Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII

QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. XLVIII. GOD IS CERTAINLY PERFECTION AND NEEDING NOTHING: WHAT NEED WAS THERE, THEN, FOR CHRIST THE SAVIOR TO BE BORN FROM GOD, AND FOR GOD TO HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE WOULD DO EVERYTHING? When God had willed that things which did not exist should come into being, and knew that this work was not at all worthy of his majesty, he first generated from himself, since he is a simple and incorporeal nature, a Son, who would differ from him in nothing, so that an effect corresponding to his greatness might result. For what more could he do than to generate another self, who is perfect? This, therefore, is a perfect work, than which nothing more excellent can be seen. For all other things are lesser; for as much as Christ is more excellent than all these, so much is the creation of those inferior to his generation. There is also another reason. For God, from whom all things are, wishing to establish creation, first generated the Word, which he held in mystery within himself, that is, he caused it to exist. He called this Word "Son" in order to show that it had come forth from himself and was consubstantial with him, so that the law by which sons are from parents would make this credible, through which he would reveal to creation the mystery that had lain hidden in him from eternity.

XLIX. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR, THOUGH BORN HOLY AND CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY BIRTH, BAPTIZED, WHEN BAPTISM IS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN? It is true and evident that the Savior had no need of baptism, because Christ was not made but born, as the angel said to the shepherds: "Behold, a savior has been born to you today, who is Christ the Lord." Indeed, John, knowing his holiness, was forbidding him from baptism, but the Savior insisted that it must be done, not on account of sin, but for the fulfillment of righteousness. For it was fitting that he himself should be an example for future sons of God, whom he was teaching to become sons of God through baptism; and he who was promising that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers ought to demonstrate this visibly in himself, so that, having learned of this, believers might have hope that they would invisibly receive the Holy Spirit. For the Savior, when he is born from the Holy Spirit, certainly had a purified body. For an anointing was given spiritually to his flesh in the womb; for the Holy Spirit purified that which advanced from the Virgin Mary into the body of the Savior. And this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior's body, which is why he was called 'Christ' at birth. For what God, through the ministry of the prophets, used to bestow by means of anointing with oil upon those who were anointed as kings, this the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the man Christ, with an added expiation, because earlier christs received only the power of rule through anointing.

But the Savior received power as a man born and was purified by being born. For it was unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins. Therefore, taking up the cause of man and teaching that men become sons of God through regeneration, he had to be baptized, so that he might show this to be valid in himself. For what is said is easily proven and persuaded if it is seen to be done by the teacher. Thus also the insignia of virtues had to be made, so that the Son of God, already appearing, might give healing to bodily passions through the mystery of regeneration, to be an example for future brothers, because through regeneration each one receives the power of virtue. L. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED TO BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY DID HE FORBID OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED, THOUGH HE HIMSELF WAS CIRCUMCISED? Circumcision is a commandment of past time, which had to have authority until Christ, so that it would run as long as Christ, promised to Abraham, was to be born, so that thereafter circumcision would cease, the promise having been fulfilled. For Isaac was promised in the figure of Christ. For God said to him: In your seed all nations will be blessed, which is Christ. For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations would be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. Therefore circumcision was a sign of the promised son, that is, of Christ, and when he was born, the sign of the promise had to cease, yet so that the promised one himself, on arriving, would receive the sign of the father.

so that it might be known that he was the one who had been promised to justify all peoples through faith in the circumcision of the heart. For just as the bodily sign of circumcision was for the patriarch Abraham the mark of a son born carnally, so also the spiritual sign of circumcision of the heart is for those who are born spiritually, and therefore rightly after Christ it was no longer necessary to be circumcised carnally. LI. HOW IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, 'AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, SINCE I HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN?' THE ANGEL GABRIEL REPLIED: 'THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU.' To Mary, who was uncertain about the possibility of conception, the angel proclaims the possibility, saying: the Holy Spirit will come upon you, that is, 'Do not doubt because you do not know a man; for what I have said,' he says, 'that you will conceive, the Holy Spirit coming upon you will bring it about that you conceive without a man.' And the power of the Most High, he says, will overshadow you. 'The power of the Most High' is without doubt Christ; for this pertains to his own person. Therefore the Holy Spirit, coming upon the virgin, sanctified her by his work, producing from her a holy body in which the power that is called the Son of God would be born. And this overshadowing of the virgin is such that from the immensity of the divinity something would be in the virgin's womb, as much as human nature could contain, which, as if from a splendor, would be called an overshadowing of the power of God, and would be the power of God and also God: for nothing of God is that which is not called God.

for this is corporeal, so that there is something in the flesh and yet cannot be called flesh, such as hair and bones and the rest. LII. IF CHRIST WAS BORN FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, BY ITS EFFECT HE WAS MADE FLESH FROM MARY, WHY WAS IT SAID: 'WISDOM', WHICH IS INDEED CHRIST, 'BUILT HERSELF A HOUSE'? This question must be understood in a twofold manner. For first, the house of Christ is the Church, which he built for himself with his own blood. Then, his body can also be called his house, just as it is also called his temple. For if it is called the temple of God because of habitation, it will not absurdly be called a house, as we read in the Law. But if the body was made by the effect of the Holy Spirit, which we consider can also be called a house, it is asked why it was referred to the person of Christ. The deed of the Son is the deed of the Father, because the power of both is one. In a similar way, the deed of the Holy Spirit is also the deed of the Son of God because of the unity of nature and will. For whether the Father acts, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works; and whatever the three have done, it is the operation of the one God.

LIII. IF ALL THINGS ARE MADE WITH REASON, WHY IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY? No one can be so dull as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the sacred abodes to bestow salvation upon the world, in order also to teach that the world itself and the seasons were instituted by him, wished to be born as a man for the increase of the human race toward God at the time when, from the great diminution, the light, which is day, begins to receive increase, so that the time of his birth might correspond to the reason of divine teaching, which began to multiply men from the shadow of death toward life. LIV. IF CHRIST WAS MADE THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO FLESH FROM THE SEED OF DAVID, THAT IS, HAVING BEEN BORN, THE SON OF GOD IS NOW IN BOTH, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY, HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD: 'YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU'? Christ the Son of God is from eternity according to the spirit of holiness, but according to flesh he was born the Son of God from the seed of David, so that in both he is held to be not made the Son of God, but born. But that which he hears at baptism is for the sake of the mystery, not for his own sake. For all who are baptized hear this. He himself, however, is only demonstrated, so that from this God appears in a man by virtues, but the others are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God, when they receive the Holy Spirit.

For although the body of the Lord was born holy, yet the man Christ was not confirmed as Son of God by the sacrament of regeneration until he had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the gift of rebirth. For even the Jews are called sons of God in devotion, not in the sacrament which now operates, so that upon receiving the remission of sins, with the Holy Spirit coming upon them, they are called sons of God. Therefore the Savior was both born Son of God according to the flesh and later confirmed in the mystery. For what was born holy from the holy could not but be born of God, but so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, with the Spirit coming upon him, it was not diminished but increased. LV. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE CRUCIFIED AT THAT TIME WHEN THE JEWS CELEBRATED PASSOVER ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL? The Savior did all things in their proper places and times. For to teach that he had rightly established all things by the will of his Father, he wished to redeem and reform the world by his passion at the same time when he had also created it, that is, at the equinox, whence the world began and day began to increase over night. Therefore, acting in the Roman realm, he had to suffer only on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have the equinox. For then indeed this part of the world was first illuminated, and from that time day began to increase, and therefore by the Savior's passion it was then led from darkness to light. Thus no reproach against the author can be seen, when he reformed the fallen creation at the same time when he had also made it.

Nor can the beginning of a fallen thing's creation be blamed, since the restoration returns to the same point. For He wished the joy of renewal to be on the same day as that of the dedication. LVI. WHY IN MATTHEW IS JOSEPH'S FATHER WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT EITHER HE IS INEXPERIENCEDLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR AT LEAST IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS? It is not ambiguous that Jacob was the father of Joseph. For the line from David through Solomon holds its own course and proceeds straight to Jacob, whose son is Joseph. But Heli is the son of Matthias, who holds the line from David through Nathan, David's son, down to the time when the Savior came. Hence the individual evangelists, from David, followed the lines of descent of the individual brothers, as if they made a fork. So that Matthew descended from David through Solomon to Joseph; but Luke, from Heli, who was at the time of the Savior, ascends through the line of Nathan, son of David, and joins the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that each is of one family, so that when he associates Heli with Joseph, he shows that they do not differ in descent, but are brothers, and by this not only is Joseph the father of the Savior, but Heli also. For by the same reasoning by which Joseph is called the father of the Savior, Heli is also his father, and all others who are of the same tribe. Hence it is that the Apostle says: whose fathers and from whom Christ is according to the flesh.

For it was by divine will that Luke was moved, so that from Heli through the line of Nathan he would ascend to David, and through Thara, his father, he would ascend to Shem, the son of Noah, and still further, beyond the flood, he would reach Seth, the son of Adam, who was given in place of Abel; and by the same reasoning he would make the Savior the son of Adam, just as he was said to be the son of Joseph and Heli; but, transcending Adam, he would designate Christ as the Son of God before all flesh. As for what seems to some—that Heli took the wife of Jacob, as the law commanded, that if someone died without sons, his brother or a relative should take his wife and revive the seed of his brother, and that it happened thus, so that Heli fathered Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and through this the genealogy is joined, so that Joseph is not undeservedly said to have Heli as a father—this is neither probable nor does it serve any purpose. But that which was stated above both joins the genealogy through two brothers, sons of one father, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before all generation. For the evangelist, when he reports, says: "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, the son, as was thought, of Joseph, who was of Heli"—that is, Jesus was considered the son of Joseph, and he was not only the son of Joseph, but also of Heli.

not because it says that Joseph is the son of Heli, but because by the same lineage by which Jesus was called the son of Joseph, he was also the son of Heli, for the reason that Joseph and Heli were brothers’ sons, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David, so that through David, ascending to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself, and beyond Adam, it might teach that Christ is the son of God. For when it says: “who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God,” it thus calls Christ the son of Adam in the same way as he was called the son of Joseph. For Mary says to Jesus: “Son, what have you done to us? For your father and I, sorrowful and grieving, were walking about seeking you.” But above Adam it joins Christ to God the Father, so that he who was called the son of these, that is, from Adam down to Joseph and Heli, might be understood, before all these, as the true son of God, to the confusion of Photinus, who contended that Christ existed only from Mary and not before. For he was called the son of those whose son he was not, and was denied to be the son of God, whose true son he was.

If, which is improbable and serves no purpose, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli according to what we said above, it will seem to have been said not about Christ—that he was the son of God—but about Adam. For by going through the order of each son, subjoining the fathers, it comes to Enos, whose father it calls Seth, and Seth’s father it calls Adam, and Adam’s father it calls God. I do not know what usefulness there is in asserting this. But if, as we said, each of the fathers in order is called the father of Christ—just as Joseph was called his son, because it was said: whose fathers and from whom Christ according to the flesh—, by that same order he is read to be the son of Seth and the son of Adam, and above all these he is designated the son of God, so that he is said to be before them, whose son he is named. LVII. WHAT IS THIS, THAT WHEN IN THE PROPHET MALACHI IT IS WRITTEN: 'Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way,' Mark the Evangelist asserts that this is written in the prophet Isaiah?

Mark could not have been ignorant of what he was writing; for he was not unacquainted with reading, having been steeped in divine literature from infancy and trained in the law, especially since he followed the apostles. Knowing, however, that all sayings are to be referred to their author, he recalled these to Isaiah, who had first intimated this sense, saying: "The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight the paths of our God." Finally, after the words of Malachi, the evangelist immediately subjoined, saying: "The voice of one crying in the desert," so as to join the words of both prophets pertaining to one sense under the person of the earlier prophet. LVIII. ON WHAT GROUND DOES JOHN DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE COMES TO HIM FOR BAPTISM, HE SAYS: "I OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND YOU COME TO ME?" HOW DID HE NOT KNOW HIM, WHOM HE FORBADE, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? John is endowed with such great sanctity even from the cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor to be ignorant of his Lord, who had illumined him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And for this reason it is true that, because the Spirit descended upon him, he recognized him, and before he came to baptism, he did not ignore him. For he knew him, but whether he himself was the one who was to administer the gift promised to the fathers by God, he did not know; that is, what he then professes to have learned, when he saw the Spirit descend upon him.

