Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

For Herod heard the name of Jesus at that time when Jesus sent out his own disciples into the cities and villages to preach repentance and to heal diseases, as Mark the evangelist says. For John himself, before the raising of the widow's son, had not heard all that Jesus did both in Galilee and in Jerusalem, although there were many wonders already performed by the Savior, both before John was cast into prison and after he was cast in. For at that time John sent his own disciples to Jesus to learn whether he was the one who was expected to come, as Luke says, [when] * * *, Luke the evangelist [says] this, and John the evangelist that. 100. Question. If, as the divine Scripture teaches and we have believed, Christ, when born, "committed no sin," how again is the Scripture true when it cries out with an oath, that "no one born who did not sin, nor anyone by nature who did not transgress the law"? And how could an infant, receiving its end at the same time as its birth, or brought to a life of few days, have been able to commit sin and transgression, or the opposites of these? Answer. The saying "no one born who did not sin, nor anyone by nature who did not transgress the law" does not show to be false what was said about Christ, namely "he committed no sin"; for this statement was made about one born of a man and a woman. But Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and of the holy and God-bearing Mary. And the statement is also understood thus: no one by nature sins or transgresses the law, who has not sinned or transgressed the law.

By nature, he sins who of his own free choice leads himself to do what he wishes, whether good or evil. But an infant, since it is not yet possessed of such power, clearly does not by nature sin either. And the saying, "Who shall be clean from defilement? No one, even if his life on earth be but one day," in no way applies to an infant; for "life" here is taken in place of "conduct," and an infant has no conduct, and therefore no life. Question 141. If the patriarchs, moved by pious reasoning, took wives for themselves and their sons from their own kindred, how did Joseph and Moses act contrary to the pious purpose of their forefathers, the one marrying an Egyptian woman and the other a Midianite? Answer. The patriarchs, for fear that their own people might be turned aside from piety, did not permit them to take wives from among the Gentiles; but Moses and Joseph were above such fear. So Moses and Joseph appear to have done nothing in violation of the purpose of the fathers in taking Gentile wives; for not only were they themselves not turned aside from piety by their wives, but they even converted their wives to their own piety.

103. Question. If Adam had not seen death, either rational or irrational, before the transgression, how did he fear death, which he had not seen, as though he had seen it threatened? And how did God threaten him with this death, unknown to him, as though it were known? Answer. If we call that rational which has within itself the concepts of the things signified by names, it is clear that Adam, being rational, also had within himself the concept of death. And just as Adam, though he had not seen a rational being ashamed at his own nakedness, nevertheless was ashamed when he was naked, having within himself the name and concept of shame, so too he had within himself the concept of death, even though he had not yet beheld the thing itself in another. Therefore he reasonably feared death, knowing from his concept of it that it is opposed to life. 104. Question. Since Scripture speaks of judgments and ordinances and testimonies and law, commandments and precepts, teach whether these are both the same as one another, or each has its own distinct meaning. Answer. It calls judgments the words that distinguish what is to be done from what is not to be done, and that define honor for obedience and punishment for disobedience. It calls ordinances the correctness of the judgments, distributing to each according to worth. It calls law the written summary of the whole Jewish worship. It calls testimony the recompense, worthy through blessing and curse, for the things done by those who received the law, which Moses often, solemnly testifying, said would happen to the Jews whether they obeyed or disobeyed.

And he calls them "commandments" and "ordinances," naming the words in the manner of words, as spoken by way of injunction or command, according to the emphasis of the divine authority of the one who enjoined or commanded these things. 104. Question. If the back of heaven is laden with waters, as the Scripture says—which some have said came to be because of the fiery nature of the luminaries, so that the heaven, being fattened by the waters laid upon it, remains unconquered by the flame of the luminaries beneath it—how do those who say these things speak the truth, when the luminaries move not in heaven but under heaven? But if they should say that these are in heaven, how do they have the power of motion, when the heavenly body possesses immobility? And if the stars receive their motion together with heaven, how would the myth that calls heaven a sphere not be true? But if this is unfitting, and what was said before about the luminaries is consistent to understand, how is the constitution of the waters above not useless? And what will it itself become at the consummation, when the righteous are above and the sinners below, about to receive then the recompenses of their deeds? Answer. Even if the luminaries are under heaven, nevertheless the motion of the activity of fiery natures is by nature upward. Therefore those who said that the back of heaven is laden with waters for the preservation of the firmament have given a reasonable cause.

And this is not the only cause of the waters being on the back of the heaven—namely, that it is unassailable by the flame of the luminaries that lies beneath it—but also that it is weighed down toward the lower region by the multitude of the waters on its back and is not shaken by the violent rush of the winds, and that the extreme cold from them is sent downward, from which, when mixed with the extreme heat of the sun, the tempering of the airs is brought about for the preservation of the living creatures and plants upon the earth. But in the consummation, humans receive the recompenses of their deeds not in the present heaven and the present earth, but in the new heaven and the new earth, according to what is said: "For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, which I make; it remains before me forever." And again: "In the beginning you, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they shall perish, but you remain, and all shall grow old as a garment, and as a cloak you shall roll them up and they shall be changed." And again: "Yet once more I shake the heaven and the earth"; and what is shaken indicates the removal, so that the things that are not shaken may remain. 195. Question. If the Lord foretells that the heaven shall be rolled up like a book and the stars shall fall upon the earth like leaves, and the prophet also proclaimed things in agreement with these beforehand, how is the complete destruction of the firmament not shown through those words? What, then, is the meaning of such utterances, and how does the incorruptibility of the elements hold together? Answer.

Just as divine Scripture figuratively compared the making of the firmament sometimes to the stretching out of a hide, saying, "who stretches out the heaven like a hide," and sometimes to smoke that has been made firm ("the heaven," it says, "was made firm like smoke"), and sometimes to the curve of a vault ("who stretched out," it says, "the heaven like a vault"), so also it figuratively compared its dissolution sometimes to a scroll being rolled up, sometimes to an element being dissolved by fire, as the apostle Peter says in his second catholic epistle, and sometimes to a garment growing old. For by the introduction of the better heaven, which is made new, the firmament must necessarily be done away with, since it is useless for that state, so that by its destruction they may then at least learn the vanity of their opinion concerning the unbegottenness and incorruptibility of heaven—those who have called it eternal and unbegotten, both divine and endowed with mind. Question 146. Question: If at the beginning the production of creation came about for our need, and likewise for our need some things are corrupted while others put on incorruptibility at the consummation—for example, cattle and wild beasts and birds are corrupted, but heaven and earth are released from corruption—and some things are corrupted because we rise with a body that has no needs, while the elements indicated remain in incorruptibility, [since] we are to receive in them the recompense for what we have done, how are air and sea not useless, if they then remain incorruptible, when we have no need of them either for breathing or for trade or for eating fish or for any other assistance, because the body, as I said, has no needs? Answer.

If, according to the apostle Paul, "the form of this world is passing away," it is clear that of necessity all other things as well, which came to be for the sake of the form of the world, will be removed together with the form of the world, and "a new heaven and a new earth" will be brought in, in which the recompense for deeds is to be given to the righteous and the unrighteous. But as for the air, even if we do not then need it for breathing, we will necessarily use it for motion and change of place; for "we shall be caught up," he says, "in clouds to meet the Lord in the air." 107. Question. If praise is given by God only for things that are good according to intention, what praise do the children who received death by the sword at Herod's hands, and the infants in the Lord's time, who uttered the hymn when he was seated on the beast and was entering Jerusalem, justly have owed to them? For those children received slaughter against their will, and these infants uttered the hymn in Jerusalem not by their own intention but by divine grace. Answer. If it is a gift of God to suffer for Christ—"to you," he says, "it was granted not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him"—and the infants also suffered for Christ, then they were deemed worthy of divine grace. Who, then, would not justly praise these, who were praised by God through the giving of divine grace—he who grants praise even for things good against intention

If God, in return for the praise of those who are afflicted for the sake of piety, repays affliction to those who afflicted them, then of necessity the infants slain by Herod must also be praised with this praise, the praise that comes through the avenging of their afflictions. "It is just," says the apostle Paul, "with God to repay affliction to those who afflicted you, and to you who are afflicted, relief in his kingdom." Question 108. If grace is called grace for this reason, because it more readily forgives those who stumble against the law, how is it that the things befitting grace are found more in the law? For the law washes away the blame of those who stumble each time by certain sprinklings and sacrifices of irrational animals and various baptisms, but grace grants only one baptism, which provides forgiveness of sins. But if we had fallen into sins only once, we would have needed forgiveness only once. But since we sin often, it is clear that we also need forgiveness often; and this the law knows how to provide through the aforementioned sprinklings and the rest, but grace does not. How then will grace not be shown to be more humane toward sinners than the law, since matters stand as has been said? Answer. The law gives forgiveness of such sins through baptism and sacrifice—sins that contribute nothing to the harm of the conduct and life of men, such as touching a dead body or a leper or any of the like.

