Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

Of Theodoret, Bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, one of the thirty holy fathers at Chalcedon, to the questions brought to him by one of the bishops from Egypt. Table of their contents. 1. If God is one God, it is clear that in every respect he possesses the one, whether the simple or the composite. How then is it said that the Father begot, and so on? 2. If God has a subsistence that exists, or an inherent counsel, and an inherent Son, how is he, being composed of so many things, called simple? 3. If that which is simple in itself, as in the case of the letters of the alphabet—for example, iota—is simple, but that which is with another—for example, pi—is composite, how is God said to be incomposite? 4. If the union of the divine subsistences is indivisible, how can three subsistences and three persons be named? 5. 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"? 6. If according to our nature, whatever is begotten is consubstantial with the one who begot it, how is it not so according to that nature—whatever has been begotten, with which it exists, of the begetter, and so on? 7. If the divine essence is one, how do some attribute the incarnation and the union and the indwelling in the economy to the divine Word alone, and so on? 8. Those who say that the Son who truly and properly exists has been united to the form of the servant, how do they not worship a duality of sons? 9. If that which contains is greater in essence than that which is contained, but less in worth—heaven and earth are the house of angels, and so on. 10.

If that which contains exists for the guarding and preservation of that which is contained, how is it that God, who contains all things, is not for the guarding and so forth? 11. Since the Lord continually calls himself Son of Man and not son of the woman, and on this account the unbelievers attempt to show that the masterly birth came about from a marital union, and so forth. 12. If the evangelists Matthew and Luke, in tracing the genealogy of the Lord according to the flesh, the one wrote his genealogy according to nature and the other according to law, how is Luke not shown to be in conflict with Matthew, [having] more [ancestors] according to law than according to nature, and so forth? 13. If, according to the Mosaic law, the brother of one who died childless, taking the wife, begot children from her for himself according to nature. 14. If the aforementioned law was enjoined upon the Israelites before David, how is it that Matthew made mention equally of the fathers according to nature before David and after him, while Luke [made mention] of those according to nature before David, and so forth? 15. Since Isaiah, prophesying concerning Christ, says, "Who shall declare his generation?" — does he speak of that which is hard to declare or of that which cannot be declared, and of the divinity or of the flesh? 16. If God abolished the ancient worship as not being pleased with it, and introduced in its place that of the Christians, how did he leave the error unrooted out? 17. If prophets and apostles foretold the things that were to come, and certain of the Greeks as well, from where are the better ones recognized, when the prediction of each has come to pass? 18.

If all who have sinned are punished in the resurrection, and more so those who knew the will and did not do it, what is the advantage of the Christian over the Greek? 19. If the heretics hastened with all their power to know the truth of the doctrines and could not, how is it not unjust to cast them into punishment? 20. If powers and wonders are worked in the churches of the heretics, how is it not necessary that those men be confirmed in their error by these? 21. If the passible is displayed in those who feel pain and pleasure, and those in judgment partake of these, how do they receive impassibility in the resurrection? 22. If it is a mark of change to receive into thought things good and base, how are those being punished immutable, when they think on the relief of the righteous and so on? 23. If we have received the knowledge of good and evil from God together with our being, how is he not the cause of each, who implanted these in nature for their fulfillment? 24. If God has given the things foretold, and crowns and punishes according to what each has done, how does he justly do both, when they were given by him? 25. If the things said more bodily about the gods by the Greeks, and about God by the prophets, have their meaning allegorically, how are both not a myth? 26. If the resurrection comes about for the recompense of what each has lived, how is it not superfluous that infants, or even those who died in the womb, will rise? 27. If the baptism and ordination of the heretics are false and vain, how do they neither baptize nor ordain those who flee to orthodoxy? 28.

If Job did not sin when he cursed the day, it is clear that as a righteous man he was heard. God overturned his own decree, and of necessity one must seek etc. 29. If the observation of palpitations is forbidden by the pious, why are those who wish to reject it unable to do so? 30. If fishermen take fish for death and corruption, how is it that Christ, who was about to lead men into life, named the apostles fishermen? 31. If the monks turned away from marital pleasures by a chaste reasoning, why do they experience fantasies in their sleep? And if one must abstain from the mysteries. 32. If Christ forbade the tares to be uprooted together with the wheat, how is it that the tares have multiplied and the wheat has failed? 33. If before his passion the Lord prayed that the disciples be kept by the Father, and after these things Judas perished, how was the prayer accepted? 34. If God is the creator of the creation, how are the works of Apollonius able to exist in the parts of the creation? 35. If Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, why did he not pursue astronomy and geometry and astrology? 36. If all the waters were turned to blood by Moses, how does the scripture say, "And the enchanters also did likewise"? 37. How did Moses, carrying the bones of Joseph, legislate contrary to himself, saying that the one who touches a corpse is unclean? 38. If the Lord, reproving the feigned piety of the Pharisees, said, "They are whitewashed tombs," what improper thing do the Greeks do when they abhor the dead? 39.

If the house where the Lord was was filled, how did those who broke through the roof and let down the paralytic with his bed not crush those in the house? 45. If a guardian angel has been appointed for each human being, but human beings undergo increase and decrease, as in the case of the flood, what ministry did the angels perform when they were diminished at that time? 46. If the clouds send down rain by divine nod, why do sorcerers hurl excessive hail and rains wherever they wish? 47. If God created our nature mortal, how does he say that God did not make death? 48. If the nature of human beings, being mortal, knows its own limit, but the time of each is not according to some fixed boundary, how was time added to Hezekiah? 49. 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, "His hour had not yet come"? 50. If, as some say, the flood did not occur in the whole world, but only where people lived, how does it say that the water rose above all places? 51. If God is the creator of all irrational animals, why did Scripture call some of them clean and others unclean? 52. If abstinence from and partaking of unclean and clean things was prescribed only to the Israelites, how do those in the new covenant also know the partaking of clean and unclean things? 53. If the vessel that Peter saw contained all clean and unclean birds and four-footed animals, how is it not shown that all

having forbidden unclean things? 49. If the divine nature is incapable of change, why does it say concerning Saul's rejection that he regretted it, and concerning Nineveh that he repented? 50. If John's baptism was not according to the law, how was it not unlawful? 51. If John wished to assure the disciples concerning Christ when he sent them, why did he bring them to Christ not by way of declaration but by way of question? 6 52. If the Lord Christ promised to draw all to himself after his own exaltation, how is it that not all ran to faith in him? 53. If the demons dwell continually in those who are demon-possessed, how do they contrive harms for others? 54. If it belongs to God alone to give strength and life to bodies, how do the demons do this, supplying strength so as to break bonds? 55. If the demons have no authority over the parts of creation, how, when their oracles were disregarded, did they bring punishment upon the Greeks? 56. If two by two and seven by seven of the irrational animals were brought into the ark, how is it that four and fourteen were not brought in? 57. Since Isaiah and Ezekiel beheld the vision of the many-eyed ones, is one and the same thing revealed to both? 58. Why does God repeatedly address Ezekiel as "son of man," which he did not do with the other prophets, and did the bones that he saw truly rise? 59. If all things in life are good, why are those who abstain from them praised in the Scriptures? 60. If there is no sensation in the elements, why do Moses and Isaiah call them to witness? 61.

Why did the Lord say to Mary, "Do not touch me," and afterwards permit the disciples to do this? 62. What is the proof that only two wild beasts and cattle were brought forth in the creation of the world? since some of the pious have said this. 63. Since of old the children sang "Hosanna," but we now sing "Alleluia," what is the interpretation of these? 64. If the divine nature is incapable of change, how does it, being blasphemed and being spoken well of, often render recompenses to both worthily? 65. If Saul destroyed the ventriloquists with pious zeal, why did he seek a prediction from them, and did that woman truly bring up Samuel? 66. If male and female were created for the sake of procreation, and this does not occur in the resurrection, do humans when raised have the formation of the procreative parts? 67. If Moses foretold to the people the transgression and the coming punishment, why did he speak these things with a song? 68. If the science of medicine is useful and necessary, why was its discovery made not by the pious but by opponents? 69. If infants who die have neither praise nor blame, what is the difference in the resurrection between those who were baptized and those who were not baptized? 70. If Moses teaches the creation of two heavens, how does the Scripture mention more heavens? 71. If Christ has perfect foreknowledge of all things, how is he not the cause of Judas's betrayal and Peter's denial? 72. If the sun is hidden in the night, how is the heaven not shown to be a sphere? 73.

If the heaven, because it is a sphere and moves, is in a place, how is it that because it has been fixed as a vault, or stretched out like a skin, it is not in a place? 74. If the difference of forms is useful here for needs and dealings, why will it be useless in the resurrection? 75. If God alone is immortal, how is "we shall not all sleep" true? 76. On the fourth day the luminaries came into being, and from them the number of the days is constituted. 77. How then ought one to understand "in the sun he set his tabernacle"? Teach me. 78. If, as Jonah was three days in the belly of the sea-monster, so also the Lord was in the earth, how was his death not merely in appearance? 79. Since some say that the Lord's delivery [of teaching] took place on the fourth day, what is the proof of the day on which the delivery took place? 80. If the blood of man is not the soul, why, when it is poured out, does the living creature perish? 81. Why does the number seven admit of change? For on the Sabbath, for the most part, the air changes.

And the age of a man is taken in this number, etc. 82. If rejoicing and exulting in gifts is forbidden as productive of arrogance, how are the gifts not useless? 83. Since many say that the constitution of the world is 6,000 years, teach whether this is true. 84. If each person is shown to be generous when he does good to his neighbors, how is God not envious, who is able to make all men gods and did not make them? 85. If the good appears good when it is compared with evil, and the world is good, then clearly the non-world is evil. 86. If, because Hellenism has been conquered by Christianity, Hellenism has no hope of recall, how is it that long ago by Hellenism, etc.? 87. If until the resurrection of bodies the soul does not receive the rewards of things done, in what state, then, is it examined until the resurrection? 88. And if there is no recompense of works before the resurrection, what benefit accrued to the robber that his soul was brought into paradise? 89. If the soul receives sensation through the cooperation of the senses of the body, how does the soul not lack sensation when it is separated from sensation? 90. If God declared David to be according to his own heart, how did he commit adultery and murder? 91. If Josiah displayed a zeal hotter than all kings of Judah, crushing the pillars and overturning the temples and altars, he died by the sword and his sons were taken captive. 92. How did Elisha not err by killing the children through a curse? 93.

If all error has been driven out by the coming of Christ, how do the demons speak through ventriloquists? 94. If Scripture nowhere speaks the names of the demons, how did the Jews, in the time of Christ, name the name of Beelzebub as one that was known? 95. If God takes no pleasure in the sacrifices of irrational animals, how did God command Noah before the law to sacrifice, and especially when idolatrous sacrifices did not yet exist? 96. If Elisha, having asked for a double portion of the grace that was in Elijah, was heard, how did he not perform works that were simple? 97. If the perfect resurrection is then, when the perfect man rises, how were many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep raised after the Lord's passion? 98. What is interpreted by "hup hi to gomor to nebel ho stater he drachme" and the rest? 99. If Christ worked miracles before the slaughter of the Baptist, how did Herod say after this, "John, whom I beheaded, has risen and works miracles"? 100. If Christ, having been born according to the flesh, committed no sin, how does Scripture say, "There is no one among those born who has not sinned"? 101. If the patriarchs, with pious reasoning, took wives for themselves and their children from their own kindred, how did Joseph and Moses marry foreigners? 102. If Adam, before the transgression, had seen no one's death, how did he fear what he had not seen threatened? 103. Teach what difference there is between the judgments and statutes and testimonies and law and commandments spoken of by Scripture. 104.