For thus John says he was instructed by God: "Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him," he says, "that one is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." The apostle also attests to this: "For I say," he says, "that Christ was a minister of circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers." This is the matter of which John was ignorant concerning the Lord; for although he was not unaware of His majesty, yet this was hidden from him, that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled. LIX. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY, WHEN NICODEMUS, DOUBTING ABOUT BAPTISM, THE LORD SAYS TO HIM: "IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?" He who thinks that baptism consists in a carnal rationale is not spiritual; nor can he obtain the heavenly gift who does not believe that he is changed not through water, but through faith. For water is seen, but the Spirit, who is not seen, works so that faith may be in it. Because just as water washes away bodily filth, so the Spirit washes the soul from sins, so that just as visible things benefit visible things, so also the Spirit benefits spiritual things. And through this, a spiritual rationale is at work in baptism. For there is more there that is heard than is seen.

Since Nicodemus, therefore, constrained by carnal reasoning, was doubting, the Savior, in order to draw him to faith, used a fitting example: to confirm an invisible reality, he gave a visible example, which consists only in hearing, not in sight, and is not denied, yet is earthly, because it works the world's business. So the Lord said to Nicodemus, persuading him: "The spirit blows where it wills." And you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, that just as the voice of the coming spirit, that is, the wind, is heard indeed but not seen, as has been said, so the rationale of baptism is heard in that it is spoken, but how it happens through the spirit is not seen; yet it is heard when what is to come is proclaimed by the one who insinuates the words, so that what is heard is believed to happen, but the reason for the deed is not rendered. But when not even through the example was Nicodemus led to faith, then he hears from the Savior: "If I have spoken earthly things," he says, "and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak heavenly things?" He spoke those earthly words which he brought forth as an example. That is: "If by earthly reasoning," he says, "of the given example—the spirit of the wind—you do not believe it can happen, because how it happens is not seen, how could it be that, if I were to give heavenly examples...

You do not know, you would believe? For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know through what he does know; for example, God says of Christ that He is His true Son, and how this can be cannot be comprehended; through what we know according to the flesh, how sons are, we therefore believe that God said, 'Christ is my true Son,' so that He signified that He is from Himself. In this way also the Savior wished to commend a thing which can be explained neither by words nor by the mind, through what is sensible and heard by the ear, that is, through the example of the spirit which is wind, which both sensibility grasps and the ear hears, but whence it comes it does not know; He wished to make credible the reality of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped. But also in the Acts of the Apostles it is read in the same way: 'And suddenly,' it says, 'a sound was made from heaven as of a strong spirit coming, and it filled the whole house,' and so on. Behold, openly by the example of wind it suggests that the Holy Spirit came from heaven and sounded, just as a strong wind does upon the earth. For Jeremiah also calls the wind 'spirit,' saying: 'The wind blows in every region.' And because it is in this world and is carried about through various places, we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. But the Holy Spirit came from heaven, as we read, to enlighten the believers.

Therefore, how is it that some think the Savior said of the Holy Spirit: "The spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes," when it is established that the Savior spoke these words by way of example? Finally, he added: "Thus it is," he says, "with everyone who has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit." What could be clearer than that he signified the wind by "spirit"? But they think that wind was not signified because he said: "It blows where it wills," as if every creature were not released to its own will under the law set for it. For we too go and do what we wish, acting under the law. For this reason we will also render an account, or it is considered possible and does not seem foolish that, in order to suggest the effect of the Holy Spirit, he would give that very thing as an example. Therefore, I consider the question resolved in every way. LX. IF "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS UP TO JOHN," HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SEND OFFERINGS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PRIESTS FOR THE CLEANSING OF LEPROSY?

This indeed was not a matter of the time, but was done for the condemnation of the Jews, so that, when they did not understand the height of truth of a better time as having been done for the gain of their salvation, the truth might turn itself to their accusation. For when they held the Savior as an enemy of the law, because for the sake of mercy he wished to free them from the burden of the law, as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah—for he says among other things: "And I will give them a new covenant, not such as I gave to their fathers"—then the Savior, lest he appear an enemy, as they thought, by preaching new things, sent the one who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his purification, just as Moses had commanded. And so that this might serve for their accusation, he says: "as a testimony to them," so that in judgment this matter might be a witness against those who called the Savior an enemy of the law. The apostle Paul followed this. For when he preached that circumcision was no longer necessary, he himself circumcised Timothy to avoid scandal among the Jews—for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than have a tumult stirred up by false brothers—which indeed served the error of the Jews. For they were satisfied for the hour, by which they would err forever.

LXI. WHY IS IT THAT WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF VIOLATING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING AND EATING EARS OF GRAIN WITH THEIR HANDS, THE SAVIOR CITED THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, WHO ATE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR HIM TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE, BY WHICH THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE EXCUSED, BUT RATHER TO BE IMPLICATED TOGETHER WITH DAVID, ESPECIALLY SINCE DAVID DID NOT DO THIS ON THE SABBATHS? The Savior wishes to refute the hypocrisy of the Jews with many examples, showing greater transgressions admitted in the Law, and that no one dared to accuse them, so that he might demonstrate not only that the Sabbath was violated in the Law once and again, but also that the priestly bread was presumptuously taken unlawfully, with the priest himself granting it, and, what is more, by men of high authority. For first, Joshua, by divine command, did not observe the Sabbath; by this act, the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord. How much it profited not to have kept the Sabbath, but to have kept faith! And the Maccabees, after having been previously cut down, fought on the Sabbaths and triumphed over their enemies; and the priests, in order to serve the Lord's ceremonies, disregarded the Sabbath in the temple. David, however, already anointed king, after he had, by the power of God, despoiled the slain Philistine of his arms while on a journey, suffering the necessity of hunger, received bread from a priest. It was not lawful for him to eat it—but it was not lawful except in necessity; it was, however, permitted if necessity demanded it; finally, the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse, and David, chosen by God, accepted without hesitation.

The same reasoning applies to the Sabbath, and why circumcision is not forbidden on the Sabbath. For those things which are not dangerous are commanded to be observed in such a way that it does no harm if they are admitted out of necessity, because they were commanded not for salvation, but for reverence. However, that which is absolutely not permitted is never permitted, nor is it mitigated by any necessity so that, if admitted, it does no harm. For that which is forbidden by laws, because it is criminal, is always unlawful. But those superior things, which we said are sometimes permitted, are of such a kind as lawful fasts, which, when loosened by necessity, do not render one guilty, if it be for the sake of the stomach or the infirmity of fevers. Knowing these things, therefore, the deceitful Jews accused the disciples, as if they were violating the Sabbath, as was said above. The Savior, however, did not wish to prejudice them concerning the time of the fulfilled law, lest they leap forth more into madness, but from the past, whence they thought the Sabbath was more to be avenged, he showed them to be slanderous; and not only in the matter of the Sabbath, but also in the matter of the priestly bread they were confounded, as was shown above.

LXII. Why is it said that Rachel mourned her sons when the sons of Leah, who were from the tribe of Judah, were killed? As far as the historical account is concerned, the sons of the tribe of Benjamin, that is, Rachel's sons, were long ago destroyed and wiped out by the remaining tribes because of their own crimes, namely, the works of the Sodomites and the adultery they committed with the concubine of a Levite. For this reason, she is said to refuse to receive consolation, knowing that there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were killed in their early years for the sake of the Savior; hence, she does not wish their cause to be ascribed to lamentation, because they were killed both as innocents and for the sake of God, by whom they were undoubtedly granted the grace of eternal life as a reward. Therefore, lamentation is fitting for Rachel's sons, who were wiped out both in the present and in the future; but those others were lamented in a fleshly sense but consoled spiritually. Rachel's sons, however, having lived in a fleshly manner, will be consumed by spiritual flames. Moreover, the evangelist testifies that Rachel's lamentation for her sons was fulfilled when Leah's sons were killed, because she began to mourn her own sons when she saw her sister's sons killed in such a cause that they became heirs of eternal life. For when something adverse befalls someone from the good fortune of another, he laments his own misfortune more bitterly.

LXIII. On what basis did the Chaldean magi understand, through the appearance of a star, that Christ, the king of the Jews, had been born, when a star is usually taken as an indicator of an earthly king? These Chaldean magi were not observing the course of the stars out of malice, but out of curiosity about things. For, as can be understood, they were following the tradition of Balaam, who, when he had been summoned by Balak to curse the people of God, began to bless them by divine will. From his account, therefore, they had learned that there would be, by God’s providence, one from Jacob who would reign. For he, which is not hidden, prophesied, saying: “A star will arise from Jacob,” and so on. Therefore, the magi, following this tradition, when they saw a star outside the order of the world, understood it to be the one which Balaam had prophesied would be the future indicator of the king of the Jews. This indeed happened against the enemies of religion. For testimony was received from the very source from which it is usually discredited; for astrologers are enemies of the truth.

LXIV. How is it proved that the Saviour rose from the dead after three days and three nights? In this matter, if you seek the number according to the order of days and nights, you will not attain the understanding of the effect, because Moses also fasted for forty days and forty nights, and yet the full number is not found. For when he ascended by day and descended by day, he certainly did not complete the entire number, but because, where there is day, night is also counted, and where there is night, day is also counted, so that by synecdoche forty days and forty nights are spoken of. So it is also with what the Saviour said, so that, because there are three nights, three days are also taken. For there is night, lest it seem new or perhaps contrary to reason, since night depends on day. For it is not doubted that before the light, from which day is named, was made, the evening, which night follows, was instituted. That the Lord’s passion is affirmed to take its beginning from night is not absurd; for just as light, that is, day, is an image of life, so night is a likeness of death, that is, darkness, as is clearly shown in the Scriptures, that is: sons of light and, on the contrary, of darkness.

Nor is it surprising if, where day and night, light and darkness are everywhere, here alone what follows is placed before what precedes, or that in such a case the order of things is confused and changed, so that the night, as the standard-bearer of death, seems more than the day—for indeed the beginning is taken from the night—since the prince of darkness could be entered only through the night, and so that the lord of light, that is, of eternal life, might for a time be subject to the prince of darkness or death, in order that he might free both those past and those yet to come from death. For death would not have been utterly voided, nor the darkness of shadows ever dispersed, if it had not seen the Lord. For when such a great light entered the secret place of death, where it held sway, it vanished; nor can it be completely conquered unless one who either through his own or in his own is captured. Rightly, therefore, in such a matter only the night holds primacy, so that it might lose its power. And so that the Jews might remain in perpetual unbelieving night, and that the author of such a crime, indeed sacrilege, might not be the day, but the night, the day is placed after the preceding night, contrary to the order of things, just as God and Lord of all things was placed under the prince of abominable death, in order to free all from the snares of death.

If anyone still perhaps thinks this is contradictory, let him carefully consider, lest he begin to judge it too harshly, that God, putting on the person of a servant—not to say of a man—gave himself up to death. Why then do you seek order here, where you see everything is contrary? For what is the light which was in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it, by which he was comprehended? For he who knows that he is seized in order to be struck counts that time as death. There is also the following day, on which he was heard and crucified; there is also the night which falls on the Sabbath; there is also the Sabbath itself; there is also the evening after the Sabbath—this is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses in figure, that they should enter the Sabbath in the evening—in which the Lord rose, which embraces the Lord's day, because night is not counted without day nor day without night. By this reckoning, the Lord rose after three days and three nights. LXV. IF THE EVANGELISTS SPOKE WITH ONE VOICE AND REASON, HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT, WITH THREE SAYING—THAT IS, MATTHEW, LUKE, AND JOHN—THAT THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE SIXTH HOUR, MARK ON THE CONTRARY SAYS THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED AT THE THIRD HOUR?

It is not good to wrap truth in obscurity. For three evangelists held one meaning, but Mark wished to make known a matter which had been passed over by them, knowing it to be necessary. For he could not be deceived, who, following the example of the authors, learned what he wrote with great devotion and diligence, and was not without the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what he wished to show by this must be explained. So it is to be observed that the Savior was crucified not by Pilate, but by the Jews. As far as Roman laws were concerned, they pronounced the Savior innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews: "I find no cause in him," and when they said, "Crucify him," he replied, "What evil has he done?" Finally, persisting and wishing to lead him out of their hands, he suffered calumny when they said, "If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. For anyone who makes himself king contradicts Caesar." Thus it happened that he handed him over to their judgment. Therefore, Pilate did not give the sentence, but the Jews did.