But for other offenses that have caused harm to the community or to human life, he grants no forgiveness, neither through baptism nor through the sacrifice of irrational animals, but gives to those who have sinned a just and fitting recompense through the principle of equal retaliation. "A soul for a soul," he says, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But where the equality of repayment is unseemly, there he repays to the offenders death by fire or stone or sword. For the daughter of the priest who committed fornication he consumes by fire, the daughter of a layman by stone, and the married woman by the sword; and nowhere does the law have the strength, out of philanthropy, to save any such person through baptisms and sacrifices. But the power of grace for the salvation of sinners is great; for this grace, even while the law prevailed, if it had not overtaken King David when he had fallen into double deadly sins, opening to him the door of repentance, he would not have found in the law a saving philanthropy for sinners. This grace appointed in the world a proven physician for sinners, repentance, which is able to heal even those who sin "seventy times seven," provided only that they wish to make use of the helps of repentance. 109. Question. If the Lord does not present fear as necessary by what he says—for he says, "The one who fears has not been made perfect in love"—how again does the same Lord teach his disciples, saying, "Fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna"? Answer. The saying "The one who fears has not been made perfect in love" was not spoken by the Lord, even if the one who said it spoke with reference to the Lord.

But the saying "Fear rather him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" was not spoken to abolish perfect love, but to guard it; for when a man, by the greater fear of God, loosens the lesser fear of men, he does this by the love of God, so that the greater fear of God exists for the sake of not falling away from those who are loved. For insofar as what is believed is precious, so much is it loved; and insofar as it is loved, so much does the one who loves fear his own falling away, as long as he is in the struggle on behalf of the beloved. But when the struggle is ended, the fear of falling away from the beloved is dissolved together with it. So until then the fear of God is necessary; for just as hating is not destructive of love—for it is impossible for the same person both to hate and to love—so neither is fearing; for it is possible for the same person both to love and to fear. 110. Question. If God commanded in the Law that sacrifices of irrational animals be offered, so that by these men might display the honor due to him, how are the Greeks shown to be more impious than their own gods by sacrificing human beings (which they claim was done by the ancients so that the gods esteemed among them might be deemed worthy of greater honor), honoring them more greatly by the sacrifice of rational beings? For by as much as the rational is more precious than the irrational, by so much is the sacrifice of the former more august than that of the latter. And this is shown more clearly from the case of Jephthah, who, offering his own daughter as a sacrifice, is mentioned by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the list of the pious. Answer.

We should not look at the sacrifice offered to God according to the law as being the blood of irrational animals, but at how God accepted it when it was offered to him. For if God so accepted the blood of irrational animals offered to him as if the one who offered it had offered his own soul, it is clear that the sacrifice held the first rank because of the good pleasure of the one who so accepted it, and God held the first honor; and that the one who offered the blood of irrational animals offered it to God as his own soul, the divine Scripture bears witness, saying: "Instead of the soul of those who offer, the blood of their sacrifices is brought into the holy of holies." Therefore one must judge the rank of the sacrifice and the honor of God not from the nature of what is offered, but from the disposition of the one who accepts it—since God, out of sparing the human race, did not wish to destroy men who were offered daily as sacrifice and to wipe out the race, but granted to men both to increase and to endure, and to their sacrifices the greatest rank. But the gods worshipped among the Greeks, being evil and man-hating demons, took pleasure in sacrifices that diminished and destroyed the human race; which is the greatest proof of their beastly inhumanity and of the godlessness of the Greeks, who tried to honor their own gods—as they say—more greatly, or rather most shamefully, by the destruction of the human race. And the reason why Jephthah was numbered in the list of the pious is this: Jephthah asked for victory over his enemies.

For this victory he prayed to God an indefinite thanksgiving prayer, to offer as a sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house and came to meet him as he returned from war bearing the trophy. But the devil, seizing on the indefiniteness of the prayer, contrived from it to set a snare of transgression for Jephthah; and he moved his daughter, who was an only child, to come out of the house with lyres to meet him, so that if Jephthah spared his daughter he would be compelled to annul his prayer. But nevertheless the devil, having set the snare, did not obtain the prey, since Jephthah regarded the payment of his prayer as more honorable than the life of his daughter. And God permitted her to be offered as a sacrifice, not as taking pleasure in human blood, but for the instruction of later men never to pray to God indefinitely; for many are the absurdities that would result from such an indefinite prayer, and God, providing that they should not come to pass, permitted the daughter of Jephthah to become a sacrifice; which was not primarily the purpose either of God or of Jephthah, but happened in some way as a consequence of the indefiniteness of the prayer. Since, therefore, Jephthah was shown, through the sacrifice of his daughter, to preserve his piety toward God, for this reason his memory has been made in the catalogue of the righteous.

113. Question. If the Master Christ granted the grace of miracles in their churches at the beginning as a confirmation that the worship performed by the orthodox is true, why is it that when heretics worshipped in them and separated from the orthodox themselves, the divine gifts did not also depart with the orthodox from the churches, but the worship of error crept into the churches, while the things granted by God for the increase of orthodoxy had the same effect in the churches even among the heretics? Answer. If the divine grace worked the gifts while the heretics were alive or dead, what happened would reasonably raise a difficulty. But if those who work the divine miracles in the churches are holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs, whose relics lie in the churches, it is clear that even now the orthodox work the miracles; for the apostles, prophets, and martyrs are orthodox, and by their divine works God testifies to the world that the churches in which the miracles are performed belong to them, that is, to the orthodox.

114. Question. If every rational person acquires knowledge by study, and the law of knowledge is to place the lesser before the greater—which is shown more clearly to have prevailed among the Jews, since they first received the teachings of the law and then the teachings of the gospel—how is it that we do not learn in inverted order, learning the greater before the lesser, I mean the lesser things of the law and the greater things of the gospel? For since our nature is one and the same as that of those before us, the order of learning should also be one, since even in studies, if the inferior things do not come first, the better things are hindered. Answer. If our teachings had that necessity which those studies have, whose better parts are hindered unless the learning of the lesser comes first, then we could not have learned our teachings in inverted order either. But since it is possible to learn our teachings even in inverted order, it is clear that our teachings are freed from that necessity. And what is freed from necessity, however it comes about, is beyond reproach for its inverted order. This much, then, as regards the solution of the sophism in the question; but to the question itself we answer as follows: that we too are not taught in inverted order, but just as the apostles learned first the things of the law and later the gospels, so they also taught us. The very words in which they proclaimed the gospel bear witness to this; for everywhere, having proclaimed Christ from the law, they show the lesser from the first things and the greater from the lesser.

For the words "The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren like me," and "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand," and "You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will my flesh see corruption," are voices of the law, which foretold Christ in them; and the apostle Peter, using these, preached the gospel to the Jews. And in respect of learning, the gospels differ in nothing from the law, but in respect of promise and recompense they differ; for what is the law? A gospel foretold. And what is the gospel? A law fulfilled. 113. Question. If the Creator has made nothing superfluous or deficient in the construction of our body, why was the part of the foreskin circumcised among the Jews as though it were superfluous? And for what useful purpose, not in another part but in the generative member, did those before the coming of the Lord Christ receive circumcision? And why, since they received it as useful, do we not likewise use such a handiwork? Answer. Since, because of Abraham's old age and that of his freeborn wife, he was in despair of begetting children by her, he received a promise of offspring from God, and believing God that beyond the season of age he would be a father of the son born to him from the aged barren woman, for this reason God gave him as a seal of this faith the circumcision of the part of the foreskin, which through old age had become useless for begetting children, but through Abraham's faith became useful for begetting children. And he passed on

This circumcision was for the whole race that came into being from the father who was born contrary to hope, as an indelible memorial of both the faith of Abraham and the power of God, "who gives life to the dead and calls the things that are not as though they were." And we too are circumcised, with the circumcision of Christ through baptism, putting off Adam, through whom we were made sinners and died, and putting on Christ, through whom we were justified and raised from the dead; "in whom," says the apostle, "you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the body of your flesh." Question 114. Question. If the one who has been commanded to do what is within his power receives praise or blame for doing or not doing it, it is clear that the one who has not done commandments beyond his power is not liable. How then does the law, commanding things beyond power—that is, not to sin—subject the sinner to punishments, when man is unable to fulfill the law? The apostle testifies to this, saying, "By the works of the law no flesh will be justified." Answer. What is impossible for every man is also possible for some man; for example, to fly in the air, as the eagle does, is impossible for some man. And conversely, what is possible for some man, as for example to sail, is also possible for every man. But if, as the divine Scripture says, some of those under the law became blameless by the righteousness according to the law, it is clear that it was also possible for all those under the law to become blameless in the same manner according to the righteousness that comes from the law.

For the blessed Paul the apostle says of himself, "according to the righteousness which is from the law, blameless"; and the blessed Luke the evangelist says of Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth, that "they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." And what is all the righteousness according to the law, except to love God above oneself, and one's neighbor as oneself, which is not impossible for men who will it? The saying "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" does not speak because we are unable to do the impossible things, but because we are unwilling to do the possible things; for we employ our will toward things possible, not toward things impossible; for praise or blame arises for things possible and within our power, when they have been done or not done. And that we men sin because we do not choose, and not because we are unable, this is a sign: that not all men fall into all the forms of sin, but some into this form of sin, some into another, and some into more, some into fewer, and some into none, according to the righteous men previously mentioned. And this would not have happened to men—that some sin in one form of sin, but others never sin in any—if we men sinned by an incapacity of nature and not by an unwillingness of choice. 117. Question. If, in the case of offenses, the law does not give the sinner room for repentance, but brings upon him an inexorable danger, how is it that the prophet David, having committed adultery and murder, was deemed worthy of forgiveness contrary to the aim of the law?