If the backs of heaven are weighed down with waters because of the fiery nature of the luminaries, how do those who say this speak the truth, since the luminaries are not in heaven, etc.? 95. If heaven is rolled up like a book and the stars fall like leaves at the second coming, how is this not shown to be the complete destruction of the firmament? 96. If creation came into being for our need, but we rise incorruptible and without need, how is the incorruptibility of creation not useless? 97. If recompenses are given for things done well in knowledge, how will the infants slain in the time of Herod enjoy recompenses? 98. If grace is called grace because it forgives trespasses, how is this found more in the law, since trespasses were cleansed through the basins of sprinkling? 99. If the Lord says that the one who fears is incomplete in love, how does the same one again say, "But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna"? 100. If God commanded that the sacrifices of irrational animals be offered, so that the honor concerning them be shown, how is it not...

Are the Greeks more honorable than humans who sacrifice? 111. If Christ has granted the grace of miracles for the confirmation of the truth of the worship of the orthodox, why did heretics who worshipped in them, when etc.? 112. If every rational person acquires knowledge by study, and the law of knowledge is to place the greater before the lesser, how is it that we, inconsistently, [place] before the lesser etc.? 113. If the Creator has made nothing superfluous or lacking in our body, why was the part of the foreskin circumcised among the Jews as something superfluous? 114. If one who has been commanded to do what is within his power receives praise for having done it, it is clear that one who has not done commands beyond his power is not liable. 115. If the law gives no room for repentance in the case of crimes, but brings an inexorable danger, how is David, who committed adultery and murder, deemed worthy of forgiveness? 116. If the help of prayer is necessary for all humans, and the Lord Christ did not need it, how did the Lord use it rather frequently? 117. If the flesh of all humans has one substance and the soul one, how is one idle and another sharp? 118. If the songs were invented by the unbelievers for deception, and for those under the law because of their infancy, why have those under grace used them? 119. If involuntary ignorance has forgiveness, how did the Jews who crucified Christ out of ignorance experience unbearable horrors? 120. If all who have died are going to rise, how will the Lord's judging the living and the dead be fulfilled? 121.

If those who leave father or mother or wife or brothers and the rest will receive a hundredfold, will they also receive a hundred wives? 122. If the apostle used the example of seeds for the establishment of the resurrection of bodies, how will those who are burned and cut in pieces rise again? 123. If the apostles supposed the kingdom of Israel to be earthly glory and luxury and ease, why did the Lord not correct them, but said, "It is not for you to know"? 124. If we understand the perfect then, when it has acquired all things perfect, how is it that God, existing before creation, received after it the name of Creator? 125. If to be something in potentiality is less than in actuality, how does the maker of the world's creation, being a maker in potentiality and not in actuality, not fall into diminution? 126. If bending the knee in prayers brings one nearer to God more than standing, why on the Lord's days and throughout the whole of Pascha do those who pray not bend the knee until the fiftieth day? 127. If Christ, having risen from the tomb, left behind the burial clothes, how does Scripture record that after the resurrection he was neither naked nor clothed from elsewhere? 128. If a body of coarse parts cannot enter through closed doors, how did the Lord enter? And if this happened, how did the Lord rise after the angel rolled away the stone? 129. If God is the master of all creation, why do we make our prayers toward the eastern region only and not in every place, according to the apostle? 130.

If neither those before the flood ate the fruits of trees nor meats, how did Cain and Abel offer sacrifices, the one from the fruits and the other from the fat portions? 131. If the resurrection is the kingdom of God, and both the righteous and sinners are deemed worthy of it, how did the apostle say that fornicators and adulterers fail to attain it? 132. Teach me what is the difference between anathema and cursing. 133. If God is the most beautiful of all good things, and that which is abused is the worst of all, how is man not the worst of all creation, being alone abused? 134. If God foreknows the life of each person, why did he not place the souls of the pious in strong bodies? 135. If the apostle forbade returning evil for evil and reviling for reviling, how did he himself do the opposite by reviling the high priest and Alexander? 136. If God also repays with prosperity in this present life, as he did for those in the time of Abraham, how is it that idolaters also prosper

Until his own coming? 137. If the one who speaks a lie is of the evil one, how will Jacob be considered blameless by his father, having lied to him and stolen his brother's blessing? 138. If not fulfilling the law and doing something outside Jerusalem is reckoned as lawlessness, how did those in Babylon not act lawlessly when they prayed? 139. If from the beginning wars and rumors of wars always occur, how did the Lord say that these things would happen before the end as if they were something strange? 140. If people deified the universal elements of creation, and God pronounced against them, saying, "gods who did not make heaven and earth," will the elements also perish? 141. If one who sends sends where he is not, how is God, who has an uncircumscribed nature and is present everywhere, sent? 142. If the Seraphim, unable to gaze upon the glory of God, cover their faces, how could the many-eyed ones not gaze? 143. If because of unbelief in Christ the Jews became subject to Christians, how did the heretics take even the Christians themselves subject and subject them to punishment? 144. If the Lord made a boundary for the sand of the sea, how does it overstep in different places? 145. If the will that is done shows the power of the one who wills, how is it that God, who is almighty and wills all to be saved, are they not saved, etc.? 146. If corruption of bodies is the beginning, middle, and end in marital intercourse, how did God, being incorruptible, promise to be joined maritally to the faithful? 147.

If from above and from the beginning the things concerning us have their constitution by divine decree, why do we pray in vain in time of drought, since the divine decree encompasses all things? 145. If the rest of the Sabbath was handed down as a figure of God's rest, how does it not show the activity of working to be temporal? 146. If what is destroyed by the destroyer perishes, and many things in creation destroy not only one another but also men themselves, how are all things good? 147. If the enemy brings about wickedness by the envy of men's salvation, contriving and wishing to subject them to future punishments, how is it that irrational creatures always pursue evil things not by wickedness of nature? 148. If God sent the law to the Israelites through Moses, how is Moses called both law and lawgiver in the divine Scripture? 149. If Christ is true, who displays both deed and calling, and the Scripture addressed him as Emmanuel, how is he nowhere called Emmanuel? 150. If it is forbidden to dishonor one's parents, how is Christ shown to be sinless, having dishonored his own parents? 151. If Mary anointed the Lord with myrrh before the tomb, how is it that we are anointed with oil before baptism, and afterward are sealed with myrrh? 152. If the one who punishes the sinner is just, how is God just, who for the sake of Jonathan and David put to death such a people? 153. If Christ calls himself heir by a parable, and the Jews, having recognized him, crucified him, how did Christ and the apostle testify to their ignorance of the daring deed?

15. If only Christ fulfilled the law, how did both Zacharias and Elizabeth walk blamelessly in the law? 146. If an angel of heaven is higher and the Scripture calls men gods, how does it not also befit angels to be called gods? 147. If "God" is transcendent and "man" is subordinate, how is man not improperly called god? 148. If blood is constituted by the same things as flesh, why does God permit the eating of flesh but forbid that of blood? Of Theodoret, Bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, one of the 630 holy fathers at Chalcedon, in answer to the questions put to him by one of the bishops from Egypt. 1. Question. If God is one God, it is clear that in all respects he possesses the one, whether simple or composite, mortal or immortal, begotten or unbegotten, begetting or not begetting. How then, since the Father has begotten and the Son has not begotten, and the Son has been begotten and the Father has not been begotten, and the Spirit has neither begotten nor been begotten, can the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit be called one God, when there is such opposition between being begotten and not being begotten, and between begetting and not begetting? 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; and the difference of the modes of existence does not divide the oneness of the 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, indivisible and invariable, 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 alike and invariably of the three divine hypostases—in these understand the oneness of essence; but the things not said alike—understand these by the mode of existence of the persons. 2. Question. If God has a hypostasis that exists, or also a counsel that is inherent, and a Son that is inherent, how is he, composed of so many things, called simple? Answer. Just as God is wholly everywhere and wholly in each thing and in himself, and of this we have faith but do not have inquiry, so also his simplicity is wholly Son and wholly having a Son and 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 is the case with nature. But as he is above nature, so also his being and his having are above composition. 3. Question.

If that which is simple in itself, as in the case of written letters—for example, iota—is one thing, and that which is composite with another, like pi, is another, and both are of the same essence, both the iota and the pi composed of three iotas, the composite character is not taken away from what is composed of both, 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 essence, giving an easy occasion for 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. Iota and pi differ in nothing from each other in essence; for each of them is a line, and a line differs in nothing from a line; but iota differs from pi by its particular position, according to which the one is iota and the other is pi. And pi, if it is a line, is one; but if it is pi, it is a triad and composite and generated; for it received its being as pi in parts and by temporal extension from the one who composed and made it. It is necessary, then, for one who wishes to contemplate by some natural analogy the one who is above nature, to take from the analogy only those things which are fitting to what is contemplated through the analogy. For example, the one and the three belong to pi in a generated and composite way, but to God in an ungenerated and incomposite way; for he who does not have a maker and composer is neither generated nor composite.

Therefore in the case of God we speak of eternal co-existence, but no longer of composition; whereas in the case of pi we speak of composition because of its generation part by part. One, then, is God—the Trinity in the unity of the essence, apart from all division and distinction in this respect—just as pi is one in the unity of the line, apart from all division and distinction in this respect. And there is a difference: in the Holy Trinity, according to the modes of the subsistence of the hypostases; in pi, according to the particular position of the line. 4. Question. If the union of the divine hypostases is indivisible, how can three hypostases and three persons be named, and not rather one hypostasis, three-named, three-personed? Answer. Of the divine hypostases, the one of the 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.

21. Question. If "God" is indicative of essence, but "Father" of person, how is saying "Son of God" the same as saying "Son of the Father"? Answer. Even though we sometimes say "Son of the Father" and sometimes "Son of God," we never understand him as separated. The Son is therefore Son of the Father, who is God by 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. 6. Question. If according to our nature whatever is begotten is consubstantial with its begetter, how is it that according to that nature whatever has been begotten does not exist after its begetter? And if the second is not so, then neither will the first be understood by us in the same way in the case of the divine generation. Answer. We, having existence as prior to generation, beget after existence. But God begat together with existing. Therefore there is no subsequent existence of the begotten in God, since there is no prior existence of generation. 7. Question. If the divine essence is one, how do some attribute the incarnation and the union and the indwelling in the economy to God the Word alone, since the Word of God has his indivisibility with the Father and the Spirit of God? How then can the things that belong to the consubstantial Trinity, being distinguished by their indivisibility, consistently befit the one person, that is, God the Word? Answer. The divine essence is one, and all its properties are common to those who possess it; but the divine hypostases are three, of which the individual properties belong separately to each.

Since, then, the incarnate economy is the Word of God's own, for the taking of flesh came about for his manifestation, for this reason we fittingly attach the things of the economy to God the Word in the manner of reciprocal reference. And for this reason divine Scripture also makes its statements separately, sometimes with reference to the Father and sometimes to the economy, as when it says "the Father loves me" and "the Father who has given me." Likewise it also divides its statements with reference to the Spirit and to the economy, as in "the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" and "if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God." But with reference to the Word of God and to the economy it nowhere makes such a division; rather, in the manner of reciprocal reference, concerning one and the same person it gives the account indivisibly of the things that separately belong to each nature. 8. Question. Those who say that the Son who truly and properly and really is, is united to the form of the servant, by way of distinction from the one who is not truly nor properly nor really a son, though he too is called a son—how do they not worship a duality of sons, even if the two persons are of different essence? Answer. Such a distinction has been made for the sake of clarity as to who gave what to whom, that is, that the form of God, having received the form of the servant in its own order, showed it to creation. Therefore divine Scripture also, starting from this knowledge, the one Lord

He proclaims Jesus Christ sometimes according to his unposited sonship, when he says "through whom also he made the ages," and sometimes according to the posited one, when he says "in these last days he spoke to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages." These things do not fit the form of a servant. For this reason, by such a distinction, what is fitting has been assigned to each form. For if Christ is an unposited son according to one nature and a posited one according to another, just as the account of the distinction intends, but the son is unposited and the Christ posited according to the same nature—for it is impossible that the scriptural utterances, which proclaim Christ an unposited and a posited son, be abolished—then it is necessary that God the Word, according to the distinction of the truly and properly and really [son] and of the one who is neither truly nor properly nor really [son], be understood as son. But if this is manifestly absurd, then the distinction of the natures in their duality is beyond reproach, as being that which establishes it. And that the form of a servant is seen in the rank of the form of God, and not in its own person, of all authority and honor according to person, is destructive of a duality of sons; for "in the rank of" is the same as "in the person that ranked," and not in nature. 9. Question. If the containing is greater in essence than the contained, but less in worth, as heaven and earth than angels and men, a house than those who dwell in it, a body than a soul, and God contains the whole, how is he not less than the whole in the account of worth? Answer. This argument is not universal. Therefore it was not soundly asked either.