Finally, they were warned, it says, by the chief priests to say: "Let him be crucified." He wants this sentence to be understood as given at the third hour, in which, persisting with constant shouts, yet with an interval of nearly three hours, during which they went to Herod and returned, they crucified the Savior. For everyone who is condemned is considered dead from the moment he receives the sentence. Therefore Mark made clear that the Savior was not crucified by the judge's sentence. For it is difficult to prove innocent one who is punished by a judge's sentence. So he allowed himself to disagree in word, in order to teach that what was completed at the sixth hour was begun at the third hour, not by laws, but by the persistent malice of the Jews. LXVI. Mark the Evangelist says that the demons knew and confessed Jesus, but on the contrary the Apostle denies that the princes and powers of this age knew the divinity of the Lord Jesus. For Mark says among other things: "For they knew that he was"; but the Apostle: "Whom no one," he says, "of the princes of this age knew; for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty." If the demons knew, how did the princes not know?

Some think that "the princes of this world" meant the leaders of the Jews, as if according to what the apostle Peter said: "For you know, brothers, that you did this evil through ignorance, just as your princes did." Therefore, they were the princes of the Jews, but not of this world. For he says "your princes," not "of the world," since they said they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been reduced. But these are the princes whom the apostle indicated in another place, saying: "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness." Therefore, the question is rightly asked. For if these did not know Jesus, how could it happen that the demons recognized him? But it is one thing that the demons are said to have known in Christ, and another that the princes of this world are denied to have known him. For the demons indeed knew that he was the one who had been promised through the law. For they saw in him all the signs which the prophets had said would come to pass, and that the redeemer of Israel would come from the seed of David from a virgin: but they were ignorant of the mystery of his divinity, just as their princes were. Finally, the devil asks, albeit captiously, the Savior, saying: "If you are the Son of God," and so on. For seeing at times divine power, at times human weakness, and doubting what was true, he was tormented. Therefore, the scriptures agree according to what has been revealed.

It is impossible, indeed, for men of one spirit to disagree. LXVII. WHAT IS IT THAT, PLACED ON THE CROSS, SALCATOB SAYS: 'FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO'? IF THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT IS FORGIVEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN KING ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD: 'SURELY YOU WILL NOT DESTROY AN IGNORANT PEOPLE?' Not every ignorant person is immune from punishment. For that ignorant person can be excused from punishment who found no one from whom to learn; but for these [the Lord] asks that this be forgiven because, having someone from whom they could learn, they did not apply themselves. Such persons are not permitted to be ignorant: they will therefore receive pardon if they are converted. LXVIII. THE LORD TAUGHT THAT WE OUGHT INDEED TO PRAY FOR ENEMIES: WHAT IS IT THAT THE SOULS OF THE SLAIN SEEK TO AVENGE THEMSELVES, ASKING GOD FOR VENGEANCE? The souls of the slain cry out seeking to be avenged just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth. They are, therefore, causes which are said to cry out, although they cannot speak. For shed blood, what else does it do but demand to be avenged, crying out not with a voice, but by reason? For even a work is said to praise its craftsman by the very fact that it delights the one who sees it. For the saints are not so impatient that they press for what they know will happen at a predetermined time, which can neither be anticipated nor delayed.

But by this saying He wished to show that God would avenge the blood of His saints, lest, because He now seems so patient, the impious war waged against the saints be thought unavenged, so that it might both strike terror into those persecuting God’s servants and encourage those suffering for His sake. For the soul of the sufferer is relieved when it hears that it is avenged by a powerful one. For it takes it as a sign that, if it hears that its death displeases the judge, then it is certain that it is innocent. And God is indeed merciful and patient, but within measure. For He waits for the impious to believe and sinners to amend; if they do not, they will be punished, because they have scorned God’s long patience. An example of this He also shows in the time of proclaimed mercy, lest He seem not patient, but insensible, and as one whom neither the pain of another nor pity would move. Hence it is that He says through the prophet: “I have kept silent; shall I always be silent?” And the Lord says: “Will not God, then, exact vengeance for His servants crying out day and night?” They cry out, indeed, as we have said above. Therefore, if any Christian avenges at the time, not harshly nor with bloodshed, he does not sin; yet he would have done better if he had left it to God the judge.

LXVIIII. If the Law ceased already when John or the Saviour was preaching, how is it that the Saviour says: 'I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them'? For if it was forbidden, how was it not abolished, when it lost its authority to act? All things that were said concerning Christ have been fulfilled. And the Lord Himself so fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, in that He did all things that were written about Him, and dissolved nothing, but confirmed it. For the Law and the Prophets extend only up to Him. For the Prophets spoke concerning Him; therefore, what was said by them about this cannot extend beyond Him, nor could any prophets of this kind be found after Him, because they have nothing about which to speak, and the one about whom they used to speak has already come. For they embraced everything in their books, and they revealed both the incarnation and the life and the passion and the resurrection and the manifestation of His divinity and His future judgment, and through this the Prophets ceased, the work of the dispensation having been fulfilled.

The Law ceased in a twofold manner, and not even entirely; for even that which ceased can remain, if the condition is observed. For one thing ceased in its sentence, another in the Law itself. When John was preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the Law ceased, which held sinners liable; the burdens of the Law also ceased, which had been given for the hardness of the Jewish heart in matters of food, new moons, and weasels. For when mercy arrived, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the Law ceased forever; the sentence, however, ceases and is abolished for those who abide in the benefit they have received. But for those who return to the old man, the authority of the Law is revived, because, unmindful of the benefits, they come back under the sentence of the Law. Circumcision and the Sabbath, moreover, remained in force up to the time when the commandment of the new Law was preached. For they were given in such a way that they would cease when the Law of faith arrived. Hence the Apostle says: "The end of the Law is Christ." For Daniel also signifies this when he prophesies concerning the coming of the Lord and the times of the weeks, because both the chrism and the judgment and the sacrifice and the city itself were to cease. For when the spiritual Law arrived, it was necessary for the carnal things to cease. For then God was served by a part of the body; now, by a part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind, because God, who is spirit, must be served in spirit.

The law is not therefore dissolved because it ceased, but it was succeeded when its time was fulfilled. For neither is its administration accused nor its judgment, if indulgence is granted to sinners, since from this it is proved to have been more rightly given and just, because those over whom it ruled are not denied to have been sinners: for, it says, the law was not established for the just. Therefore, because mercy is to be preferred, let justice not be thought to be condemned, without whose reverence mercy itself would have no fruit. For unless they observe this after receiving mercy, the indulgence will profit them nothing. For the law said: You shall not make for yourself an idol nor worship those which are in heaven above and those which are on earth below, and: You shall not commit perjury, and: Honor your father and mother, and: You shall not kill, nor commit fornication, nor commit theft, you shall not bear false witness, nor covet anything of your neighbor. Are these things to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without these, who could be judged fit even in this life? And through this, the other things which we mentioned above have ceased: the new moons, the sabbaths, the law of foods, the sacrifices, circumcision, and the rest. Hence it is that the apostle says among other things: Rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil one. But do you wish not to fear authority? Do good, and you will have praise from it. These things, when observed, make men good, but not yet perfect. Whence the Savior says: Unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

For by adding greater things to these, the Savior did not dissolve the law, but fulfilled it. For the meaning of the law pertains to the salvation of man, as for example: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, so that, fearing he might suffer what he was forbidden to do to another, he would restrain himself from wickedness. The Savior, however, adding a higher justice to this meaning, says: "But I tell you, do not resist evil; but if someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him also your left," so that, by not returning evil for evil, he may be perfect. For returning the favor is just, but not complete; if, however, one overlooks the injury, it is full and abundant justice. For retaliation brings joy for a time; but forgiveness provides joy in the future. Thus the Savior fulfilled the law, in that, while it taught justice, he made those whom it taught more just, which it could not do. For this reason it is the joy of the law, because his disciples became more skilled. He would have plainly destroyed the law if he had taught that sinning was without consequence. But he suspends the sentence, so that the one who does evil may have space for repentance; if not, the sentence returns upon him compounded, because he did not realize that he was given this reprieve in order to correct himself.

LXX. THE LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDED US TO BECOME ENEMIES OF THE DEVIL; WHAT THEN DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE GOSPEL HE SAYS: 'AGREE WITH YOUR ADVERSARY QUICKLY'? WHO IS THE ADVERSARY OF MAN EXCEPT THE DEVIL? There is no doubt that the devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful; for he sharpens his more violent weapons against the servants of God. Therefore, just as he is the enemy of the good, so the law is opposed to the evil. For who does not oppose one who scorns him? The Lord therefore addresses the sinner, that he may consent to the commandments, which condemn him for disobedience, that he may submit himself to their will and become from an enemy a friend, because the despiser of the law is also its enemy; for he resists its will. And so the Lord exhorts the sinner, that by acting well he may reconcile the law to himself, lest on the day of judgment it accuse him before the judge and, condemned, he pay the penalties for the spurned law. For to everyone who wishes to do evil, the Lord's discipline seems hostile; unless he consents to it, he will be cast into gehenna, prepared for the devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.

LXXI. Jacob was called a man seeing God, and Moses saw God face to face, and also Isaiah: 'I saw,' he says, 'God Sabaoth with my eyes.' But on the other hand, John the Evangelist says: 'No one has ever seen God.' This, as far as it appears, is contradictory. As far as pertains to the truth of faith, no one has ever seen God at all, neither the Father nor the Son. For what is called 'sight' is referred to understanding; for he was seen as if in an image. Just as we, when we do not know emperors, see them in a likeness, not in truth, so also God was seen, so that it might be understood that the one who appeared was God, through reason, not through substance, because in his own nature God cannot be seen. And to disclose more truly the secrets of the proposed question, let us try to explain the sense of the Evangelist. For John wished to reveal something hidden, which he knew pertained to salutary doctrine. Therefore he says: No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He himself has related it.

Let us attend to the sense of the evangelist. For in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son related this, whom it is certainly impossible to deceive, because he is in the bosom of the Father. But what is the bosom of the Father, if not the affection in the love of the true Father through the unity of nature toward the Son? For this reason no one has seen God except the only Son. John the apostle heard the Son of God saying this among other things: not because anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God, has seen the Father here. Therefore, in order that it might serve for the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or believe that Christ is the Son of God, the evangelist shows that this is the Christ who had appeared to the patriarchs as God; but that the one who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when he denies that God the Father has been seen and yet professes that God has appeared to the patriarchs, the Son of God wishes to reveal himself, because he himself has always been seen as God by the patriarchs. Hence it is that among other things he says to the Jews about the Father: "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form." Behold, it is not contradictory that God is both seen and unseen.

LXXII. (LXXVI). In the Gospel of John: “The Law,” he says, “was given through Moses; but grace and truth were accomplished through Jesus Christ.” Therefore, before that, they did not exist. How, then, will the Law be said to have been given by God, in which truth was not present? This should not be passed over carelessly, but we must consider what it means that “the Law was given through Moses.” For the Law given through Moses has manifest precepts, but he also wrote a history, which itself is called Law. And let us see what in its precepts would not be true. Perhaps it is what it says: “You shall not kill, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal”; such are the rest as well. For its history, because before the coming of Christ truth did not exist, this is manifest. For those things which were under a veil, what they signified was uncertain. But when through Christ it is revealed who the person is who says in Genesis: “Let us make,” and who it is that makes, and who it was who appeared in the bush or to the patriarchs, and who worked in the rock which gave waters in the desert—because the rock, he says, was Christ—thus truth comes through Christ. When those things which lay hidden or came into doubt as to what they signified were shown by Christ. For among other things the Lord says: “Moses wrote about me.” This was previously hidden; for there was error. For the Father was thought to be God, who was the Son, and he who was thought to be an angel was recognized to be the Son of God. And a promise had been made to Abraham, which, as long as it was not fulfilled, was in doubt.

But when with the coming of Christ it was restored, truth was accomplished, when what was promised was delivered and it began to be known what had been promised. For the faith of the one who promises is then proven true, when he fulfills the promise. LXXIII. (LXXVII). WHY IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE EVANGELIST MARK SAYS OF CHRIST: 'Entering,' he says, 'into a house, he wished no one to know, and he could not be hidden'? If, therefore, he wished and could not, his will seems to be weakened. It is utterly impossible that the Savior's will not be fulfilled, nor can he will what he knows ought not to happen; for that reason, what was done is to be said to have been willed by him. For his will is never outside his nature. Therefore, just as his nature does not fall under reproach, neither does his will. For what is set forth is read to have happened in the region of Tyre. Then he entered a house and wished no one to know. Now it is asked in what way or why he wished no one to know. For it must be noted that this was done in the region of the Gentiles, for whom the time for preaching had not yet come. Finally, sending his disciples, he commanded, saying: Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel.