And if forgiveness is good, why has the law been joined with the unforgivable? But if it is base, which I do not think, how has the provider of good things granted the base thing to the prophet? Answer. If the law does not give place for repentance to the one who has sinned in the case of accusations, how in the 100th question has the law been set before grace, as being readier and more philanthropic than it for the remission of sins to those who sin, whom it releases from blame each day through baptism and through the sacrifice of irrational animals, but now in the present question not even a drop of philanthropy has been left to the law, but the unforgivable has been joined with it, bringing inevitable danger upon the one who has sinned? And these things have been said to the end that the opposition of the questions not be left unremarked; but to the question we shall answer, that even if the law has the unforgivable, yet grace has also given repentance to the one who has sinned; for "your hands are full of blood, but wash and become clean; and if your sins be as scarlet, I will whiten them as snow"; and "I do not will the death of the sinner as that he turn and live," are voices of divine grace, calling sinners to obedience to the law, having received through repentance the forgiveness of former sins. Forgiveness, then, is good and a gift of divine grace; and it is neither according to the law nor against the law, but above the law and on behalf of the law: above the law, because it is grace; on behalf of the law, because through repentance it leads sinners to obedience to the law, just as also David. 110.

Question. If for all men, because of the weakness of nature, the help that comes through prayer is necessary, but the Master Christ had no need of it, as being Master and possessing power sufficient for all things, why do we learn from the Scripture that the Lord prayed more frequently, as recorded by the apostles? Answer. Just as the Lord hungered and thirsted and was weary, and wept and sweat, although by the abundance of his power he was able to endure none of these things, yet for the sake of providing a token of his human nature he willingly endured the weaknesses of his nature, so also he prayed for the same reason. For if, when he had willingly endured the weaknesses of his own nature, some dare to say that he is not of our nature, how would they not have said this very thing with an abundance of proof, if it had happened that he never prayed to God at all? And since concerning the apostles there was no doubt at all that they were men, but concerning the Savior doubt was going to arise, for this reason the divine Scripture proclaimed more frequently, in addition to the rest of men, that he also prayed. For if, having become superior to the weaknesses of the flesh through the resurrection, as "high priest of our confession," he intercedes with God on our behalf, how much more, while he was still subject to "the weakness of the flesh," did he need great crying, and "strong crying and tears," with which he offered his supplication to the one who was able to deliver him from death? 117. Question.

If the flesh of all men has one substance and the soul one substance, how is it that one man is sluggish and another is sharper in understanding? But if the soul is the cause of such a difference, one must suspect that the substance of souls is different, in accordance with the difference in understanding. And if the flesh is the cause, the same argument will apply to it as well. But if it is from some humor, such as dry or moist, or hot or cold, the excess or deficiency of the one making the other more prevalent—such as folly and prudence—whence or how does the prevalence of such a quality arise, which disposes the thoughtful or the thoughtless to abound in us? Answer. Some have assigned as the cause of quickness or slowness of thought the good and bad temperament of the elements from which our bodies are composed, and the symmetry and asymmetry of the organic parts, and they seem to have correctly assigned the causes of these things. For there are some who in youth are productive and inventive, being quick in thoughts, but in old age change to the opposite and become sluggish in thinking. And this is a sign that good and bad temperament is the cause of such a change. Likewise also those who are very large-headed, called heavy-headed, and those who are excessively small-headed, because they do not preserve a proportionate ratio to the other parts of the body, on account of the excess of smallness or greatness, are themselves unfit to be able to be productive and receptive of thoughts.

But others also become sharp and ready for the apprehension of things that consist in knowledge, and this from divine grace, as in the saying, "The Lord gave Solomon breadth of heart, as the sand by the shore of the sea," and as in the saying, "To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge." 121. Question. If the songs were invented by the unbelievers for deception, but were introduced to those under the law because of their childishness of mind, why do those who have received the perfect teachings of grace, which are foreign to the modes just mentioned, use songs in the churches like the children under the law? Answer. It is not singing simply that is fitting for children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and cymbals. Therefore in the churches the use of such instruments and of the other things fitting for children is removed, and singing simply is left; for it sweetens the soul toward a burning longing for what is sung in the songs, it lulls to rest the passions that rise up from the flesh, it drives away the thoughts cast into us by the invisible enemies, it waters the soul for the bearing of fruit of all good things, it makes the champions of piety brave for endurance in hardships, it becomes a healing of all the sorrows of life for the pious—Paul calls this "the sword of the Spirit," with which he arms the soldiers of piety against the invisible enemies; for the word of God, whether pondered or sung or read, becomes a driver-away of demons.

All these things perfect the soul in the virtues that accord with piety, coming to the pious through the songs of the Church. 119. Question. If involuntary ignorance draws forgiveness, as we are taught by the Scripture, how is it that the Jews of old, who crucified Christ out of ignorance, experienced very many unbearable evils, as Josephus testifies in his account of the capture, while those of them now who disobey Christ have been driven from their own homeland and scattered like chaff over all the earth, and have been handed over to the nations for dishonorable slavery, as the facts proclaim more clearly than any monument—and yet he establishes their ignorance in both cases, sometimes the Lord saying, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," and sometimes the apostle saying, "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"? And this concerns the Jews of old; but concerning those now he says, "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." Answer. When involuntary ignorance is reckoned as knowledge by those who are ignorant, then the outcome of the deed done in ignorance shows whether the knowledge is truly knowledge, or is according to error and ignorance. And when the supposed knowledge has been shown by the outcome of the deed to be ignorance, if the one who was ignorant remains in that same ignorance, he no longer draws forgiveness, but inexorable punishment. But that the Jews crucified Christ in such a way as knowing him to be opposed to God and reckoning God as consenting to his destruction, is clear to everyone.

For they would not have crucified him, if they had known that after his death God would raise him from the dead. But when he was raised from the dead by God, he showed that the knowledge of the Jews concerning Christ, which they thought to be knowledge, was in truth ignorance. Since, therefore, after the Lord rose from the dead and it was shown neither that God had been in agreement with the Jews in the death of Christ, nor that Christ remained unraised in the tomb according to the expectation of those who crucified him, the Jews still remained in their disobedience—for this reason they were not worthy of forgiveness. For to make a profit from his resurrection and to call it a theft, and to prevent the apostles from performing divine works in his name done in the power of the Holy Spirit—this is not the kind of thing that draws forgiveness for involuntary ignorance, but rather brings upon itself the punishment of deliberate, known hostility to God. For if the Jews crucified Christ with this hope—that his teaching would not prevail and that Judaism would not be dissolved—how is it that they

Is the failure of both a release from the involuntary ignorance of the Jews concerning Christ? The saying, then, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," was spoken with this meaning: that "since they have come to know that they crucified me in ignorance and they ask forgiveness of their transgressions, grant it to them." For forgiveness is not given to one who thinks his own sin is not sin, but righteousness. And the statement made to Paul, "I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge," was spoken with forbearance, by the condescension of the word, becoming "weak to the weak," "so that," as it is said, "he might save the weak." 124. Question. If God promised to give the gift of resurrection to all who die, and all who rise from the tombs will be about to stand living before the judge, how will the Lord's judging the dead and the living be fulfilled? And how will the dead be able to be judged, whose body is cast in tombs, but whose soul is separated from the bodies?

Answer. "Not all," he says, "will we sleep, but all will be changed." He judges, then, the living as those living at that time, and the dead as those rising from the dead. "The hour is coming," he says, "and now is, in which all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they will come out—those who have done good to a resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment." It was necessary, then, in accordance with the credibility of the word, to consider what is possible in the matter and not to be at a loss with unreasoning perplexity. 121. Question. If to those who leave father or mother, wife or children, brothers or sisters, houses or fields, the Lord promised to give a hundredfold in this present age, will such persons also receive a hundred wives? And how, when many who left the things spoken of for the sake of the commandment and died in poverty and solitude and desolation, has such a promise not proved false? Answer. Just as he calls fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters those who, according to an affectionate disposition, are received in place of those who for Christ's sake left their natural fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, so too he calls a wife her who, at the time of the abandonment for Christ's sake, is provided for the one who left his natural wife.