For those things whose opposite can be found through the same means, these, as not having what is necessary, do not have what is credible either. For there are certain things that are contained which are lesser than those that contain them, both in substance and in worth, as the seeds of fruits are lesser than the fruits. Furthermore, the things said to be containing contain the contained by their very being, but God contains all things by his will. And the other contained things themselves need the container, but God does not need what contains him. And for the 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. 10. Question. If that which contains exists for the guarding and preservation of what is contained, how does God, containing the whole, not contain the whole for the guarding and continuance of evil? For evil is observed in a part of the whole. Answer. The whole is the work of God, and God, guarding the whole, guards his own work. And just as God did not make anything evil by nature, so he does not guard anything evil by nature. 11. Question. Since the Lord continually calls himself son of man and not of woman, and for this reason the unbelievers try to show that the lordly offspring came from a marital union—for "of man," they say, is not the name of a female but of a male—with what arguments shall we refute such empty slander? Answer.

If the Lord's birth had come about from a 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 a marital union. But to overturn, by means of one obscure and defective phrase, all those phrases that 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 the son of the woman, he is therefore not the son of the woman, then clearly also because he did not call himself the son of some man. And if Christ is not the son of some man, then by necessity he is not the son of man either. Furthermore, if Joseph was styled the son of Eli according to the law without marital union, God having willed in this way to give Joseph as a son to Eli, what is absurd in Christ thus also being given as a son to Joseph 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, and one according to the law without union, prefiguring in that man's birth the birth of Christ—of him who was born of the Holy Spirit as a son to God, and born of the woman as a son to Joseph. "The Holy Spirit," it says, "will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one born of you will be called the son of God.

But if the one born from the wife of Eli is the son of Eli according to the law of God, much more is the one born from the wife of Joseph, according to the divine good pleasure, the son of Joseph without marital union. 12. Question: If the evangelists Matthew and Luke, when giving the genealogy of the Lord according to the flesh—the one writing his genealogy according to nature and the other according to law, because the generations of the Jews were constituted in this way—how is it that the blessed Luke is not shown to be in conflict with Matthew, since through his own Gospel he sets forth more ancestors of Christ according to law than according to nature, when the opposite ought to have been written by him, since it must be reckoned that those according to law are fewer than the fathers according to nature? For it is possible for one to become a father according to law once the father according to nature has begotten the child. How then, as I said, has the order been reversed among the evangelists, and Luke, who ought to name equal, or rather fewer, ancestors of Christ according to law than according to nature, is found naming more? But if in the genealogy they say things that conflict with themselves and with each other, how can they possess credibility in the remaining teachings about the Savior, since from the very outset they move to objection the one who wishes to be added to our religion with reason? 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 listed are natural sons of those listed before them, since the grandfathers and great-grandfathers are reckoned through the relationship that Eli has to Joseph—Joseph alone being so according to the law, but all the rest according to nature. When 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. 13. Question. If, according to the Mosaic law, the brother of one who died childless, taking the wife of the deceased, begot children from her—children who were his own according to nature but his brother's according to the law—then, if it happened that the surviving brother already had a wife, did he take, along with her, the wife of the deceased brother as a wife as well? And how is this not absurd? But if such a woman also happened to be barren, how did the marriage not bring, besides the absurdity, also uselessness, and how was the command of the law shown on every side to be without resource, since the deceased did not receive the memorial through the begetting of children? And what benefit accrued to the dead man—to be called, through another's begetting of children, after the end, the father of another's offspring? Answer. Since the law did not prevent the Israelites from taking wife upon wife if they wished—not only a kinswoman, but also a captive woman and a concubine—no absurdity arises from the brother of the deceased taking wife upon wife, so long as the law is not disobeyed; for all absurdity consists in disobedience to the law.

And even if it should happen that the woman is barren, this is unknown to the man and the woman; but in a matter that is unknown, it is not right to disregard the law. This law was established so that whatever death took away from the deceased—that is, both his fatherhood and his heir—the law's provision might supply to him. For if men enter into marriage for the sake of the memory of an heir, it is clear that in whatever way God might wish to supply these things to a man, the matter does not become useless. There is also something else beneficial in this law: that by this union the lot might remain in the same tribe and not pass over to 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 the child born from his own body. For just as the child born from such a union is called the son of the deceased, so also the woman is called his wife. 14. Question. If the aforementioned law was enjoined upon the Israelites before the times of David, how is it that the evangelist Matthew made mention equally 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 of Christ according to the law? And if the names of the fathers according to nature and according to the law are not found without omission in the divine Scriptures after the Babylonian captivity, but are written by negation, how will the things written by negation be able to be believed by the more accurate? Answer.

And Luke mentioned the natural fathers of Eli, both those before David and those after David; but Eli alone was according to the law the father of Joseph, who through legal sonship was traced in relationship as far as Nathan. But that the Lord Christ was named son of Joseph, who had two fathers, one according to nature and the other according to law, divine grace arranged, so that when we hear that Christ is the son of Joseph but was not begotten from him, we might not be surprised. For just as Joseph himself was called the son of Eli but was not begotten from 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 a son to Joseph from the wife of Joseph, not begotten from him according to nature. "Joseph," it says, "son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife." For what is born from a man's wife without fornication is by necessity the son of the man and the wife, in whatever way God wishes to give a son to the man, either through union or without union. But the evangelists did not make their exposition of those named in the genealogies by way of assertion, but by written records. 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. Indeed, after the return from Babylon, Ezra expelled 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. 15.

Question: Since Isaiah, prophesying of the Lord Christ, says, "Who shall declare his generation," does he speak of what is hard to declare or of what cannot be declared, and is this saying to be understood of his divinity or of his flesh? Answer: The generation of Christ according to the flesh is traced in a genealogy, and its manner has been proclaimed in the disposition of Scripture, as we have already said before—from the Holy Spirit and from the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; but his generation according to his divinity is without genealogy. The prophetic utterance therefore indicates that the generation is beyond declaration, not hard to declare. 16. Question: If God abolished the ancient worship, as not being pleased with it, and introduced in its place the worship of the Christians as pleasing to him, yet the orthodox alone, who please God, are fewer in number than the Greeks and Jews and all heretics, what is the proof that it was not through poverty of power that he who chose this worship in place of that one left the error unrooted, and how is the abolition of that worship not useless, when another error holds the world? Answer: The Lord God, in place of a worship, introduced a worship...

to carry through the old covenant, unless he had introduced this in place of that, it was possible then only to accuse God of poverty of power, as having foreordained things beyond his power; but now, having introduced this in place of that, he first abolished Judaism and Hellenism, the one proclaimed by divine words attested by divine powers, and later by works likewise becoming divine powers he brings about the eradication of all error among men and demons, and along with this also of all evils in the world. But as regards worship and the teaching of faith and conduct, if not all who have received the worship have held and do hold the same opinion about the same matters, but some rightly and some not rightly, this is not a charge against God for poverty of power—that those men, from their own negligence or some other weakness, do not rightly understand what they believe—but it is [a charge] of their negligence. And in the worship that is introduced, it has been said concerning the fewness of the orthodox: at one time, "Many are called, but few are chosen," and at another, "that narrow and pressed 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 called tares and rotten fish.

If, therefore, nothing false is found in the worship of the Christians, but by the testimony of the facts it holds the future as already believed from things that came before, then no pretext at all is left either for slandering God on account of poverty of power, or for calling the worship useless—a worship introduced in place of another, now being the means of release from Judaism and Hellenism, and later also from the heresies. 17. Question. If the prophets and apostles foretold the things that were going to happen—such as the turns of wars, the onsets of plagues, the destructions of temples—and if among the Greeks too words through oracles foretold them, how are those who are superior to these recognized, since on each side alike the foretelling of future events has taken place? Answer. All these things belong to the same God—both the foretelling of the words and the outcome of the deeds—to him who through the prophets and apostles foretold beforehand what he was going to do. In the same way also, through those outside the faith, he himself foretold beforehand what he was going to do; for just as through the seer Balaam he blessed Israel and cursed its enemies, doing both by foretelling what was to come, so also 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 divine a divination and to make the rod burn and to inquire of the graven images and to inspect the liver on his right.

And it came to be an oracle in Jerusalem, and so on—in this way also through the oracles among the Greeks, as many as received their fulfillment through the events, he himself foretold. But the difference between the prophets and the oracles is great: first, because the God whose name the prophets and the apostles foretold, of this God they had the knowledge and the faith and the worship; and all things whatsoever the prophets foretold concerning both the destruction of the Greek gods and oracles and the establishment of Christian affairs received their fulfillment; and secondly, because none of the things the oracles foretold, either against the God of truth and those who worship him, or in favor of the establishment of Greek affairs, received fulfillment. And of these things the destruction of the Assyrians is a witness, who, setting out from their own oracle, said, "Have I gone up to 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, he was destroyed. 18. Question. If all who have sinned are punished in the resurrection, but more so those who have known the will of God and have not done it, what is the gain of the

of a Christian and a Greek, of the baptized and the unbaptized, of the orthodox and the non-orthodox? Answer. If, according to the apostle Paul, the believer who does not provide for his own is worse than an unbeliever and an denier of God, it is clear that the one who does not with knowledge and faith and baptism also bring the manner that is characteristic of discipleship to Christ, but has a form of piety while denying its power, is worse than the unbelievers; for he is as much worse than the unbelievers as sinning with knowledge is worse than sinning without knowledge, as a sin without excuse is worse than a sin that has an excuse. Question 19. If the heretics hastened with all their power to know and keep the truth of the doctrines and could not, how is it not unjust to subject them to punishments as having fallen away from the truth? Answer. The heretics did not seek the truth with all their power to the same extent that, even when it is pointed out to them by those who have found it, they do not endure to receive it. And if this defense were true, they ought to forgive one another for their errors, 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 the alien character of their mind, they are clearly shown that all the heresies have had the occasions of their establishment from the love of glory or the antipathy of the heresiarchs; for which reason the founders of the heresies were called by the apostle "grievous wolves.

That it is impossible for one who seeks the truth with his whole heart and strength to fail to find it, the Lord testifies, saying, "Everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." 20. Question. If powers are worked in the churches of the heretics—such as healings of diseases and expulsions of unclean spirits, abundance of the fruits of the earth and gushing forth of oil—how is it not necessary that those men be confirmed in their error by these things? Answer. Just as "he made his sun rise on the evil and the good, and he rains on the just and the unjust" is not a confirmation of the evil and unjust in their evil and injustice, but a preparation for just punishment, so neither is the working of certain powers among the heretics 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 do many mighty works?" to be reprobate and unworthy of fellowship with himself, saying to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." For he who taught us to feed and give drink to an enemy who is hungry and thirsty, much more himself does the like of what he taught us, heaping fire upon the heads of those who have not worthily acknowledged the giver of grace.