Therefore he did not wish to be betrayed as being in the house; however, he did not refuse to be sought out, but gladly accepted it. For although it was not the time for preaching to the Gentiles, nevertheless not to receive those who came to faith of their own accord would have been an act of envy. Thus it happened that the Savior, though not betrayed by his disciples, was betrayed by others who had seen him entering the house, and it began to be known that he was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain benefits might enter to him. Therefore he did not wish to be proclaimed by his own as being in the house. For he wished to be sought out, and so it happened. For he was not hidden, having been pointed out by others that he was in the house. Finally, the Canaanite woman, hearing about him, entered to him, begging that he expel the demon from her daughter; and unless she had first subjected herself to the God of the Jews, she would not have obtained the benefit. Therefore the will of the Savior was fulfilled according to what we have explained: for we, in discussing, have found that what the evangelist, striving for brevity, summarized, was hidden.

LXXIIII. (LXXVIII). It is read in the Gospel of John that when the Savior had denied that He would go up to the feast day, He went up. This seems to be the mark of an inconstant person. You always conceal the sense by abbreviating the proposition. For this which you call into question happened at that time when, being in Galilee on account of the tumult of the Jews, He was being urged by His brothers, who did not yet believe in Him, to go up into Judea, because the feast day of the Jews was approaching, so that He might suffer sedition. But He Himself answered them, saying: "You go up to the feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates me, because I reprove its works. I do not go up to this feast day, because my time is not yet fulfilled." Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He Himself remained in Galilee. Afterwards, however, He Himself also went up to the feast day. What seems contrary, when He did not go up at the time He denied, but went up later, and went up not as if to the feast day, but as if to a dispute? For they all went up joyfully, as if to enjoy the delights of the feast day. It is certain, therefore, that He did not go up to the feast day. But the Savior's feast day was that on which He redeemed the world by His passion. Finally He says: "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in Him." This is His feast day, on which He conquered death.

LXXV. (LXXIX). If we live by our own free will, why did the Savior say: 'No one comes,' he says, 'to me, unless the Father who sent me has drawn him,' and the Apostle, agreeing with these words, says: 'It is not of the willing,' he says, 'nor of the running, but of the merciful God,' and: 'He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills'? How is the free choice of the will free, when by the nod of another it is either led to good or to evil? The matter stands otherwise than it has been proposed; for the sense of this question is not what you pretend. For in no way from these things can the cause of free will be disturbed, because if you attend deeply to the sense of the sayings, you will know that from this the judgment of free will is rather confirmed. For these things were uttered against the malicious Jews. For when, from a pretense of deceit arising from envy, they asserted that Joseph was the Savior's own father and his sons his brothers, lest He be believed to be the Son of God, then the Savior said: No one comes to me, unless the Father who sent me has drawn him. But how was the Father drawing to the Son, except through the works which He performed through Him? For thus He said: The Father remaining in me Himself works. So that these works might draw to the faith of Christ. For the miracles which the Savior performed, they themselves persuaded that God was the Father of Christ, so that he who said that He had another father would not be drawn by God to Christ. Therefore God worked through Christ, so that faith might be given to His words, by which He said He was the Son of God.

This is the attraction, not violence, but the testimony of God in Christ, to which whoever has believed is said to be drawn by Him to Christ. For no one believes in the Savior unless he calls that one's Father his own God. For the Apostle, not to assail free will, spoke these things which you have reduced to a question, but to forbid reconsidering God's judgment, he said this, proclaiming God just; for he knows whom he ought to pity. But the inspector of the heart sees through the mind of the petitioner, whether he deserves to receive. Finally, he says through the prophet: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' For it is just that the mind of the dissembler be hardened. For he who, not through error, calls the true false, but through malice, so that, understanding the good, he pretends not to know that it is good, in order to turn it into evil, this one ought certainly to be granted that he truly not understand the good, lest he be saved, which he does not wish. For it is not just that the unwilling be saved, who spurns salvation not through ignorance, but through malice or envy. By these things, therefore, free will is more confirmed than destroyed, so that to each one a response is given according to his own wish.

LXXVI. (LXXII). IT IS READ IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN: 'Woe,' it says, (and take the book from the hand of the angel and devour it, and it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey). What is this book, which makes the stomach bitter, though it is sweet? All the divine volumes are bitter, but to the faithless and to the carnal. For to idolaters it is unpleasant when they hear one God preached in Christ. And Photinus likewise trembles, seized with horror; Sabellius also blushes, hearing that the Father is the Father, who cannot be called the Son, because from Him are all things; but that the Son is called Son for this reason, because he is not at all the Father himself, but from the Father, and not that from which, but that through which all things are. And Arius is refuted when he reads that Christ is the true Son of God; for without doubt he could not be called true unless he were properly from God. And Marcion is convicted, learning that the Word became flesh, he who thinks that flesh should be denied to Christ. And the wicked Manichaean is also argued against, seeing it written by the evangelist that the Savior not only graced the vows of marriage with his presence, but also honored them with cups, he who blocks the approach to marriage and urges promiscuous assembly.

These things are contained in the book which the apostle received to devour. This book is the Gospel which is titled According to John, which is bitter not only to those who think wrongly, but also to the undisciplined, who do not wish to be corrected, so that they may progress for the worse. This revelation occurred at the time when the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished by the emperor Domitian on account of the faith. Then he was in spirit, so that he could see heavenly things, and while these things are shown to him, which are future on account of impiety and lewdness and other things. A book was given to him which would be sweet in the mouth, but would make the belly bitter, so that among those who seem to be of one body, men, it would be sweet to these. For those who are of sound profession are signified in the mouth—for that which is true is sweet in the mouth—but to those who live or think with heretical depravity, because they are signified in the belly, it is bitter. For it will accuse them on the day of God's judgment. Therefore, after the revelation, he was ordered to write the Gospel on account of these things which we have said above. And to the prophet Ezekiel it was similarly said, that he should receive a book which would be sweet in his mouth, when he was sent to rebuke the faithlessness of the people.

LXXVII. (LXXIII). What is it that Symeon says to Mary the mother of the Lord, among other things: 'He has been placed,' he says, 'here for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel; and a sword will pass through your own soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed'? Symeon, a holy man commended by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit what would be the future for men from the cause of Christ: that it would be ruin for those who, though they seemed to themselves to stand firm through observance and expertise of the law, would nevertheless, from distrust of the works of Christ, fall, dissolved from the promise of the fathers; but for those who were of almost no standing in the law, yet believing in Christ, there would be resurrection in Israel, so that those who were previously unworthy and useless would become worthy of God, and those who were thought to be something would be rejected. This is what the Lord says in another place: 'I have come into this world without judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.' Finally, it was not the teachers of the law, not the Pharisees, not the scribes who followed Christ, but fishermen, unskilled and rustic men. Hence it is that the Lord says: 'Father, I thank you that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones.

But what he added, saying, 'and a sword will pass through your own soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,' this signified that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Savior's incarnation was accomplished, would doubt at the Lord's death, yet in such a way that she would be confirmed by the resurrection. For all doubted in a kind of stupor at the Lord's death. For who would not be uncertain, seeing him who called himself the Son of God so humiliated that he descended even to death? And because, as I said, all ambiguity was to depart through the Lord's resurrection, he said the sword would 'pass through,' not fall upon or touch a passing limb. So that, just as a sword sent forth passing near a man causes fear, yet does not strike, so also doubt caused sadness, but did not kill, because it did not settle in the mind, but passed through, as if touching the hearts of the disciples through a shadow. Finally, Cleopas and the one going to Emmaus, sad, say among other things to the Lord himself, not knowing that he is the Lord: 'We thought that he was the one who was beginning to free Israel.' They doubted, but as soon as the Lord was recognized, the doubt passed. Similarly, it was said also of Joseph, that iron passed through his soul. This is to escape death, because to doubt about God or Christ is death, and thus he who ceases to doubt escapes death.

LXXVIII. (LXXIV). WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST: 'WHO HAS NOT COMMITTED SIN,' BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'HE WHO DID NOT KNOW SIN, FOR US HE MADE SIN'? As far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different, but the words are similar in part, yet in part discrepant. For 'made' and 'has not committed' are opposites; 'did not know' and 'has not committed' are similar. Therefore the prophet spoke from the person of Christ: because he has not committed sin nor was deceit found in his mouth; but the apostle speaks from the person of God the Father: because he—that is, Christ—who did not know sin, for us he made sin. This is to be understood in a twofold manner. First, he made him sin, in that he willed him to be incarnated, so that he whom lot did not touch would receive a body from sinful flesh, through which he is said to have been made sin. Then, in that he offered him for sins, he made him sin. For a sacrifice offered for sins in the law was called sin.

Therefore Christ did not commit sin, as the prophet says, but clearly He Himself was made sin, as has been shown. Moreover, to offer Christ for us, what is it but to give power to those wishing to kill Him? This was granted because it would be beneficial, so that it might be the cause of descending to the underworld to strip Tartarus of souls. For it is an excessive and unheard-of sin to have killed Him who not only had sinned in no way, but had also granted life to many. Made guilty by this sin, the devil lost the audacity to contradict. For a similar thing is read in the Epistle to the Galatians; among other things, indeed, it says: 'He was made a curse for us.' By whom was He made, if not by the Father? For by the judgment of God, the cross of Christ is a curse of the Jews; for the sin of those people is proclaimed by the death of the Savior. Therefore He allowed Himself to be crucified, so that His passion might benefit us, so that, departing from here with His sign, we would be least held by a second death. For death also fears His servants, by whom it has been conquered.

LXXVIIII. (LXXV). WHY DID THE SAVIOR PAY THE DIDRAGMA FOR HIMSELF AND FOR PETER ONLY, AND NOT FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL FOLLOWED HIM, HAVING ABANDONED ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS? The didragma is understood as a tax on persons, not on estates. For the Savior possessed nothing in the world, since He is the Lord of the world, and when dead He is buried at others' expense; and we, to whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our wealth, so that when dying we may testify—not only by word but also in writing—that the world has been seized by us, and thus be condemned by our own profession by Him whose the world is. Hence the Lord says: "He who has not left everything and followed me cannot be my disciple." Therefore, whoever holds his possessions in such a way that he places no hope in them, but is ready to cast them aside for the faith, walks the path that leads to Christ our Lord. Thus the didragma was to be exacted from those who conducted some business or practiced trades. But the Savior, who cared for none of these things, nor did his disciples, was certainly not liable to be taxed.

as the enemy devil was always lying in wait, seeking an opportunity, if he could sway the Savior, he occupied the minds of the collectors of the didragma to do his will, so that, approaching Peter, who was first among the apostles, they would say that the didragma ought to be paid by their teacher for those who were free from these burdens—for they did nothing in the world that was of the world—so that, because he had no means to pay, either this would be a scandal to them or, certainly, by the humility of a petition he would seek someone from whom to be paid. Then the Lord, to show the devil as improvident and always plotting against himself, orders the apostle Peter to go to the sea and to open the mouth of a caught fish and there to find the amount due for the exaction, by which payment not only would there be no scandal to the collectors nor would he be brought low by seeking aid to pay, but also he would demonstrate a sign of the greatest power, through which he would draw to himself those captured by the devil, so that the devil would be tormented by his own trick and cunning. Therefore the collectors of the didragma say to the apostle Peter: Does your teacher not pay the didragma? By this statement they summoned the teacher to pay for all the disciples.

But the Savior, when he orders that payment be made for himself and for Peter, seems to have paid for all, because, just as in the Savior all were included by reason of the teaching office, so also after the Savior all are contained in Peter. For he established him as their head, so that he might be the shepherd of the Lord's flock. For among other things he says to the disciples: "Watch and pray, that you do not enter into temptation," and to Peter he says: "Behold, Satan has demanded that you be winnowed like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith not fail, and that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers." What is the doubt? He was praying for Peter, and was he not praying for James and John, not to mention the others? It is manifest that all are contained in Peter, because also in another place he says: "I pray for these whom you have given to me," and: "I wish that where I am, they also be with me." Now let us see what the didragma is, that is, what its mode of weight or quantity is, or in what substance * * * * * * * *

LXXX. Certainly, either one is a son of God or a son of the devil: therefore one is always a son, but sometimes of God, sometimes of the devil. What then we are born as must be examined. The Lord, when the sons of Israel often transgressed after being led out of Egypt, gave a sentence in anger, saying that none of them would enter the land of promise except Caleb and Joshua son of Nun, who was formerly called Auses. But those who had been born in the desert, he said would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Not knowing good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has been instructed neither toward good nor toward evil, that is, ignorance without malice. For we are born without sense, but our nature has this good, that it is capable of learning the truth. But a son of the devil is one who is born and imbued with evil things, so that he pursues those things which are hostile to the creator, asserting many gods and that sacrifices must be offered to them as if to rulers of the world. If he should come to his senses and, in accordance with his nature, turn himself toward the creator, he will be a son of God.