But the Church of the Master Christ, persecuted from the beginning of the Christian preaching by the Greeks and Jews who opposed her, plundered for many years—from where did she receive so great an increase, which we see, both in spiritual and in human matters, unless the divine and living voice of the Savior, which promised the recompense in manifold multiplication, worked it in her? And from where did rich men and women, bringing their own possessions into the wilderness, seek out those who had withdrawn there for Christ's sake, and fill up their deficiencies, as we have learned from the history of the holy men who were the beginnings—unless the Master Christ through them brought his own promise to fulfillment? 122. Question. If, for the establishment of the resurrection of bodies, the apostle used the example of seeds as timely, how will those who are cut in pieces or burned rise again, since seeds do not sprout after cutting or burning, but are utterly destroyed? Answer. Since nature is what works the things that come from seeds, having received from the Creator a measured power, it is necessary that the seeds be suitable for producing the things that come from them. Therefore, if the seeds are burned or cut, they become useless to nature for producing the things that come from them. But God, since he does not have a measured power, for this reason nothing is unsuitable to him for producing all things that he wills, nor is he hindered by the cutting and burning of bodies from effecting their resurrection.

For God does not work by law and the measure of nature, but by the authority of a will that is at no loss in any thing for the doing of what he wills to do. And the apostle used the example of seeds to confirm the resurrection of the dead, so that by analogy he might establish the account of the resurrection: that just as we do not disbelieve the sprouting of the seed when we see it die in the earth and the seed cast off its nature, so we ought not to disbelieve the resurrection of the dead. For God, who gave to nature to accomplish the sprouting through the death of the seed, much more can himself raise the dead from death. 127. Question. If the apostles supposed the kingdom of Israel to be earthly glory and luxury and ease, as some have said, why did the Lord, when asked by them about this, not only not correct them, but even tighten their ignorance, saying to them: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own authority"? And this answer confirms their question. Answer. This too is one of the things that could not be known by the apostles before the visitation of the Holy Spirit, according to what is written: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Comforter comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth.

Having learned from the Spirit that "God will bring to nothing both the belly and foods," they were transferred from the Jewish supposition to the understanding befitting the state of those who rise from the dead, in which there is neither eating nor drinking nor marriage, but the sons of the resurrection will be equal to angels. Therefore the saying "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set in his own authority" does not have the form of confirming those who asked in their supposition according to ignorance, but of rejecting both—both the supposition concerning time and that concerning place—of those who asked. And the apostle Paul also makes clear the manner of that state in what he says: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." 124. Question. If we understand the perfect then to be perfect when it possesses all things perfectly, and the perfect in the highest degree to be that which in no way admits addition or increase, how is it that God, pre-existing the creation and later making the creation, thus received the name and the thing of "Creator," and from being God has accepted increase and coming-to-be in being also Creator? Answer. One thing is to be the same, and another to be of another; "to be the same" is unrelated, but "to be of another" is relative. Since, then, the perfection of God lies in being the same, for this reason being of another does not increase him.

And just as being the beginning of number contributes nothing to the one for its own perfection—for when it was not the beginning of number, it was perfect, and when it became the beginning of number, it was not increased—so also God was perfect before creation and was not increased after creation. Nothing, therefore, of the things that come through creation increases God—"For you are the same," as the same one says—but rather the relation he has toward creation in many ways ("You are greatly exalted," he says, "above all gods"), for as father and master and judge and shepherd and the like. And just as God, not having made more worlds, which he could and can make, did not thereby show his perfection to be incomplete, so also, having made one world, his perfection was not increased by this to the super-perfect. But if, not having made more worlds, he was not diminished, neither would he have been increased by having made one world. 125. Question. If to be something in potentiality is established as less than to be this in actuality, how is the maker of the world, being before the making of the world a maker of the world in potentiality and not in actuality, not subject to the name of diminution? Answer. For those whose potentiality is separated from actuality by some natural necessity, the potentiality of these is established as less than the actuality; but for whom the potentiality of actuality is not

by natural necessity but by his own will, he is not subject to the name of diminution. "You thought," he says, "and all things are present to you." 126. Question. If bending the knee in prayers shows that those who pray stand rather than pray to God, and draws more the divine compassion, why on the Lord's days and from Pascha until Pentecost do those who pray not bend the knee? And whence did such a custom enter the churches? Answer. Since it was necessary for us always to remember both our fall into sins and the grace of Christ, through which we rose from the fall, for this reason our kneeling during the six days is a symbol of our fall into sins; but not bending the knee on the Lord's day is a symbol of the resurrection, through which by the grace of Christ we were redeemed both from sins and from the death appointed on account of them. And from the apostolic times such a custom took its beginning, as the blessed Irenaeus, martyr and bishop of Lugdunum, says in his discourse On Pascha, in which he also makes mention of Pentecost, on which we do not bend the knee, since it is equivalent to the day of the Lord's day, according to the reason stated concerning it. 127. Question. If the Lord, rising from the tomb, left the burial clothes in the grave, how is it that after the resurrection the Scripture has not recorded that he was seen either naked or having obtained clothing from elsewhere? But if he neither received garments from elsewhere, nor appeared naked to those who saw him then, how is it true that he left the garments in the tomb? Answer.

The soldiers divided the garments of the Savior after he was crucified, but the garments brought with him into the tomb were unfit for the use of the living. Therefore the garments that the Lord wore after the resurrection he either created or received from elsewhere, as he received the colt to sit upon; for he was able to do both—both to create and to receive from elsewhere. But since there are many things said and done by the Lord whose histories the divine Scripture does not contain—among which is also the clothing of the Lord after the resurrection—it is not reasonable to seek the cause of one unrecorded matter out of all the unrecorded matters. It is not necessary, then, to construct the difficulty concerning the Lord's clothing from what is unrecorded, but to take faith concerning his clothing from his power. 128. Question. If a body of coarse substance has its passage blocked when the doors are closed, how did the Lord enter to the disciples after the resurrection "when the doors were closed"? But if it is true that when the doors were closed a body was present inside, how was the stone lying upon the Lord's tomb rolled away by the angel for his body's rising? And if the Scripture is true in speaking of the closing of the doors, it is clear that not a body but a spirit entered. But if the body became sometimes a body and sometimes a spirit, how did it not admit change in the substance of the body? Answer.

Just as the Lord did not walk upon the sea by a transformation from body into spirit, but by his own divine power made the impassable sea passable for walking—not only for his own body but also for Peter's—so too by his own divine power he came out of the tomb while the stone lay upon the tomb, and entered to the disciples while the doors were closed. For the removal of the stone from the tomb did not happen for the sake of his resurrection, but so that the resurrection might be made evident to those who saw; for to see the burial garments in the tomb but not to see him was the most vivid proof of his resurrection. And we must consider that things of equal power have the same credibility when they are granted, and the same incredulity when they are denied—and walking upon the sea in an unchanging body is equivalent to entering to the apostles in an unchanging body while the doors were closed—and that things which occur contrary to nature by divine power cannot be demonstrated by the principle of nature. Therefore, when the disciples were terrified at such an entrance, he permitted them to touch the places of his body that had suffered, because he did not make his entrance to them by a transformation of the body into spirit, but in a body of gross substance by his own divine power which effects things beyond nature. 129. Question.

If God, having made the whole circle of bodily creation, is established as Lord of all—for which reason David also enjoins us to bless the Lord in every place of the Lord's dominion, and likewise the apostle commands us to lift up holy hands to God in every place—, why is it that, regarding the eastern region alone as a work and dwelling-place of God, we look toward it and send up hymns and prayers to God? And who are those who taught the Christians this custom? Answer. Since we always set apart the more honorable things among us for the honor of God, and according to human estimation the east is more honorable than the other parts of creation, for this reason at the time of prayer we all bow toward the east. And just as with the right hand we seal with the name of Christ those who need this seal, since it has been considered more honorable than the left, although it differs from it by position and not by nature, so too the east has been set apart as the more honorable part of creation for the worship of God. Nor is it opposed to the prophetic and apostolic voice that we make our prayers toward the east; for the east is present in every place for those who pray.

And since it is by that part with which we possess the faculty of sight that we worship, and it is impossible during the time of prayer to look toward the four parts of the body, for this reason, looking toward one part of creation, we make our prayer—not as though this alone were the work of God, nor as though it were set apart as a dwelling-place of God, but as a place of worship which is offered by us to God. And it seems that the Church has received from those from whom she received the practice of praying also the practice of where to pray—that is, from the holy apostles. 141. Question. If neither the fruits of trees nor the eating of meats were partaken of by those before the flood, as some of the fathers have taught, how is it that Abel offered from the fat of the sheep which he shepherded, and Cain likewise offered from the fruits of the earth which he cultivated? And it is clear that each of them, preferring the divine to his own food, employed such a sacrifice. But if they were bringing to God things useless to themselves, how did they not insult the divine with such an offering? For each of them was depositing a harmless and mocking favor for him. How then is Cain's sacrifice rejected, while Abel's gifts have become honorable? Answer. The blessed apostle, the father of fathers and teacher of piety, says: "Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who shepherds a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock?"—that is, no one.