21. Question. If the capacity for passion is shown in those who feel pain and those who feel pleasure, and in the judgment sinners partake of the one and the righteous of the other, how is he who says that human beings receive impassibility after the resurrection speaking truth? Answer. We are said to be impassible when we have risen, 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 non-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. And even if we rejoice more in greater goods and less in lesser ones, yet even so, in proportion to the goods, the quantity of joy remains unchangeable. And this is the case with those who rise to life; but with those who rise to judgment the same account holds, whenever they are released, just as from death, so also from judgment; for according to the Savior, of those who rise, some rise to life and some to judgment. 22. Question. If it is a mark of change to take the good and the base into thought, how are those who are punished unchangeable when they reckon the relief of the righteous, or again those who are in relief when they ponder the punishment of sinners? For then each gives the other a greater perception, when the juxtaposition of contraries is shown. Answer. If in the age to come the quantity of the perception of honor and of punishment lies in the measure of honor and of punishment, and it is not possible for perception to receive increase or diminution by the juxtaposition of opposites—

For all things there are unchangeable, both in quality and in quantity. 21. Question. If we have received from God the knowledge of good and evil together with 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 the power not only to be and to know and to do the good and not to do the evil, but he has also granted us free will and has established us as masters of choosing by preference whatever seems best among the things known. And he has placed our being good or evil not in the knowledge of things known, but in the choice of those who choose. Therefore God is not the cause of our being good or evil, but our own choice is; for just as a man who sees a prostitute and knows that she is a prostitute is not a fornicator because of the knowledge, but when the knowledge awakens the passion of desire, not even so is he a fornicator, but when the choice consents to the passion, then he is a fornicator either in act or in disposition, so also for good and evil men the cause of their being good or evil is not the knowledge, but the choice that has chosen by preference whatever seems best.

24. Question. If God has given the things previously stated, and yet crowns and punishes each person according to their action, how does he do both justly, since he has each of the two from the human being himself? Answer. "We" and "what is up to us" differ from one another. We are male and female, but it is up to us to be temperate or unchaste. We are therefore crowned or punished because of what is up to us; for the things to which our choice leads us, it is on account of these that we are crowned or punished. For the powers that God has given us for acting, these he has subjected to the authority of choice, and God's judgment is directed toward the choice, which is the governing principle of the powers of choice within us, and not toward nature. We have received from God the authority to act and not to act—to do what is just, and not to do what is unjust. 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.

25. Question. If the things said more bodily concerning the gods by the poets and concerning God by the prophets have another meaning by allegory, how are both not shown to be myth? Answer. The things spoken allegorically by the prophets concerning God were said by transference from things natural to things not natural, as for instance "the Lord smelled a sweet savour." In the case of human beings "he smelled" is according to nature, but in the case of God it is by usage and not by nature. But the things said mythically by the poets concerning the gods are not said by transference from things natural to things not natural; for man does not swallow man according to nature, so that by transference we should also understand Cronus swallowing Zeus. And myth is an account without consistency, having nothing other than falsehood. 26. Question. If the resurrection takes place for the recompense of each person's way of life, how is it that infants, or even those who die in the womb, do not rise superfluously, receiving neither rewards for deeds nor relief or affliction because of their age

Question. Can infants attain perception? Answer. To 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 incorruption is able also to bestow on them the perceptive power of the good things that are present. Moreover, "there is no small or great there," but all are perfect in spiritual stature; for "it is raised in power" signifies nothing other than this. Furthermore, if there is no resurrection of infants, God will be found to have fashioned them in vain. But if God makes nothing in vain, it is necessary that they too come into being through the resurrection. And how is it not out of place to condemn Herod for the avenging of the slaughter of the infants, if the infants are not those who are avenged? To these things testify the leaping for joy of John the Baptist in his mother's womb, and the hymn of infants and nursing babes. 27. Question. If the baptism given by heretics is false and vain, why do the orthodox not baptize a heretic who flees to orthodoxy, but leave him in the spurious baptism as though it were true? And if he happens to have received ordination from them, and they themselves accept it as valid, how then do the one received and those who received him keep themselves blameless? Answer. When a heretic comes to orthodoxy.

The error is corrected—the evil opinion by the change of mind, the baptism by the anointing of holy myrrh, the ordination by the laying on of hands—and nothing of the former things remains unresolved. Question 28. If Job did not sin when he cursed the day, it is clear that as a righteous man he was heard; and if he was heard, God overturned his own decree, and it is necessary to seek in the divine Scripture the destruction of that day; but if he was not heard, how is he not shown to be a sinner, having been disregarded? For "the will of those who fear him he will do," it says; but concerning sinners, "though you multiply your supplication, I will not hear you." Answer. The purpose of Job in the curse set before us was this, as if he were saying, "Would that that day had been, in which I was born, cursed according to this day." Why? "That I," he says, "had not been born." For it is not possible for anyone to be born on such a day, so cursed as it is. Or is this curse, then, not made in such a way as to await its outcome? For if it had been made so, he would have revoked his own utterance, once he had been released from his afflictions and had come into better circumstances; for it was because of the excess of his affliction that he uttered the words of the curse, and once released from it, it is clear that he did not hold the same opinion concerning the same day.

29. Question. If the observation of pulsations is among the things forbidden by the pious, why do the pious, wishing with all their power to reject it, not prevail, since it indicates either a cheerful or a gloomy outcome? And if this is a base thing, how does it arise contrary to our intention? But if it is good—which I do not think—for what reason has it been forbidden? Answer. 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 subsisting from the coursing of the natural spirit in the body, in all living creatures. Therefore the saints judged such a bodily movement unworthy to be a criterion of future things. Just as sneezings of the nostrils and sounds of the ears arise contrary to our intention, so also does the pulsation. Moreover, for those who have received the hope of the future state and have one aim—to look forward to that continually in a state of readiness—it is superfluous to foreknow here the cheerful or the gloomy through pulsations. And if the same pulsation that foretokens wealth occurs to the worldly man and also to the ascetic, how is the foretoken through pulsation not proved false?

of wealth, since the ascetic's purpose does not choose even the acquisition of things not present, nor indeed the possession of things present? 30. Question. If fishermen take fish from the waters unto death and corruption, how is it that the Lord Christ, being about to lead men through the apostles "unto eternal life," promised that they would be "fishers of men"? Answer. Since it was necessary that the men caught by the apostles with the net of the kingdom should 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 to what was indicated what was lacking in the illustration. 31. Question. If monks, possessed by a sound reasoning, have turned away from the pleasures of marriage, why do they suffer involuntary things in fantasies during sleep, and not only do they think in fantasy that they converse with chance women, but sometimes even with mothers and sisters? With what, then, should one deal for deliverance from such warfare? And whether the one who has been warred against ought to abstain from the mysteries, and whether one should approach them, either after bathing or after using something else, so as not to be cleansed in a Jewish manner, teach, since there is much inquiry about this even among the more rational. Answer. Since those who are devoted to God have an unsleeping enemy and adversary, who by all the means in his power contrives to put a blemish on the pious, for this reason they suffer involuntary things during sleep.

And yet the adversary knows that for things not in our power we are neither praised for what is noble nor blamed for what is shameful—for praise and blame pertain to things done by us with the assent of the reason—and that dreams are among things not in our power; nevertheless even through dreams he stirs up in us the deeds of both, both the noble and the shameful, holding these hopes in himself: that either by the working of noble and shameful 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 taking pleasure in lawless action. But to see such dreams is not in our power; yet to take pleasure in such an involuntary act, or to be grieved by it, this is in our power. So then, if he finds us taking pleasure in the involuntary act, the adversary boasts as a victor; but if he finds us grieved, he is made vain by his purpose, being defeated. Therefore, to be grieved over what has happened involuntarily and to wash away with tears the foulness of the fantasies thus involuntarily arising in us is sufficient for deliverance from evil; but for those who suffer such involuntary things to abstain from the communion of the divine mysteries is not at all just. And if this is not so, we thereby abolish the difference between voluntary and involuntary evils.

32. Question. If the Lord and 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 is the prophecy of their growing together not falsified? Answer. This is the proof that what has failed is wheat: the prediction concerning it, which says, "Because iniquity has multiplied, the love of many will grow cold." And again: "In later times some will depart from the faith, attending to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." 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 consummation 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—the very thing not spoken of concerning it, that it both grows and fails—it is clear that he has been falsified

The account concerning him: but if from the beginning of the preaching until the consummation of the age all the things that would befall him have been made clear through the prophecies, it is evident that the account concerning him has in no way been falsified; 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 the one does not exist, neither is the other recognized for what it is. 33. Question. If before the passion the Lord prayed that the disciples be sanctified and kept by the Father, and after these things Judas perished, how does the prayer offered on their behalf appear to have been received? And how is it shown to be true that "I know that you always hear me"? Answer. The perdition of Judas took place from that time when the Lord, having taken the morsel and dipped it, gave it to him; and when Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him, and going out he separated himself from the rest of the disciples. But the prayer on behalf of the disciples took place after the departure of Judas, and this is shown from the prayer itself; for when the Lord had prayed, he 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." So then, first the perdition of Judas took place, later the prayer on behalf of the disciples, and then the passion of the Lord. 34. Question. If God is the creator and master of creation, how are the works of Apollonius able to operate in the parts of creation? For, as we see, they hinder the rush of the sea and the courses of the winds and the inroads of mice and wild beasts.

And if the wonders done by the Lord are reported only in narrative, while those done by that man are for the most part displayed in the very facts themselves, how does he not deceive those who see them? And if this came about by divine permission, how has such permission not become a guide to Hellenism? But if not this, how were those things done by the power of demons? Again, if God, delighting in him as one beloved, cooperated with him, why were such things not done through prophets or through apostles? But if he was not pleased with him as wicked, for what reason did he not either immediately prevent the wicked thing, or after a short time destroy it, but permitted it to prevail over the parts of creation until the end of the age? Answer. Apollonius, as a man learned in the natural powers and in the sympathies and antipathies within them, performed his effects according to this knowledge, not according to divine authority. Therefore in all his effects he needed the procurement of suitable materials, cooperating with him for the completion of what was being accomplished. But our Savior Christ, performing his wonders according to his own divine authority, in no way needed material, but his commands and declarations were followed, and the facts follow. And the effects wrought by Apollonius, since they came about according to the knowledge of natural powers for the bodily benefit of men, the Lord did not overturn; but the demon himself, established in that man's statue, who in his oracles deceived men to worship and honor Apollonius as a god, he silenced, abolishing his oracles.

And along with him he also overthrew the dominion of the remaining demons who were honored by the Greeks under the name of gods, just as the facts are seen to be. And since in these things we have the marks of Christ's power, one must not say that Christ's wonders lie in mere narrative. 35. Question. If "Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in deeds and words," as the Scripture says, how is it that the same blessed prophet did not pursue astronomy and geometry and astrology and the subjects that follow these? For the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time was teaching the lessons of error. Why then is he admired for such words or deeds? Answer. The divine Scripture admires the prophet for the power of his deeds and words, not on account of the words and deeds themselves; for those things were in themselves unworthy of the prophet's praises; but because through both the prophet was conspicuous to the Egyptians—both through the education of speech and through the worldly splendor of his life—and he preferred piety toward God above both, for this reason the Scripture admired him. But astronomy and astrology and geometry were at that time reckoned by the Egyptians to be vulgar, commonplace, and market-place studies. But the honored studies among them at that time were the so-called hieroglyphics, which were handed down in the inner sanctuaries not to just anyone but to the select; of these the prophet, even if he had knowledge, did not however also have their use, as being opposed to the Hebrew polity according to God.

Because of this, despising all the royal power and honor in Egypt, he chose to be mistreated along with the people of God. 45 Question. If all the waters were turned to blood by Moses, how does the Scripture add, "And the enchanters of the Egyptians did likewise"? For either it is false that all the waters were turned to blood by Moses, or again that the enchanters did likewise. And the same argument applies to the rest of the wonders done by them. Answer. When all the waters above the earth had become blood, the Egyptians were compelled to dig wells all around the river and to draw water, and from it to give drink to themselves and their animals and their livestock. From this water, then, which was drawn from the wells, the enchanters made blood, and the account is in no way false. And the wonders done by Moses, since they were performed by divine power, came about by a change of nature, the element in question being transformed into the nature of that into which it was changed. But the things done by the enchanters were done by the operation of demons, who impressed upon the sight of those who saw so that what was not a snake was seen as a snake, and what was not blood as blood, and what were not frogs as frogs.

37. Question. If Moses was not teaching things contrary to himself—bringing along the bones of Joseph, yet abhorring one who touches a corpse as unclean—and if there was some irrational explanation concerning these things, let us learn it now. But for what reason did the Scripture not state the cause for which Moses, in doing those things, taught these? Answer. Since Joseph at his death put the sons of Israel under oath concerning the transfer 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 dissolution of the law that says, "Do not touch a corpse," he kept the oath inviolate; for it was impossible for him to keep both inviolate, both the law and the oath. By keeping the oath, then, he dissolves the lesser observance 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, such as 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. Moreover, if the prophet appointed those who in succession carried the bones of Joseph and at the proper times were cleansed from defilement by washing in clean water according to the law, not even in this way did the prophet do anything contrary to what he had said. But to ask why the prophet did not state the cause of these things is like saying why all the Scriptures were not handed down interpreted by those who set them forth.

For since the cause of the matter is contained manifestly in the narration of the matter, for this reason he did not think it fit to declare it explicitly. 38. Question. If the Lord, refuting the pretentious piety of the Pharisees, said that they are whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness, and in the law the one who touches a corpse is called unclean, what improper thing do the Greeks do when they loathe corpses and their tombs, since the corpse is called unclean by both the old and the new law? And how did the Lord not act in opposition to both, when raising the widow's son he touched the bier and took hold of the hand of Jairus's daughter? For if both rose at the last. But their dead bodies received the touch. Answer. Men loathe dead bodies and their tombs because of the heavy stench that follows them, not simply because of the death; for if they loathed the bodies of the dead simply because of the death, then it would not be right to use the parts of dead animals' bodies for the needs of the living, as skins and horns and hair and gall and fat and flesh, things which no argument can remove from the death that belongs to them.

But if these things are dead and 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—[tombs] made by the Greeks—which are guardians of men against the plots of demons and healers of diseases that are incurable according to the art of physicians? And the Lord likens the pretentious piety of the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, because just as the stench and uncleanness of dead bodies is loathsome to the senses of the living, so also their lawlessness is loathsome to the understanding of the pious, being in a certain way a deadening and stench and uncleanness of the 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 is shown to have acted in nothing contrary either to the old or to the new [covenant]; for he was not under the law when he raised the dead in the question. For the Lord began the gospel way of life from baptism, which is outside the keeping of the law. Therefore he was not defiled by touching the dead. But according to the new [covenant], those things alone were defiling to men: the evils that proceed out of the heart. But touching a dead body does not defile a man.

39. Question: 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 who were 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; for it was not necessary to strip off the whole roof, but only as much as sufficed for the lowering down of the paralytic. 40. Question: If a guardian angel accompanies each man, as the divine Scripture teaches, and men at one time suffered increase, at another diminution, as in the case of the flood and the other calamities, because of their own deeds, their angels, being incapable of increase and diminution, what ministry did they then fulfill, since each of the angels received a ministry from God from the beginning? Answer: All the angels, both rulers and those ruled, always fulfill a ministry useful to men and to those things that exist for man's sake; but those who have received the ministry of accompanying men as guardians are always increased, and are never diminished; for either they accompany the composite whole, I mean soul and body, or they accompany the soul after the soul's departure from the body, until the time

of the world's restoration; but before they were appointed to accompany men and guard them, they minister in the other services on behalf of men to their own rulers. 41. Question: If the clouds send down rain upon the earth by divine nod, why do those called cloud-chasers prepare the clouds by certain incantations to hurl hail and immoderate rains wherever they wish? Answer: This is because it is unattested in the Scriptures; therefore it is also incredible. For you yourself who asked this question about it did not ask on the basis of what you have seen happening, but on the basis of what you have heard. 42. Question: If God created our nature mortal, how does he say, "that God did not make death"? Answer: It does not follow that whatever is mortal by nature must by all means die. And the proof of this is that Enoch and Elijah, being mortal by nature, still remain in immortality, having become higher than "you are earth and to earth you shall depart." It is true, then, 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, he would not have brought it in through disobedience, but without disobedience. But if death came through disobedience, and God did not make disobedience, then neither did he make death. 43. Question: If the nature of men, being mortal, recognizes its own limit, but the time of each is not according to some boundary, which those outside call fate, how were times added to Hezekiah?

For what is added by the predetermined number is evidently taken. How, then, is the indefiniteness of time shown in the case of those who die? Answer. That the time of each one'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 betrothed and forces her and lies with her, kill the man, but do not kill the young woman; for in the manner in which a man rises up against his neighbor and strikes him, so this matter happened; and the young woman cried out and there was no one to help her." But the divine Scripture would not have compared the forced lying-together to the forced killing, if the death of the man were fixed; for what is fixed by God is both unforced and unavoidable. But if this is so, it is clear that neither were the times of his life added to the predetermined life of Hezekiah, but to his years that had previously passed indefinitely, whose end was coming through the fatal disease, God not having healed him from the disease and restored him to life. 44. Question. And if the things that concern us are not governed by hours and days, how did the Lord say at the marriage, "My hour has not yet come," and the evangelist say concerning him, "No one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come"? Answer. Even if the things that concern us are not governed by hours and days, nevertheless of the things that happen among us or concerning us, some happen at a suitable time and some at an unsuitable time.

The divine Scripture calls the suitable time for the thing that is coming to be the presence of the hour, and the unsuitable time the absence of the hour. And since after the time of the making of the wine the Lord considered it a suitable time to depart from the wedding, for this reason before the making of the wine he said, "My hour has not yet come." And again, since in the time of the Passover of the Jews the Lord had to be arrested and suffer what he suffered, for this reason before the Passover it was said concerning him that "no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come"—not that the necessity of the hour was preventing his arrest, but the providence of God. For if the Lord's arrest had been prevented by the necessity of the hour, the divine Scripture would not have attributed this to the departure from the place; for it says, "Jesus departed into Galilee, for he did not wish to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him." Indeed, not even before this did he depart into Egypt, though the hour was sufficient to keep him unarrested.

Question 45. Question: If, as some say, the flood did not occur over the whole world, but only where the people of that time lived, how is it true that "the water rose fourteen cubits above all the high mountains"? Answer: It does not seem true that the flood did not occur over the whole world, unless perhaps the places where the flood occurred were lower than the rest of the places on the earth. Question 46. Question: If there is one creator of all irrational animals, God, 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, ranked among the unclean? And conversely, what has a cloven hoof but does not chew the cud, such as the pig, is not counted among the clean, and among fish those without scales? And why are birds divided, although some clean ones are permitted, if indeed those who eat and do the same things as the unclean are allowed? Answer: By nature all animals are clean and were made good from the beginning by God, 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, which says, "Increase and multiply." But since God wished, as in all human matters, so also in matters of eating, to bring the Jews 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 some unclean, whose eating he forbade.

These things, then, are called clean and unclean: clean by nature, but unclean by the law. And in another way again they are called clean and unclean for this reason: since in Egypt at that time all animals except the pig were being deified, for this cause he named some of the animals clean and others unclean, and he permitted them to sacrifice and eat the clean ones, but not to eat the unclean ones, by both means demonstrating that they are unworthy of God's name and honor—both by their being sacrificed and eaten, and by their being called unclean. 47. Question. If the legal ordinance in the old law prescribed abstinence from and partaking of unclean and clean things for those under it, how is it that those in the new covenant also know partaking of clean things and abstinence from unclean things, when no law has taught them this distinction? But if they do this according to the tradition of the law, they ought to partake of all things and abstain from those things which the law proclaimed. How then do they not eat all things according to the law, [for instance] the giraffe? But if they are not enslaved to the law, how again do they abstain from things forbidden by it, such as the horse or the camel or the mouse or any of the other unclean things? But as it is, since they neither obey the law at all nor are entirely disobedient to it, how do they not seem to make the observance and transgression of each—I mean of the law and of grace—partial, and by disobedience and compliance with both to be under law and grace and again not to be subject to these? Answer. In the new covenant nothing that enters into the mouth defiles a man.

They abstain from things of which they do not partake, not by the distinction of the law, but by the unpleasantness of the voluntary conscience of those who do not partake. But some, for the sake of the rightness of continence, abstain commonly from both clean and unclean things according to their own preference, although they know "that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving." But nevertheless they place the thanksgiving for the rightness of continence above the thanksgiving for the partaking of foods. For these reasons, then, nothing is common to law and grace in turn, but the whole belongs to grace alone, both the partaking and the abstaining of those who partake in the manner that has been stated. 48. Question. If the vessel that Peter saw in the vision contained clean and unclean birds and quadrupeds, as the Scripture hands down to us—for the word "all" is inclusive of both the things previously mentioned—and then the same apostle, being commanded without specification to sacrifice and eat, refused, saying, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean," how is it not shown by these same words that he rejected all irrational animals as unclean, and blamed the one who permitted the eating of them, as though he had commanded them to taste unclean food? Answer. From Peter's answer we learn what things were contained in the sheet, that is, the unclean only, and the word "all" does not necessarily include the clean as well; for it is possible for "all the quadrupeds and the birds of the earth" to be said even of the unclean.

But the statement "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean" he answered with a view to the sight of all the things shown to him on the sheet, and not of some. The vessel, then, in which were "all the birds and the four-footed animals of the earth," is spoken of by way of inclusion of the unclean, in place of "in which were all the unclean birds and four-footed animals of the earth." And just as when the Scripture says that "the head of every man is Christ," the word "every" does not include both believer and unbeliever, but the believer only—for the believing man is a body of Christ, and Christ is called the head of the believing man—so neither does the word "all" include both clean and unclean, but the unclean only, through which was fore-signified to Peter the reception of the unclean nations, whose hearts God cleansed by faith in Christ. 49. Question. If the divine is incapable of change, why does it say concerning Saul's anointing that he repented, and concerning the destruction of Nineveh that he repented? Answer. The Lord Christ, both in respect of existing and in respect of doing the acts that befit him, is unchangeable; but providing for those who are changed toward what is advantageous for those provided for by him, he changes circumstances. Therefore he is unchangeably disposed both toward forgiving and toward not forgiving. He forgives, then, in a changeable manner those who correct their own faults, but toward those who are incorrigibly disposed to evil he unchangeably does not forgive. The phrase "I have repented," therefore, makes clear his unchangeableness, namely that it is not in respect of forgiving; for God is unchangeable.

The statement "the Lord repented" means the same thing—not that he grants forgiveness; for God is immutable and always remains in what is fitting for him to do; for he never admits a change into doing what is not fitting for him. 56. Question. If John's baptism was not according to the law, as indeed it was not, how was it not contrary to the law? But if it was contrary to the law, how was it accepted by those who were under the law? And how are those who are under the law and who accepted a baptism contrary to the law not lawbreakers? But if the baptism of grace happened to be above the law, being called neither according to the law nor contrary to the law nor above the law, in what respect will it be found to occur? Answer. John's baptism was a prelude to the gospel of grace, and for this reason it was also above the law; for it was not possible for those who had sinned under the law to receive forgiveness in this baptism through repentance and faith in Christ, had it not been above the law. 51. Question. 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 them to Christ through a question? But if he himself, because he had been cast into prison, was variously brought by what was said into doubt concerning him—for this too

Others have said this: why did he ask as if he did not yet know that he had come? For the statement "Are you the one who is coming, or do we expect another?" suggests the notion that Christ had not yet arrived, but was expected to come; for if he had been convinced of this, he would not have asked, "Are you the one who is coming, or is there some other besides him?" Answer. That John did not fail to know that Christ had already come is clear to everyone, surely; but since various reports were circulating about the wonders Jesus had performed—some saying that the one who had done these things was Elijah, 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 some other, the one bruited about by the many. And Jesus, perceiving John's purpose, in the presence of John's disciples performed many wonders, persuading them, and through them John as well, that he himself had also performed the wonders noised abroad under the names of others—the one testified to by him. 52. Question. If the Lord Christ promised to draw all to himself after his own exaltation, how is it that not all ran to him in faith? And how is it that he himself, having promised to draw to himself, does not contradict the statement "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 every authority and power." It is not necessary, then, to demand the things of the end before the end.

The Father draws to the Son by giving the Son the authority and power to be able to draw all to himself; therefore there is nothing contradictory in these words. NINTH QUESTION. If the demons dwell continually in those who are demon-possessed, how do they cause harm to others? But 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 in them any traces of their own presence? ANSWER. It is impossible for the demon to do by his absence the things he does by his presence; for the demons act not only by will but also by presence. Therefore when the demon is not present, not even his traces are present. For the invisible power that drives him away instills in him fear of no longer approaching the one who is being healed. FIFTY-FOURTH QUESTION. If it belongs to God alone to give strength and life to bodies, how do the demons do this, strengthening the bodies of the demon-possessed so that they break bonds and chains? "For he was bound," it says, "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 demon-possessed man.

NINTH QUESTION. If the demons do not have authority over the parts of creation, why, when their oracles were disobeyed, did they bring punishments upon the Greeks, and when their idols were worshipped, did they hold back these punishments and provide good things to them instead? From where, then, do they have power for either activity? ANSWER. It was a habit of the demons, for the deception of men, to attach to themselves, just as the name of God, so also his works. But that the demons have no power to defend the disobedient is shown from the destruction which Hellenism endured at the hands of 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, vainly hoping in it to save both itself and its own gods from destruction—which is the greatest proof of the destruction and weakness of the demons, and that they were never able to perform divine works, either punitive against opponents or beneficent toward subjects. Moreover, if all worship is of living and sentient beings, how is it not plainly false that "when the demons were worshipped, they held back the punishments," since they are neither living nor sentient, but are as insensible to the worship as to the disobedience of the oracles?

SIXTY-FIFTH QUESTION. If in the time of the flood he says that "two by two" and "seven by seven" of the irrational animals were brought into the ark, how is it that not four and fourteen of the unclean and clean were brought in? For some have said this, but others that only two and seven. Which of the two, then, spoke more truthfully? ANSWER. He spoke more truthfully who said four and fourteen than he who said two and seven; for "two by two" he said in place of two males and two females, and "seven by seven" in place of seven males and seven females—the sevens being clean, and the twos being unclean. SIXTY-SEVENTH QUESTION. Since Isaiah and Ezekiel beheld the vision of the many-eyed living creatures, was one and the same thing revealed to both, or was one thing shown to the one and the other to the other? And what did the thing shown signify? ANSWER. Through the vision according to the prophet Isaiah the mystery concerning Christ was signified—him who sits upon the throne of glory and by the eating of his holy flesh makes purification of sin for pious men who in all the earth glorify the holy and consubstantial Trinity for the greatness of the divine gifts, in 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 lawlessness and sins was a token of the master's flesh, which cleanses the conscience of those who eat it from every sin. And through the vision according to the prophet Ezekiel he signified the things that were to befall Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, having for their purpose the encouragement of the Israelites who were in the captivity in Babylon.

For the prophet saw the four-faced living creatures, having a likeness 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. From this vision he instills a certain encouragement into the Israelites, who were looking toward the mighty and exceedingly strong dominion of the Babylonians, being in despair of ever being able to obtain freedom from such captivity. In order, therefore, 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 an untame animal, and the coupling of a heavy-bodied beast and a bird; for man is a tame animal, the lion an untame one, the calf a heavy-bodied animal, and the eagle a bird and a light animal. In those he signifies the transition of the kingdom from untameness to tameness, and in these the change of the heaviness of slavery into freedom; for the calf is a beast of burden, but the eagle is free of the yoke. He shows the prophet also a wheel, signifying in the wheel the leading away of the Jews into captivity and their leading back to their own land. FIFTY-EIGHTH QUESTION. Why does the divine oracle use the address "son of man" in the case of Ezekiel, which it did not do in the case of the other prophets?

And if the same prophet beheld the worldwide resurrection upon the dry bones, and if the bones truly rose, becoming perfect men, just as the book of the same prophet teaches, make it clear. Answer. Since it was going to be that the resurrection of the dead would be depicted beforehand through the prophet Ezekiel in a vision, being about to take place in reality through the Son of Man according to what is said, "The hour is coming and now is, in which all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and those who hear will live." For this reason it is called by the name of the Son of Man; and just as Joshua the son of Nun, being about to command the sun and the moon to stand still by his own authority, receives the name of Jesus, which is honored by creation because of the obedience of the command, so too Ezekiel receives the name of the Son of Man and through the vision raises the dead by the power of the appellation. And in the case of Ezekiel everything was a vision, both the bones and their resurrection. God therefore shows this vision to the prophet, primarily signifying through it the universal resurrection of the dead that was to come through Christ, and then for the encouragement of the Israelites, who had despaired of themselves being able any longer to be freed from the slavery of the Babylonians; for just as dead bodies lying in tombs have no hope of resurrection, so they supposed 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 are dried up, our hope is lost, and so on. 59. Question. If all the things of life are good, why are those who abstain from them praised in the Scriptures, and those who cleave to them condemned? But if they are evil, why are evil things 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 cleaving to them simply blameworthy; but each, when done with fitting reason, both the abstaining and the cleaving to them, is praiseworthy. Done in the opposite way, both are blameworthy. That nothing evil by nature is yoked together with our life, the divine Scripture shows by praising the creation of the works made, saying, "And God saw all things whatsoever he had made, and behold, they were very good." But when we pervert good things willingly, evil things come to be; for there is no evil in life while the good things in it remain unperverted, so that nothing is evil besides the perversion of the good. Nothing evil, then, is yoked together with our life; for evil things are evil by irrational use and not by nature, and both the using and the not using, whether well or evilly, are matters of choice.

60. Question. If there is no perception in the elements, why does Moses call heaven and earth to witness to the people, and Isaiah, when accusing the 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 that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her." For it was not the city that killed and stoned, but the citizens. 61. Question. Why did the Lord say to Mary after the resurrection, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"? If, then, before the ascension it was not permitted to anyone to touch him, how is it that shortly afterward he allowed the disciples and Thomas to do this? But if it was permitted, why did he forbid this woman shortly before what he was about to permit to many shortly afterward? Answer. The "Do not touch me" was spoken to Mary by the Savior in the sense of "Do not follow me, so as to be with me continually in the manner of my way of life before my cross." For he wished gradually to wean the disciples from the sight and presence of his body. Therefore he was not seen by the disciples continually during the forty days in which he stayed on

of the earth after the resurrection, nor did he make himself entirely invisible to them; but he did both alternately—both being seen by them and not being seen. 62. Question. 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 to the first humans by God from the hide of dumb animals. Answer. If in each kind there are certain things that are generative of the kind, and the things generative of the kind are works of God, while the things under the generative things are works of nature, subsisting through seed and generation, it is clear that God did not make each kind—except the one pair, male and female, of each kind. But God made the leathern tunics not in a human way, but creatively; for he did not slaughter animals and sew their hides 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 Scripture say, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had begun to do"? Let the one who says this know that he rested from the making of the things he had begun to make—that is, from making the things that were not; but the hides, which he now makes, he did not now begin to make, but in the making of the animals their hides also came to be long ago. And in accordance with these things also is the saying, "And the Lord God formed yet from the earth all the cattle and the beasts of the earth, and brought them to Adam," and what follows; for "yet" signifies the second generation of these. 63. Question.

Since formerly the children, and now we, have used the cry "Hosanna" and "Alleluia" in our hymns, what is their interpretation? Answer. The interpretation of "Alleluia" is "Praise with melody the One who is," and of "Hosanna" is "greatness that is exalted above." 64. Question. If the divine is unchangeable, how is it that when blasphemed and when praised, it has often rendered to both the recompense worthy of each one's action? Answer. God, remaining in his own perception and justice unchangeably, renders to each according to worth, not now finding it possible to do this by a turning aside, but always having had and having the unchangeableness in these matters; for to hold the blasphemers and the grateful in equal rank would be a mark of insensibility or injustice, which are alien to God. 65. Question. If Saul, moved by pious zeal, destroyed the ventriloquists, why was he brought together so as to seek a prediction from a ventriloquist? And if that woman truly brought 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 against David, that God had transferred the kingdom to him, contrived in every way to kill David, so that the divine vote concerning him might not come to fulfillment. He destroyed the ventriloquists, expecting by this to reconcile God, so as to overturn the own vote 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 be in need of those things which he had undertaken to destroy with no good purpose. But all the other things that came about through the ventriloquist came about through the operation of the demon who presented visions to the sight of those who saw, so that they seemed to see Samuel who was not Samuel. 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 declaration of what was to come. And since Saul did not listen to Samuel, who had told him of the removal of his kingdom, but even after the divine vote that rejected him from the kingdom still laid claim to the kingdom, for this reason God judged him unworthy to be foretold the things to come 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 false spirit, as the book of Kings says; believing which, Ahab was deceived and went to war and did not return alive. 66. Question. If male and female were created for the sake of procreation, and this does not take place in the resurrection, do humans rise having the difference of the procreative parts? And if so, how is it not superfluous to bear members that are inactive? Answer. Even if the generative parts are not useful for procreation after the resurrection, yet they are useful for the remembrance that through such parts humans received their birth and growth and continuance.

For through them we are led to an understanding of the wisdom of God, which arranged these devices against death as safeguards for our race in immortality through the succession of those who are born. 37. Question: If Moses foretold the transgression and the punishment that was to be brought upon the people through it, why did he speak these things with a song, since songs are known to produce rather relaxation than benefit in men? Answer: In accordance with the narratives contained in the songs, the rhythms of the melodies were also fittingly composed, leading the souls to the perception appropriate to the things sung; for they were sung either mournfully or lamentingly or in a compunctionate manner or in other modes, banishing relaxation from the mind of those who sang. 38. Question: If medicine is useful and necessary for men, as the facts show, for what reason did the discovery of such a good come not from the pious but from their opponents? Answer: Many remedies for bodily diseases were discovered both by the pious and by Solomon the king, of which none of those outside piety had comprehension; but the pious regarded as true medicine that which heals the souls, since to the soul that has been cared for, the salvation of the body follows; for he who properly cares for salvation has no need of help from material things, always having divine grace obedient for the provision of the goods of both body and soul; for the word of the Savior is true, which says, "Seek the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added to you." 39. Question.

If infants who die 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 obtain the goods that come through baptism, while the unbaptized do not obtain them; and they are deemed worthy of the goods that come through baptism by the faith of those who bring them to baptism. 40. Question. If Moses set forth to us the generation 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 one will find many similar things to these in the Scripture. How, then, can both be true, though contrary to each other? Answer. Moses did not hand down to us the heavens by number, neither one nor two nor more; but the Scripture is accustomed to call the intervals of the intervals that lie above in the air "heavens," as "the birds of heaven" and "rain from heaven" and "the stars of heaven." From the sequence, then, of the expressions that lie before us we understand the heavens: in essence, two, and in addition to these

Another, of which the blessed Paul obtained the vision, and at intervals even several. And when the heavens are understood in this way, no contradiction will be left in the accounts. 41. Question. If 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 and chose these men? And will the same argument apply concerning the devil and the first-formed man being made by God? Answer. If it was necessary that Christ be handed over by one of his disciples, "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 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 foreknowledge, but foreknowledge follows what is going to be. In no way, then, is the one who foreknows the cause of what is going to be. So that it is not Christ who is the cause of the betrayal, but the betrayal is the cause of Christ's foreknowledge. And concerning the devil and the first-formed man the same argument applies.

76. Question. If the sun is hidden at night, how is the heaven not shown to be a sphere? For the holy man from among the philosophers said that, "just as a cupping-glass is to a body, so heaven lies upon the earth, and the one is borne upward because of its lightness, and the other is borne downward because of its weight; therefore by their mutual attraction they are held together." But if this is true, since the whole celestial circle is fixed upon the earth, the luminaries must necessarily be within and shine always. How then are they hidden? Answer. If it is agreed that many other things are in the same and equal plane and are hidden from sight because of the length of the distance, such as ships at sea not seen by one another, since the expanse of the water's surface limits the sight so that it cannot extend beyond the horizon, what wonder is it if the hiding of the luminaries also happens for the same cause? But that heaven and earth stand fast by the mutual attraction of heaven and earth—this can be conjectured in the case of the first heaven and the earth, because they came into being together, but no longer in the case of the firmament and the earth; for the earth stood before the firmament, bearing the whole liquid substance, without the mutual attraction of the firmament; for the firmament came into being later than the earth.

77. Question. If, because according to the Greeks heaven is a sphere and moves, it is in a place, how is it that, because it is fixed like a vault or stretched out like a skin according to the Scripture, heaven is not in a place? For just as what moves, so also what is fixed must be considered to be in a place. But if this is so, how shall we not have a just condemnation of one another concerning the delineation of heaven? But if heaven according to both is in a place, and to each side the quality and quantity of the place is unknown, what more can we possess than the other side, since condemnation and ignorance concerning the things previously said equally possess both? Answer. For if the Christians said that heaven is not in a place, just as the Greeks say, the condemnation of one another would be equal, since they say that heaven is not in a place; but since they use significant words to one another of heaven's being in a place, such condemnation is entirely done away with. But if, on the one hand, heaven's being a sphere and moving spherically is impossible, while, on the other hand, its being like a vault is shown to be possible, then the Christians' condemnation on account of ignorance is none at all. But concerning place, we conjecture about it from what is in our own experience, that just as among us, whenever there is a spherical body, smooth and hollow and from every side

equal in circumference, if it is covered over upon the waters, it is borne upon the waters; in this way heaven is borne by the waters. "He who stretched out," it says, "the heaven like a vault"; by the name of vault he indicated the spherical form of the body of heaven. The waters, then, bear heaven, the earth bears the waters, and the divine command bears the earth; for "He who hung the earth," it says, "upon nothing." 74. Question. If the difference in forms is useful to us here both for the needs of the body and for occupations and for dealings with one another, but the body rises in the resurrection without need, then if we rise with the same difference of forms, how is it not useless? But if in one likeness, what is the proof of this? And how does the parable concerning Lazarus and the rich man not show the difference of forms? For certainly from this the rich man recognized Lazarus. But if some should say that knowledge was given to him for the recognition of Lazarus and Abraham, from where will they establish this? And in the case of the Lord too, 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 ought to rise in their own form, first for the demonstration of the divine and great knowledge of God, who was able in so great a multitude of those who rise to preserve for each his own form.

Then, so that he not be thought to be creating new humans and not raising the dead, for this reason he raises each of those who rise in his own form, though not at an untimely age; and further, so that the justice of the judgment not be destroyed, each of those who rise must have his own form; for if the forms of the wrongdoer and the wronged are unknown, the justice of the judgment is destroyed; and further, if the uses for which the difference of forms became necessary are dissolved, this difference is found to be superfluous and useless. Therefore it is necessary that along with it the difference of names also be superfluous and useless. How then does the rich man call Lazarus, if the persons are not recognized from the difference in name? But the account concerning Lazarus and the rich man is neither a parable, even if it is spoken parabolically, nor a history, since a parable is a discourse containing a likeness of a thing that has happened to a thing that 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 "they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" true. But the account concerning the rich man and Lazarus is a sketch of a discourse having the teaching that humans cannot, after the soul's departure from the body, obtain any benefit by some providence or effort.

Question 95. 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 has it not by the will of another, as all others who are immortal do, but from his own essence. Question 96. If the creation of the luminaries took place on the fourth day, and the number of the days is constituted from them, how do the three days before the production of the luminaries not show the number after the production of the luminaries to be doubtful? Answer. From the production of light came the division of light and darkness, and from the division of light and darkness day and night came into being. Hence it is clear that before the making of the luminaries, the dominion of light according to God's ordinance made the day, and the dominion of darkness made the night. But when the luminaries came into being, they were appointed to have authority, one over the light and the day, the other over the darkness and the night; for the Creator, with the light...

having allotted to the greater of the luminaries his defined dominion; and such days as the light now makes together with the luminary, he made also before the making of the luminaries, according to the decree of God who defined his dominion as twelve hours; for that decree even now urges the sun to its measured twelve-hour motion from the beginning. Question 97. Question. Since some have interpreted variously and obscurely the words "in the sun he set his tabernacle," teach its clear meaning. Answer. We said in the passages above that divine Scripture is known to call heavens either those according to substance, as the first heaven and the firmament, or those according to the intervals in the air. So then "in the sun he set his tabernacle," meaning that he set the heavens as a tabernacle for the sun; for the translation of the phrase from the language of the Hebrews into the language of the Syrians has been made thus: "in them he set the tabernacle of the sun." And the prophet David shows this very thing through another psalm, saying "who stretches out the heaven like a skin"; for the stretching out of skins makes a tent. By the variety of substances, then, and the difference of their uses, he shows that they are created; for uncreated nature has no difference in nature toward uncreated nature, but that it exists for the sake of uses as such and such is foreign to uncreated nature.

82. Question. If “as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, so also the Lord was in the heart of the earth,” how was the Lord’s death not merely in appearance? For Jonah, not having died, was thought to have died. But if the Lord truly tasted death, how has the example of Jonah not been 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 whale. Otherwise, if the events concerning Jonah were in all respects like those concerning the Savior, those things could no longer be types or images of these. The truth must therefore have something more than the type, according to the saying, “something greater than Jonah is here.” The example of Jonah is understood to be a truthful demonstration of the Savior’s case in this way: that, just as Jonah had the three-day return from the whale as a sign of faith that he had been sent by God as a herald of the destruction of the Ninevites, so also 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. 89. Question. Since some say that the Lord’s betrayal took place on the fourth day, inferring 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 the Lord was betrayed not on the fourth day but on the fifth is this: on the night in which he was betrayed, during that same night he was judged and condemned by the chief priests and elders; and in the morning following that night they handed him over to Pilate.

On the day Pilate received him, on that same day he also crucified him. But having received him in the morning of the Preparation, he crucified him. It is not right, then, to add by conjecture the inconsistent 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 to put him to death. And having bound him, they led him away and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." And John the evangelist likewise says: "So they bring Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium; and it was early." And again: "So Pilate, having heard these words, brought Jesus outside and sat down on the judgment seat, at a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation of the Passover, and it was about the sixth hour." If, therefore, he was delivered and judged by the chief priests during the night and condemned, but in the morning he was delivered to Pilate and crucified at the sixth hour of the Preparation, it is clear that the delivery took place at the fifth hour.

84. Question. If the blood of a man is not the soul, why, when it is poured out, does the living being perish, and by what demonstrations is it shown that the soul is in the body, or that there is something else in creation invisible? Answer. Since we have the utterances of the Creator of creation that distinguish the soul from the body, we ought not to demand demonstrations more trustworthy than these for the establishment of the truth of the matter inquired into. For by giving to the Devil authority over the whole bodily constitution of Job to smite it as he wishes, and by preventing him from touching his soul, he shows that the soul is something other than his flesh that was smitten, and is not smitten. Likewise also this declares it: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul"—namely, that there is something of the slain man that remains in immortality even after the death of the body, which it is absurd to call the blood that was poured out and corrupted. It is evident, then, that the soul is something invisible to men according to its own nature. 85. Question. Why does the number seven admit of change? For indeed on the Sabbath the air for the most part changes, and the advance of a man according to age receives its progress in this number, teeth growing in the seventh month, and in the same year being changed, and again being doubled, when he acquires the power of seed. And to speak briefly, the number seven brings about the growth of men and makes the distinction of diseases, and in the law it has obtained the more reverend place among the other numbers. Answer.

The fulfillment of nature's works comes about according to the power of nature, and not according to a temporal extension defined by a week of months or of years; therefore the works of nature named in the question, nature often brings to their proper perfection sooner or later than the seven numbers; which would not happen if nature followed the hebdomad and not the hebdomad nature. The hebdomad, then, is not the cause of the fulfillment of nature's works, but the power of nature is the cause of the hebdomad, according to which it befell nature 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 living beings and plants, the power of nature is the cause of the equal time, both of the longer and of the shorter. But the number seven is more venerable in the divine Scripture, because in it is contained the whole time both of the creation of the world and of the rest of the one who made it—six for the creation, and one for the rest. In order, then, that the memory of the creation of the world be preserved among men, for this reason God appointed the number seven more honored than the other numbers in the divine Scripture.

86. Question. If rejoicing and exulting in one's gifts is forbidden as producing arrogance, but humility and gentleness are handed down by divine Scripture to those who have received them, how are the gifts not useless to them, since they are unable at present to give them a perception of their own good? Answer. He forbids rejoicing in one's gifts together with arrogance, as destructive of right rejoicing; but rejoicing in one's gifts together with gentleness he not only does not discourage, but on the contrary permits such joy, the Savior saying at one time, "Rejoice that your names have been written in the heavens," and at another the apostle saying, "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.

87. Question. 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 true, and whether it is demonstrated by clear examples, and whether it comes from divine Scripture or 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 at one time it says, "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 millennium, in which we are. 88. Question. If each person is shown to be generous when he grants to his neighbors the good that he knows and is able to do, how is God not envious, who was able to make all things gods and did not? Since being God is good—and if he is not envious, how did he not do this out of inability? For of two things, one must be suspected. Answer. The absurdity contained in this question is manifold; for in it God is classed together with created things, which generously grant to their neighbors the good things they are able to do or know. For that which is near to God does not need God for provision, since 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 the transcendence and subordination of their substance.

Furthermore, if nothing impossible comes to be, and it is impossible for God to come to be—for God is uncreated and unmade—how is it not irrational to call God then ungrudging, when he does things that are not possible? Moreover, God is good, because he is uncreated and creator. But none of created things can by nature become uncreated, that is, God. And this question resembles the argument that says, "The eye is good and more honorable than the feet." But if God is ungrudging, why did he not make the feet eyes? For this argument also draws the same irrational absurdity—that God failed to make the feet eyes either through envy or through inability. 95. Question. If the good appears good only when it is compared with evil, and the world is good, it is clear that what is not the world, that is, what is before the world, is evil. And if both are from God—that is, what is before the world and the world—how is it not the case that each is 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 spontaneous and not under his control? And how does he speak truth who says, "that all things are from him"? 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 turning away of the good. Therefore evil is later than the good; for it is a turning away of the good. But if this is so, it is clear that evil appears evil not from comparison with the good, but from its own nature. And what was before the world, being not, was in every way not being; and what is in every way not being is neither good nor evil. Therefore nothing is compared with what is thus not being.

Furthermore, that which in every way does not exist is neither from God nor from anything else, nor is it spontaneous. Before the world, therefore, there was nothing other than God. Since, then, the comparison of beings is with beings, the world is not compared with that which is not world, nor is that which is not world contained in the world; for that which is not world is nothing, whereas that which is contained is a being. And when we say that God made the things that are out of that which is not, we do not give a positing of being to that which is not, but the complete abolition of being. 86. Question. If, because Hellenism has been conquered by Christianity, Hellenism has no hope of recall, how is it that true religion, having long ago been 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. If the end of the present state is the judgment of the impious through fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles say, and moreover 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 the "kingdom that cannot be shaken" given to him according to the prophet Daniel—it is clear that Hellenism has no hope of recall.

Besides, if the Hellenism that once prevailed over the people of God by its dominion, when that dominion was dissolved, never again recovered it, how is it not in vain that it now expects the recall of its former dominion? And for what reason does Hellenism expect this? Certainly so that by torments it may compel the Christians to renounce the love and faith of Christ and to attend to the worship of demons. But these torments, which Hellenism formerly employed and hoped by them to preserve itself unbroken, dissolved Hellenism and established Christianity in power. 87. Question. If the soul does not receive the rewards of its deeds until the resurrection of bodies, in what state, then, is it examined until the resurrection? Answer. The souls do not have after the departure from the body the same state that they have at present. Here all things of nature are common to just and unjust alike, 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 other things like these. But after the departure from the body, the distinction between the just and the unjust comes immediately; for they are led by the angels to places worthy of them, the souls of the just to paradise, where there is converse with and sight of angels and archangels, and by vision 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 go to the places in Hades, according to what was said concerning Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: "Hades below was embittered at meeting you," and the rest. And they are kept in the places worthy of them until the day of resurrection and recompense. Question 89. And if, as you said, before the resurrection there is no recompense of works, what benefit accrued to the robber, his soul having been brought into paradise, and especially since paradise is perceptible, while the essence of the soul is intelligible? Answer. A benefit came to the robber, having entered into paradise, namely to learn by works the profitableness of faith, through which he was deemed worthy of the assembly of the saints, in which he is kept until the day of resurrection and recompense; and he has the perception of paradise, according to which souls see themselves, and further also the angels and the demons—for a soul does not see a soul by thought, nor an angel an angel, nor a demon a demon, but according to the said conceptual perception they see both themselves and one another—and further also all bodily things. Question 90. If by the cooperation of the senses of the body the soul receives the perception of perceptible things, and the perceptible things happen to be both good and base, how is the soul not without perception when separated from the body? But if it is without perception, 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 twofold apprehensive powers, both perceptive and intellectual.

The soul possesses what is called the conceptual faculty of perception, by which souls apprehend themselves and one another; and the intellectual faculty, by which they receive the knowledge of that which is above them. Therefore the souls do not receive the perception of sensible things by the cooperation of the body, but the soul itself, being perception, makes the living being perceptive by its own presence. And as it is perception in relation to the living being, so it is perceptive in relation to itself, and it never becomes dead; for the death belongs to the ensouled, mortal being, and not to the soul. Therefore 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, just as that which exists by participation is one thing and that which exists by essence is another. 6. Question. If God declared that David was 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 is the Scripture true when it says, "The children of adulterers are imperfect"? Answer. Both because David corrected his own faults through repentance, and in this respect he was found as the heart of God, who does not will "the death of the sinner, but that he turn and live." And the one whom he begot adulterously from the wife of Uriah, God put to death, because it was "children of adulterers, imperfect"; but those born after him he did not put to death, because he took her as a lawful wife after the removal of Uriah.

But God, honoring repentance, established the family of David among the descendants born of Uriah, and caused Christ too, for the same reason, to be descended from her. 91. Question. If Josiah displayed a more fervent zeal for piety than all the kings of Israel and Judah, shattering the pillars of the idols and overthrowing their temples and altars, and burning the bones of the Greeks together with their idolatrous altars, and utterly cutting down the groves of error, and causing those who burned incense on the high places to cease from doing these things, and exalting the divine worship and splendidly causing the people to celebrate the feasts of the law, as the Scripture testifies—and yet he laid down his life violently by a Greek sword, and his children were carried captive to Babylon and given over to long-lasting slavery to the Greeks—how, in view of these things, would the Greeks not say truthfully that, in return for the wrong he did 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 to what further benefit, after such great achievements, were the calamities that befell Josiah handed down in Scripture? Answer. The time of recompense for achievements in piety accompanied by virtue is not the present, but the future, in which the recompenses remain irrevocable forever for those who receive them.

Josiah received a painful end to his life because he disobeyed the prophet Jeremiah, who had told him by God's command not to go out to meet the king of Egypt in battle, as Ezra says. So then, in order that the Lord God might receive him clean of sins from this life, for this reason he allowed him to pay the penalty for this disobedience by a Greek sword, for the instruction of subsequent people—both that they not disobey the prophets and that "if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinful man appear?" But if the sons of Josiah, while they remained in their father's piety, had been taken captive, the argument of the Greeks would have had a place—that in return for the fact that Josiah sinned against the objects of idolatrous 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.

95. Question. If the Scripture teaches us to be patient toward all, how did Elisha not err in putting to death by a curse the boys who insulted him, and especially since, bearing a grudge against foolish infants, he brought death upon them through wild beasts for a mere and worthless insult? Answer. When through patience there is no correction of those who go astray, then severity is more useful than patience for those who sin incorrigibly. It is not right, then, to slander the prophet for his severity, since he had said that patience does not give sinners a sense of their sin. And since those words which the boys spoke in dishonoring the prophet they had been taught by their own parents, who had always been hostile toward the prophets—for they said "Go up, baldhead" in mockery of Elijah's assumption, as if saying this: "Let a spirit take you too and cast you onto a desolate mountain, as it cast him, so that we may be rid of you as we were rid of him"—for this reason he scourged the parents through the destruction of the boys, so that they might learn not to dishonor the prophets and through them God. 96. Question. If all error has been abolished by the coming of Christ, how do demons speak through those called ventriloquists? And how do they not present Christianity as worthless and deserving of contempt, when in the bodies of Christians they display the works of deception and utter the words of divination? Answer.

If, according to what is said, "we do not yet see all things subjected to him," but "when he has abolished all rule and authority and power," it is clear that the whole deception of the demons has not yet been abolished, but for those who have believed in Christ the whole deception of the demons has been abolished; while for those who still disbelieve in Christ, the demons work their deception. And the bodies which the ventriloquists use for speaking and for performing the words and deeds of divination are not real bodies, but the demons impress upon the sight of those who see, so that they seem to see as bodies things that are not bodies. 4. Question. If the Scripture nowhere taught men the names of demons, how did the Jews in the time of the Lord name Beelzebub as a known name, saying that he cast out the demons by him? And the Master himself spoke to his disciples of the demon's name as one they knew: "If they have 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 were they taught their names by them. For at first men sacrificed to demons and not to God; later the divine Scripture said, "They sacrificed to demons and not to God." And just as the Scripture nowhere appears to have stated that demons exist, yet says, "They sacrificed to demons and not to God," so also, though it has said nothing about their names, it speaks of the names of the demons, both of Beelzebub and of Beliar: "What," it says, "fellowship has Christ with Beliar?

For the demons whom the sorcerers used for the works that lay before them, they necessarily learned from them, just as the manner of the cure, so also the name of their invocation. And Origen has stated the interpretation of these names in the Interpretation of the Hebrew Names. 96. Question. If the divine is not pleased by the sacrifices of irrational animals, as some have said and as the present understanding also teaches, why before the law did he command Noah to sacrifice, and especially since idolatrous sacrifices had not yet taken place? But if he was pleased by these, why after the law did their use cease? Answer. None of those who sacrificed irrational animals to God before the law sacrificed according to the divine ordinance, even if God appears to have accepted this, showing by his acceptance of it that the one who sacrificed was pleasing to him. But the animals three years old that he commanded Abraham to take, and likewise the ram which he brought to sacrifice in place of Isaac, were not because he was pleased by the sacrifices of these, but for the sake of a need foretelling what was to come; but to Noah God nowhere appears to have commanded him to bring to him the sacrifice of irrational animals. 97. Question. If Elisha, having asked for the double gift in Elijah, was heard, how is it that he performed neither single nor double the works of Elijah, such as the withholding of rains and the bringing on of famine, the bringing down of fire from heaven upon sacrifices, the slaughter of the priests of the Greeks, the consuming of fifties, and the rest, but that one performed some wonders and this one others? From where, then, will Elisha be shown to have received his own request and the promise of Elijah? Answer.

Elisha did not ask for the double portion of the spirit for the performance of the same works twice over, but simply for the strength to accomplish whatever needed to be done by him with greater power and abundance. And that he did not fail in his request, the wonders that came about through him bear witness, of which he performed some twice and some once; for to raise two dead—one while he was alive and one after he had died—signified the double portion of the divine grace of the Spirit that was in him, in respect of the abundance in the remaining wonders, if he so willed. And in the case of Elijah, the supply of oil was for the need; but in the case of Elisha, it was even beyond the need. And Elijah brought fire down from heaven for the defense against his enemies, but Elisha brought down from heaven horses of fire and riders for the help of Israel. 97. Question. 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 in the case of any of the others whom the Lord raised—for instance, in the case of Lazarus, or the son of the widow, or the daughter of Jairus—but simply that he raised this one or that one? How then does it mention the resurrection of bodies only in these cases, and add that "they appeared to many," which gives the majority an occasion for suspecting a phantasm? And if truly soulless bodies rose and came back to life, either they died immediately, or they remain in immortality—and where? And what benefit does it give to those after them from what was done in their case? Teach us. Answer.

If we call this a complete resurrection of the risen men—the souls being settled again into the bodies of those who rise—it is clear that all, both those who have already risen and those who are going to rise by the Lord, have risen complete; for it is impossible for there to be a resurrection of the dead unless the soul is settled into its own body. So 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 complete 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 your mortal bodies," it neither calls the resurrection incomplete nor gives any suggestion of illusion, but [declares] the faith of a complete resurrection, so also when it says, "Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised," it means the complete resurrection. And the resurrection of these saints became a proof that the death of Christ is a ransom from the death of all men, for those who believe in the present age and for all the souls in Hades; for this reason they did not die again, but remain in immortality, like Enoch and Elijah, and are with them in paradise, awaiting the fellowship of Christ's resurrection, which comes about through the change by which, as the holy apostle says, "we shall all be changed." For the resurrection of anyone to immortal and incorruptible life has not yet happened, except that of the Savior Christ. Therefore he is proclaimed both "firstborn from the dead" and "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

47. Question. What is the meaning of "uphi," "nebel," "gomor," "siklon," "the royal" and "the holy," the stater, the drachma, the kodrantes, the hormiskos, the didrachmon, the talent, the assarion, the theraphim, the bezek, "sabaoth," "adonai," the ephoud? The knowledge of both is necessary for us, since both are contained in Scripture. Answer. It has been stated by Origen, a man versed in the Hebrew language, that the interpretation of all the Hebrew names or measures found in the divine Scriptures is [available]. Seek that interpretation and you will find in it the interpretation of all the things you have sought. 48. Question. If before the murder of the Baptist the Lord was distinguished by the working of miracles, as Matthew says, and the report of these things reached all those in Judea, how is it that after the murder of the Forerunner Herod, hearing the miracles performed by Christ, said to the Jews that John had returned to life and was the one performing the signs? For the blessed Mark relates these things to us. Answer. Because not all who heard the miracles performed by the Savior heard them at one and the same time, but some earlier and some later—the statements of those who said that John was the worker of the miracles performed by the Savior after John's murder bear witness to this. For they would not have said this if they had heard of the miracles performed by the Savior before John's murder. There is nothing surprising, then, if Herod also, after John's murder, heard of the works of Jesus' disciples, the works done in the name of Jesus.