Therefore, neither are those who are born sons of God nor sons of the devil. For what does the Savior say to the Jews: "You are from the father the devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father." You see, then, that sons are created for the devil by works and profession; but those are sons of God who, confessing that God is the proper father of Christ, conduct themselves rightly. For God established our race in such a way that, born without understanding, we nevertheless have the capacity to learn either good or evil, so that we ourselves acquire either evil or good for ourselves, so that we rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded, or we ourselves blame ourselves if, following perverse ways, we are condemned. LXXXI. The Apostle says: "We are Jews by nature." He shows, therefore, that Jews are born from Jews—I am not speaking of proselytes, who are known to become Jews. Finally, those who were born in the desert are not circumcised—: If, therefore, Jews are born from Jews, why are Christians not also born from Christians? For pagans are also born from pagans.

Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold is born from the earth, and yet it is not earth; and gems and many other things are born from the earth; and food is born from wood, and an egg from a bird. But that pagans are born as pagans, this cause produces: because every pagan is in ignorance, and the one who is born from him is without sense; both are ignorant. But there is this difference between the two: the begetter is without doubt a blasphemer and on that account is a son of the devil; the infant who is born, however, does not know how to blaspheme, just as he does not know how to bless; yet he is a pagan, because he is without sense. But a Jew is born a Jew for this reason, because he is begotten under devotion to the Creator, just as Adam said of Cain: "I have procreated a man through God." For just as pagans, undevoted to the Creator, give thanks to demons in everything they do, so also Jews, suppliant to the Creator God, praise Him in every act of theirs, being contemptible in this, that they do not know Christ, through whom all things exist. In this way also a Jew is born a Jew; for it is not, as it seems to some, because circumcision makes a Jew. For circumcision is a sign of Judaism, not Judaism itself, because in Abraham circumcision was not righteousness, but a sign of righteousness, so that those born from Abraham would have a sign, through which they would be proven to be sons of Abraham, especially since from Judas Maccabeus they were called by this name, so that not only those from Judah, but also the rest from all the sons of Jacob were called Jews, because Judas was their leader.

Therefore, the Jews receive a sign at birth, so that they may be understood for who they are. 2. A Christian, however, is not born from a Christian, because the one who begets was not born a Christian, but was made one. For this reason, the one who is born must also become a Christian in order to be one. For he is not born through substance, but through faith, which comes to those already born. Ignorance, indeed, is born with the flesh, but faith is later instilled by spiritual reasoning. But it is argued on the contrary: "If the one who begets was made, he ought to beget what he himself is, so that the dignity he received would be transmitted. For senators beget senators." But the dignity of senators has no merit before God, nor does nature itself—that is, substance—obtain the benefit; rather, the dignity consists solely in reputation and speech. And through this, speech indeed runs through the transmission of the flesh, but it provides nothing other than the opinion of dignity, just as those who are consuls or are honored with statues rejoice in vain. Christians, however, when they are made, add dignity to nature itself, so that the very essence of man receives the eternal benefit of incorruptibility, so that it is not only in opinion but also in effect before God. This is like a poor man who is eloquent and praised, yet lacks bread or other necessities.

For this is true praise, if the dignity sought should benefit him in such a way that he lacks nothing, while this is granted to his nature, that it may live by itself and live well without any required support; this is truly to become rich and glorious. LXXXII. THAT PAGANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS IS IN DOUBT TO NO ONE: WHAT THEN IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS: 'AND WE WERE SERVING UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THIS WORLD'? IF, THEREFORE, THE JEWS ALSO WERE SERVING THE ELEMENTS, HOW DID THEY DIFFER FROM PAGANS? It is manifest that by addition or subtraction or change of a syllable the sense is perverted. Therefore, it is known to all that pagans worship the elements, but that the Jews served not the elements, but 'under the elements' for God, on account of the new moons and sabbaths and circumcision and other such things. For these are carnal; for whatever is visible is carnal and is from the elements. But because it was by the command of God, God was served, so that from visible things one might come to invisible things, and from this observance progress might be made toward grasping greater things, so that, meditating in these, they might become worthy of spiritual promises. And so, in that part which I mentioned above, the Jews served under the elements; in another part they had a spiritual law, which both forbids sin and exhorts to the love of the Lord God, who had been promised to them as coming to remit sins.

LXXXIII. If salvation and true and perfect knowledge come through Christ, why did He not come earlier, so that our predecessors, who were in ignorance, might learn the truth? Indeed, after Christ's advent many are saved more than before. Hence, if He had come earlier, many more would have been saved. If this is so, it seems blameworthy. No one who shows mercy ought to be slandered. For it is in the power of the giver to decide when or how much he wishes to show mercy. Such a one ought rather to be encouraged and urged by prayers, not dissuaded from a good work by contention. Perhaps there would be no objection if some return were given to him for this mercy. Would someone accuse a physician who gives his medicines and his service for free, or would his slowness be blamed by those who did not ask for him? These things we have said according to reason, but the Savior's goodness does not concern itself with this because of human weakness; for it follows its own nature in showing mercy. Therefore He came at the time when He ought to come, following the reason of His own will, not our merits. For if you weigh merits, He ought not to have come. He came, then, when He knew help ought to be given and the benefit would be welcome. For if help is given to someone before necessity presses, it will indeed be welcome, yet he will not be able to know fully what has been granted to him; but if you bring aid to him when he is placed in the very necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has received.

For he who is snatched from tribulation will give greater thanks, just as if you offer bread to a hungry man; but if you offer it when he is not hungry, it will certainly not be so welcome. Therefore it was rightly done that the Lord did not come earlier. For first he allowed the human race to use its own will, not without testimony of himself, because from the very fabric of the world and the annual gifts which he decreed should be exhibited for human uses through the ministry of the elements, he wished his divinity to be understood and feared, especially since even from the stock of the first man, then Enoch, Noah, knowledge of him existed on earth. But when, by a certain languor of the human race, the knowledge of God among men began to grow obsolete and morals were changed, he deigned to choose Abraham, in whom there would be a form of renewed knowledge of God and of morals. And when reverence was still rather sluggish, later through Moses he gave the law in writing, which would neither grow obsolete and would instill greater fear. For the fear is greater where authority is manifest. And because, with the law received, the Gentiles spurned it, not submitting themselves to it, and those who received it did not keep it, the Lord, moved by mercy, sent his Son, who, offering himself for them and destroying death, granting remission of sins to all, would offer them, justified, to God the Father. For he could not descend to the underworld except through death. For neither order nor reason demanded that he who had not died should enter the gates of Tartarus.

Would not a man, if he wishes to deceive barbarians in their own land, change his appearance to their garb, so that he is thought to be one of them, and thus he spies out how to overthrow them? So it was done with the devil. Since he had overthrown man by an evil custom, so that he remained in death, a remedy was found by which he would lose those whom he held wickedly: that he should be infiltrated, and that he whom the devil thought he had killed as a man would find him to be a god among the dead. By this deed, found guilty, he lost all whom he held, and from then on the way to heaven was opened. Behold how much the coming of the Savior profited, so that men, knowing from what peril they have been freed, may give thanks to him without ceasing! But perhaps it may be said on the contrary: 'If many before the law and after the law, oppressed by sins, gave themselves entirely to the flesh and deserved to remain in Tartarus, without doubt there were those who, by devotion and reverence for the Creator, restrained their life by the law of nature. Were not even these detained among the dead, blotted out from this life? But if he had come after the death of Adam, Adam who first sinned, having been freed, would have opened the way to heaven for the rest, so that, because they had lived well, having acknowledged the Creator, the dead would be received into heaven. It is therefore a loss that Christ did not come earlier.' That it is a loss is manifest, but consider whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just, about which it is not permitted to complain. Does a thief, caught and condemned by law to fourfold restitution, dare to complain?

And for this reason the harm which the human race suffered was justly done, and therefore it was permitted. Moreover, the Savior ought not to have come at the very beginning. For the devil would have quickly grown proud; man, made by God, was set against him as an enemy, so that, fortified by God’s aids—since he was unequal—he might resist him, having received the commandment. But the devil, with his usual cunning, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unstable; afterwards, however, promising them that if they touched the forbidden thing he would bestow divinity upon them, he deceived them. Then the devil, having overcome man, triumphed; the latter, vanquished, subjected his own race to sin. For this reason it was unjust violently to take the spoils from the victor, because God does justly what he does, especially since man had sinned grievously. For by consenting, contrary to the creator’s command, to become a god, he committed idolatry, by which he sinned against God; and therefore he ought not to have been helped immediately, especially since he did not repent. For mercy would not have been welcome if he had not known what he deserved. For although God can do all things, he does only what is consistent with reason, so that he may remain irreproachable.

LXXXIIII. Why do we reproach pagans for observing the course of the moon in the calculation of Easter, when they also keep lunar days and their method? Far be it from Christians to be said to venerate the stars, to whom spiritual cultivation has been granted, so that, despising what is seen, they may be joined to those things which are invisible and supercelestial, and so that they may transcend all these things, being destined to be with the angels of God. For worshippers of the stars will either be with them or within them. For how can it be that someone is above that which he worships? Pagans, therefore, do not observe the computation of the moon, but venerate the moon itself as a goddess, and, thinking they have grasped the effects of its courses, they have decreed what should be done or avoided on certain days, subjecting their life and conduct to its authority in a certain order. We find that they are frequently deceived, because they have dared to usurp these things apart from God's ordinance. For God established these lights as signs of the seasons, whence we also keep the number of the moon, not worshipping the moon itself. So that from the fourteenth moon, which for us is the first according to the Law, we observe the reckoning of Easter.

For all things God established as full; and therefore from the fourteenth to the twenty-first, it has been granted to us to celebrate Easter in these seven days, so that among these seven some days from the Parasceve to the Lord's resurrection may be included, so that neither the thirteenth be in the passion nor the fourteenth in the resurrection nor the fifteenth, nor that the passion of Christ be before the first moon according to us, nor that his resurrection be not on the first day, on which the world was begun. For all the times of the world are numbered by the courses of one week, with which God composed the members and ornaments of the world. For in six days he fitted the world and on the seventh he rested, which he called the Sabbath. For in these seven days the whole reason and number of the world is contained. For always returning into themselves they multiply the number of times. For after the Sabbath it always repeats from the first day up to the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, so that the resurrection of the Lord may be understood to have occurred on the first day of the begun world, which is called the Lord's day. For the Lord himself made it one, which, having unfolded into the septenary number in the evening, begins again, so that after the week it is the first. And this was decreed from the beginning because of the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation and passion and resurrection. For in the body of the Lord almost the whole world rose again and was restored.

It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but observe the number, which is established through the course of the moon. But the devil, who is Satan, in order to be able to lend some authority to his deceit and to color his fabricated lies with truth, in the first month in which he knows the Lord’s sacraments are to be celebrated—because he is not of mediocre power—instituted mysteries for the pagans to observe, so that he might hold their souls in error for two reasons: that, because falsehood anticipates truth, truth might seem falsehood, as if antiquity prejudiced truth; and because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, as we do, this same observance is kept by them, so that they even say that expiation is made through blood, just as we do through the cross. By this cunning he holds the pagans in error, so that they think our truth appears rather as an imitation than as truth, as if it were invented through emulation by some superstition. ‘For what is discovered later cannot be considered true,’ they say. But because with us the truth is certain and is this from the beginning, the signs of virtues and prodigies bear witness, so that the devil’s wickedness is made known by the testimony of virtue. For since it is alone, which easily persuades these things, it is set against the cunning and anticipated devil, to reveal his pretense. For no one, not even among enemies, dares to deny that truth is there where virtue appears.