But if no one did, it is clear that neither did Abel tend his flock so as not to eat of the milk of his flock, nor did Cain till the earth so as not to eat of its fruits. And further, if the fruits of the earth were useless to Cain, for what reason did he honor God with the worse things, but prefer himself to God with the better things (for which reason his sacrifice became rejected), if he did not need the fruits of the earth? But if Abel preferred God to his own need, and Cain preferred his own need to God, it is clear, then, that each of them needed the service that came from his own fruits. 135. Question. If some have supposed the kingdom of God to be the resurrection, and it is believed that both the righteous and sinners are deemed worthy of it, how does Paul declare those who have done the forbidden things to be disinherited, saying that "neither fornicators nor adulterers" and those next in order "will inherit the kingdom of God"? Answer. Divine Scripture knows how to name as the kingdom of God not the resurrection simply, but the state after the resurrection, in which the division between those being punished and those being glorified takes place, God being confessed by all without doubt, who works glory in those being glorified and punishment in those being punished. "Those in the tombs will hear the voice of God and will come forth, those who have done good to a resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment." The resurrection, then, is divided into life and judgment, according to the differences between the righteous and the unrighteous; for the resurrection is more extensive than the kingdom of God.

For the resurrection encompasses both the just and the unjust, but the kingdom of God encompasses only the just. 132. Question. If both the Old and the New Testament recognize anathematization only in the case of things out of place, how is it that blessed Peter, when he denied the Lord in his passion, began to curse? And what is the difference between the two, that is, between anathema and curse, and what is signified by each? Answer. An anathema is said to be either that which is dedicated and set apart to God and no longer taken for common use, or that which has been alienated from God through wickedness. A curse, however, is to agree with those who anathematize. 133. Question. If the good is the most beautiful of all things and that which is made evil is the worst of beings, and God is good while man is made evil, how is man not the worst of all things? For since no other of beings—I mean heaven and earth, air, luminaries, and the like—is able to be made evil, man alone possesses being made evil. Answer. If all the things named exist for the sake of man, and the things that exist for the sake of something are less than that thing, then man is most beautiful, above the things that exist for his sake. And if being made evil itself contributes to the improvement of man, man is most beautiful in this respect too, being healed by divine providence through afflictions from his own wickedness of will. But one who wishes to understand the good man must look to the end laid up for man after his departure from life.

For that is the fruit of the present life, that is, unending blessedness in exchange for a life briefly defiled. 134. Question. If the Master is foreknower of each one's manner of life, why did he not settle the souls of the pious in strong bodies? And if, storing up their rewards for them in things to come, he allowed them to be afflicted in the present, why are not all the pious tested alike in afflictions? So that from this the good man and the wicked man are clearly shown. But if both are found in both, how is the one who has chosen the better not unclear? And how does he not show that all things are borne at random and without providence in the world, there being no distinction between the pious and the impious? Answer. God did not wish to honor those consecrated to him with present things in return for virtue; for the things recognized by the death of the pious are not a reward of virtue. And just as the pious are said not to be of the world, so also their glory and their wealth are not earthly. When, then, we see present among the pious the things that are also present among the impious, let us reckon from this that present things are not worthy of the labors of virtue. And if God appears at times to have exalted certain of those consecrated to him, as Joseph and David, yet he was not repaying them for their virtue, but through Joseph he provided for the increase of the Israelite race, and through David he established the kingdom of Israel. But the pious differ from the impious in

in no way material and bodily; for both have all things present with them, both the pleasant and the painful; but they differ from one another primarily in the hope of things to come and in the sufferings endured for piety, and then also in the divine alliances, in which God often made his own people conspicuous, sometimes overthrowing the dominion of the Egyptians, sometimes subjecting the Canaanites to the Israelites, sometimes lulling the insolence of the Assyrians, sometimes destroying the kingdom of the Babylonians, sometimes commanding the sun's course and station contrary to nature. In these things the providence of God is displayed; in those other things he prepares the pious to look toward another life, in which the separation of just and unjust according to glory and dishonor takes place. 135. Question. If the apostle forbade rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, how did he himself do things contrary to what he said, sometimes cursing the high priest, sometimes Alexander the coppersmith? Answer. If Paul had struck back at the high priest who struck him, or had returned evil for evil to Alexander who did him harm, it could be said that he did things contrary to what he taught; but to declare what was going to happen to each from God—to the high priest, "God is about to strike you, you whitewashed wall," and to Alexander, "The Lord will repay him in that day"—is neither a curse nor a reviling, but a foretelling befitting a man who is an apostle, one who does not avenge himself but gives place to wrath. 136. Question.

If God rewards the pious with splendor in this life, as he did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants, with wealth, good children, and abundance of crops, why did similar things also attend the Greeks, when they worshipped idols everywhere? And how is Hellenism not shown to be more holy? For while it held the cities, all the cities and the fields possessed prosperity and abundance, and these were not even more frequently at war; but since the Christian preaching took hold of them, they have become destitute of houses and inhabitants and the rest of their abundance, and scarcely holding the remnants of buildings once made by the Greeks, they show that they were once cities, offering the religions of both as the causes of both the old abundance and the new desolation. Answer. From the master God, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust, bodily splendor in the present life is supplied to both; for the world that came to be by his power is also governed by his providence. So that the just, seeing themselves abounding in labors for piety but equated with the impious in worldly things, may expect another life, in which the distinction between the just and the unjust comes about by the difference of honor and punishment; for God is not unjust, so as not to make the separation of the just and the unjust, as has been said before.

That the destructions of cities and fields occurred while Hellenism prevailed is witnessed by the desolation of the Babylonians and Assyrians and of Nineveh and many other nations. But which notable city was laid waste while Christianity prevailed, it is not possible to show. From abundance and scarcity, from habitation and desolation of cities and fields, it is not possible to infer the piety of the better sort, since the master God makes both the provision and the removal of these things for the benefit of all men. Rather, the piety of the better sort is judged from the good deeds done by them according to their own choice. But that men should bring their own to the demons as a sacrifice—"they sacrificed," he says, "their sons and their daughters to the demons"—and that they should offer to lifeless things the honor befitting God, happened while the Greeks prevailed; whereas the prevention of such Greek impieties happened while the Christians prevailed. One must therefore recognize the piety of the Christians from such things, and not from prosperity and the habitation of cities and fields. And Christianity abounds even in these respects to the extent that, while it prevails, the world is less warred upon than it was warred upon while Hellenism prevailed.

Question 137. Question: If the one who speaks a lie is of the evil one, as the Lord declared, how will the blessed Jacob be considered free from blame, who lied to his father so many times for the sake of his own name, and who obtained his brother's blessing by deceit against his father's intention? And how will Paul also, when he was being judged on behalf of the high priest, saying that he did not know that he was high priest, not be subject to the charge of lying? For that he did know that the one judging him was high priest, the very fact that he was being judged by him shows most clearly. Answer: Neither did the righteous Jacob lie when he said to his father, "I am your firstborn son," nor did the apostle Paul lie when he said, "I did not know that he was high priest who commanded that he be struck." For Jacob had previously purchased the birthright from his brother Esau, and so that the blessed Isaac might not be found blessing Esau with an irrevocable blessing—Esau who had sold his birthright for food—for this reason divine grace arranged that in this manner the blessing should pass to Jacob, who had held the birthright. And the apostle Paul, looking to the unlawfulness of the high priest's judgment, said, "I did not know that he is high priest." Therefore with good reason he called him a whitewashed wall; for just as the plaster of a tomb's wall does not make the wall clean because of the foul smell and uncleanness within, so neither does the outward vesture of the high-priestly dignity show a man to be a high priest when he carries within, in his soul, the lawlessness of his judgment.

But the Lord appears to have called the scribes and Pharisees whitewashed tombs—those who adorned themselves with honors and garments, while within they had a den of robbery and incontinence. Question 138. Question: If not fulfilling the law is reckoned as transgression in the law, and doing any of the things of the law outside Jerusalem is forbidden by the law, how is it that those around Daniel in Babylon, whether doing or not doing any of the things in the law, did not transgress? For that they prayed to the Lord God, which was according to the law, the Scripture clearly recounted concerning them, saying, "Daniel was praying three times a day toward the east." But if the same Scripture has passed over the rest in silence, one must understand that they fulfilled all things. Therefore they were also called righteous by it. Answer: The law did not merely not forbid the Jews, while they were in captivity, to offer up prayers and supplications, but on the contrary even exhorted them to it, and this we can learn from many of the prophets. But the bringing of sacrifices and the keeping of the Passover it prevented, and this is shown from the book of the prophet Daniel: "I," says Daniel, "was mourning three weeks of days; I ate no pleasant bread, and meat and wine did not enter my mouth, and I did not anoint myself with oil, until three weeks of days. And on the twenty-fourth day of the first month" the angel comes to him who announced to him that his prayer and supplication had been heard, and says to him:

Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you gave your heart to understand and to afflict yourself before the Lord your God, your words were heard; and the ruler of the kingdom of Persia stood against me for twenty-one days." If, then, within the twenty-one days of the three weeks of the first month, during which the prophet was fasting a fast of mourning and grief, the fourteenth day of the Passover and the week of unleavened bread are included, it is clear that the prophet considered it unlawful to celebrate the Passover outside Jerusalem; but if not this, then the prophet transgressed the law by not celebrating the Passover outside Jerusalem according to the ordinance of the law—how was his petition and his prayer heard? For God does not hear sinners. But if he kept the law by not celebrating the Passover outside Jerusalem, how do the Jews now manifestly transgress the law, celebrating the Passover outside Jerusalem? Question 139. Question: If from the beginning there were wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom, famines and pestilences and earthquakes in various places, as not only the holy Scriptures but also the books outside indicate, why did the Lord define the aforementioned signs as something strange belonging to the consummation, when the same things—as has been said—have always been accustomed to happen to the world? And how does he himself, foretelling the fitting uprising of the nations, not seem to overturn the things long ago spoken by the prophet Isaiah concerning the peace of the nations? For the prophet says, "Nation shall not take up sword against nation, and they shall no longer learn to war." Answer.

