whose potential exists not by natural necessity but by his own will, this one is not subject to the name of diminution. You were thought of, it says, and all things are present to you. Question 115.

The bending of the knee in prayers shows that those who pray are rather standing before God and draws to them more of the divine compassion. Why, then, on the Lord's days and from Pascha until Pentecost do those who pray not bend the knee? And from where did this custom also enter the churches? Answer. Since it was necessary for us always to remember both our fall into sins and the grace of our Christ, through which we rose from the fall, for this reason the kneeling on our six days is a symbol of our fall into sins, while not bending the knee on the Lord's day is a symbol of the resurrection, through which, by the grace of Christ, we were freed both from sins and from the death that had put us to death on account of them. And this custom took its beginning from the apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lugdunum, says in his discourse On Pascha, in which he also mentions Pentecost, on which we do not bend the knee, since it is equivalent to the Lord's day according to the reason customarily given concerning it. Question 110.

If the Lord, rising from the tomb, left the grave-clothes in the tomb, how is it that the Scripture has not recorded that after the resurrection he was either seen naked or that he obtained clothing from elsewhere? And if he neither received garments from elsewhere nor appeared naked to those who saw him at that time, how is it true that he left the garments in the tomb? Answer. The garments of the Savior, after he was crucified, the soldiers divided among themselves, and those that were brought with him into the tomb were unfit for the service of the living. But the garments that the Lord wore after the resurrection he either created or received from elsewhere, as he also received the colt to sit upon; for either was possible, both to create and to receive from elsewhere. And since there are many things done by the Lord whose histories the divine Scripture does not contain, of necessity the garments after the resurrection are also placed among the things not recorded; and it is not reasonable to seek the cause of this one alone being unrecorded out of all the unrecorded things, nor to construct the difficulty concerning the Lord's garment from what is unrecorded, but to receive faith concerning his garment from his power.

Question 117. If a body of dense substance has its passage blocked by closed doors, how is it that after the resurrection the Lord entered to the disciples when the doors were closed? But if it is true that the body seen inside when the doors were closed was really there, how was the stone lying on the Lord's tomb rolled away by the angel for the sake of his body's rising? And if the Scripture is true when it speaks of the closing of the doors, it is clear that it was not a body but a spirit that entered. And if the body was sometimes a body and sometimes became a spirit, how did it not undergo a change in the substance of the body? Answer. Just as the Lord did not walk on the sea by a change from body into spirit, but by his divine power made the sea, impassable for walking, passable not only for his own body but also for Peter's, so too by his own divine power he came out of the tomb while the stone lay upon the tomb, and entered to the disciples when the doors were closed. For the removal of the stone from the tomb did not take place for the sake of his rising, but so that the resurrection might be made known to those who saw; for to see the burial clothes in the tomb but not to see him was a most evident proof of his resurrection. And we must understand that things of equal force have the same credibility whether they are granted or denied; and walking on the sea in an unchanging body is of equal force with entering to the apostles in an unchanging body when the doors were closed.

And that things which happen contrary to nature in nature by divine power cannot be presented according to the principle of nature; therefore, when the disciples were terrified at such an entrance, he permitted them to touch the wounded places of his body, because he did not make his entrance to them by a transformation of the body into spirit, but in a body of dense substance by his divine power, which is productive of things beyond nature. Question 118. If God, having made all things, is established as Lord of the whole according to the circle of nature, therefore David also enjoins us to bless the Lord in every place of the Lord's dominion, and likewise the apostle commands us to lift up holy hands to God in every place, why is it that, considering the region toward the sun's rising as a venerable work and a divine dwelling, we send up hymns and prayers to God while facing toward it? And who were those who taught this custom to the Christians? Answer.

Since we set apart the more honorable things among us for the honor of God, and according to human estimation the east is more honorable than the other parts of creation, for this reason at the time of prayer we all bow toward the east. And just as with the right hand we seal in the name of Christ those who need this seal, since it has been considered more honorable than the left, although it differs from it by position and not by nature, so too the east, as a more honorable part of creation, has been set apart for the worship of God. Nor is it contrary to the prophetic and apostolic voice that we make our prayers toward the east. For the east exists in every place for those who pray; and since we worship in that direction in which we possess visible perception, and it is impossible at the time of prayer to look toward the four parts of creation, for this reason, looking toward one part of creation, we perform the worship, not as though this alone were a work of God, nor as though it were set apart as a dwelling place of God, but as a place of worship appointed for what is offered by us to God. And the custom—from those from whom the church received the practice of praying, from these it has received also where to pray, and this from the holy apostles.

Question 119. If neither the fruits of trees nor the eating of meats were partaken of by those before the flood, as some of the fathers taught, how did Abel offer from the fat of the sheep which he shepherded, and Cain likewise from the fruits of the earth which he farmed? And it is clear that each of them, preferring the divine to his own food, employed such a sacrifice. But if they were bringing to God the things useless to them, how were they not insulting the ever-existing One by such an offering? For each of them was rendering him a thankless and mocking favor. How then was Cain's sacrifice rejected, but Abel's gifts held in honor? Answer. The blessed apostle, the father of the fathers and teacher of piety, says: Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who shepherds a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? — meaning, no one. But if no one, it is clear therefore that neither did Abel shepherd the flock so as not to eat of the milk of his flock, nor did Cain farm the earth so as not to eat of its fruits. Moreover, if the fruits of the earth were useless to Cain, for whose sake did he honor God with the worse things, while preferring himself to God with the better things (for which reason his sacrifice was rejected), if he had no need of the fruits of the earth? But if Abel preferred God to his own need, and Cain preferred his own need to God, it is clear therefore that each of them needed the care that comes from his own labors.

Question 120. Some have supposed that the kingdom of God is the resurrection, and it is believed that both the righteous and sinners are deemed worthy of it. How then did Paul declare those who have done the forbidden things to be disinherited, saying that neither fornicators nor adulterers and those next in order will inherit the kingdom of God? Answer. Divine Scripture knows how to name as the kingdom of God not the resurrection simply, but the restoration after the resurrection, in which the division between those being punished and those being glorified takes place, God being confessed by all without doubt, who works glory in those being glorified and punishment in those being punished. They shall hear, it says, the voice of the Son of God, those in the tombs, and they shall come forth—those who have done good to a resurrection of life, but those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment. The resurrection, then, is divided into life and judgment, according to the differences between the righteous and the unrighteous. For the resurrection is broader than the kingdom of God: the resurrection contains both the righteous and the unrighteous, but the kingdom of God contains only the righteous.

Question 121. If the old and new covenants know only anathema upon the wicked, how did the blessed Peter, when he denied the Lord in his passion, begin to anathematize? And what is the difference between the two, that is, between anathema and katathema, and what is signified by each? Answer. Anathema is said of that which is set up and set apart for God and no longer taken for common use, or of that which has been alienated from God through wickedness; katathema is to agree with those who anathematize. Question 122. If our affairs are not governed by hours and days, how did the Lord say at the marriage, "My hour has not yet come"? And the evangelist said concerning him, "No one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come"? Answer. Even if our affairs are not governed by hours and days, nevertheless of the things that happen by us or concerning us, some happen at a suitable time and some at an unsuitable time. So divine Scripture calls the time suitable for the thing that is done a presence of the hour, and the unsuitable time an absence of the hour. And since after the making of the wine the Lord considered it a suitable time to withdraw from the marriage, for this reason before the making of the wine the Lord said, "My hour has not yet come." And again, since at the time of the Jews' Passover the Lord had to be arrested and suffer what he suffered, for this reason before the Passover it was said concerning him, "But no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come"—not that the necessity of the hour prevented his arrest, but the providence of God had foreordained another place for it.

For otherwise the Lord's arrest was prevented by the necessity of the hour, and the divine Scripture would not have attached this to the place of the place. He withdrew, it says, Jesus into Galilee; for he did not wish to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. But not even before this did he withdraw into Egypt, since the necessity of the hour was sufficient to keep him unarrested. Question 123. If the good is the most beautiful of all things, and the thing that is defiled is the worst of existing things, and God is good, while man is defiled, how is man not the worst of all things? For neither does any other of existing things—I mean heaven and earth, air, luminaries, and such powers—possess being defiled. Answer. If the other things that have been named exist for the sake of man, and things that exist for the sake of something are lesser than that thing, then man is most beautiful, being above the things that exist for his sake. And if defilement itself contributes something toward the improvement of man, man is most beautiful, and in this respect is healed by the divine providence through afflictions from his own willful wickedness. But one who wishes to understand the good of man must look to the end that is laid up for man after death; for that is the fruit of the present life, that is, endless blessedness in exchange for the short-lived defiled life. Question 124.

Since the Master is the foreknower of each person's life, why did he not settle the souls of the pious in bodies that are well and strong? But if, storing up their rewards for them in the things to come, he allowed them to be afflicted in the present, why were not all the pious tested alike in afflictions, so that by this the good and the terrible might be clearly shown? But if both are found in both, how is the one who has chosen the better not unclear? And how does everything being borne along at random not show the things in the world to be without providence, when there is no distinction between the pious and the impious? Answer. God did not wish to honor those consecrated to him in the present for the sake of virtue. For the things that come at the death of the pious are not a reward of virtue; and just as the pious are said not to be of the world, so also their glory and their wealth are not earthly. When, then, we see present among the pious the things that are also present among the impious, let us reason from this that the present things are not worthy of the labors of virtue. And if God ever appears to have exalted certain of those consecrated to him among men, as Joseph and David, nevertheless he was not repaying their virtues with these things, but through Joseph he provided for the increase of the Israelite race, and through David he established the kingdom of the spirit. But the pious differ in no way from the impious in material and bodily things; for all things are present to both, both the pleasant and the painful.

They differ from one another primarily in their hope of things to come and in their sufferings for the sake of piety, and then also in the divine alliances, in which God often made his own people conspicuous, sometimes overthrowing the dominion of the Egyptians, sometimes subjecting the Canaanites to the Israelites, sometimes lulling the insolence of the Assyrians, sometimes destroying the kingdom of the Babylonians, sometimes commanding the sun to run and stand still contrary to nature. In these things the providence of God is displayed, while in those things he prepares the pious to look toward another life, in which the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous is made according to glory and dishonor. Question 125. If the apostle Paul forbade returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, how did he himself do things contrary to what he said, at one time cursing the high priest and at another Alexander the coppersmith? Answer. If Paul had struck back at the high priest who struck him, or had returned evil to Alexander who wronged him, it would be possible to say that he did things contrary to what he taught. But to declare what was going to happen to each from God—to the high priest, "God is about to strike you, you whitewashed wall," and to Alexander, "May the Lord repay him on that day"—is neither a curse nor a reviling, but foretellings befitting an apostolic man, who does not avenge himself but gives place to wrath.

Question 120. If God rewards the pious with splendor in this present life, as he did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants with wealth, many children, and abundance of crops, from where did the Greeks too receive similar things, when they were worshipping idols everywhere? And how is Greek religion not shown to be more holy, since while it prevailed in the cities, all the cities and the countryside possessed prosperity and abundance, and that even though they were more frequently at war, whereas after the Christian preaching took them over, they became desolate of houses and inhabitants and the rest of their abundance, and scarcely retaining the remnants of the buildings once made by the Greeks, they show that they were once cities, bringing forward the religions of both as the causes of both the old abundance and the new desolation? Answer. From the Lord God, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust, bodily splendor in the present life is supplied to both (for the world that came to be by his power is also governed by his providence), so that the righteous, seeing themselves abounding in labors for the sake of piety but on a level with the impious in the things of this life, may expect another life, in which there is a difference of honor and punishment, and a distribution between the just and the unjust, as has been said. And that while Greek religion prevailed there were destructions of cities and countryside, the desolation of the Babylonians and Assyrians and of Nineveh and many other nations bears witness.

But which city of the two, while Christianity prevailed, was laid waste, it is not possible to show. And from prosperity and fertility, and from dwellings and desolation, and from cities and fields, it is not possible to infer the piety of the better, since the master God makes the provision and the removal of such things for the benefit of all men; but the piety of the better is judged from the good things done by them according to their own choice. And that men were brought to the demons for sacrifice (They sacrificed, it says, their sons and their daughters to the demons) and that honor befitting God was offered to lifeless things, happened while the Greeks prevailed; and that such Greek impieties were prevented happened while the Christians prevailed. It is necessary, then, to recognize the piety of Christians from such things, and not from prosperity and habitation, and from cities and fields. And Christianity abounds so much even in these respects, in that while it prevails the world is less warred upon than it was warred upon when Hellenism prevailed. Question 127.

If what is destroyed perishes by the destroyer, and the destroyer by its own baseness works the things of destruction, and very many such things are found among living creatures, more than among all irrational beings, and in them one can observe the plots extending not only against one another but also against humans, how is he who says that God made all things good and exceedingly good speaking the truth? But if he speaks the truth, and good and evil things exist in creation, how are the good things not recognized as belonging to a good creator, and the evil things to an evil one, and how are two contrary principles shown, according to the Manichaeans? But if the destruction of those being destroyed comes about for some good, as this has been supposed by some, how was it not better that their passage from non-being into being be prevented at the beginning? Answer. He who makes the inquiry concerning the creator from the creation of living creatures, both rational and irrational, ought to look to their nature, which, according to the decree of the creator, leads all mortal things as to birth, so also to corruption and destruction. But if in these respects there is no difference of a living creature according to reason, and of things indifferent there is one and the same creator, the destruction which they undergo from plotting against one another has been permitted by divine providence to happen to them. For if, when they were subject both to natural and to plotting-induced corruption and destruction, some did not decline to deify them, how much more would they have been deified, if they had remained forever free from harm and destruction?

So that from what they endure they may be recognized for what they are—that is, unworthy of God's honor and name—for this reason they undergo destruction and perishing from one another both by nature and by design. The irrational animals have come to be: some for the service of man, some for food, some for instruction, as it is written, "I will send the teeth of beasts upon them with fury, dragging them upon the earth." But if it is good for man to be fed from the irrational animals and to be served by them and instructed through them, then their passage into being is good and not to be blamed for wickedness of nature or of the use made of them. And if this is so, it is clear that all the irrational animals are the creations of one good Creator. Question 128. If the enemy works the aforementioned wickedness among men out of envy for the salvation of men, contriving through these things to subject them to the punishments that are to come, while the irrational animals are to receive neither salvation nor punishment in the things that are to come, and for this reason have wickedness that cannot be warred against—how is it that they pursue evil things by the wickedness of nature alone?

Answer. It is not reasonable to slander the natures of irrational creatures on account of the wickedness of an action. For it belongs to those who partake of reason to act well or wickedly, not to those who do not partake of reason. And since the nature of irrational creatures came to be for the need previously mentioned, it is therefore clear that, since the need is good, the nature is also good. Question 129. If the simple is what is simple in itself, as in the case of the letters of the alphabet—for example, iota—and the composite is what is [composed] with another, for example pi, and both are of the same substance, both the iota and the [pi] composed of three iotas, [and] the composite [nature] composed of both does not remove [simplicity], how is God said to be incomposite, having composition from two persons understood as consubstantial, I mean the Father and the Son, and one person of a distinct substance, which readily gives rise to the suspicion—I mean the Holy Spirit—and is called one and uncircumscribed, when such and so great is the distinction and division of his hypostases, that is, of his persons? Answer.

The iota and the pi differ from each other in essence in no way. For each of them is a line. And a line differs from a line, insofar as it is a line, in no way. But the iota differs from the pi by its particular position, according to which this one is an iota and that one is a pi. And the pi, insofar as it is a line, is one; but insofar as it is a pi, it is a triad, and composite and generated. For it received its being a pi part by part and by temporal extension from the one who brought it together and made it. It is necessary, then, for one who attempts to contemplate by some natural analogy the one who is beyond nature to take from the analogy only those things that are fitting to what is contemplated from the analogy; for example, the one and the three are present in the pi and in God, but in the pi in a generated and composite way, while in God in an ungenerated and incomposite way. For the one who does not have the one who made and composed it is neither generated nor composite. Therefore in the case of God we speak of eternal coexistence, but no longer of composition; while in the case of the pi we speak of composition, because of its generation part by part. In what way, then, is God a triad in the unity of the essence

...without any division or distinction in this respect, just as the pi is one by the unity of the line, without any division or distinction in this respect. And there is a difference in the Holy Trinity according to the modes of the subsistence of the hypostases, and in the pi according to the particular position of the line. Question 130. If, according to the Greeks, heaven is a sphere and moves in place, how is it that, because heaven has been fixed like a vault or stretched out like a skin according to the Scripture, it is not in place? For just as what moves, so also what is fixed must be considered to be in place. And if this is so, how shall we not have a just condemnation of one another regarding the description of heaven? But if heaven, according to both, is in place, and the quality and quantity of the place remain unknown to both, how can we be able to condemn the one more than the other, when the condemnation and ignorance concerning the things previously stated possess both equally? Answer. If the Christians said that heaven is not in place, just as the Greeks say, the condemnation of one another would be equal, when they say that heaven is not in place, but use significant words to one another of heaven being in place. But if heaven being a sphere and moving spherically is impossible, while its being like a vault is shown to be possible, then there is no condemnation of the Christians for ignorance.

Concerning place, we conjecture from what is with us that, just as among us, when there is a certain spherical body, smooth and hollow, equidistant on every side, if it is covered over upon the waters, it is borne up by the waters, in this way the heaven is borne up by the waters. He who stretched out, it says, the heaven like a vault. By the name of vault he indicated the spherical nature of the body of heaven. The waters, then, bear up the heaven, and the earth the waters, and the divine command the earth. He who hung, it says, the earth upon nothing. Question 131. Why do the evangelists Matthew and Luke, when giving the genealogy of the Lord according to the flesh—the one writing the genealogy according to nature, the other according to law—because the matters concerning the Jews are thus established, how is it that the blessed Luke is not shown to be in conflict with Matthew, since he set forth in his own gospel more ancestors of Christ according to law than according to nature, when the opposite ought to have been written by him, since it is necessary to reckon the fathers according to position fewer than those according to nature? For it is possible for one to become a father according to law when the natural father of the child who begot him has died. How then, as I said, among the evangelists has the genealogy not been reversed, and Luke, who ought to have the fathers according to law equal, or rather fewer, than those according to nature—

to call the parents of Christ by name, is he found to name more? And if in the genealogy they say things that conflict with themselves and with one another, how will they be able to possess credibility in the remaining teachings about the Savior, stirring up from the outset to contradiction the one who wishes to be brought with reason to our religion? Answer. In the genealogy according to Luke, Eli alone is the father of Joseph according to the law; but from Eli to Nathan, all those set below are sons by nature of those set above, being reckoned as grandfathers through the relationship that Eli has to Joseph—Joseph alone according to the law, but all the rest by nature. Since this is understood in this way, every slander of the evangelists concerning the contradiction is removed, the slander that was supposed by those who misunderstood, from the folly of their words. Question 132. If according to the Mosaic law the brother of one who died childless, taking the wife of the deceased, raised up children from her—by nature for himself, but according to the law for the brother—then, if it happened that the surviving brother had a wife, did he take along with her also the wife of the deceased brother as a wife? And how is this not absurd? And if such a woman also happened to be barren, how did the marriage not bring with it, in addition to the absurdity, also uselessness, and the command of the law be shown from every side to be impracticable, since the deceased did not receive the memorial through childbearing? And what benefit accrues to the dead man, that through the childbearing of another he should be called after the end a father of another's offspring? Answer.

Since the law did not prevent the Israelites from taking a woman if they wished—not only a kinswoman but also a captive woman and a concubine—it is therefore nothing absurd or harmful for the surviving brother to take the wife of the deceased in addition to a wife, since the law is not being abolished. For every absurdity arises from transgression of the law. And even if it should happen that the deceased man's wife is barren, this can be unknown to the woman; but it is not possible to transgress or overlook the law in what is unknown. This law was established so that whatever death took away from the deceased—that is, both fatherhood and an heir—the law's provision might supply to him. For if people enter into marriage for the sake of remembrance and inheritance, it is clear that in whatever way God is entreated to supply these things to people, the matter does not become useless. There is also something else beneficial attached to this law: that by this intermarriage the heir may remain in the same tribe and not pass over into another tribe. And since a woman, once joined to her first husband, has become one body, for this reason the deceased does not become the father of another's offspring, but

of him who is born from his own body. For just as the one born from such a union is named after the deceased, so also the woman is named the wife of that man. Question 133. If the aforementioned law was enjoined upon the Israelites before the times of David, how is it that the evangelist Matthew made mention of the natural fathers before David and after David, while Luke made mention before David of the natural fathers, but after David of the fathers according to the law? And if the names of the natural and legal fathers are not found without omission in the divine Scriptures after the Babylonian deportation, but have been written by negation, how can things written by negation be accepted by the more accurate? Answer. Luke also made mention of the natural fathers of Eli, both those before David and those after David. But Eli alone was the father of Joseph according to the law, Joseph being traced through legal sonship up to Nathan according to the same relation. And that the Lord Christ should be named a son of Joseph, who had two fathers, one according to the law and the other according to nature, divine grace arranged, so that when we hear that Christ is a son of Joseph but was not begotten of him according to nature, we should not be surprised. For just as Joseph himself was called a son of Eli but was not begotten of him, because the divine law so decreed that a son be given to Eli from the wife of Eli, so it seemed good to God to give to Joseph a son from the wife of Joseph, not begotten of him according to nature.

Joseph, it says, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife. For the one born from a woman without fornication is by necessity the son of the man and the woman, in whatever way God wishes to give a son to the man, whether through union or without union. The evangelists did not make their exposition of those named in the genealogies by assertion, but from written histories. For the holy evangelists who composed the genealogies were Hebrews from Hebrews, among whom there was great zeal for having in writing the genealogy of the royal and priestly tribe. Accordingly, after the return from Babylon, Ezra removed from the priestly service those whom he did not find enrolled in the register of the priests. And this is shown from the book of Paraleipomena. Question 134. If God sent down the law to the Israelites through Moses, how is it that in many places of the divine Scripture it is not the law but Moses himself, the lawgiver, who is named? Answer.

It is a custom not only among men but also in the divine Scripture, by the name of the one who spoke the word to name the word, to make clear whose the word is, as in "The eunuch was sitting on the chariot and was reading the prophet Isaiah," and again, "The abomination, it says, of desolation, the one spoken of by the prophet Daniel." And in the same way it is also our custom to say, "I acquired the prophet Jeremiah," or "the apostle." Question 135. If the Christ who demonstrates his action and his calling according to the divine Scripture is true, and the divine Scripture foretold that the Christ was to be called Emmanuel, how will the Lord be considered true, who after being born nowhere received the name Emmanuel? For no one literally addressed the Christ who came by the name Emmanuel. Answer. If in the Gospel narratives the fulfillment of the divine predictions about Christ is contained, and the blessed Matthew handed down to us that he is the one foreordained by divine prediction to be called by the name Emmanuel, how is he not called by the name Emmanuel? But the holy Church of God has not ceased, having learned from the teaching of the holy Gospel, to name the Lord Emmanuel. And we have in the naming of Christ all the other names of Christ contained, even if we have not always used them all. For it is not because he is called Emmanuel that he is, but because he is, he is called.

Question 130. If it is forbidden by the divine Scripture to dishonor one's parents, and the one who pursues what is forbidden is called a sinner, how is it that in various places the Lord Christ, having dishonored his own parents, is shown to be without sin? For at the wedding, by saying to his mother, "What is it to me and to you, woman?" he rebuked her. And when his mother wished to see him, he named as mother and brothers those who do the will of God. And again, when the womb that bore him and the breasts that he sucked were being blessed, he himself blessed those who do the will of God. All these things are thought to have been said by him in insult to his mother, because, when his mother had been named and blessed, by way of contrast with her others were blessed by him. But contrast is manifestly taken between opposite things. Besides, if the holy virgin had been chosen for the service of so great a dispensation, how is the virgin reckoned unworthy of blessing according to what has been said before? And if the things said are contrary to one another, how do things contrary to one another not receive their dissolution from one another?

Answer. The words "What is it to me and to you, woman?" were not spoken by the Savior to his mother as a rebuke, but to show, he says, that we are not the ones who have taken on the care of the wine consumed at the wedding. Nevertheless, out of great love, if you wish that wine not fail them, tell the servants to do what I tell them, and you will see that wine will by no means fail them—which indeed happened. He would not, then, have rebuked his mother in word, whom he was honoring in deeds. And in the other sayings, it is not as though he were depriving his mother of the honor due her, but he shows according to what kind of motherhood the virgin is blessed. For the one who hears the word of God and keeps it is himself brother of God and sister and mother, and both of these belonged to his mother; it is clear that it was according to this motherhood that his mother ought to be called blessed. For to hear the word of God and keep it belongs to virtue and to a pure soul, wholly looking toward God. And since God did not choose any ordinary woman to become the mother of Christ, but the one surpassing all women in virtues, for this reason Christ also wished his mother to be called blessed from this virtue, through which she was deemed worthy to become a virgin mother. And that Christ is in no way shown to have done anything toward dishonoring or disobeying his parents, Luke the evangelist testifies, saying of him that he went down with Joseph and Mary from Jerusalem, and was subject to them.

Question 137. If Mary anointed the Lord with myrrh before the tomb, but we in baptism perform the symbols of his passion and resurrection, how is it that we are first anointed with oil, and then, after performing the aforementioned symbols in the font, are afterward sealed with myrrh, and we do not consider that we do this in opposition to what happened concerning the Lord, since the Lord was first anointed with myrrh and afterward suffered? And how is the anointing of oil not superfluous when it is applied to those about to be baptized, since the Lord was anointed with myrrh alone in addition to his passion? Answer. Since what the church does, it does for the burial of the one being buried after his death, but the blessed Mary anointed the Lord before his death (according to what is written: "What she did," he says, "she did for my burial; for she came beforehand and anointed my body"; and "she came beforehand" is instead of "before the proper time she anointed my body"), for this reason nothing happens in opposition, but what happened concerning the Lord before the time happens concerning those being baptized at the proper time. And we are anointed with ordinary oil so that we may become christs, and with myrrh for a remembrance of him who counted the anointing of myrrh as his own burial, and who has called us, in type for the present but in truth for the future, to communion with both his sufferings and his glory, our Savior Christ. Question 138.

If it is just for one who has sinned to be punished for the sins he committed, how is God just when he put to death so great a people for the transgressions of others? I mean Jonathan and David as having sinned: the one who broke the fast in ignorance by tasting honey, and the other who rashly numbered the people. But if someone should say that the death of the subjects came as a punishment for the rulers, how does he not wrong the innocent by subjecting them to chastisements? And this is contrary to the Scripture that says, "The soul that has sinned, it shall die." Answer. That the bitterest punishment of sinning kings is the punishment of the people, the blessed David himself shows, beseeching God to transfer the plague from the people to himself and to his own house. For the diminution of the ruled is a shaking of the kingdom. Likewise also Saul was about to put to death his own son Jonathan, in order that by his death he might heal the plague of the people, if the people had not forestalled him by swearing not to allow Jonathan to die. And as man is composed of soul and body, so also the kingdom is composed of the king and the ruled. And just as, when a man has sinned a sin with his hand, even if he is struck on the back, the one who strikes him does no wrong, so God does no wrong when he punishes the people for the transgressions of kings. For the plague of the people greatly grieves kings, as he knows. For the plague of the people is a punishment of the kingdom. Question 139.

If God is one, it is clear that all things also possess being as one—for example, the simple or the composite, the mortal or the immortal, the generated or the ungenerated, the begetting or the not-begetting. How then, since the Father begets and the Son does not beget, and the Son is begotten while the Father is not begotten, can the Father and the Son and the Spirit be called one God, when from this very fact of being begotten or not being begotten, and of begetting and not begetting, they are thought to possess opposition? Answer. God is one by the co-existence of the three divine hypostases, which differ from one another not in essence but in the modes of existence. But the difference of the modes of existence does not divide the one in essence. And just as in the case of Adam and Eve and Seth there is one principle of essence (for a rational soul and a mortal body), but the modes of existence are different (for Adam came to be from the earth, Eve from the side, and Seth from seed), and in the different modes of existence the one principle of essence remains undivided and unalterable, so also in the case of God, by the identity of the essence of the persons, Father and Son and Holy Spirit are believed to be one God. For the mode of existence contributes nothing to the principle of essence. Therefore, the things said in the same unalterable way concerning the three divine hypostases—in these understand the unity of essence; but the things not said in the same way,

Understand these things in the manner of the existence of the persons. Question 140. If Christ calls himself an heir, and the farmers in the parable—that is, the Jews—recognized this one, and, desiring to become masters of the vineyard, killed the heir as an heir, how did Christ himself and the apostle Paul testify that they had ignorance of the deed, the one saying, "Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," and the other declaring, "If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"? Answer. Ignorance is spoken of in two ways. For either someone is ignorant unwillingly, when he does not have the things that lead to knowledge; or he is ignorant willingly, when he does have the things that lead to knowledge but does not wish to know. This willing ignorance divine Scripture sometimes calls ignorance, and sometimes knowledge. Knowledge, as when it says, "And you know me, and you know where I am from"—instead of: You are able from the works I do to know the truth of my name and of my words; for one who lies cannot do such works. But that the heir was recognized by the farmers, insofar as they beheld him to be beyond every man in the present life, by the works he did and by the calling of the son, according to the figure of the parable. But that after his death God raises him from the dead to immortal life and appoints him heir of all things, they did not know; for neither did the figure of the parable contain an indication of this. According to this ignorance, then, Christ said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Likewise also the apostle: for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Question 141. If Christ alone fulfilled the divine law exactly, how did both Zacharias and Elisabeth walk blamelessly in the law, concerning whom Luke testified these things, and also Paul, who became blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law? Answer. One thing is "blameless" and another is "sinless." For the sinless one is in every respect also blameless, but the blameless one is not necessarily also sinless. For he who sins contrary to the law with a pardonable sin, having received forgiveness through the offering of sacrifices and the confession of his transgression, becomes clean and blameless according to the righteousness that is from the law. But Christ, being sinless and in no way transgressing the law, neither did anything needing correction; yet he received John the Baptist and was baptized by him, in order to fulfill all righteousness, which Paul had not yet received before believing in Christ; otherwise he would not have persecuted the church. Therefore Christ alone is said to be sinless

Question 142. If the angel is superior to man, and the Scripture calls men gods, how is it not fitting that angels also be called gods by us? Answer. All the angels who appeared or spoke to men in the rank of God have themselves also had the appellation of God, as the one who spoke to Jacob and to Moses. But men also were called gods. To both, however, it was given because of the service entrusted to them to have the rank and the designation of God; but when the service is fulfilled, those who received the appellation of God for the sake of some service cease to be called gods. For when he entrusted to the angel the oversight of the people, he said to Moses concerning him: Do not disobey him, for my name is upon him. And when he entrusted to the rulers the judgment of the people, he says to them: Judge a righteous judgment, because the judgment is God's. And again: I said, You are gods and all sons of the Most High. He called them gods instead of: I have given you my honor and rank and appellation; as I judge, so judge the people. Question 143.

If God has surpassed and man has fallen below, how is man not improperly called god? Answer. This question suits neither a Christian nor a Greek. But the name of the one who has surpassed has been transferred to those who have fallen below, according to each one's opinion. One should not construct the difficulty from things agreed upon, but from things doubtful. Question 144. If God has a substance that exists and a counsel that exists within him and a Son that exists, how, being composed of so many things, is he called simple? Answer. Just as God is wholly everywhere and wholly in each thing and wholly in himself, and we have faith in this, so also his simplicity is wholly Son and wholly having a Son, and is wholly counsel and wholly having counsel. For God is not according to created nature, so that his being and his having should be understood in composition, as in created nature; but just as he is by nature, so also his being and his having are beyond composition.

Question 145. Since blood is composed of the same things as flesh, why does God permit the eating of the flesh of animals but forbid the partaking of blood, saying, "Except the flesh with the blood you shall not eat"? Answer. So that in this too God may separate us from the likeness of wild beasts, which, along with eating flesh, also lap up the blood of the animals whose flesh they eat. Question 140. Since God foretold through the prophets among the Greeks that the future would come to pass, and it did truly come to pass, how is it that whenever Greeks fought against Greeks and often acted according to an oracle in ways that divine Scripture forbade, they were delivered from the evils set forth in the second question? For example, in war, as when the seven against Thebes were about to utterly destroy the city foretold, and when Teiresias gave his oracle, Menoeceus, in accordance with what the oracle deemed right, readily slew himself, and thus according to the prophecy of the oracle the city was saved and the enemy were slain by those in the city. And this one example out of many has been told by us concerning victories in wars. Answer.

The one who provides the solution to the questions must first lay down the agreed premises, and then from them make the solution of the questions. Now, among the agreed premises is that there is one God, creator and provident ruler of the whole world, whom the divine writings of the Christians proclaim with words attested by divine powers; from whom is both the foretelling and the fulfillment of things to come. But the writings that proclaim this God cast out the gods of the Greeks: "The nations," it says, "shall exchange their gods, and they themselves are not gods." And those whose gods are not gods, neither are their seers true prophets, nor does their foretelling have an inescapable and true fulfillment. For just as they are far from the true divinity, so too are they from the foreknowledge of things to come. And that even in the battle of Greeks against Greeks—who in many ways, especially in wars, made use of oracles—the God of the Christians established his own will, the battle of Alexander and Darius bears witness, the one confirming his oracles, the other abolishing them; and the battle of the Assyrian also bears witness, which he had against the many other and strong nations, whom God called the rod of his anger and a saw, sometimes saying: "Behold, the Assyrian is the rod of my anger; against a sinful nation I will send him"; and sometimes saying concerning him: "Shall the saw exalt itself without the one who draws it?

And yet it is manifest that the Assyrian, according to the successes of the oracles which he received from his own gods through the seers, saws and tears in pieces the pitiable nations, which had likewise joined battle with him in reliance on the oracles, and had failed of the hope that came through the oracles, God having permitted the Assyrian to succeed in the oracles, but the nations to fail. Concerning which God indeed says through the prophet Isaiah: "God, I have let down my hand, and they are dried up"; and the Assyrian says: "Did the gods of the nations deliver their land out of my hands, that the Lord shall deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?" And according to the oracles which the Assyrian received from the seers, he uttered such words both against the nations and against Jerusalem; and God having permitted it, the Assyrian succeeded in the oracles against the nations, but against Jerusalem he failed of the oracles, God not permitting it. How then did the seven against Thebes fail of the prophecy to destroy the city utterly? For the failure of the prophecy becomes a proof of the weakness of the god who foretold through the prophecy things that did not come to pass. And if, according to the truthful voice of the Savior, not a sparrow shall fall on the earth without God, much more would not a whole nation or a whole city perish without God's permission. But that every Greek nation, when being destroyed by a Greek nation, is destroyed by the rod and saw of the wrath of God, has been made evident from what has been said about the Assyrian.

Moreover, if what the Greeks have said about the seer Tiresias is altogether ridiculous, how can what was spoken through him be true? For they say of him that he became both a man and a woman, and had the forms of both, and that when he settled many quarrels of the gods, for this reason Hera in her anger blinded him, while Zeus, to console him for his blindness, granted him the gift of prophecy. But if the tales told about him are foreign to faith, how can the tales told by him be true? Further, if, as the Greeks say, it is impossible for what the Fates have spun to be spun back, how are the oracles not useless to those who consult them, since the Fates necessarily lead what has been spun by them to an inescapable end? But if this is so, how are the Fates and the oracles not false, since they destroy one another? And how is it that Menoeceus did not slaughter himself in vain, according to what seemed good to the oracle, since the cause of the enemy being destroyed and the city being saved did not come from the daemon who gave the response through the seer, but from the permission of the Master, the true God?