LXXXV. Why is it that, although it is established that from David up to the Babylonian Captivity there are seventeen generations, the Evangelist says fourteen, omitting Ochozias, who is after Joram the son of Josaphat, and Joas the son of Ochozias, and Amessias the son of Joas? It ought to seem credible that the Evangelist followed nothing other than the sense of the law, and therefore these were not undeservedly removed by the Evangelist from the number of the rest. For their impiety continued in such a way that their wickedness had no interval. From Joram, moreover, the wickedness began and proceeded all the way to Ozias the son of Amessias, so that there was no support on any side by which, in part on account of the merit of the father, any of these might remain in the number of the kings. For Joram, acting wickedly, was deservedly omitted from the number on account of the merit of Josaphat, and Ozias was deservedly preserved in the number on account of the merit of Joatham; but the continuous wickedness of those three was against God. Solomon also, on account of the merit of his father, was left in the kingdom, and Roboam the son of Solomon, acting wickedly, was left in the number of the kings on account of the merit of Asa. Those three, however, were enclosed in the midst of the wicked, acting wickedly; therefore they were erased. For it is a worse example for the destruction of the race when wickedness displays itself continuously. And to speak precisely: because from their lineage there is no Joseph, they were omitted. For the Evangelist followed the generation of these from Abraham, from whom Joseph traces his origin, to whom Mary was betrothed, who bore Christ.

LXXXVI. What proves that Mary the mother of the Lord was from the tribe and seed of David? We offer the testimony of a suitable witness. For the angel says to Mary, among other things: "And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his kingdom." How could it be said by a suitable witness that her father was David, if Mary were not from the seed of David? LXXXVII. If God is one, why is the hope of salvation in three, and not in two or four or certainly in that one alone? And why was the Trinity not proclaimed from the beginning? Almost nothing is new; for the Trinity is proclaimed in such a way that one God is believed. Therefore nothing has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed. However, it was not fitting for it to be manifested at the very beginnings, because first the preaching must occur and afterwards that which was preached must be revealed, so that you may know that the Father is, from whom all things are; that the Son is called, through whom all things are; and that the Holy Spirit is named, through whom all things, which are from the Father indeed but through the Son, are regenerated to the faith of the one God. Therefore these are three, indeed, but one divinity. Reason therefore makes them three, not more nor fewer. For every number reaches up to nine, because three, while they are mutually in each other, make the number nine, since in one there are three and three in one. For whoever sees one, sees three, since one differs in nothing from the other.

three therefore one, and three times three one; that is, in the number nine there is perfection, as far as number is concerned, because all things come from one. For when one is added, from which or in which the three that are counted become nine, they become ten or twenty. Yet one always reaches nine and one is added, because nine are one, so that the full perfection of unity may be. LXXXVIII. If there is greater grace and more manifest understanding in the New than in the Old, why did the prophet Isaiah see the Lord Sabaoth, who is Christ, sitting on the throne of majesty, according to the interpretation of John the Evangelist—for he said among other things: "This is what Isaiah said when he saw his majesty and spoke about him"—, whereas in the New Testament Stephen the first martyr says he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God? What is this, that here he seems almost subject after triumphs, and there almost as lord, before he had conquered? As the case itself demanded, so the Lord showed himself. For to the prophet he appeared as a king rebuking the people, and he showed himself as he was; for the cause of his divinity was at peace. But for Stephen to appear standing, the malice of the Jews brought it about. In Stephen, the cause of the Savior was suffering violence; therefore, with God sitting as judge, he appeared standing, as one who was pleading a case, and because his case is good, he was at the right hand of the judge. For everyone who pleads a case must stand.

LXXXIX. THE SAVIOR SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT 'COMING,' HE SAYS, 'HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN AND CONCERNING JUSTICE AND CONCERNING JUDGMENT: CONCERNING SIN INDEED, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ME; CONCERNING JUSTICE HOWEVER, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER AND YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE ME; CONCERNING JUDGMENT MOREOVER, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BEEN JUDGED.' HE SEEMS INDEED TO HAVE STATED THE REASON FOR CONVICTING THE WORLD, BUT IT NEEDS EXPLANATION. Since the Jews and the worldly powers did not believe the savior — because he wished to manifest himself not only to men, but also to princes and powers in the heavens, as the apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians —, after his passion he shows that the Holy Spirit will prove that he spoke truly. And this is 'to convict the world,' to show it that those things are true which it was unwilling to believe. For it was unwilling to believe that the savior had come from God. The savior, however, having preserved justice, did not hesitate to return to the one who had sent him, and by the fact that he returned, he proved that he had come from there, because no one ascends to God except he who descended from God. Therefore, seeing him ascend, the powers were confounded, seeing that it was true which they had spurned as false. Thus that justice convicts them, by which it was proven just that he returned whence he had come. In this way, however, he convicts them concerning sin, because they were not only unwilling to believe in him, but also killed him. Concerning judgment indeed, he thus reproached them, while he showed the prince of the world to have been made guilty and subdued by him, in whose faith they did not share.

For seeing souls going from the underworld into the heavens, they recognized that the prince of this world had been judged, so that, having been made guilty in the case of the Savior, he would lose what he held. These things were indeed seen when the Savior ascended, but with the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples they were openly and clearly manifested. For the true reproof was then, when after the Passion, for the testimony of the Savior, the dead rising, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics strengthened, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, demoniacs purified, the sick restored to health giving thanks were publicly seen by the faithless. In this way the Holy Spirit convicts the world, because in the name of the Savior, who was rejected by the world, he worked the powers of all healings. XC. WHETHER THE DEVIL HIMSELF IS SATAN, WHAT IS IT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SAVIOR SAYS TO THE JEWS: 'YOU ARE FROM THE FATHER DEVIL AND YOU WANT TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING AND DID NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKS A LIE, HE SPEAKS FROM HIS OWN, BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR, JUST AS HIS FATHER IS'?

Diabolus" is not a proper name, but a common one. For in whomever the works of the devil are found, that one is without doubt to be called a devil. For it is a name of a work, not of a nature. Therefore in this passage "the father" signifies Cain of the Jews, whose imitators the Jews, wishing to be, killed the Savior. It says of him that, because he stained himself with parricide and made himself guilty of death, he did not stand in the truth. Moreover, from him the pattern of fratricide was given. It speaks of this same one, when it speaks a lie, as speaking from his own, to show that each one sins only by his own will. But because he is an imitator of the devil, it added: because the liar goes, just as his father does. For this one, in order to condemn the first man to death, pretended not to know what had been commanded by God. Similarly, Cain, when questioned, pretended not to know where his brother Abel, whom he had killed, was. Therefore in this passage it said that the devil is Cain, but his father is the devil, whose works he followed; for a son of the devil is a devil. But that devil, who is also Satan, has no father in his own malice; for he himself is the author of evil for himself. For he sinned first, and by this whoever imitates him will be called his sons, and he their father. For we also have Abraham as a father in faith, because he first believed in God, and by this we are counted under his name; for we are called faithful, just as he is.

XCI. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED HOW ONE MAY CONTRADICT PHOTINUS WITHOUT ARGUMENTS, THAT CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE MARY. Let us first inquire of John the Baptist, whom the Savior himself professed to be his witness. For he says, among other things, concerning the Lord: "He who comes from above is over all; but he who is from the earth speaks of the earth; but he who comes from heaven testifies to what he saw and heard, and no one accepts his testimony." Behold, John calls all men together, in comparison to the Lord, earthly, because he testifies that the Lord came from the heavens, but that all others are from the earth, that is, from lower things. And the Lord himself speaks to the same effect among other things, saying: "For I did not descend from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father." And again, the Lord speaks in this sense among other things, saying: "And now I say to you, that I will ask the Father. For the Father himself loves you, because you love me and believe that I came out from God the Father and came into this world; again I leave the world and go to the Father." Then the disciples, seeing that he had spoken plainly, say to him: "Behold, now you speak openly and speak no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for you to be questioned by anyone; in this we believe, that you came out from God." These things need no interpretation, since this is the summit of our religion, that we believe Christ, before his flesh, was in the heavens with God as Son with the Father.

For if, on account of his righteous conduct and heavenly teaching, he said that he had come forth from heaven and from God and had come into the world, all the prophets and apostles ought to have said the same about themselves. And because he said, "I leave the world again and go to the Father," this might perhaps be said to have signified that the teaching, which had come from God, returned to God after leaving the world. For they have nothing else to say. For if coming from heaven and going forth from God and coming into this world pertains to the cause of virtue and teaching, not to the person of the Savior, when he says, "I leave the world again and go to the Father," he returns whence he came. But we see that after the Lord's departure both virtue and teaching were in the world. You see, therefore, that it was not said by the Lord concerning virtue and teaching, but that the Lord spoke specifically about himself. But if you say that these are the words of the virtue which worked in Christ, this very virtue calls God its father. Behold, you fall into what you fear, because if the virtue of God is the Son of God, it is certainly that virtue of which the apostle says: "Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God"; this went forth from God and returned again to God. And so this very virtue, which is Christ, testifies that it casts out demons in the spirit of God.

the Spirit who worked through the apostles, so that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord worked, after the Lord's departure worked here in the world in the apostles, so that it might appear more fully that the Lord spoke concerning his own person, because, having left the world, he returned to God. But if you think that this power is not Christ, there will be two powers and two sons of God; and where is that which is read: "the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father," and again: "For thus," he says, "God loved this world, that he gave his only Son for it"? Do you now perceive that the power of God, which worked incarnate in the world, is itself one? which is called both the power of God and the Son. And let us see what the apostles believed or to whom, when they heard from the Lord: "Behold, I again leave the world and go to the Father," they answered him: "Behold, now you speak plainly and utter no proverb; now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; in this we believe, that you came forth from God.

Now let us see whether the disciples doubted concerning the miracles—whether they were from God—when they saw Lazarus, already stinking, raised on the fourth day, the eyes of a man blind from birth restored, a woman freed from a hemorrhage by the touch of a fringe, the nature of water changed into wine, or concerning the person of the Lord. No one plainly doubted the miracles, especially since they said that he was either Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the prophets. For when the Jews wanted to stone him, Jesus answered them: "I have shown you many good works from my father; for which of these works do you stone me?" The Jews said to him: "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because, though you are a man, you make yourself God." If, therefore, the Jews did not doubt that these were works of God, did the apostles doubt? Since, therefore, every doubt was concerning the person of the Savior—for the thing was unheard of and had not entered into human understanding, causing astonishment in men when they heard him say that he had come forth from God and that God was his own father—for this reason the disciples, satisfied and confessing by the manifestation of the Lord's words, said to him: "Now we know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; in this we believe, that you have come forth from God." For if he did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the apostles is emptied; but this cannot be, because it was approved by the Savior. For he answered them: "Now you believe," that is, 'though you saw such great signs, you did not believe.

Thus it was proven to the apostles that Christ came forth from God and arrived, so that through this going forth it would not be ambiguous to believe that this one was the Son of God. For if no one has seen God except one who is from God—this one has seen God—and if no one has known the Father except the Son—this means truly to have been with God and to have come forth from Him and arrived; for no one else could come forth from God except this one who was in the beginning with God, because no one else knew or had seen God—therefore it is not incredible to us to believe that this one is the true Son of God, as John said in his first epistle: "And we are," he says, "in His true Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true one and eternal life," and the Apostle: "Who," he says, "did not spare His own Son," and the Evangelist: "Because," he says, "He called God His own Father." If, then, Christ is the true Son of God, how is He only a man? For He would not be called true unless He had been begotten by Him in a proper sense. Either let Photinus say why He is believed to be truly the Son of God, if He is not true. Or what need was there to believe that this one is the Son of God, if He were one among the other saints who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there some indignity in this, through which He could not be believed to be the Son of God as the others are, and is it therefore said, so that this one, about whom it seems incredible, might be believed to be the Son of God?

For if he is more powerful than the others, what need is there to say: 'Believe that Christ is the Son of God,' unless it is commanded that one believe this differently than about the others, so that, because there are many who are called sons of God by reason of holiness, this one alone is believed to be the true Son of God, whence he is also called the only-begotten? For which of the saints dared to call himself the Son of God, let alone the true one, except the Savior, conscious of his birth proceeding from God? But how would he allow himself to be adored, if he did not know that he was from God, since it is written: 'You shall adore the Lord your God and serve him alone,' especially since the angel rebuked John, because he wanted to adore him, saying to him: 'Do not do it, for I am your fellow servant; adore God,' and, since Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, why does the apostle say: 'He who serves Christ pleases God'? Because God and Christ, Father and Son, are one. The apostle declares himself a servant of Christ and says to the Corinthians: 'Do not become servants of men,' and to the Galatians: 'Paul the apostle, not by men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.' He clearly shows that Christ is God and man, so that he might demonstrate that his apostleship was not from man but from Christ, according to what he is as God, and from God the Father. Finally, in the following he says: 'For I did not receive that from man nor learn it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.' What could be clearer?