The wars and famines and plagues and earthquakes that occur at the consummation of the age differ from those that have often already happened in magnitude and number and in being frequent and at the same time everywhere, so that by their own differences they signify the nearness of the time of the consummation. But when the Savior comes for the salvation of those who await him, the removal of all grievous things takes place, and then the prophetic foretelling through Isaiah receives its complete fulfillment; for the prophet Isaiah foretold that peaceful condition through the voice mentioned in the question set before us, which is fulfilled through the second coming of the Savior, at which all the disobedience and contradiction of both men and demons ceases, and what is pleasing to God prevails in all things. 140. Question. If men, in their error, deified or made gods of the universal elements and the other parts of creation—sometimes marveling at them in themselves, such as heaven, earth, sun, moon, stars, fire, water, air, and sometimes mythologizing about these same things in another way, such as calling the sun Apollo, the earth Demeter, the aether Zeus, and the rest likewise—and God declared against them, saying, "Gods who did not make heaven and earth, let them perish," how is it that he did not issue the sentence of destruction against all the elements? Answer. The gods whose destruction the divine Scripture declared are evil demons who, through the error of men, have received the title of god beyond their nature, according to what is said: "They sacrificed to demons and not to God." And again:

All the gods of the nations are demons." The prophet foretells the destruction of these demons. And the destruction of the demons is this: that they are deprived of all the theology and honor that formerly accrued to them from the error of men, and that they live in pain in unceasing torments. And when the demons are tormented in this way, as a proof that they are not gods, there comes about the destruction of their name and of the parts of creation by which they were falsely named by erring men. And just as when the divine Scripture says concerning heaven and earth, "They shall perish, but you remain, and all of them shall grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will roll them up, and they shall be changed," it does not signify by the word "destruction" the non-existence of their substance, but their oldness, so also here it speaks of the destruction of the gods, not to signify the non-existence of their substance, but of their name, by which, together with the parts of creation, they were called gods by erring men.

146. Question. If everyone who sends someone sends him there where he himself is not present, and the one sent is sent among those where the sender is absent, while God possesses uncircumscribedness and for this reason has the property of being present everywhere, how does the Lord Christ say that he was sent by God into the world? Answer. God, being uncircumscribed, is present everywhere. "If I ascend," it says, "into heaven, you are there; if I descend into Hades, you are present." It did not say, "If I ascend into heaven, you also ascend there," but "you are there"; nor "If I descend into Hades, you also descend," but "you are present." But it is said of him by economy that he is present—present by the projection of vision and energy. Understand, then, the things proper to the essence according to essence, and the things proper to the economy according to economy, and nothing absurd arises. For one is the account of the divine essence and another the manner of the divine economy; for the account of the divine essence is beyond us, but that of the economy is according to us, according to which God comes to us. For it is impossible for us otherwise to receive knowledge of God, unless God in this manner leads us by the hand to his own knowledge. Therefore, just as we speak literally of the walking, so also of the sending. For both are of God, both are according to us, both are for our sake, and both are from economy. "And Adam heard," it says, "the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise." Likewise also the phrase "God sent forth his Son.

147. Question. If the Seraphim cover their faces, being unable to gaze upon the glory of God, how is it again that in another way they did not gaze, though they were entirely full of eyes? And if they did not gaze, how was it not superfluous that they possessed such a great multitude of eyes from every side? Answer. One is the vision of the Seraphim according to the prophet Isaiah, and another is that according to the prophet Ezekiel. There, in Isaiah, the Seraphim have six wings; here, in Ezekiel, the Cherubim have four wings and four faces. And in the vision according to the prophet Ezekiel, there was no need for the Seraphim to cover their own faces, standing beneath the crystalline firmament—both their station and their flight—upon which was the throne of glory. And the Seraphim gazed not only with the eyes in the faces of the living creatures, but also with those in the other parts of their body. And since, when the Seraphim moved, there was no turning back or turning around of the living creatures' sight, for this reason there was need for them to gaze everywhere with the eyes they possessed. So that it was not in vain that they possessed the multitude of eyes. 143. Question.

If, because of the Jews' disobedience toward Christ, they were given over as subject to those who obey Christ, and those who do not know the true Christ cannot truly be Christians, even if they are called Christians, as is the case with the assemblies of the heretics, how is it that such people prevailed not only over the Jews but also over those who recognize the true Christ as Lord of all, and encompassed them in countless terrors, when true Christianity ought to rule not only over the Jews but also over the false Christians because of the true Lord? But if that which ought to rule is ruled by error, how do we ascribe the servitude of the Jews to their disobedience toward Christ, when they themselves, together with the true Christians, have often been enslaved to the falsely named Christians? Answer. The power of the Lord Christ's dominion is shown in the overthrow of the Jews who disobeyed him—that they fell away entirely from all the things once held venerable and precious among them, and are in servitude to the nations. But to rule lordly over earthly affairs in the present life is not the inheritance of true Christians, since according to the apostle Paul, "if in this life we have hoped in Christ, we are more pitiable than all men." Therefore, one who wishes to learn thoroughly the dominion of true Christians ought to look to the future state. For to rule lordly over material affairs in the present is not a recompense for the faith of Christians, but a certain service, according to God's ordinance, for the maintenance of the lawful constitution of men.

being handed over to men, sometimes to Christians, sometimes to heretics, sometimes to Greeks; for as long as Christians are in the struggles for virtue and walking the narrow and constricted way, being exposed to service for anyone who wishes to press them into service, they are outside of ruling; but when the struggles are loosed and the time of crowns arrives, then those who are worthy rule with an unshakable dominion, when, according to what is said, "the saints will judge the world," sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 144. Question. If God set the sand as a boundary for the sea from the beginning, according to him who says, "You shall come this far and shall not pass beyond," how is the sea shown to pass beyond such a boundary in various places? For in this administration it has fled from some places, and has made some places of dry land into sea. Answer. "You set a boundary," says the Scripture, "and it shall not pass by, nor shall they turn back to cover the earth," so as to say that the sea, held by the divine boundary, remains in its own natural places and does not pass beyond to cover the earth, as it first covered it, when it was poured out over the face of all the earth and held its own natural places. But this boundary the sea has never been seen to have passed beyond. But that in particular places, for the benefit or discipline of men, it makes a removal of seas or river waters, this cannot be reckoned as a transgression of the divine boundary. "He set," it says, "rivers into a desert." And again, "He set a desert into pools of waters.

The statement "You have set a boundary, and it shall not pass" is therefore not brought forward with reference to the partial displacement of the waters, but with reference to the universal displacement of the waters from places naturally unsuitable to places naturally suitable. RME'. Question. If a will that is fulfilled demonstrates the power and foreknowledge of the one who wills, it is clear that a will that is not fulfilled establishes the weakness and ignorance of the one who wills the things that are not fulfilled. How then does God, being almighty, will that all be saved and they are not saved, and he does not will the death of the sinner, and he brings forward "and how often I wished to gather the children of Jerusalem, and they were not gathered because they did not wish it"? Answer. Since God has given us power, authority for choice, and law for the teaching of opposites, and has made us masters of choosing by preference whatever seems best among opposites, and by the promise of life urges us to virtue, and by the threat of death turns us away from evil, for this reason, when the will of those being saved is joined together with the will of God who wills all men to be saved, salvation certainly comes to pass. But if the will of men does not follow the will of God, the will of God is not unfulfilled because of any weakness of God, but because of the men who did not will what God willed. And in all those cases in which the will of God is separated from the will of rational beings, in all of these the will of God necessarily comes to pass unhindered.

147. Question. If corruption is the beginning, middle, and end of bodies in marital union, how did God, being incorruptible and urging humans toward incorruption, promise the faithful to be joined in marriage, when the model is contrary in substance and in God's purpose? Answer. Not everything that belongs to the nature of the model must necessarily belong also to the nature of what is modeled, but rather the analogy of likeness is preserved between the model and what is modeled in some one simple respect, insofar as it is saved. For just as the kingdom of heaven is said to be like a mustard seed insofar as it received growth from the smallest size to immeasurable size, the kingdom of heaven no longer preserves the analogy of likeness to it in respect of the mustard seed's being corruptible; so too, for the manifestation of the true love alone which God has for the church and the church for God, the model of marital union has been taken up by divine Scripture. "As a bridegroom rejoices," says Isaiah, "over his bride, so shall the Lord rejoice over you." 148. Question. If the things concerning us and according to us have their constitution from above and before the ages by divine decree, how is it that in a time of drought or heavy rain or any other kind of occurrence whatsoever we do not consult or pray, since the divine decree once for all governs all things? And how is it that through such prayer we are not shown to sin more, forcing God to come behind his own decree, which cannot happen?

For if these things are so, as has been said, how is it that prayer has been offered to God by all the pious, and by some many miracles have come to pass through prayer for their benefit? Answer. In accordance with our condition, honor has been appointed by God for obedience, and punishment for disobedience. And since we are self-determining and changeable, for this reason the master God has given us the help that comes from repentance, through which it is possible for us to turn aside of our own free will from disobedience and from the punishment appointed in it; for this too has been appointed. But to repent and to receive forgiveness of one's sins is impossible apart from prayer and resolve. And to show that things which happen do not come about irrationally by random impulse, but that our affairs are governed by divine providence, the prayers of the saints are effective—not that they might overturn the divine decree (for that is impossible), but that they might obtain the better decree, which is the honor of the saints, of those who have been heard by God in their obedience to God. For the acquisition of good things is laborious—things necessary by nature, but awaited through acquisition—and those who acquire them need divine help through prayer, in order to be able to labor.

153. Question. If the rest of the Sabbath was handed down to the Jews as a certain type of God's resting, whether in the creation of the world or also in the consummation, and the Lord rested or will rest according to the type from working by will or by providence, how does such an account not present his activity of working as temporal? For when his activity has ceased, it is clear that the activity has also ceased. For example, fire that has ceased from burning and blazing also ceases from existing. Answer. The Lord God in the six days brought all creation from non-being into being, and on the seventh day he rested from bringing any further things from non-being into being according to their proper principles. "And the Lord God rested," it says, "on the seventh day from all the works which he had begun to do." And he commanded the Jews to work for six days and to keep Sabbath on the seventh day, so that, while they work and cease from work, the memory of God's working and resting might be preserved among them typologically. And the power by which God made creation he had and has eternally; but he works according to this eternal power when he wills, the power remaining in its own strength eternally both before the activity and after the activity, all temporal expenditure and addition being wholly removed. Therefore he can always do all things that he wills to do. But he no longer wills to do all things that he can do.

For he could have made, and can make, more suns, yet he made only one sun, because he wished to make only one. Since, then, God creates by will and not by being, for this reason he does not cease to be [God] when his activity ceases; for things whose being ceases together with the cessation of their activity have being in their activity and not in their will—for example, fire has both existence and activity at once, and when it does not exist, it does not have activity. Therefore both the affirmation of his essence and activity converts, and likewise the negation for it; such as is the case with fire: Does the fire act? The fire exists. Does the fire not act? The fire does not exist. 149. Question. If what is destroyed by the destroyer perishes, and the destroyer by its depravity works the things of destruction (and most such things are found among living beings, more than among all irrational creatures, and in them one may observe the plots extended not only against one another but also against humans), how is he who says that God made all things very good speaking truth? But if he speaks truth, and good and evil things exist in creation, how are the good things not recognized as belonging to a good creator, and the evil things to an evil one, and how are two contrary principles, according to the Manichaeans, not demonstrated? But if the destruction of those being destroyed happens for a good end, as this has been supposed by some, how was it not better that their passage from non-being into non-being be prevented from the beginning? Answer.

He who makes the consequent inquiry concerning the Creator from the creation of living things, both rational and irrational, ought to look to their nature, which, according to the definition of the Creator, leads all mortal things alike to generation and to corruption and destruction. But if in these respects there is no difference between one living thing and another, and the differences have one and the same Creator, it is clear, then, that there is one and the same Creator of all living things, both rational and irrational. And the destruction which they suffer from plotting against one another has been permitted by divine providence to befall them. For if, when they were subject both to natural and to deliberate corruption and destruction, some did not refrain from deifying them, how much more would they have been deified if they had remained at all times free from harm and destruction? In order, then, that from what they suffer they might be recognized for what they are—that is, unworthy of the honor and appellation of God—for this reason they suffer, both by nature and by plotting, the things which they suffer. And the irrational animals have come into being for the service of man, some for food, some for instruction, as it is written: "I will send upon them the teeth of beasts, with fury dragging upon the earth." But if it is good for man to be nourished by irrational animals and to be served by them and instructed through them, then their passage into being is good and blameless as regards any baseness of nature and the use made of them. And if this is so, it is clear that all irrational animals are the creations of one good Creator. 150. Question.

If the enemy works this wickedness among men through envy of their salvation, contriving by these means to subject them to future punishments, how is it that irrational animals, which are to receive neither salvation nor punishment in the things to come and therefore possess what cannot be warred against, do not pursue evil things by wickedness of nature? Answer. It is not reasonable to slander the natures of irrational animals on the ground of wickedness of nature; for it belongs to those who partake of reason to do something well or badly, not to those who have no share in reason. And since the nature of irrational animals came to be for the aforementioned use, it is clear that, the use being good, the nature is also good. 151. Question. If God sent the law to the Israelites through Moses, how is it that in many places of divine Scripture both law and Moses the lawgiver of the law are named? Answer. It is a custom not only among men but also in divine Scripture to name the word by the name of the one who spoke the word, to indicate whose the word is, as in "the eunuch was sitting in the chariot and was reading the prophet Isaiah"; and again: "the abomination," he says, "of desolation, which was spoken of in the prophet Daniel"; and as we also are accustomed to say "I acquired the prophet Jeremiah" or "the apostle." 152. Question. If Christ is true, who displays his action and calling according to divine Scripture, and divine Scripture foretold that Christ would be called Emmanuel, how will Christ be considered true, who after being born

without ever receiving the name Emmanuel? For no one literally addressed the coming Christ by the name Emmanuel. Answer. If the fulfillment of the divine predictions concerning Christ is contained in the Gospel narratives, and the blessed Matthew has handed down to us that he is the one foreordained by divine prediction to be called by the name Emmanuel, how is he not called by the name Emmanuel? The holy Church of God has not ceased, having learned from the teaching of the holy Gospel, to name Christ Emmanuel. And we have in the naming of Christ all his other names contained, even if we do not always use them all; for he is not Emmanuel because he is called so, but he is called so because he is. 153. Question. If it is forbidden by divine Scripture to dishonor one's parents, and one who pursues what is forbidden is called a sinner, how is it that in various places the Lord Christ, having dishonored his own parents, is shown to be without sin? For at the wedding, when he said to his mother, "What have I to do with you, woman?" he rebuked her; and when his mother wished to see him, he named as mother and brothers those who do the will of God. And again, when the womb that bore him and the breasts that he nursed were being blessed, he himself blessed those who do the will of God; all of which are thought to have been said by him in insult to his mother, because when his mother was named and blessed, others were blessed by him in contrast to her. And the contrast is clearly taken in the sense of opposites.

Besides, if God chose the holy virgin for such a great service of the divine plan, how is the virgin considered unworthy of blessing, according to what was said before? And if the things said are contrary to one another, how do things contrary to one another not receive their dissolution from one another? Answer. The words "What is it to me and to you, woman?" were not spoken to Mary by the Savior as a rebuke, but to show that, as he says, we are not the ones who have taken on the care of the wine consumed at the wedding. Nevertheless, out of great love, if you wish that wine not fail them, tell the servants to do what I tell them, and you will see that wine will not fail them; and this indeed happened. He would not, then, have rebuked with a word the mother whom he honored with deeds; and in the other sayings he does not separate his mother from the honor that is fitting, but shows according to what kind of motherhood the virgin is blessed. For if the one who hears the word of God and keeps it is brother and sister and mother, and both belonged to his mother, it is clear that according to this motherhood he wishes his mother to be blessed. For to hear the word of God and keep it is the mark of a pure soul's virtue, looking wholly toward God. And since God did not choose just any woman to become the mother of Christ, but the one who surpassed all women in virtues, for this reason Christ also wished his mother to be blessed from this virtue, through which the virgin was deemed worthy to become his mother.

That Christ is in no way shown to have done anything toward the dishonor or disobedience of his parents, Luke the evangelist bears witness, saying of him that "he went down with Joseph and Mary from Jerusalem, and he was subject to them." Question 154. If Mary anointed the Lord with myrrh before the tomb, and we in baptism perform the symbols of his passion and resurrection, how is it that we are first anointed with oil, then after performing the aforementioned symbols in the font are afterward sealed with myrrh, and we do not consider that we are doing these things in opposition to what happened in the case of the Lord, if indeed the Lord was first anointed with myrrh and afterward suffered? And how is the anointing with oil not superfluous when brought to those about to be baptized, if indeed the Lord was anointed with myrrh alone in addition to his passion? Answer. Since what a person does for the burial of the one being buried, he does after his death, but the blessed Mary anointed the Lord's body before his death—according to what was said: "What she did," he says, "she did for my burial; she has anointed my body beforehand"—and "having come beforehand" means "before the proper time she anointed my body"—for this reason nothing is done in opposition, but what happened in the case of the Lord before the time, this happens in the case of those being baptized at the proper time.