For he says that he attained the teaching of God not through a man, but was taught by God himself. For we received the teaching of God through men, but the vessel of election proves that he attained nothing from the apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is the teaching of God, it is therefore not learned through a man, what praise does the apostle testify for himself, if he learned in the same way as the rest of the peoples? Why then does he also say: 'Neither did I receive it from a man nor was I taught, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ'? Who doubts that in this passage Christ is signified as God? But what wonder, since among other things he says to the Romans: 'whose fathers and from whom Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever'? What does 'and to whom Christ according to the flesh' mean? For he would not say this unless he were also according to God, so that according to the flesh he is from the fathers, but according to divinity Christ is from God, God over all. 'But perhaps it is said to pertain to the person of the Father.' But in this passage there is no mention of the Father's name, and therefore, if it is denied that it is said of Christ, let a person to whom it applies be given. For why should it not apply to Christ, to whose name the heavens, the earth, and the underworld bow? This is to be God over all; for besides these there are no others. Let Photinus now say whether these bow to a man, or whether God decreed that those heavenly powers and holy angels adore a man.

But far be it, because God decrees nothing foolish, especially since it is not permitted to worship anyone but God; how much more so in the heavens! For a king is worshipped on earth as a vicar of God, but Christ, after fulfilling his vicarious dispensation, is worshipped in the heavens and on earth. For we read that the Word became flesh, that is, was incarnated from Mary through the Holy Spirit, that this Word was with God in the beginning and was God, and that this is also called the Son of God. How then is it not before Mary, that which was both in the beginning and was God? Even if, blinded, you deny that this Word is God, yet you do not deny nor are you ignorant that this Word is called the Son of God and that this was with God in the beginning. By what reasoning, then, do you say it is after Mary, that which you read was in the beginning? For in the Apocalypse we read of Christ: "And his name is the Word of God," which Word has many interpretations. For nothing of God is not called God, but for the authority of the one God, that which was born from him he called "Word," so that, led by this reasoning—by which we know that our words are only from us—we might believe that Christ is from God.

It could not have been said otherwise, so that it would be believed concerning Him and not apart from Him. For in a similar way, He is called both the power and the wisdom of God, so that by the same reasoning He is understood to be from Him. For if He had said "God and God," He would not have signified that He is from Him, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the reasoning in the divine books, that Christ, signified as God, does not exceed the measure of the one God. But how foolish that statement of yours is, Photinus, that you thus make a distinction at the beginning of John's Gospel, lest the Word be called God! For you read thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was." The Word was in the beginning with God—what does this distinction mean to you? What sense does it indicate? What reason of piety does it signify, except mere enmity against the Son of God? For what is the meaning of one who pronounces: "And the Word was with God, and God was"? Is this, then, the wisdom of our law, to teach that God exists? What tongue, what nation, what land, what sect denies that God exists? And why does it insinuate, saying: "And the Word was with God"? Or what does this Word wish to be understood, except that it shows His reason? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about whom questions arise. For it is a mystery of God, which is believed precisely because it is not manifest to all. And therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This was in the beginning with God. This both suits reason and is a complete statement. For it shows that this Word, which was in the beginning with God, was God, so that in the sacrament of the eternal God's mystery, which was unknown through the ages and generations, the Word of God might be believed to have been with God the Father. And because it came into doubt for carnal men, who wish Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been established, which, following the sense of Scripture, may earn its reward. When Solomon had asked for wisdom from God, a response was given by the Lord: "Behold," He said, "I have given you a wise and prudent heart, such as was not before you, and after you no man like you will arise." What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Indeed it is. Therefore no man will be like Solomon. And what will seem to be the case concerning Christ, who among other things says: "The Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and behold, this one is more than Solomon?" Now choose whom you believe, Photinus: God or Christ, the Father or the Son. If you believe the Father, you accuse the Son; if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is only a man, he vainly set himself above Solomon contrary to God's promise; but if He is understood to be also God, He fittingly set Himself above Solomon, and God's promise remains unstained, because no man like Solomon arose. For Christ showed Himself mightier for this reason, because He is God.

of Fotinus, who refuses to confess Christ before Mary, though he hears with his own voice Christ testifying that he was before Abraham! For when the Jews were arguing with him about time, saying, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" he answered them, "Amen, I say to you, I am before Abraham." He did not say, "I am better," but he answered what was asked, because he was earlier than the Jews thought. Fotinus clearly cannot escape the curse of the law, because he has hope in Christ, whom he calls only a man, while he reads: "Cursed is the man who has hope in a man." But the apostle, knowing Christ is God and therefore that hope is in him both in the present and in the future, says: "If we are hoping in Christ only in this life, we are more miserable than all men." Therefore he is not only a man, in whom we are taught to have hope, because vain hope is in a man. We have said these few things out of many; for it would be sufficient, if Fotinus were of good mind, that we placed only this last point.

XCII. How is it understood that the Savior says: 'I give you peace, I leave you my peace; not as this world gives, so I give to you'? He who receives the peace of the Savior will contract the enmity of the world. For unless he has discord with the devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters. Therefore, he who faithfully serves the law of God is at discord with the world; fortified by Christ's peace, he suppresses the weapons of all adversaries. For who would dare to attack one whom he knows to be a friend of the king? Yet the world gives peace in one way, and the Savior promised to give it in another. For the world gives peace either through fear or through entreaty; the Savior, however, since he is stronger than all and fears none, gives peace unasked. Therefore, this peace is salutary, which is given for this reason, that it may be a defense against enemies. Peace is indeed called by one name, but the peace of God and that of the world are separated by a great distance. For the latter is fragile, the former strong; the latter is fleshly, the former spiritual; the latter is earthly, the former heavenly; the latter arises from necessity, the former from will. For Christ, needing nothing, offers peace to the weak and unarmed, the Lord to slaves, the good to the evil, God to men.

Therefore, he rightly says: "Not as this world gives, do I give to you"; for in saying this, he wished to make understood the clemency of his good will. For while everyone else gives peace in order to gain something for himself, he gives it in order to benefit not himself but those to whom he gives. The world gives peace in one way, the Savior gave it in another; and the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not urge patience, does not provoke to justice, does not exhort to mercy, does not promise eternal life. For whoever has received the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the vices of this world, which war against the soul. XCIII. IT IS TO BE INQUIRED WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE WITH THE LORD, BECAUSE AMONG MANY THINGS THE EVANGELIST SAYS: "THE SPIRIT," HE SAYS, "WAS NOT YET GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS HAD NOT YET BEEN GLORIFIED," AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: "IF YOU LOVE ME," HE SAYS, "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, AND I WILL ASK THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PARACLETE, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES NOR KNOWS HIM; YOU SEE HIM AND KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE REMAINS WITH YOU AND IS WITH YOU." WHAT IS THIS? HE DENIES THAT THE SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSION, BUT HE PROMISES THAT HE WILL ASK THE FATHER TO SEND HIM. AGAIN, HE ADDS THAT HE WAS WITH THEM AND REMAINED WITH THEM; BUT AFTER THE RESURRECTION IT IS READ THAT HE BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID TO THEM: "RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT," AND AT PENTECOST IT IS READ THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCENDED UPON THE APOSTLES.

I see such great disturbances in this matter that I do not know what should be held. In all these things which have been set forth, the cause is not one. For the forms of the individual causes have been briefly indicated, because the spirit is indeed one, but it has many gifts. Therefore, when the Holy Spirit is read, both it and its office ought to be understood, in which it has been signified. For because it was both with them and was going to come, this is not false, provided you do not refer this to the person but to the nature. For Christ promised that he himself would come from the Father, so that, because their divinity is undifferentiated, the Holy Spirit might not be thought absent in the presence of Christ, and in the advent and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Christ might be considered present as well. Therefore, when he promises that it will come, he says: "You see it, because it remains with you and is with you," so that the apostles might be secure, because after the Lord's ascension they would not have a lesser or degenerate pastor or king for their protection. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers except, as the evangelist testifies, after the Lord, having conquered death, was glorified by rising again. For these are the words of the triumphant Lord himself, saying: "For John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you will receive not many days from now." At this time, when he arranged to ascend to the Father, he seems to have interposed.

But that the Lord is read to have breathed upon the disciples a few days after his resurrection and to have said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," is understood to be ecclesiastical authority. For because everything in the dominical tradition is done through the Holy Spirit, therefore, when the rule and form of this kind of discipline is handed to them, it is said to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And because it truly pertains to ecclesiastical right, he immediately added, saying: "Whose sins you have held, they will be held; if you have remitted anyone's, they will be remitted to them." Therefore this inspiration is a certain grace which is infused into the ordained through tradition, by which they are held in greater esteem. Whence the apostle says to Timothy: "Do not," he says, "neglect the grace which is in you, which was given to you through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery." Therefore it had to happen once, so that henceforth this tradition might be believed not to be without the gift of the Holy Spirit. For just as in the Savior a form was given visibly, so that after baptism the Holy Spirit might not be doubted to be given invisibly to believers thereafter, so also in the above-mentioned cause a form was given in the beginning, so that from that point the Holy Spirit might be believed to be infused into ecclesiastical tradition. But that the apostles might work miracles in the presence of the Lord, power was given, as also to the prophets before.

.3. Therefore, three forms of the gifts of the Holy Spirit were shown in the apostles. The first of these is that which pertains to ecclesiastical authority in regenerating or in other offices; the second, which was given at Pentecost, is general—for the Holy Spirit descended not only upon the apostles, but also upon all the believers; the third form is that which was granted at the beginning to the apostles alone, or to those ordained, in performing signs and miracles, until the seeds of faith might be sown for increase. For the seeds of faith are the miracles performed through the apostles. For they themselves were set as overseers of this kind of truth, who through signs and wonders would testify that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than power. For this is what accuses all earthly philosophy, because it always devoted itself solely to words, lacking the testimony of power, by which it might demonstrate that what was built up by words was stable. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is given once in a general way to all believers, through whom they are proven to be sons of God, as long as He remains in them. But in performing signs and wonders, He does not remain in a person, but, when called, He comes or suggests what is necessary and departs; similarly, in tradition or ordination, He bestows grace from without, also bringing protection to those devoted to the faith.

XCIIII. It must be asked whether Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the Lord, ended his life by the noose before the Savior's passion. After the Savior was betrayed, as the day of Preparation was dawning, all the chief priests, scribes, and elders assembled in the house of the high priest Caiaphas, where they knew Jesus was to be brought, so that they might hear him. Both Matthew and Mark the evangelists testify to this, and that none of them departed from the house of the governor before their impious work was completed, especially since all their zeal and devotion for celebrating the Passover was the death of the Savior. Therefore, while they were occupied with the slaying of the Lord from morning until the ninth hour, how is it proven that Judas reported to them the blood money he had received before the Lord's cross, and said to them in the temple: "I have sinned, because I betrayed innocent blood," when it is certain that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the Lord's passion, especially since they were insulting him even as he was placed on the cross?

Nor can it be proven from that, because it is reported before the passion, since there are many things which, though they are shown to have been done earlier, are arranged last. Again, there are times when the context allows what was done later to be placed earlier. For it is clearly evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. Thus it sometimes happens that what is later is anticipated. Hence, even though Mary is proven to have anointed the Lord’s feet with ointment at the supper six days before Passover, after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, the evangelist anticipated this for the sake of its significance, saying among other things: “But Mary,” he says, “was the one who anointed the Lord with ointment.” He reports this before Lazarus died; if we did not find that it was done afterward, we would not know at what time it was done. But lest perhaps it happened after the ninth hour, that the impious and most cruel Judas, seeing the Savior killed and because of this the temple veil torn, the earth trembling, rocks split, the elements terrified, seized by fear itself, regretted—not unaware that he had betrayed a just man, in whose passion the judge God was so indignant? But even after the ninth hour, the elders and chief priests were occupied, as I think. For on that same evening they were about to celebrate Passover; and on the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry money according to the law. And for this reason, it seems improbable to me on which day, indeed at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life by the noose.

XCV. Whence the Observance of Pentecost Arose, or for What Reason. It is not ambiguous that all things of our religion are strengthened by the testimony of truth and marked by the prerogative of the old law. For all things in the past are known to have been done and designated in figure of our future faith, so that we would not doubt that we hold the truth, when we see that those things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages, commended not only by words but also by the powers of signs. But now this is the point: whether they are understood by us in the same way as they were designated, so that we may fittingly discern whence and for what reason the day of Pentecost is derived. For the Lord's scriptures open their meanings to the diligent and devout, but close them to the careless. For it was not fitting that a matter reserved for the meritorious and worthy should be seen indiscriminately by all. Pentecost, therefore, which is computed as the fiftieth day from Easter, has this rationale: that just as after a week the Lord's day is the first, on which the mystery of Easter was fulfilled for the redemption of human salvation—because it is always necessary to return to the first after cycles of seven days, so that the age of the world is shown to be completed by the number seven—so also after seven weeks the first day is Pentecost. Finally, Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord's day, so that everything which pertains to human salvation is known to have been both begun and fulfilled on the Lord's day.

For on the Lord's day the world was made, and after the fall it was again reformed on the Lord's day, the figure of which reformation was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the future faith. For after a week, the day which is called the eighth is the first in mystery. For this is the day which the Lord made. For He made one day, from which the rest of the cycles would take their course. And by this, on that same day He rose again, which He made, and according to the number of the aforementioned reasoning, on that same day He gave the law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses. So that just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord's passion in the sacrament of Passover, so also the giving of the law is a figure of the evangelical preaching, because on the same day, that is Pentecost, the law was given, on which also the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and know how to preach the evangelical law. This fact is confirmed by a twofold testimony, because it is shown to be predestined and, by the manifest infusion of the Holy Spirit, is proven to be divine and supercelestial; for the unlearned were speaking the great deeds of God in diverse tongues.

To the sons of Israel, therefore, the law was given on the third day of the third month through Moses, as is contained in the book of Exodus; which day is the fiftieth from the fourteenth day of the first month, on which day the Passover was celebrated in Egypt, that is, Pentecost. Hence it came about that for the preaching of the law of faith, the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, so that the deeds of the ancients might be held as images of future things for the assurance of our faith, because what has been preached from the beginning cannot appear false. Therefore the time of remission and reformation is described in the fiftieth psalm, so that the same providence of the fiftieth day, which is also that of the first, might be known. From this it came about that manna was given from heaven to the people of the Jews on the first day, which is the Lord's day; that this is so is proved by the continuation of six days during which they gathered it, and on the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath, they rested. Manna, moreover, is a type of spiritual food, which became truth at the Lord's resurrection in the mystery of the Eucharist.

Now it remains for us to prove whether what we have said is to be understood as we recalled above. The first month, in which Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day in Egypt, that day was a Wednesday; hence the law was given on a Wednesday. This can be understood from the fact that the fifteenth day of the second month, the departure of the sons of Israel, seems to have been a Sabbath; for that reason the flock of quails was not sent to them during the day, but in the evening. In the morning, however, manna rained down for them from heaven, that is, on the Lord’s day, which is found as the first after the week in the repetition. Finally, for six continuous days they gathered manna, and on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, they rested. From this day, therefore, up to the third day of the third month, on which the law was given, count and you will find that it was a Wednesday when the law was given. For there are nineteen days from the fifteenth day of the second month, when the Sabbath was, up to the third day of the third month, on which the law was given. Therefore hold these nineteen and go back to the fifteenth day of the second month, when the Sabbath was, which is counted as the fourteenth from the first, and proceed up to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen; add these to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a Sabbath.

Add further to the beginning of the first month seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month are to be subtracted, which were before Passover; for Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month. Therefore, with thirteen subtracted and seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was a Wednesday. And lest you suffer weariness in reading or examine each part of the question with excessive curiosity, I give a summary, so that you may be certain both about the number of days from Passover to the giving of the Law, and learn from it more easily on what day of the week Passover occurred. On the third day after the second month, the Law was given; there are therefore two months and three days. Subtract from these the thirteen days that were before Passover, and the remainder will be fifty days. Since, however, the Law was given on a Wednesday, this is easily seen from the following. Manna was given on a Sunday, because they gathered it for six consecutive days, which was on the sixteenth day of the second month, a Sunday. From this Sunday, then, to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find a Wednesday. And from Wednesday, whether you count forward or backward to the fiftieth day, it is a Wednesday. For this reason, because the Jews celebrated Passover in Egypt on a Wednesday and received the Law on a Wednesday, but departed from Egypt on a Thursday, therefore the dedication of the Law is Pentecost.

XCVI. AN INQUIRY WHETHER PASCHA IS INTERPRETED AS "PASSOVER," AS IT SEEMS TO THE GREEKS. The Apostle could not have been deceived, who says: "Christ, our pascha, was sacrificed," which is not his own word, but that of the Law, with Moses saying: "And it shall be, when your children say to you: 'What is this service?' you will say: 'This is the sacrifice of the pascha of the Lord.'" What more is needed for testimony? The Law speaks, the Apostle proves; it remains that the contradictor be cast out as obstinate. For it is manifest that the crossing over was after the pascha. For they placed the blood of the sacrificed lamb above the doorposts and above the lintel, so that the angel passing by at night would not strike the house in which the sign of blood was. Therefore, blood provided safety, not the crossing over, because, so that the crossing over would not harm, the blood stood in the way. XCVII. ON WHAT GROUND THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS CAN BE SIMPLY ANSWERED FROM THE LAW. If faith is granted to reason, the very rationale of the names "father" and "son" would show unity in a physical manner. For he would not be called the true son of God unless he had come forth from the substance of God the Father; nor would the truth and justice of God allow him to be called a true son if he were not from him. For he is not true if he is not from him. But Scripture says: "He is true"; therefore he is from him. For whoever denies that Christ was born from God does violence to Scripture, which calls him the true son precisely to signify that he was born from God; for if he is not from God and is called the true son of God, Scripture is deceitful.

But if Scripture does not deceive, whoever does not confess that Christ existed from God both empties Scripture and denies that Christ is the true Son of God. For will does not make a true son, but birth. (But they say, 'It is within God's power to make false things true.') On the contrary, God's power is this, on account of which he is worthy of all praise, because for him truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood. For that belongs to a liar, to call falsehood truth, which does not befit God. For God can do all things, but he does only what is fitting to his truth and justice. It is therefore manifest that Christ is called the true Son of God so that he may be understood as proper, that is, born from his substance. Whence also the Apostle says: "who did not spare his own son," and in another epistle: "who, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God." If, therefore, he did not consider it a usurpation to declare himself equal to God, he demonstrated that he is the true Son of God. For he could not be equal to God unless he were from him. For those are equal who are either both true or both false. For a beginning and an eternal do not admit equality or unity. For by saying that he is one with the Father, Christ made himself equal to God. For not only, it says, did he break the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God, that is, equal. Is it not manifest that this equality descends from the property of birth?

For by calling himself "own," that is, true, Son of God, he was making himself equal to God. Hence it is where he says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father also." For because they are consubstantial, whoever sees one sees both. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son also to have life, that is, the Father begot the Son equal to himself; and all that is the Father's is the Son's, and what is the Son's is the Father's: and no one can snatch anything from the hand of the Father nor from the hand of the Son. And he added: "I and the Father are one," and: "The words," he says, "which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father, remaining in me, speaks them himself; and the works which I do, he does them himself. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; otherwise, believe at least on account of the works themselves." For because generation is not from itself, but from the one who begot, therefore whatever he does, he says is the work of the Father, so that through all these things that point is established, that Christ is called the true Son of God in order that he be believed to have been born from him, lest his essence be thought to be outside the nature of the one God. Therefore his humility is his greatest exaltation. For when he seems to subject himself, saying: "The words which I speak to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father, remaining in me, speaks them himself; and the works which I do, he does them himself," he proves that he has his origin from God and that he is his power, since he says that he is not what he is from himself, but from him. For through these things Christ is commended, not humiliated. For he who speaks from himself is not a true Son.

You see, therefore, that the Arians misunderstand Christ precisely from that which he ought to be understood rightly, and from that they reject him and call him false, from which he is proved to be the true Son of God. For he asks the Father to glorify him and promises to glorify the Father whom he petitions, so that where he seems to humble himself, he is exalted. For when the Father bears witness to the Son, he testifies to his own praise; the Son, when he preaches the Father, manifests his own glory. For the magnificence and nobility of the Father is the true Son's nobility. And therefore whatever is said to be the Father's is without doubt also the Son's; and what is said to be the Son's is also the Father's. For the Spirit is called of God, the same Spirit is called also of Christ; the Church is called of God, it is called also of Christ; God is worshipped, Christ is also worshipped; service is given to God, service is given also to Christ; priests are called holy men of God, they are called also priests of Christ; the temple of the holy city is called God, likewise Christ; the holy city is said to be illuminated by the light of God, in the same way also by that of Christ; the seat is of God, and also of Christ; God is judge, Christ is also judge, because the prophet Isaiah saw Christ sitting on the throne of majesty as the Lord Sabaoth, which the Arians do not deny. It is read of God the Father that he is King of kings and Lord of lords, the same is read also of Christ the true Son of God. Thus everywhere the Father and Son are equal in divinity, so that the number of persons does not exceed the measure of one God.

Between the Father and the Son, however, there is no difference except only this: that the Father is unbegotten, the Son indeed begotten; that is, the Father is from no one, the Son, however, from the Father—which is indeed sublime in the Son. For from this is learned the eternity of his nobility and that he is the true Son of the true Father. For whence comes that which is read in Genesis, with God saying: "Let us make man in our image and likeness"? Therefore, if their image and likeness is one, how are they not also one in nature? For in spiritual things, where there are certainly no shapes, something will not be similar except through substance, so that where the image of two is one, how will their substance not also be one? For this reason we read that their image and likeness is one, so that we might believe that one of them differs in nothing from the other—that is, that Christ is the true Son of God, because the offspring is not disparate from the begetter. Finally, the Jews, understanding that he was calling God his own Father, say to Pilate: "We have a law, and according to the law he must die, because he made himself the Son of God." The Jews understood, and Christians say they do not understand? Those who did not believe understood; and those who say they believe, do they cause themselves not to understand?

If only they would at least admit this: that the prophet Isaiah, in order to signify that Christ is not from himself indeed, but God from God, says among other things: "After you, those bound with chains will follow, and they will adore you, and they will pray in you, because in you is God, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it, God of Israel, the Savior." As far as a sound mind is concerned, these things are clear. For by these words, both that the Father is in the Son is proved, and that the Son is God of the same substance as the Father is signified. For in whom God is, and besides whom there is no God, and who himself is God, what else could he be said to be, other than that which the Father God is, and not to differ in any respect? For this is for two to be one. For in him God is, because although he is God, he is not, however, God from himself. For he is from the Father, because he is the Son. But besides him there is no God, because he is the only Son of the Father. And he himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. Therefore no ambiguity remains, so that the substance of the Father and the Son is believed to be one. For he is the true Son of a true Father.

This also is the case with the prophet Jeremiah; for he says among other things: "This is our God: no other will be esteemed equal to him. He discovered every path of knowledge and gave it to his servant Jacob and to Israel, beloved to him. After these things, he was seen on earth and lived among men." Can he be called degenerate, to whom no other can be esteemed equal? Or can another God than the Father be spoken of, so that it redounds to the injury of the Father? For if no other God can be esteemed equal to him and he is without the Father God, see whether what follows ought to be said; for it is dangerous. For he will be said to be greater than the Father. For those who think they are deferring to the Father God, if they separate the Son from him, detract from him, so that they impiously, with blinded mind, set up as lesser the one whom they think should bow to that one's authority. But Scripture, to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father—for he would differ if he were not true—said that no other is to be esteemed equal to him, because no other substance can be found similar to the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For Christ could not otherwise be taught to be from God than by saying that no other is to be esteemed like him. For knowing that the Father God can in no way be said to be subject, he showed his Son to be equal to him: "No other," he says, "will be esteemed equal to him," because he is equal to the Father God, who is the God of all; for he is his true Son. Therefore the prophet says: "This is our God," that is, the God of Israel.

If this is He, He is the one God; for concerning Him Scripture says: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God," and certainly this is not the Father, but His Son. You see, therefore, that the person of the Son does not prejudice the one God, if He too is called one God, especially since Scripture attests to this. Whence this, except that the Father and the Son are one, because unity is signified not by persons but by nature, so that they are not two in substance but one, nor two in divinity but one God, so that whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, it is said that one God has spoken? For if the Lord Himself says among other things about man and woman: "They are no longer two, but one flesh," how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance! That the Father and the Son are called two, however, is due to the fact of birth; but that they are not again two gods is due to the fact of one divinity. Yet with what dullness do they proclaim Christ as created, that is, made, when they read that God made nothing without Christ? If, therefore, nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a creature. For if He is a creature, then something was made without Him. But far be it, because nothing is without Him. For He who was born from God did not begin, but came forth; for birth is nothing other than a coming forth; a coming forth, moreover, is a manifestation: thus He was not made, but brought forth.