We are anointed with oil, so that we may become Christians, and with myrrh as a reminder of him who reckoned the anointing of myrrh to be his burial, and as a type for the present, but in truth for the future, unto the communion of his own sufferings and of the glory of the Savior Christ who called us. 155. Question. If he is just who punishes the one who has sinned for the things he sinned, how is God just who put to death so great a people because of the transgressions of others? I mean Jonathan and David who sinned, the one having broken the fast in ignorance by tasting honey, the other having rashly numbered the people. But if someone should say that the death of the subjects came as a punishment for the rulers, how does he not act unjustly in subjecting the innocent to chastisements? And it also contradicts the Scripture which says, "The soul that has sinned, it shall die." Answer. That the fall of the people is a most bitter punishment of the kings who have sinned, the blessed David himself makes clear, beseeching God to transfer the blow from the people to himself and to his house; for the diminution of the ruled is a shaking of the kingdom. Likewise also Saul was about to kill his own son Jonathan, in order that by his killing he might heal the blow of the people, unless the people, having anticipated, had sworn that Jonathan should not die. And as man is composed of soul and body, so also the kingdom is composed of the king and the ruled.

And just as a man who has sinned sins with his hand and is struck on the back, the one who struck him does no wrong, so God does no wrong when he punishes the people for the transgressions of kings; for the plague of the people greatly knows how to grieve kings; for the plague of the people is a punishment of the kingdom. 156. Question. If Christ calls himself an heir, and the farmers in the parable, that is, the Jews, recognized him as such, and desiring to become masters of the farm killed Christ as an heir, how did Christ himself and the apostle Paul testify that they were ignorant of the outrage, the one saying to them, "Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," and the other declaring, "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"? Answer. Ignorance is understood in two ways: for either one is ignorant unwillingly, when he does not have the things that lead to knowledge, or he is ignorant willingly, when he has the things that lead to knowledge but does not wish to know. This willing ignorance divine Scripture sometimes calls ignorance and sometimes knowledge: ignorance, as when it says, "You neither know me nor my Father"; and knowledge, as when it says, "And you know me and you know where I am from," instead of "You are able from the works I do to know the truth of my name and of my words"; for a liar cannot do such works.

But the fact that the heir was made known by the farmers, in that they saw him to be a man above all others in the present life, was shown by the works he did and by the calling of the son, according to the figure of the parable. But that after he died God raises him from the dead to immortal life and makes him heir, they did not know; for neither did the figure of the parable contain an indication of this. It was in accordance with this ignorance, then, that the Savior said: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And likewise the apostle: "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 157. Question. If only Christ fulfilled the divine law exactly, how did Zechariah and Elizabeth walk blamelessly in the law, concerning whom Luke gave this testimony, and Paul too, "having become blameless according to the righteousness that is from the law"? Answer. One thing is blameless and another is sinless; for the sinless one is in every respect also blameless, but the blameless one is not necessarily also sinless; for the one who sins contrary to the law, having received forgiveness through the offering of sacrifices and the confession of the offense, becomes clean and blameless "according to the righteousness that is from the law"; but Christ, being sinless and in no way a transgressor of the law, neither did anything needing correction; and he also received John the Baptist and was baptized by him, in order to fulfill all righteousness, which Paul had not yet received before he believed in Christ, since otherwise he would not have persecuted the church. For this reason, then, Christ alone is said to be sinless.

163. Question. If an angel is superior to man, and the Scripture calls men gods, how does it not follow that angels too should be called gods by us? Answer. Those angels who appeared or spoke to men in the rank of God have themselves also received the appellation of God, as did the one who spoke to Jacob and to Moses. But men also were called gods; and to both alike, because of the service entrusted to them, the rank and the title of God were given. But when the service is fulfilled, those who received the appellation of God for the sake of some service cease to be called gods. For when he entrusted to the angel the oversight of the people, he said to Moses concerning him: "Do not disobey him, for my name is upon him." And when he entrusted to the rulers the judgment of the people, he says to them: "Judge a righteous judgment, for it is the judgment of God." And again: "I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High," he said to the same, meaning "I have given you my honor and my rank and my appellation. As I judge, so judge the people.

164. Question. If "God" is transcendent and "man" is subordinate, how is it that man is called "god" without impropriety? Answer. This question suits neither a Christian nor a Greek; but in either case the designation has been transferred to those who are subordinate, in accordance with the transcendent one, according to each one's opinion. But one ought not to construct the difficulty from things agreed upon, but from things ambiguous. 165. Question. If blood is constituted by the same things as flesh, why does God permit the eating of the flesh of animals but forbid the partaking of it together with the blood, saying, "Only flesh with its blood you shall not eat"? Answer. So that in this too God may separate us from the likeness of beasts, which, along with eating the flesh, also lap up the blood of those whose flesh they eat. 166. Question. "There is a time to speak and a time to be silent," says Solomon; but I, seeing myself carried outside both time and words, will nevertheless, having brought one more matter to the inquiries, cease from questioning. And it is this: whether God, in the case of those whose outcome has come to pass truly, also foretold through the seers among the Greeks what was going to be, when Greeks were fighting against Greeks, and having often done some act by oracle which the divine Scripture forbade, they were delivered from the evils set forth in the seventeenth inquiry?

For example, in the case of war, as when the Seven against Thebes were about to utterly destroy the aforementioned city, and Teiresias having prophesied, Menoeceus, in accordance with what seemed good to the oracle, readily slaughtered himself, and thus according to the prediction of the oracle the city was saved, and the enemies were slain by those in the city. And this one instance out of many has been cited by us concerning victories in wars. Answer. He who sets out to the solution of the questions under investigation must first lay down the things agreed upon, and then from these agreed-upon things make the solution. It is among the things agreed upon that there is one God, creator and provident ruler of the whole cosmos, whom the divine writings of the Christians proclaim with words attested by divine powers, from whom is the foreknowledge and the foretelling and the outcome of future things. But the writings that proclaim this cast out the gods of the Greeks from being gods. "If the nations will change," they say, "their gods, and they themselves are not gods"; and of those whose gods are not gods, neither are their seers prophets of truth, nor does the foretelling through them have an inescapable and unerring outcome; for as they are far from true divinity, so also are they from the foreknowledge of future things. And that even in the battle of Greeks against Greeks, of those who used oracles in many ways, especially in wars, the God of the Christians, the God of truth, established his own will, the battle of Alexander and Darius bears witness—the one confirming the oracles, the other nullifying them.

The battle of the Assyrian also bears witness, which he waged against the many other Greek nations; whom God named the rod of anger and a saw, sometimes saying, "Behold, the Assyrian is the rod of my anger; I will send him against a sinful nation"; and sometimes saying concerning him, "Is the saw exalted without the one who draws it?" And yet the Assyrian, thinking that according to the successes of the oracles which he had received from his own gods through the seers, he saws and strikes down the Greek nations—nations that had likewise, in reliance on their oracles, joined battle with him and failed of the hope that came through their oracles, God having permitted the Assyrian to succeed in his oracles but the nations to fail—concerning which God says through the prophet Isaiah, "I have let go my hand, and they have dried up," while the Assyrian says, "Did the gods of the nations deliver their land out of my hand, that the Lord will deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?" And according to the oracles which the Assyrian received from the seers, he uttered such words both against the nations and against Jerusalem, and God having permitted it, the Assyrian succeeded in his oracles against the nations; but against Jerusalem he failed of his oracles, God not permitting it. How then did the Seven against Thebes fail of their divination to destroy the city utterly? For the failure of the divination becomes a proof of the weakness of the god who foretold through the divination things that did not come to pass.

And if, according to the truthful voice of the Savior, not even a sparrow "falls to the ground" without God, how much more would a whole nation, a whole city, not perish unless God permitted it. And that every Greek nation, when destroyed by a Greek nation, is destroyed by the rod and the saw, the anger of God, has been made evident from what was said concerning the Assyrians. Furthermore, if the things said by the Greeks through the seer Teiresias are altogether ridiculous, how can it be possible that the things spoken through him are true? For they say of him that he became both man and woman and possessed the forms of both, and that he reconciled many battles of the nations. And for this reason Hera, angered at him, blinded him, and Zeus, as a consolation for his blindness, granted him the gift of prophecy. But if the myths told about him are foreign to faith, how can it be possible that the prophecies uttered by him are true? Furthermore, if, as the Greeks say, it is impossible for what the Fates have spun to be spun back, how are the oracles not useless to those who consult them, since the Fates necessarily bring what has been spun by them to an inescapable end? But since these things are so, how are not both the Fates and the oracles false, destroying one another? And how is it not the case that Menoeceus slaughtered himself in vain according to the seeming of the oracle, since the cause of destroying the enemies and saving the

a city, existing not because of the demon who gave an oracle through the seer, but because of the permission of the Master of the world? Therefore you have the solutions to the questions, complete as far as the reach of our understanding allows, but being, as it were, a shadow and an image of the truth. For if the one who knew nothing against himself, the beholder of the ineffable mysteries, Paul the apostle, knows in part and prophesies in part, what wonder is it if we, who fall far short of his virtue and conduct, should be seen to lag behind the truth? Therefore, having sealed the discourse here, let us concede that only the incomprehensible Trinity possesses exact knowledge of all things, asking to obtain the eternal goods promised to us by it, through the grace and love for humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen.