Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII

For when it was to be signified that Christ had come forth or proceeded from the essence of God, his coming forth was called nativity, so that, because nativity is not unlike its begetter, Christ might not be doubted to be consubstantial with God, and that opinion which said, 'there was a time when he was not' might be condemned, because one who is read to have proceeded from God cannot at some time not have existed, in order to signify that he always was with God. For no one proceeds from that where he was not. Indeed, the Arians are accustomed to interpret concerning the Son of God in this way, saying: 'Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason, because God made him in such a way that he is true,' as if there were something that God makes false. And what of all those things we have said above concerning the unity of Father and Son, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed? If a different opinion is to be held here, many things established by divine oracles could be overthrown by the testimony of one degenerate man. Yet it must be cut off, lest iniquity flatter itself even concerning this very point. Therefore, 'thus,' he says, 'he made him so that he is true, so that will took the place of nativity and making took the place of generation. For so much must be granted,' they say, 'to the power of God, that he can make things which are not as if they were things which are.

Since they use this cunning trickery against the Son of God, from the very things they presume upon, because they have been refuted in the rest, they must be answered so that they may appear refuted in the whole matter. For this proposition, as far as the sense is concerned, is of no moment; but as far as the words go, it creates obscurity so that it does not quickly become apparent. It is just as if an Egyptian were placed in the dark, because a bad cause cannot be defended with good sense. Therefore, to defend impiety, they use sacrilegious words. If, then, this is the power of God, that He would make Christ truly be His Son, even though He was not born from Him, then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that the creation would bestow what generation was to give. If, therefore, you say there is no difference between God and Christ, it might perhaps be thought that this is not asserted by you maliciously, so that what is said in word is also in sense, so that, because He is called true Son, He is felt to be true, by virtue of being of one substance with the Father, although not through generation but through creation, because God can do everything, as you say, so that what is made is as if it were unbegotten.

If, however, following the line of reason, you say that what is contained in a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you reveal the deceit of your malice, because in order to evade the sense of the word, you say with a false voice that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying to him that he is equal to God the Father. For he is not true if he is unequal. Can a son truly be called true if the father is not also called true? For if the son is true, the father will also be true; this truth equality proves. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. However, since the testimony of the Scriptures, by which Christ is proven to be the true Son of God, cannot be rendered void, he must be believed to have been born from God the Father, because, in order for this truth to be established, he is read as both equal and equal to God. But you, who proclaim the inestimable power of God, say: 'God cannot generate, because his nature is simple'; by this you also do an injury to God the Father himself. For you call him a liar, so that you may deny the son whom he asserts as his own and true, and you expose your own hypocrisy, because you falsely proclaim God as powerful. For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert is made true from false, in order to mock what is truly true, how much more ought you to embrace this, if you were of good mind, by which what is said to be true is proven true and the testimony which God the Father gave concerning his own son is confirmed as true!

For the Lord says: "But with God," he says, "all things are possible," so that whatever seems impossible to men is possible for God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is considered, neither did a virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of a whale, nor will the dead rise again, nor did God beget a Son. Because a simple nature cannot generate, since nothing in the world is generated without mixture. All these things must either be believed together or rejected together. For if the reasoning of the world is to be maintained, it ought to have authority in all these matters; but if there is any reasoning of spiritual things, then he who, infected by worldly reasoning, denies that anything can happen otherwise than he knows, is to be called carnal. Again, they are accustomed to propose another point by their tergiversation. For they say: "Did the Father beget the Son by will or not?" so that when they hear "certainly by will," they immediately, as enemies of the Son of God, reply: "Therefore will is before the Son, so that from this he does not appear eternal, since he did not, of course, receive a beginning through birth, but came into existence." And yet if they think this, not only will will be before the Son, but also before the Father, because the cause of generation is the Father and the Son. Unfaithfulness follows carnal senses in all things. For they introduce the case of God as if of a man, so that he deliberated and thought beforehand in order to generate, as if subject to infirmity, whereas in God neither was generation without will, nor was will without generation. For the will itself is the generation.

For indeed it is a common expression: 'God made,' 'man made'; but God makes in one way, man in another. So too in other matters; for one must speak of God in a manner worthy of him. They also customarily raise another question concerning God the Father himself, saying: 'Did it occur to him to beget, or is it of his nature always to beget?' They bring this forward in order both to assert that God is a liar, who testifies that he begot Christ, and to make Christ not true, but adoptive. (For if he begot, they say, 'he ought always to beget, so that, because he does not always beget, he should not be believed to have begotten Christ either,' as if it were denied that he made the world because he does not make others. What irreverence, what lack of discipline it is to impose a law on God such as: 'If he begot, he either begot many or could not beget one,' not even believing the Lord himself, who declared himself to be the only Son of God! After these things which have been shown above as equal between Father and Son, let us see whether those things which are written concerning the Holy Spirit agree with them, so that the Trinity, which we hold in our creedal profession, may not admit a discrepancy of nature, just as it has no diversity of faith. For when salvation is not present without any one of these, the power of the three of them seems to be one, which grants salvation to those who believe in it.

Since we have brought forth the words of the Father as a testimony to the Son, let us now use the words of the Son as a testimony to the Holy Spirit, by which he declares that the Holy Spirit is not different from himself, so that, when the Father bears witness to the Son and the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity may be understood to be of one nature. Therefore the Lord says among other things: "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth." When he says that another Paraclete is to be sent, he certainly proves himself to be a Paraclete. For it is also read in the Epistle of John; for he says: "We have an advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for our sins," and again the Lord says: "I am the truth." Behold the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God; for what the Son says of himself, he also says of the Holy Spirit. Now those things are to be subjoined which Scripture arranges in this sense. It is read in Isaiah that he saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting on the throne of majesty, whom the evangelist John understood to be Christ, saying among other things: "Isaiah said this when he saw his majesty and spoke of him." The apostle declares this to be the Holy Spirit. For he says in the last part of the Acts of the Apostles: "The Holy Spirit spoke well to your fathers, saying: 'You will hear with your ears and not understand,'" and so forth. These words were spoken by the Lord Sabaoth. This is the one God, whether he is understood as Father or Son or Holy Spirit, it is not contrary.

Because their divinity and power is one. For if in the program of one praetorian prefect the other prefects are also said to command on account of the authority of a single power, how much more in the command of one God, if one of the three has spoken, will the three not incongruously be said to have spoken! For their nature and will are one. Again, they are accustomed to prejudice the Holy Spirit, that he is understood to be inferior because he is placed third in order, when there is such simplicity in the divine scriptures that sometimes you find the third placed first. For as the case demands, so they are placed. For it is no injury to any, because their divinity is one. Finally, we read in Isaiah, the Lord saying: I am the first and I am forever, and my hand founded the earth, my right hand solidified the sky, and in the following: I spoke, I called, I led him and made his journey prosperous. Come to me and hear these things: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; when they were happening, I was there, and now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit. Whom do you suppose it is who founded the earth? For he himself says he was sent. Surely not the Father? Far from it. Therefore it is the Son who says he was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. Behold, these things are equal between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Holy Spirit is read to have been sent by the Father and the Son, so also Christ was sent by God and the Holy Spirit. For this is peculiar to the Father alone, that he is not said to be sent.

Take the words of the apostle, who embraces the Trinity in a different order; for he says among other things in the second letter to the Thessalonians: "May the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God and the patience of Christ." Whom do you think he calls Lord except the Holy Spirit? And what wonder, when the one whom Isaiah saw sitting on the throne of majesty, he here calls the Holy Spirit the Lord Sabaoth, as we have shown above? And the apostle John signifies that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things: "From this we know that God dwells in us and from His Spirit which He gave us." Therefore, if through His Spirit He Himself dwells in us, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is from God. And there is no doubt that what is from God is God. Hence it is that the apostle says: "No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God." How can it know what is in God, unless it is of the same divinity? For an inferior nature cannot know what is in a superior; how much more could a creature not know what was in its Creator!

And to the Corinthians, in the first epistle, inverting the order which is in the tradition of the faith, he begins from the Holy Spirit to recount the operations of graces and ministries, and then joins the Lord Jesus, and places God third, whom he says works both in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord, just as the Lord says: "The Father abiding in me Himself works." For by the fact that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are from God the Father, their operation is the work of God. Finally, he calls the Holy Spirit the same as the Lord, and the Lord the same as God—this on account of the unity of nature—; therefore, when in this passage he says that the same God, who is also the Lord, works everything in all things, he concluded below thus: "But all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each as he wills." What is so clear as that three are of one operation, because when one works, the three are said to work? Why, unless because they are of one divinity? For it is not ambiguous that the gift of graces is properly worked by the Holy Spirit. But in order to teach that God and the Lord and the Holy Spirit are one on account of the indifference of nature, he showed that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And to make it manifest that, as far as the person is concerned, it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone: "But all these things," he says, "one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each as he wills." He says "as he wills" because his will is the will of God. For he did not say "as God wills," but "as the Spirit wills.

For the creature compels itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit naturally wills this. So that it may shine forth clearly that the Holy Spirit works everything, the Lord says among other things: "For if I in the finger of God cast out demons," and so forth. He calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God, to prove that this one is from God. Finally, he testified that the Jews, who said he cast out demons by Beelzebub, had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Also Moses, because he performed signs through the Holy Spirit, the magi confess, saying: "This is the finger of God." For also in the Acts of the Apostles we read: "While they were serving and fasting, the Holy Spirit said to the Lord: 'Separate Barnabas and Saul for me for the work to which I have called them.'" Behold, the Lord is served, and the Holy Spirit claims this for himself—whence it manifestly appears that this one is Lord just as God the Father is—; and Christ called Saul from heaven and sent him to preach, and the Holy Spirit similarly claims this for himself by saying: "for the work to which I have called them." For no one is ignorant that the Savior instituted bishops for the churches; for he himself, before he ascended into the heavens, laying on his hands, ordained them bishops. The apostle attributes this to the Holy Spirit, when he says: "Attend to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the church of the Lord Jesus." And among other things, Peter says to Ananias: "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit?

And further: "You have not," he says, "lied to men, but to God." It is clear that the Holy Spirit is called God, to whom Ananias is said to have lied to God. But if he had not wished the Holy Spirit to be understood as God, he would have said: "You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit," so that he would designate this one as neither God nor man. And what wonder? For the apostle sometimes calls a man the temple of God, but sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, because they are one in nature. For if the Holy Spirit were not understood to be God, with what audacity would he say below: "For the temple of God is holy, which you are"? Since one God is proclaimed in all the Scriptures, but His mystery is worshipped in the Trinity, Scripture acts in such a way that, under the profession of one God, those things which are of Him, that is, His Son and His Spirit, are understood to be in the same honor in which God Himself is, because the sacrament of God was revealed for this reason, that His glory might be signified to abide in the Trinity. For this reason: that which is of God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed that another is made apart from the One who is, but it gives understanding, so that we may believe that the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity by that reasoning, because their divinity is one. For it is not possible for the creator and the creature, the Lord and the servants, eternity and those things which have a beginning, to be joined together and placed in the same order, especially since without one of them salvation exists for no one.

For everything that is God is called to injury, whether Son or Holy Spirit, if it is assigned outside the honor and glory of the one God. Therefore the Scriptures show Christ to be God; they show the Holy Spirit to be God, so that those who see may know what it is that is shown. It is as if someone were to show a gem without crying out that it is a gem; surely, because he does not cry out, will it not be a gem that is seen? So too the Scriptures show, through those things which have been treated above, what we ought to believe, confining our understanding within the faith of the one God by the mystery of the Trinity. XCVIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. You have heard what the sacrosanct Gospel attests, when the Lord says to the Jews: "You are born from the father devil, and you wish 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. Let none of the faithful doubt that the devil has no author of his own apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error, who, seeing himself made by God as one of not mediocre power, dared to presume upon divinity, so that, because he saw others as inferior, he preferred himself as a god. Finally, the names by which he is called, devil and Satan, are composed from his action, not from nature. For every evil is proven by its work, so that the subsistence is not in the crime, but the will conceived from causes.

For when he saw himself superior to the others, he was puffed up to exercise domination. How, then, will he be said to have a father, who is considered the author of his crime? Or from where is it proven that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls by his name the one who was his imitator, so that, because he received his name from his deed, everyone who has done an evil work is not undeservedly called 'devil'. Therefore the Saviour in this passage called Cain 'devil', because he was an emulator of his works. While he envied his brother, he perpetrated homicide, leaving an example of cruelty and parricide; just as the devil, while he envies man made in the image of God, heaped up the malignity of his own work, providing a type for error. Hence, then, Cain also proved a liar, when God said to him: 'Where is your brother Abel?' He, imbued with his father's malice, bursting into a lie, said: 'I do not know', so that he pretended not to know where he was, whose life he had extorted, thus blinded by fury that he answered God as if to a man whom he thought he could deceive.

Therefore, the Jews, becoming imitators of him, also killed the Lord himself, preferring to have Cain, a fratricidal father, rather than God, so that they might become guilty of all the blood that was shed. For by killing the author of life, they became the chief perpetrators of every crime, to the extent that they bound even their own children to this evil, saying: "His blood is upon us and upon our children." For in order to persuade Pilate that there was nothing wrong in what they were seeking, they said that it would be turned back upon their children if it were unjust, because, to satisfy their own fury, they were unwilling to spare even their own children. For that the devil is not evil by nature is more easily learned from this: that punishment would not be promised to one who had not done what he had not known. For it is unjust to punish one who does nothing other than what is in his nature; and this evil is even greater if you demand from someone what you know he cannot do. For this reason, one is justly punished who, when it is established that he knows and is able to do good, does evil. This can also be observed from the words of the Savior; for He says, as was mentioned above: "Your father was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth." Therefore, if he is a liar by nature, how is it said that he did not stand in the truth? For he does not stand in the truth who does not remain in the truth. It is established, therefore, that the devil was in the truth, but did not persevere.

Finally, we read through the prophet the Lord saying: "If they had stood," he says, "in my substance," that is, "in my law." And the Apostle, in his letter to the Galatians, says: "Stand," he says, "and do not be held back again under the yoke of servitude." What could be clearer? For this commands that from now on they remain in his commandments. If the devil had kept this, he would have stood in the substance and law of God. For the law is a foundation for those who keep it. How, then, does it seem to some that the devil was either made evil by God or has his own origin, that is, arose from nothing—both of which appear contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for the purpose of being evil considers God to be of imperfect goodness, because a perfectly good being does not create evil. But whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies dominion to God. For by this, since all things belong to God, they suppose that there is something that in no way pertains to God—those who ought to suffer penalties when they see that all things are judged by God through Christ.

XCVIIII. WHAT IT MEANS THAT 'NO TEMPTATION SHOULD SEIZE YOU EXCEPT A HUMAN ONE.' Not without foresight, in my judgment, our apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, desires that temptation seize us, but only a human one, because divine temptation brings ruin. For the Jews, seized by this, perished from serpents; for while acting under the law of God, they doubted concerning his providence. And on this account, he urges that no divine temptation, but rather a human one, should seize us. For a person is said to tempt God who, acting under his name, hopes for salvation from idols, because he does not have God as proven. For everything that is not proven is tempted, and what is tempted comes into doubt. And on this account, divine temptation is deadly, but human temptation is salutary, because, just as doubting God is ruinous, so despairing of a human being for the sake of God's law is most beneficial. For this reason the apostle providently says: let no temptation seize you except a human one, so that, tempted by human beings for the sake of God's law, we may be found strong by those carnal humans who doubt us, but be proven to God, because those who are not proven to God are tempted so that they may be corrected.

Therefore, temptation is twofold: for at times we are tempted as believers, at times as unbelievers, so that the temptation of believers is human. For on account of faith we are harassed by men—for they tempt us, to see if they can lead us away from the faith—but on account of unbelief they are tempted, so that, distressed, they may repent and return to the way, as also happened with the Jews. For when they despaired of God’s providence, they were tempted by serpents, so that, seized by pain, they might be corrected. For God tempts in this way in order to correct such men. There is also another temptation, by which Abraham and Job were tempted, and also Tobias, servants of God, so that Abraham, through the tribulation of his only and most beloved son offered up, might have a richer fruit of righteousness for eternal glory; Job, however, through the loss of his entire substance, might be increased, enriched with wealth in heaven and on earth; Tobias, indeed, having suffered blindness of the eyes, thus became more advanced, so that he was made glorious even in the present by the recovery of his eyes, and for the future perpetual brightness is preserved for him, because the righteous are tested in order that they may advance. And therefore in temptation we ought to be of stout heart, knowing that this works not to our diminishment, but to our increase, if only we endure it with equanimity through Christ.

Chapter on the Gospel of Matthew. You have heard, dearest brothers, what the Gospel attests, the Lord saying: "I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones. Thus, Father, since such was your pleasure before you." Therefore, if we examine the sense of the words, we will see that those things which were said by the Lord for the encouragement of believers—of those who, because they despise worldly wisdom, appear as little ones to the wise of the world, who, commended by no testimony, wish to be called wise. For this reason it seemed unworthy to God to show the truth to these, but to the humble, however, who, presuming nothing of themselves, incline themselves to God's will, the salutary truths are to be revealed, equity compelling. For here is prudent before God and mindful of his own salvation, he who places God's law before his own knowledge, which he certainly sees is supported not by a clatter of words, but by the powers of things. And without doubt, he is foolish and vain who commends himself to that which is fortified by no prerogative of signs.

Therefore God promised the kingdom of the world not to the learned, but to the faithful; nor does He promise eternity to the investigators of the stars, but to those acting rightly; nor does He give glory to the dialecticians, who by fraud and certain subtleties strive to exclude the truth, but to men of good will, who are more careful in life than in speech. For God rejects those who prefer to use the brilliance of eloquent speech rather than good deeds. For he who thinks he adorns God’s matter by embellishing it with words seeks to turn God’s glory to himself. For the things themselves ought to please on their own, so that not the speech, but the sense is praised. For if the sense is the author of the letter and words were invented for the sake of signifying things, why should the things themselves not be set forth with pure sense, so that they may more easily incite the mind to salvation? Therefore our Lord chose the apostles, fishermen, simple and unlettered men, who, by preserving faith without any cunning and by living well, would show forth God’s truth in themselves. Hence also the Apostle Paul says: “And I, coming to you, brothers, came not in sublimity of speech or wisdom,” among other things: “because,” he says, “the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power,” so that, since words are subject to contradiction, the power of God’s law might stand as a witness, to which all sublimity of speech yields.

These things have been set forth beforehand, dearest brothers, so that the simpler ones might be reassured, lest they perhaps consider themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are not at all trained in forensic letters, when rather their simplicity redounds to their praise, since what the worldly wise do not see because of the pride of letters, these believe, wise not in words but in counsel. For they know that God rests in good works and seeks faith, not polished speech. For they read the Lord saying: "In whom shall I rest, if not in the humble and meek and in one who trembles at my words?" For this reason, that we may become worthy of the promised rewards, we ought to do those things which are commanded by the Lord, secure in the knowledge that the Lord loves those who keep his words. For thus He said to His disciples: "If you love me, keep my commandments," so that by serving the Lord in these things we may be able to be heirs of His kingdom through the law of Christ our Lord.

101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF THE ROMAN LEVITES. While we wish to obey the command of charity, we may perhaps fall into blame, writing about a matter that has never at any time come into doubt for anyone, because, when we are unwilling to offend friendship, we entangle the zeal which ought to have been applied to revealing some hidden matter, although on account of the excessive stupidity of a certain person asserting this, which we will disclose in what follows, that same mentioned charity has also imposed this upon us, lest, since no one was responding to these things for a long time, it should grow worse and, long exercised in vain, could not be corrected. For this is the zeal of charity, which does not seek its own interests. Therefore, a certain person, who bears the name of a false god, led by stupidity and the boastfulness of the city of Rome, strives to equate Levites with priests and deacons with presbyters, not to say to prefer them. Because it is more foolish and perhaps may seem incredible, and we might be considered not correctors but slanderers. By what law, then, or by what custom, by what example he dares to attempt this, I think no one knows, so that he might make these, to whom a seat in the church has been given least of all, equal to those who, because they are the overseers of God, sit with dignity in the house of God and in the honor of Christ. What audacity it is to make presbyters equal to their own ministers! What empty presumption of temerity to compare priests to the bearers of the tabernacle and of all its vessels and the cutters and carriers of wood and water! For this was the office of the Levites.

It is as if deputies were equated to prefects, or slaves to masters. For this is what is written when the Lord says to Moses: "Take the tribe of Levi from among the sons of Israel and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him." What could be clearer than this example, which is even now observed in the church? Although the deacons of the Roman church seem somewhat more shameless, they do not, however, presume upon the dignity of sitting in the church. But that they do not perform all the ministries of service in order is due to the multitude of clerics. For they would certainly carry the altar and its vessels, and pour water into the hands of the priest, as we see in all churches and as was established by the Lord through Moses. Or are they better than Elisha, who poured water into the hands of Elijah? Now, he defends deacons against presbyters as if deacons are ordained from among presbyters, and not presbyters from among deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman church, they are therefore considered more honorable than in other churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which seems to be the head of all cities. If this is so, they ought to claim this also for their priests, because if those who are inferior are elevated on account of the magnificence of the city, how much more should those who are superior be exalted!

For whatever is provided to officials is an increase to the power, just as the honor of a slave redounds to the praise of the master, although before a just judge, God, this honor remains for each one who is created for the individual offices of the churches, so that whoever is a deacon has the honor of the diaconate in all churches—for it is no small honor to serve the priest of God, at least in the church—and a priest is considered worthy of all ecclesiastical honor. For the greater order contains within itself and in relation to itself the lesser; a presbyter performs the office of both deacon and exorcist and lector. But that presbyter is understood as bishop is proved by the apostle Paul, when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained presbyter, as to what sort of man he ought to create as bishop. For what is a bishop except the first presbyter, that is, the high priest? Indeed, he calls them fellow presbyters and fellow priests, not otherwise; does the bishop also call them his fellow deacons and ministers? Certainly not, because they are far inferior, and it is shameful for a judge to say "chief of the record office." For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is absent, a presbyter consecrates.

But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, although he was a very wicked man, prophesied. Why? he says, "because he was chief of the priests." And again, the book we call the Acts of the Apostles proves that there is a great difference between a deacon and a priest. For when those from Samaria had believed Philip, a deacon ordained by the apostles, preaching, they sent, it says, to Peter and John that they might come and give the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands to those who had believed. But the ignorant, I believe, of the scriptures, or those unmindful of the law, defend these things. Therefore, he who thinks these things are to be asserted ought to recall what happened to the Levites when they thought in such a way. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and Levites, by the judgment of God, Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up by a chasm of the earth, and a torrent of fire consumed 250 men at once, and King Uzziah, when he presumed upon the priestly office, was covered with leprosy, so that by this example, the rest, terrified, would not dare to presume what is not granted. For now we see deacons rashly doing what belongs to priests at banquets and in prayer wishing that a response be given to them, when this is permitted only to priests. For the order of the diaconate is to receive from the priest and thus give to the people.

You see what vain presumption brings forth? For, unmindful, with elation of mind, because they see themselves to be ministers of the Roman church, they do not consider what has been decreed for them by God and what they ought to observe, but they remove this from memory by constant domestic stations and officiality, which through evil or good suggestions now has very great power. For either they are feared, lest they suggest evil, or they are bribed, so that they may provide. These are the ones who make them not consider the rationale of their order. For while they serve them illicitly through adulation, they make them headlong, so that they think more is permitted to them, especially since they see that such deference is not shown to priests, and through this they think themselves preferred. 'But', he says, 'a presbyter is made on the testimony of a deacon', as if that pertains to a prerogative of greatness. For we read that the apostle Peter said to the people: 'Choose', he says, 'from among you those whom we may appoint to serve the ministries of the church, I do not wish to say 'tables'. Behold, deacons were created on the testimony of laymen. And the apostle wishes the one who is said to be ordained bishop also to have the testimony of gentiles; for thus he says: 'For he ought also to have a good testimony from those who are outside.' Therefore it is for all to give testimony, and yet not all are worthy of this honor. For all can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. For a good painter can be judged by one who does not know how to paint, and a better cithara-player than another cithara-player can be approved by him.

who is of another craft; so also a witness can be one who creates a presbyter, who is inferior in order. There is again something by which they are puffed up and think much is owed to them: 'by us,' they say, 'those who are to be ordained are led forward.' So that, while they are hedged in by their sides, they may seem worthy of honor. Grant that it is true; for an official is sent by the bishop to provide service to the one being ordained. For even the emperor, that he may appear as emperor, is ordered by military service; yet the army is neither better nor equal to the emperor. For even Haman, when he was illustrious in military honor, was sent by the king to go into service to Mordecai, so that how worthy Mordecai was might be known from this man's services; so also deacons are sent into service to create presbyters, that all may understand that they are made worthy to be priests. For except for priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are placed over all.

102. Against Novatian. His disciples say to Jesus: "Lord, do you wish us to say that fire should descend from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?" And the Lord answered them, saying: "You do not know what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them." Although it would have been fitting to take vengeance on the Samaritans who did not receive him, the Lord, because he came to grant mercy, set aside the sentence, so that the rest might be corrected and reformed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, with God as judge took vengeance on them, so that they were eaten by bears in a place where no forest is said to exist. But the Lord spared a prostitute who was offered to him—namely, the one whom the elders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery—so that, because a pious preaching was beginning, he would teach not condemnation but forgiveness. For the law given through Moses, because it had justice for vengeance, exercised severity in its beginnings, since it punished with death the one who went out to gather wood on the Sabbath, and likewise inflicted vengeance on the son of an Egyptian woman who had blasphemed against God, and in the matter of the golden calf struck down the sons of Israel.

Each law, therefore, at its very beginnings shows its full character: the old law, because it was more inclined to punish, appeared harsher at its outset, so that by instilling fear it would make its hearers attentive and careful. The new law, however, because it is pious and inclined toward mercy, showed its beginnings as very mild and clement, so that by this very delight it would summon all to forgiveness. Later, however, that law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its rigor but also showed itself humane and pious; and this law, which seemed clement, sometimes punished. For Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, were divinely struck down; and Elymas the magician, unbelieving and resisting the law of God, was blinded by the Lord's judgment and power; and King Herod, because he did not give honor to God, was struck by an angel of God and, swarming with worms, died. Lest, because mercy is preached, men should think that sinning is altogether unavenged and unpunished, it instilled fear, showing that pardon for offenses is given so that, as if revived from the dead, they might afterwards abstain from wrongs, and that effort be made that no one depart from this life with a crime, because judgment will come. For each person is charged with the sentence in which he dies. Therefore, because the new law has fullness of mercy, lest it be held in contempt by lovers of sins, it punished the aforementioned persons.

The old law, although it was given for the purpose of punishment, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be considered utterly cruel, but it punished many, because its disposition is inclined toward vengeance. Without doubt, therefore, the grace of the new law is greater than that of the old. If, then, the grace is greater, how can it be denied that this law is able to grant what that law, which had lesser grace, granted? For the old law was more inclined toward severity. Thus, if that law is proved to have pardoned those who did penance, how can it be that this law, which is merciful, does not receive those who do penance? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, through Moses, are read to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, by the authority of the Apostle Paul. For, about to receive the law, they are known without doubt to have been purified, so that thereafter they might render account of the law received, and if any sinned, they might reform themselves through penance, as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah: "Do penance, you who err, and be converted." But perhaps it is argued to the contrary: "Penance indeed was preached, but not remission." If, therefore, penance was preached by God, there is fruit for those doing penance; for the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, the Lord, knowing that remission of sins ought to be given to those converted, commanded this, especially since he said: "I do not desire the death of the dying, so much as that he return and live." Thus, as has been made clear, there is fruit of penance for those converted to God.

Therefore, the impiously contrived assertion of Novatian is excluded, by which he inverts the sense of the Lord's words, saying: 'The Lord says: He who denies me, I also will deny him,' so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or at least, upon returning, is not received at all. And where will the enjoined penance be, when the Savior, after giving this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who denied? Why? Because, with subsequent penance, he wept over his error most bitterly, knowing that those who convert are forgiven and reformed through penance. But Novatian pretends that penance is to be performed. For, since he does not dare openly to deny that penance should be given, bound by the law, he subtly strives to frustrate it. For when he says that 'he who has denied will in no way have pardon, but will himself be denied in the sight of the angels of God,' how does he not profess penance to be performed deceitfully? But from this, his fraud clearly appears when he adds, saying: Whoever has sinned against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither here nor in the future. Although there is one cause for which one sins against the Holy Spirit, and another for denying the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants the one who denies the Lord and the one who sins against the Holy Spirit to be of the same sense, so that by this tergiversation he may cut off the fruit of penance—if indeed denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit.

no hope of forgiveness is to be expected for those who deny, nor any fruit of penance, because this sin the Lord's oracles have promised is to be remitted neither here nor in the future. Hence it is evident that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says penance is to be performed; for why should one repent, if the offense is denied to be abolished? For the groans, tears, and lamentation of penance obtain this: that it may merit both forgiveness and restoration. Indeed, David, repenting and confessing his sin, both merited forgiveness and was restored to his former state, for he both remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven; for in the fiftieth psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied; for the third psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it was fitting that a king be forgiven, whereas the humble ought not to be forgiven, although it would seem that the more powerful are more difficult to forgive. For God does not accept a person's station. For the more exalted someone is, the more, even if his sin is light, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a suppliant is sublime and magnificent, so too his fault is to be considered a crime. For apart from sins which are manifestly unlawful for all, not everything permitted to the humble is lawful for the powerful. For a man of rank, it is disgraceful to engage in trade, and entering a tavern is shameful; for senators, usury is infamous. If, therefore, they are to be noted in these light matters, how much more are they to be considered guilty if they sin!

Through these things, therefore, it appears that David sinned most grievously, and indeed in a twofold manner; yet, having turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both homicide and adultery and, what is more, weeping, he was restored. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare to conceal the sin, but confessed, saying: “I have sinned against the Lord.” Then the prophet answered him and said: “The Lord has taken away your sin, and you will not die, because you have repented”; and because he is found to have prophesied afterward, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet on account of the death of Naboth, went weeping and tore his garments and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came through the hand of his servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: “Have you heard how Ahab was moved by my presence? I will not bring evils in his days.” And for the Ninevites, weeping over their sins when death was imminent, life was restored. Behold how great is the benefit of penance!

But perhaps it may be argued on the contrary: 'It is indeed granted, but not the crime of idolatry; for although these are serious, the crime of idolatry is nevertheless greater.' Yet the assertion of Novatian is rightly refuted not in a small part, whereby two serious crimes are seen to be conceded to penance, because if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much more so homicide or adultery! But from this his vanity appears, when these things which are more serious are proven to have been conceded. For this reason, it must now be inquired whether God has promised that it can be conceded to idolaters. For everything that is not lawfully conceded here will not be able to be conceded in the future either. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed; in the future, however, there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here will not be able to be chosen or judged worthy in the future. Let us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, return to me, dwelling of Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you, because I am merciful, says the Lord, nor will I be angry with you forever. Yet acknowledge your sin; you have acted impiously and placed your ways among aliens under every wooded tree. Behold what God promises to those who, after a fall, turn back to him, so that he remits sins to those who return after apostasy.

And again God says through Jeremiah: "My delicate ones have walked rough paths, they have been led like a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be preserved in captivity. For just as your mind was to stray from God, you will multiply tenfold when converted, seeking Him; for He who brought evils upon you will bring eternal joy with your salvation." O the mercy of God! How He urges the fallen to raise themselves up! How He exhorts them to return to Him after the error of idols! Like a benevolent father, He promises perennial joy of salvation to His children, if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet, among other things: "And I will restore them to that land, and I will rebuild them and not abandon them; and I will replant them and not uproot them," so that, because He had threatened by saying, "He who sacrifices to the gods will be uprooted," lest those sinning against God despair of themselves, as if those who had already sacrificed to idols, having been uprooted, could not be replanted, He exhorts them, because if they repent, they will be able to be reformed to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the offense is not corrected.

Finally, it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, unless so that they might either repent and the sentence be removed, or, persisting in it, they might perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet: "I do not desire the death of the dying so much as that he should turn back and live." Thus it happened that, for those about to die, the Ninevites were pardoned on account of their sin, with repentance following. For why else do we find the ark under Noah being built for a hundred years, unless so that, seeing and hearing what threatened, they might correct themselves? For God does not wish anyone to perish. Hence it is that we read in Solomon: "For," he says, "the Most High has taken pity on the repentant," and again: "You take pity on all, because you can do all things. And you overlook the sins of men on account of repentance." With this same meaning, the Lord, grieving over the faithlessness of the Jews, says: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those sent to you, how often have I wanted to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you have been unwilling!

Therefore, throughout the entire Law, the Lord always urges sinners to turn to Him, not wishing His own work to be subject to destruction, since there is no other reason for the Law to have been given than that men might be converted from error to truth. Yet in such a way that, in the New Testament, the author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He deigned to reveal the sacrament of His Son, our Lord, He wished to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace through the Son’s preaching than there had been through the preaching of servants. And not undeservedly: for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through servants. Finally, to those who are converted and believe, He grants all sins at once, with no intervening lamentation of penance. Hence the apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and calling of God are without penance.” But afterwards, if they have sinned, they may be able to earn forgiveness through penance, so that, because they sinned after receiving gratuitous mercy, they may not obtain it gratis, but may be able to reach indulgence through groaning and weeping.

It is impossible for a man not to sin. Hence the apostle John says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us; if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, that He may remit our sins and cleanse us from all injustice. Thus David merited pardon and reformation when he confesses his sin. Certainly the apostle speaks to Christians; for he says in the following: My little children. I write these things to you that you may not sin; and if anyone has sinned, we have an advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ. He says this, so that if we have sinned after baptism, we may suppliantly entreat the advocate, that he may intercede for us with the Father. For if penance had a place among our forefathers, how can it be that it has no place at this time, when there is greater clemency of preaching? And He who has taken pity on enemies by calling them to grace, will He not take pity on those who have become friends, with recompense? For tribulation of heart is the reward of the penitent. But if that were true, men would grieve that they had become friends from enemies. Or what sort of man would he be considered, if he gave mercy to enemies who were not penitent, but would not give it to friends who were entreating? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the devil exalts himself and rages more against the friends and servants of God, whence the apostle Peter says: Watch, be sober, because our adversary the devil, roaring like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour?

Since, therefore, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wishes us to flee to His aid, grieving that we are cast down, so that, restored by His strength, we may fight back vigorously. For just as, unless those days which the Lord speaks of are shortened, no flesh will be saved, so also, if penance is denied to men, no one will be able to be saved. For if no one, he says, will boast that he has a clean heart. And elsewhere: no one, he says, is without stain, not even a one-day-old infant. Who will be able to escape, if penance is denied? And where is what the Lord says, that there will be joy in heaven over the sinner doing penance? But: 'Greater crimes,' he says, 'ought not to be forgiven, fornication and idolatry.' And where is the Lord's saying, by which He promises that all sins and blasphemies are remitted to men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be remitted to men? He says that absolutely all sins can be remitted except one. Now choose, Novatian, concerning which you wish it to be said: concerning those not yet believing or concerning those already believing? If concerning those not believing, how is remission of sins given, when it is established that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For not a few call the Lord's deeds magic, attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said concerning believers, your assertion is excluded, because all sins will be remitted: and he who has spoken, he says, a word against the Son of man, it will be remitted to him.

Therefore, whether the sin is committed against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men; for it has encompassed all sins except against the Holy Spirit. Thus, it does not wish this sin, which is committed against God, to be understood as being also against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, it would certainly not except that one. Since, therefore, it signifies a different sin when blasphemy is committed against the Holy Spirit — for this saying pertains to the person, not to the nature of the Holy Spirit — whether to those already believing through penance or to future believers through baptism, all sins will be forgiven. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit is a different case, and one which pertained to that time. Hence it shows that this is not forgiven to them either here or in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through malice. For knowing and being aware that the works they saw in the deeds of the Savior were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended these were the works of the prince of demons. Hence it is that the Lord says to them: "You have the key of knowledge, and neither do you enter yourselves nor do you allow others to enter." This sentence, therefore, was pronounced against the malicious, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For there is nothing more grievous than this crime; it pretends to be false what it knows to be true. For these were Jews who seemed to be under the law of God and to whom the promise of Christ was made.

Seeing the great wonders and understanding that this was what God had promised, they were blinded by envy, so that they denied it to be so, and not only denied it, but also persecuted it unto death. Therefore, it is not fitting that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness before God, to whom they professed devotion, dared to oppose him. Now, when sin is committed either against God or against Christ, the causes are different. For either someone, envying another's good fortune, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own lowliness, or, having suffered something sudden and adverse, becomes abusive toward the parent, roused by anger. But Christ's incarnation provokes injury against him. For because men are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, deeming it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of an incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born as men are. They blaspheme, therefore, because they do not know the mystery. For this reason, a helping hand must be extended to these when they are converted, because they rise up against the truth while thinking they are acting for the truth. A person of this sort, even when tortured and having his nails torn out, declares to be true that which he follows; but the aforementioned Jews thought one thing and did another, and are always tormented, with their own conscience as witness, without a judge or executioner. For he who, through error, was an enemy of the truth, when converted, rejoices that he has come to know the truth. But the malicious person has nothing to correct; for if he converts, he will begin to say as true what he previously did not know to be false.

But for the Holy Spirit to suffer injury, there is no cause; for its office does not produce offense, because it appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare to attack it, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry at it, seeing by its effect paralytics running, the blind receiving light, the deaf hearing? Or how would he not love it, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time curing all infirmities? The Jews preferred to do injury to it, calling its work the work of demons, while they thus fulfilled the envy and hatred which they exercised toward the Savior. For this reason, it shows that this sin is remitted to them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says: 'Greater crimes are proven to be remitted by name, that is, idolatry and fornication after baptism. For in baptism,' he says, 'all sins are remitted at once, so that if thereafter they commit something grave, they obtain pardon in no way, because after receiving the Holy Spirit, what is against the Holy Spirit ought not to be admitted.' Who denies that one should never sin, but if it were possible? Moreover, God, knowing the fragile human race, has always pursued them with salutary remedies, so that after sins they would have a way to repair themselves. But if the given Spirit forbids granting penance to those sinning, there is no providence in the New Testament, and the Old will seem better provided for, to which this medicine was by no means denied.

And how is there greater grace in the New than in the Old? For this is the work of an enemy, who, knowing that men cannot otherwise be provided for so that they may attain salvation except through the intervention of penance, gives the Holy Spirit, so that if injury is done to it out of some fear or error, satisfaction would no longer have a place for reforming the man; this is to have sought an opportunity for destroying man, not for saving him. But far be it, because the Lord says: the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them. For if sins which we commit against one another, if we repent, God commands them to be forgiven by us to each other seventy times seven times, how much more does He Himself, if sin is committed against Him, forgive those who repent! For He wishes every sinner to repent. Hence the Apostle proves forgiveness for fornicators and the impure, saying: lest coming I should mourn many of those who have sinned before and have not done penance for the impurity and fornication which they committed. He proves that some have done penance, concerning whom he does not grieve, but rejoices: but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, on account of which he says he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if penance for this crime were always to be done in this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. Knowing, however, that penance both begins and is completed here, he says that they "have not done" it. For he wished that when he came to them, he would have peace with their communion.

Behold, it has been proven that fornicators, after performing penance, are to be communicated with. For they cannot be communicated with as long as they are acting; but then they are to be communicated with when they cease to act by the judgment of the church. Now it remains to be proven whether pardon can be granted specifically to idolaters. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed John the Apostle that penance is preached concerning idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels—that is, messengers, as the blessed Apostle Paul also says: "You received me as an angel of God"—are admonished to give penance to those who sin and not to suffer them to be least admonished, who cause scandals in the church, since they themselves are of the church. Therefore he says: "And to the angel of the church of Pergamum write: Thus says the one who has the sword sharp on both sides: I know where you dwell, where the seat of Satan is; and you hold my name and have not denied my faith in the days in which Antipas, my most faithful witness, was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those holding the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to send a scandal under the eyes of the children of Israel, to eat things offered to idols and to fornicate; so also you have those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance." He says that this is the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, concerning which he commands penance to be done. And because he speaks to the men of the church, he shows this, saying: "Thus says the Spirit to the churches.

Because the fruit of penance is shown in this way: "To the one who conquers," he says, "I will give to eat manna, which is hidden"—so that through penance one may conquer sins. For what is it to do penance, except to grieve over the past and from then on to refrain from those things which one had committed?—and "To the angel of the Thyatiran church write: Thus says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire and his feet like burnished brass: I know your works and your love and your faith and your ministry and your patience, and your later works are better than the earlier ones. But I have a complaint against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and seduces my servants to fornicate and to eat meat sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to do penance, and she was unwilling to do penance from her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into bed and her adulterers with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds, and I will kill her children by death; and all the churches will know that I am the one who searches reins and hearts, and I will give to each one of you according to your works. But to you others who are in Thyatira, who do not have this teaching and are ignorant of the depth of Satan, as they say: I place no other burden upon you; nevertheless, hold what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and preserves my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations.

In a single letter sent to the church of Thyatira, he confutes and explodes the twofold error of the Novatian heresy; for he both promises the fruit of penance to those who have lapsed on account of idolatry, and shows that in one church the wicked do not contaminate the good, since they were all of one communion. For he was not writing to those placed outside the church, saying: "Whoever has ears," he says, "let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." In a similar way, the apostle Paul says: "But we know," he says, "that whatever the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law"; and in another place: "For why," he says, "should I judge concerning those who are outside?" Therefore, he partly summons the men of one church to penance, partly praises them, saying: "But to you others who are at Thyatira, I say, whoever do not have that teaching"—that is, of idolatry—"hold what you have until I come"; that is, persevere until the end, because he who has persevered to the end will be saved. In a similar way, he who has persevered in evil will be damned. And through this, just as the righteousness of a righteous man will not free him on the day he has erred, so the iniquity of an unjust man will not harm him when he has converted. Therefore he said: "He who sacrifices to gods will be rooted out; but if he converts, he will live life." So also is that which the Lord said: "He who has denied me, I will deny him. But if he converts, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses.

Hence it is that he said in the psalm: "No living man shall be justified in my sight." For this sentence is imputed to a man, in which he dies. For because in the church the wicked would be with the good until the judgment of God, the Lord himself also signified this, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. But when they had come to the shore, the good separated them into their vessels, and cast the bad out." Thus it will be at the end of the world: angels will go out and separate from the kingdom of God all scandals and those who commit iniquity. This cause is also signified in the one who, among those reclining, was found not having a wedding garment, whom alone he showed cast out from the assembly of the church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not pollute the others; and because this unworthiness of his was indicated, by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was manifest to the others. For they saw him among them dressed otherwise.

This is why the apostle Paul says: "In a great house, however," he says, "there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthenware ones." He set this forth on account of Hymeneus and Philetus, who, although they were from the church, held perverse views concerning the resurrection, just as some from the church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian signifies that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the church, lest he be compelled to assert that in one church there are evil with good, unclean with clean. This I think can easily be refuted. For in one house all are under one name; although they are diverse in character, they are still counted under the name of their one master in profession. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that they profess to have different gods and masters. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said about the world, but about the church, in which those living under one name are diverse in action. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just complaints for his secession, lest he openly blush, he concocted for himself certain arguments through a bad interpretation of the law, by which he might try to excuse and conceal the invidious will of his envy.

Finally, he responded to what we have said, stating: "I do not refuse that penance be performed for the admitted idolatry, but I dare not remit it, because this crime must be remitted by the one against whom it was committed." This, however, he said deceitfully. For his interpretations reveal this, by which his fraud appears. For when he says: "It is written: 'Whoever denies me, I will also deny him,' and the one whose words these are cannot lie," he shows that the penance, which he says should be performed, is empty and fruitless. For if the sentence has been given and the one who gave it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to torment himself with lamentations and groans, when you either deny the effect of this matter or confess that you have no knowledge of it? For everyone who gives counsel to someone gives it precisely so that he may declare what benefit can come from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, you say that penance should be performed in order to mock the minds of men. For, knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you do so subtly, because you cut off penance not by word but by effect. Certainly, you say that everyone who has sacrificed to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you contend that this sin is remitted neither here nor in the future through the words of the law. How then do you say that penance for this offense should be performed, unless you are deceiving, as I have shown above?

But you are accustomed to covering over this fraud with another deceit, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: "Do penance for this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be remitted to you." But the apostle Peter, considering the man's venomous and exceedingly bitter malice, gave him a doubtful response. For what mortal has sinned in such a way as to wish to purchase the gift of God with money? That response, therefore, was given to malice, not to error. For this is what has no remedy, because it is neither error nor necessity by which one might excuse it, so that it could attain pardon through weeping. If, therefore, any are found in such a cause, let them hear what Simon heard. And indeed, the apostle Peter showed why he responded doubtfully, saying: "For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." If, therefore, in so grave a cause, which seems without remedy, a doubtful response was given, it is not ambiguous that those who sin against God through error or some necessity can be pardoned if they perform suitable penance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author, that it may both give penance and receive one back after penance.

There is also another point which Novatian criticizes: "Why," he says, "do they give the Lord's body to those whom they know to be sinners?"—as if they themselves could be accusers, who are judges. But if they have been accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge would assume the role of an accuser? For if the Lord himself tolerated Judas, whom he knew to be a thief and to carry off what was sent in, and did not cast him out when he had not been accused, it is fitting to use this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out one who has not been publicly detected. For it is not fitting for a just man to accuse anyone. Hence Joseph, when he was, it says, a just man and did not wish to expose her, wanted to send her away secretly. Therefore Judas, while he was among the disciples, did not defile them with his contagion, since they dissented from his thefts, and receiving the Eucharist among them did not pollute the innocent, nor did the Lord deny his own body to him whom he knew to be a thief, because according to the apostle, he who unworthily receives takes the sword for himself, whence he did not even turn away from his kiss. For sinners defile those who consent to their evils. Whence it was said: you saw a thief and you ran with him.

This is why the apostle rebukes the Corinthian people, because they did not rebuke or shun the man who publicly had his father's wife, so that he might correct himself, saying: "Do you not know that a little leaven spoils the whole lump?" For when there was no leader or overseer of the church, it was the people's duty to rebuke him whom they saw living so shamefully and obscenely among them. And thus the apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or witnesses; for he publicly had his stepmother as his wife. Therefore, as far as our case is concerned, we have set forth the reasoning not by accusing others, but by defending ourselves. But I call upon the conscience of Novatian, who always accuses us, to know whether he knows all those whom he has with him to be saints. Moreover, he is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, although he knows that we are baptized in that faith of which he himself boasts. Certainly, profession and life make a Christian. Therefore, if you see a man professing what you profess, and not unlike you in life, why do you deny that he is what you are? Certainly, whoever says "Lord Jesus" says it in the Holy Spirit; for he speaks the truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not assent to one speaking the truth, but deny him? You contradict one confessing God, not by reason, but by rage. Do you not seem to be an enemy of God, who resists one speaking the truth about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan?

Why do you deny that a man is a Christian when you hear him professing the words of the whole faith, when you read: "By the heart one believes for righteousness, but by the mouth confession is made for salvation"? But you, like an enemy, because you do not see through anger, fight against God by denying that the one confessing these things has salvation, when the Lord says: "Whoever has confessed me, I also [confess] him." Does he say: "If Novatian has confessed me"? But you construct this in such a way that you seem to defend this, that here the one who is saved is not only a Christian, but whoever has been a Novatian as well. But if confession made in Christ grants salvation, wherever, among whomever this confession has been whole, it has salvation. Therefore, if the tradition of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its meaning altered, you rightly accuse. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem to deny yourself as well. But you accuse the ministers of the faith; suppose it is true, although you cannot prove it. Yet what those who have heard from them have heard—is it true or false? For even if a corrupt man has spoken the truth, it will not be untrue because it was spoken by a corrupt man, since the matter of conduct is one thing and the matter of profession another. Does not a persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? In the first place, knowing that this benefits the religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes us confessing what he does not want to hear, because he hates it.

You, however, although you are of the same profession and the same seal, do not believe us when we confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in a different way than you were reborn, you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious person, if I am not what you are? For if I professed about myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. In the end, I am to be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my profession, not yours about me. Why, then, do you deny when I confess, since in this case it is not another’s testimony but my own profession that is required either for me or against me? I wished that you, on behalf of the Name, be tortured against me, so that it might appear whether, when I confess the truth, you would deny against me, or whom would be believed. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not unaware that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s, and that what I have confessed is held as true, not what another has denied.

It is therefore clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ, without scrutinizing men’s actions, hasten to obtain His faith, approving in this what they know to be useful to themselves, that is, that they may receive the tradition of faith which is about Christ. For whoever thinks that something else of a man, besides the ministry, is necessary in this matter does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For when, unless the merit of a man is present, does he deny that the gift of God can be effective for one devoted to it? He either makes man greater than or equal to the tradition itself, whereas the merit of a man is far removed from this office, as the apostle Paul says concerning this same matter: “I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.” Therefore, neither the one who plants is anything, nor the one who waters, but the one who gives the increase is God. How, in this matter, is anything to be hoped for from man, when the words which are to be handed over have been given? Let us see, therefore, what will be gained if he is of good merit, or what will be lost if he is of bad merit. The one approaching desires to hear the words of God, by which, lending his faith, he believes he receives salvation. What does the one who hands over the solemn words do in this matter, whether he is of good or of bad life, since the devoted faith of the recipient is sought, so that he may believe with his whole heart what he hears? Surely, if the one who hands over is of bad life, will it create an impediment for the recipient, so that he does not believe what he hears as things to be believed, so that his sin enters the heart of the recipient and prevents him from believing?

or is God, who is just, to disregard a devotee of His because of that devotee’s sin, when He Himself allows that devotee to exist in his order? Not even a human being judges thus, though it is certain that a human being is frequently mistaken or partial. If it were so, and a man were pleading his own case, would he not say to God: “Who this man is, on whose account you disregard me, I do not know. I approached him for your sake, because he was said to be your minister. I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you; I hoped for nothing from the man. Why, then, should his evils harm me, whom I would not have known had I not sought you? If his goods could have profited me, it might perhaps seem just that his evils should also harm me. But just as his goods, if I had believed doubtfully, would have profited me nothing, so too his evils ought to harm me nothing, since I believed rightly. For I gave credence to his words, which are said to be given by you, which are inspired by you, which speak of you, which promise concerning you; I believed nothing about him from himself, nor in his deeds, but I joined myself to the faith that comes from you.

According to these things, the case of the believer is intact. For take the bishops in the manner of advocates. If an advocate is of evil life, will judgment be given against his client? This is the office of an advocate, to plead the case of his client according to the order of the law: can his life, if it is shameful, harm the case of his client? For the person of the advocate can neither harm nor help; for whatever the case is like, so will the response be given to it. So it is with those who wish to become Christians. They approach the bishop, declare their vows to him, he speaks the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are accepted by the judge. In what way can he either harm or be of use, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God the judge alone with what mind each person approaches. Therefore, it is the bishop’s duty to perform the office delegated to him, but the judge’s either to accept or reject the case of the client. For He Himself is found to have said: “Daughter, your faith has saved you.

You see, therefore, that no one is saved by another’s help, but each one by his own faith. For God has decreed this concerning faith, that, if one does not doubt, he will obtain everything he wishes. You, however, not as a friend, but as an enemy of Christ, have gathered the people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are Novatians, although the apostle condemns anyone who calls himself a Paulian or of anyone else. But you, judging yourself more important, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as if he were not sufficient to protect his own church. CIII. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED CONCERNING SACRIFICES TO BE OFFERED, WHY IS IT THAT, ANGRY AT THE PEOPLE, HE SAYS THAT HE DID NOT COMMAND THEIR FATHERS TO OFFER LIBATIONS OR SACRIFICES OR HOLOCAUSTS? INDEED, HE SPEAKS THUS THROUGH THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: ‘Thus says the Lord: Gather your holocausts with your sacrifices and eat the meats, because I did not speak to your fathers nor did I command them, on the day I led them out of the land of Egypt, concerning holocausts and sacrifices.’

If you pay close attention, there is no need to raise a question about this matter; nor should you think the Lord lied or changed his mind, so that he commanded something and later denied it. For concerning sacrifices and libations or holocausts of this kind, nothing is found to have been commanded, about which he testifies that he said nothing. For note two kinds of sacrifices: one which was ordered to be offered according to each type, and another which was called voluntary. Therefore, for that which was prescribed to be offered according to various types, whether for sins or for firstborn, it was commanded what, of what kind, and in what manner it was to be offered. For a voluntary sacrifice was by no means commanded, because it was left to discretion, so that, if someone wished to offer, he would offer whatever seemed good to him; for these sacrifices were votive. And because they were offering these negligently and improvidently, without deliberation—since one who offers would offer choice gifts to a more powerful person—therefore it is said to them: "I did not command you concerning these; but if you wish, you ought to offer what is worthy.

Thus it is also found that Cain sinned, when he did not consider that these things ought to be offered to God which are superior. For when they said they were offering these things to propitiate God, in that very act they provoked God to indignation, so that in what they claimed to be doing well, they sinned by offering to God unworthy sacrifices. Whence it is said in the prophet Malachi: "If you bring to the sacrifice a blind or lame or sick animal, it is not good. But if you offer these to your leader or your superior, will he receive you?" says the Lord Almighty. Hence it is that in Isaiah God complains about the same matter, saying: "What are your sacrificial sheep to me? You have not honored me in your sacrifices. For I did not make you so that you would labor over incense or so that you would buy incense for me with silver, nor did I covet the fat of your sacrifices; in your sins and iniquities you have stood before me." It is therefore clear that complaints arose because, when they offered voluntary sacrifices, they did not honor God in them by offering unworthy things, since this was certainly not a matter of necessity. For if these had been commanded, they would seem to be offering whatever they had out of necessity; but when they offered these of their own free will, they ought to have offered such things as would show their devotion to God in themselves. But because their minds were wandering in the desire for idols, they did these things thoughtlessly.

Therefore they are reproached on two counts: both because they dared to offer to God while acting unjustly, and because they offered things that were unworthy, since unjust acts are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by lamentation and mercy. Whence David says, when he had sinned: "If you had wished, I would certainly have given sacrifices; you will not take delight in burnt offerings." The sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, and a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise. Finally, Samuel says to Saul, who, when he had despised the Lord's command, thought he could placate God with a sacrifice: "For," he says, "God does not want sacrifice more than to have his voice heard." And Scripture says: "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice," because, when they were unjust and unmerciful, they thought they could make God propitious with offerings, just as now some, spurning justice, think they are praised by offerings. Therefore an offering is good, if justice is preserved and mercy is not neglected, because what we seek for ourselves we ought also to provide to others.

CIIII. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. The Lord, knowing that the Jewish war would arise against him, told his disciples to prepare swords for themselves. When this was done, and the war had begun under the leadership of Simon Scariote, the apostle Peter, seeing the enemies rising up, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the priests. Then the Lord said to Peter that he should put his sword back into its sheath: for everyone, he said, who takes up the sword will perish by the sword. Why did he order them to be prepared, he who forbade striking, also designating as guilty of death the one who struck with the sword, when the apostle does not seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as it concerns, he struck one whom he saw armed against himself. For he had to resist ungrateful servants armed to kill their master. If you examine the individual parts of the case, whose reason you wish to lay bare, you will find other things that you seek in these words. For what need was there that he, who relied on spiritual strength, should order carnal swords to be prepared, and that he, who earlier on the journey ordered that neither a wallet nor money nor a staff be carried, should now order to have what he previously forbade?

Let us therefore begin to explain why he ordered swords to be prepared but forbade killing. For he commanded that arms be procured not only on account of his enemies, but also on account of his own disciples, because of the impending war. For a new and astonishing thing was about to happen: that he, who performed new and unheard-of signs, would suddenly be humiliated to the point of being subjected to beatings and death. Lest, therefore, he should seem to suffer these things as though without foreknowledge, and as though his power had perhaps departed from him, he foretold all these things in such a way that he did not doubt them, but, being foreknowing, prepared himself against them; and because he was humiliated willingly, he ordered that the enemies not be resisted too fiercely, showing himself to be so much the one he had been that, when already seized, he restored the ear which had been cut off, and gave back what had fallen by the work of the sword. Not, indeed, as a fleshly physician, but as the creator of the body, he refashioned his mutilated work. For physicians cannot repair severed parts of the body. But so that the power of God might seem not diminished in him, but to be present just as it had been, and so that it might confirm what he had said: "I have the power to lay down my life and I have the power to take it up again," for this reason he had swords prepared, yet he did not order killing.

Now this remains: why, when he considered the deed of the apostle Peter, he said that the one who had used the sword would perish by the sword, even though he does not seem to have struck unjustly. For as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord himself permitting it, and thus, when prohibited, he heard these words. For this reason it was permitted, so that they might be seen to be able to avenge themselves, but unwilling, and so that the virtue might be shown to remain in him in whom it had been, so that in both respects they would not be doubted to be able to avenge themselves, but the enemies would hold for certain that power had been given to them by him to do these things. For he did not appear conquered, but surrendering himself to their will. Why then was the sentence given, that he who takes the sword shall perish by the sword, except that it is permitted to no one except a judge to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only to the extent that he would cause pain, not that he would kill. For hearing this, lest he strike again, he learned besides that it is not lawful for those who have already become Christians to kill; for those placed in mercy it is not lawful to use the harsh law of the world's trust. But that which he seems to have commanded to the disciples going before on the road, that they should take nothing on the road, is for the sake of peace and the grace of virtues and the affability of teaching. For what need was there to take anything on the road, when on account of signs everything was to be offered to them?

But when the time at which he allowed himself to suffer arrived, on account of which a quarrel threatened more than war, he ordered the disciples to be armed, not so that he who wished to suffer might fight back, but, as I have said, to show both that he was prescient of this matter and that he had his passion in his power, but he would humble himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be discussed in its proper place. CV. THAT THE GOSPEL AGREES WITH THE PROPHECY. Since it was predicted in the first coming of the Lord that the sun would be darkened at the time of his passion, at the same hour at which it is proven to have happened—that is, at midday; for thus it is written in the prophet Amos: "And it shall be on that day, says the Lord, the sun will set at midday and the day of light will grow dark over the earth"—therefore on that day the sun was darkened from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, and thus the prophecy of the aforementioned prophet was fulfilled. For an image of this matter, which will occur at the second coming of the Lord, was shown in the passion of the Lord, because at the end, when the Lord begins to come to judge the world, the luminaries will be released from their office, the Lord saying: "In those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its brightness." Indeed, the prophet Joel did not omit this, so that, when it is signified by Joel, it is believed without doubt to be fulfilled. For he spoke thus: "The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes.

This, as far as can be seen, is more fitting for the second coming; for then it will be openly manifest to all, as Scripture says: then every eye will see him, and all the tribes of the earth will lament over him, and those who crucified him. Therefore, if this is contained in both comings, that the sun will be darkened in those days, what day is that on which Scripture has sung that the sun and moon will be enlarged? For Isaiah says among other things: and there will be water flowing over every high mountain and in every high place on that day, when many have perished, when towers have fallen. And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun; and the light of the sun will be seven times as great on the day when he heals the contrition of his people, and so forth. What day can be understood as the one on which the Lord promised to heal the contrition of his people? This, I think, is the day which John's father Zacharias pointed out, saying: blessed is the God of Israel, because he has visited and made redemption for his people and raised up the horn of our salvation in the house of David his servant, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from eternity. And he freed us from our enemies. And from the hands of all who hate us, to show mercy to our fathers. And Simeon among other things: he is placed, he says, in the ruin and in the resurrection of many in Israel. This ruin is of the scribes and Pharisees and the princes of the Jews, whom the prophet signified by 'towers'.

Thus, while these fell through unbelief, others rose by believing, who previously seemed weak and sick through negligence. Hence the Savior says: "In judgment," he says, "I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind," so that those who seemed lights through the cultivation and expertise of the law would be blinded through unbelief, while the blind—that is, the unskilled or publicans—would see, by believing. The prophet foretold that the Savior would bear their infirmities. And so this happened at the time of the Savior, as is read in the Gospel, because he himself took on our infirmities and healed our wounds. All these things were indeed consummated and fulfilled in the passion of the Savior; for in this way the salvation of the human race was both redeemed and confirmed among the higher powers as well as among the lower, because the aforementioned prophecy of Zechariah encompasses both. For here among the higher powers, they were freed from the crushing of enemies by the intervention of mercy, and there among the lower, when they were snatched from Tartarus. For all who hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting his advent, so that, with death conquered, they might be freed from the underworld. Hence he said: "To show mercy to our fathers." But if anyone understands this salvation to be contained also in the second advent, yet in both advents—especially the second—the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon will not give its light.

How then shall we understand that the sun and moon increase on the day when the Lord will visit his people, when at both times—when the liberation of the people was begun and when it was completed—we read that the sun and moon were not diminished, but darkened? Unless we understand that the sun and moon are compared to the saints, as we read elsewhere that the saints are equated to lights, with the apostle Paul preaching that among other men the saints in this world are seen as lights; and in the Gospel: "Then the just," it says, "will shine like the sun." For the Lord calls just works "light"; thus he says: "Let your light shine before men, so that seeing your good works they may magnify your Father, who is in heaven." Therefore, those who, having abandoned all their possessions, follow the Lord for the sake of justice and holiness are compared to the sun and moon, honored sevenfold, as the Lord says: "There is no one who leaves a home or a wife or children or fields who does not receive seven times as much in this world." Therefore, those who are honored sevenfold in the present can be understood to be believed to be seven parts brighter than others in the future, so that their resurrection is compared to the sun and moon; but that of others is like stars. Thus the brightness of the saints, which is honored sevenfold here, receives another sevenfold in the resurrection, so that whoever has the brightness of the moon here will receive the brightness of the sun in the future, and whoever is compared to the sun here is believed to receive seven times as much in the future.

The prophet Isaiah therefore foretold that the merits of the saints would be increased by comparison with the sun and moon, and not undeservedly. For if the Lord himself is called the Sun of Justice, and the saints will be like him, as the apostle John says: "For when he appears," he says, "we will be like him," it is fitting that the saints are signified in the sun. Yet the above-mentioned prophet shows that the sun is seven times greater than the moon. For when he shows that the moon will be like the light of the sun, but the sun seven times as much, he signifies that the moon is increased sevenfold according to the measure of the sun, so that it becomes such as the sun is. Although the reasoning concerning the saints is at issue here, yet under this cause he has partly revealed the quantity of the luminaries, so that after the increase of the sun and moon, the one is again as much greater as the sun was, so that as much as a saint now differs from a saint, so much shall he differ also in the future after the reward. CVI. ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. In the beginning God made heaven and earth. If he made heaven and earth in the beginning, and heaven is the firmament, as appears in what follows, it is not true, because light was made first and then the firmament; for he could not signify another heaven, since he describes the making of the world, perfected by God's working. For because men were deceived by various opinions concerning the origin of the world, Moses, inspired by God, showed what the nature of the world was.

For it seemed to some that it had no beginning; to others, that it had a beginning indeed, but was fashioned by certain angels; to some, moreover, that it was made similarly, but by a certain Sacla, who was a god of the opposing power; but a few, following the line of truth concerning its origin, asserted that God was its maker. Therefore, because of this diversity of opinion among those who were drawn by false belief, Moses was compelled to show what the true cause of this was, lest the children of Israel, though delivered from the power of the Egyptians, should not be freed from their false understanding. For they, among others, were more given to the pursuit of error; for from ancient times they devoted themselves to vain philosophy more than the rest. Finally, Moses, through the fact that he was considered the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter, was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. What then does it mean when it says: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth"? For if "firmament" does not signify what we have shown above, let us see what it says. We think that Moses, in order to remove all error concerning the lower creation and the materials of which the world was made, signified that the substances themselves, of which the world consists, were made in the beginning, because, if he had kept silent about this, these substances might perhaps be thought eternal, deemed to be joined to God, so that he who accepts the testimony of this matter cannot doubt that the world was made, when he confesses that the substances which contributed to the material of the world were subject to a beginning.

Therefore, in the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the upper and lower substance. The upper is that of which the heaven consists; the lower, however, is a certain muddy concretion. This concretion produced dry land, which is called earth, and darkness. Whence the prophet Isaiah says: "I am God, who made light and created darkness," that is, water, darkness, and earth. These substances having been created together before times—for times are under the firmament; for the firmament, as it seems to some, is ice of waters and is therefore called firmament, because it was made firm by waters congealed by divine power, and it is called heaven from the act of hiding or concealing. Therefore, because water is the greater element, it was signified first, and because a part of it produced the vault of the world; the earth, however, is the pavement. And indeed David confesses through the Holy Spirit that these were created; for he says: "And the water which is above the heavens praises the name of the Lord, because He spoke and it was made, He commanded and it was created." After these elements, therefore, before the joining together of the world, God made light, so that His works might proceed in light, which light, once arranged, completed the course of the day. And night was made according to the measure of the day, which, similarly, when its span was completed, was illuminated by the arrival of the morning light, and thus the first day was completed when the second began; for night is assigned to the day, so that together they are called one day.

For this reason, because darkness is subject to light, it lacks authority, so that it cannot make a number. For thirty days are called one moon, although they also have nights. Thus, the service of light, by which it completes the space decreed for it, is called day; the substance of darkness, before it is illuminated, is called night. But that space which is between sunset and sunrise is night. For darkness does not make night, just as light makes day, because darkness remains in its own nature. But the approach of light makes day, and its departure makes night. Not undeservedly, therefore, is night subject to day. Therefore, with light made and the course of twelve hours completed, and the same number of hours of night's space having been accomplished, there was an equinox on the first day. And from then on, day began to increase over night for three months, which are the time of spring. Then, from that increase, day diminishes for another three months, which are the time of summer. And again there is an equinox, so that from it night increases over day for another three months, which are the time of autumn. And night begins to decrease from the magnitude by which it exceeds day, until the end of the fourth season, which is winter. And the equinox of the first season occurs, when God created the world, which day is understood to be the 11th day before the Kalends of April, when the first day of Passover is, that is, the first day of the first month. For in the Law it is commanded that on the tenth day of the first month in the evening they should prepare themselves to celebrate Passover on the fourteenth day of the month.

that is, from the eleventh. For the evening of the tenth day already shines into the eleventh, so that the beginning of the first month would be from the eleventh day before the Kalends of April. In the beginning, indeed, the moon was made on the fourteenth day, because all things were made full; add also the three days from the evening of the tenth, and these are the three days before the lights which there were, so that the world was made on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, because the number of the moon comes from the eleventh to the fourteenth, to which the first month of Passover is wholly assigned, so that on the solemn day of Passover it is neither outside the eleventh day before the Kalends of April nor outside the fourteenth moon, because the world was made on the eleventh. But the world was made brighter by the greater light of the fourteenth moon. Therefore, between the beginning and the brightness by which the world was illuminated, our Savior both suffered and rose again. For he suffered on the fourteenth moon and rose on the first day, which is called 'the Lord's day' because he made it, which, multiplied, makes months and seasons and years. But so that it is not celebrated in one and the same way, the course of the moon makes its waning and waxing.

Now the earth was invisible and unformed. It is clear that the earth, after it was made, was invisible and unformed. For it was covered by waters, therefore it was invisible; and it was unformed for this reason, because, being fluid, it was not suitable for cultivation. And there were darknesses over the abyss. It says that darknesses were over the abyss, that is, over the immense water on every side. And the spirit of God was borne over the water. This word "water" signifies a kind of surface, over which it shows that the spirit of God was borne, so that it signifies that the darknesses were over the infinite depth, but the spirit of God was over the waters, because where the spirit of God was, there was no darkness. For as far as it could, it illuminated the water, but it could not illuminate the abyss, that is, the immense depth; that is, it illuminated the upper waters; below there were also the darknesses over the abyss. Now it calls this "the spirit of God" not because it wishes this to be understood as the Holy Spirit, but because, when it wishes spiritual things to be understood as being over hyletic creation, and signifying that the whole is of God, it calls this, which was borne over the waters, "spirit of God," in order to refute the perverse assertion which some use, saying that there is something which is not of God. For it is neither of order nor of reason that the Holy Spirit should be said to have been over the waters, because it is over every creature. For that which is from God is over all powers and principalities and at the same time over all spiritual powers.

Let no one’s mind be troubled because the spirit of God is spoken of, when it is established that all things belong to God. For God says, among other things, when about to make the flood: “My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh”; and in Ezekiel, among other things: “Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and put my spirit into you, and you will live.” Do these things pertain to the office of the Holy Spirit, and not to the soul? Therefore this spirit of God is indeed of God, like the rest, yet it is the moderator of material substances; its order is to preside over these. Therefore, after light was made and the course of the day was regulated, and after the second day was completed, he made the firmament, that is, the sky, so that light within the firmament might regulate the day, as if it were a lamp in a house. And so this firmament was made from the aforementioned substance of water. For now the world is being put together in its form, so that from the confusion of things, with the substances separated, individual parts might be fitted together, which would serve as the members of the world. For the substances which we said were first made were expended on the world, and therefore it is called “world” because things separated from each other, which were confused and brought into form, made it to be called world, into whose construction they advanced.

Therefore the firmament, that is, the sky, was made in the midst of the waters, to divide between the water that was above the firmament and the water that was below the firmament, so that by the power of God the firmament would stand in the midst of the waters, having water beneath it, within it, above it, and around it, so that it would be hollow, fortified from without and within, lest the waters, whether outer or inner, penetrate its hollow, so that it would be like a fortified and secured house, so that those dwelling in it would be safe. On the third day, he commanded the water that was under the sky, that is, within the capacity of the firmament, to gather into one gathering, so that the dry land, which is the earth, would appear, and it was done. For when the breadth of the earth was drained, a kind of channel was made, into which all the water that was within the firmament would be submerged, and then the dry land appeared. For as the water receded, it was necessary that the earth, which had previously been invisible, would appear, having been made visible. Then the earth was called dry land, and the gatherings of waters were called seas. And he commanded the earth to produce fodder grass and fruit-bearing trees for seed upon the earth.

On the fourth day again God commanded that lights be made in the firmament of the sky, to shine upon the earth: the greater light at the beginning of the day and the lesser light at the beginning of the night, and the stars. These pertain to the conception, birth, and nourishment of those things that are generated in the world, and to the signs of the seasons necessary for fixed purposes, and also to the adornment of the whole world. For just as it pertains to the adornment of a house if its ceiling has paneling distinguished with gold, so too do the stars, gleaming with diverse light, provide adornment for the world. To the light, therefore, which was made first, the splendor of the sun was added, so that these are conjoined and indivisible; but to the night, which was dark, a light was given. And because the moon was at the fourteenth day when it was made, thus it says: the lesser light at the beginning of the night; for it shone the whole night when it was made. Therefore it is said from the part to the whole: at the beginning of the night, because it does not always shine in the evening. But the greater light, which we call the sun, remains at the beginning of the day, because it was conjoined with the earlier light at the same time.

For three days, then, the world was without these lights; for there were not yet things for whose benefit their functions would serve. But as soon as the earth produced fodder-grass and fruit-bearing trees, those things became necessary which would nourish or preserve what had been produced. Therefore, because all generation of these is accomplished through their intervention, it was not fitting for this to happen earlier, lest the things produced from the earth be thought to have arisen because of their effect; rather, He made those first and then these, so that it might not be doubted that these were made without them. On the fifth day, then, He commanded the waters to produce living reptiles and birds flying over the earth according to the firmament of the sky; and it was done. And among other things: "And God saw," it says, "that they were good and said: 'Increase and multiply.'" But He added, "And God saw that they were good," because some say they are evil, so that they might blush even in this way. For when they please God, their own creator, they ought certainly to displease no one. For fools are accustomed to say: "Therefore," they say, "He saw them and they pleased Him, because He did not know before." O dullards, how did He not know, when what He willed was produced? Does anyone will what he does not know? And can it be said that He who is able to make does not know what He makes? And what is more, He did not make them Himself, but commanded that they be made; and what He commanded is not of such a nature that He could make it?

But because all things are possible for Him, at His command what was unable began to be able, so that it might redound to His praise; for the power is twofold, that He should command the insensible to produce sentient things. On the sixth day, He commanded that the earth bring forth living soul, four-footed animals and beasts of the earth; and it was done so, and they were produced. And God saw that they were good, and very good, because all are necessary. On the aforementioned day, God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him have, He said, power over all things that have been made upon the earth. First, indeed, God made the substances from which He would join together the world; once it was joined together and adorned with all ornaments and dignified with necessities, after this He made man, who would enjoy it and all things that are in it. For although He had commanded all things upon the earth to be produced from waters and earth, yet when He was to make man, He is described as having taken up mud of the earth with His hands, so that He might teach that man differs greatly from those things which He had made. For He wishes it to pertain to the honor of man, when He describes him as made by the hands of God and made in the image and likeness of God, that is, of the Father and the Son.

But what 'to the image and likeness' means, although we have said elsewhere, yet this place and subject demands that we say it again. For these are the words of the father speaking to the son: 'Let us make man to our image and likeness,' although in every work the person of both the speaker and the obedient is understood. This, then, is the image of God in man, that one was made as a lord, from whom the rest would arise, holding the command of God as His vicar, because every king has the image of God. And therefore woman was not made to the image of God. For thus it says: 'And God made man; He made him to the image of God.' Hence it is that the apostle says: 'A man,' indeed, 'ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but a woman covers herself for this reason, because she is not the glory or image of God.' The likeness of God, however, is this in man: that, just as from the father the son, so from man woman, but clearly unequal in this, that she was made, while he was born.

Some, however, think that the Lord made everything at once. For if He made by a word, they say, why should He not be said to have made everything at once? For this is the custom of men, if He is believed to have made things in parts. They say, therefore, that it redounds more to the power of God if all things are believed to have been made by Him in one day. But on the other hand, we observe great providence in this work and order. For He could indeed have made everything at once, but the manifold reason forbade it; and setting all these aside, the authority of divine Scripture must be trusted, which says and often says that in six days, it says, the Lord your God made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. For in the first place, things had to be made in such a way that they would perceive and know that they were made. For when they did not see everything at once, but one thing today, another tomorrow, they recognized that they were contained by a beginning and could not suspect eternity, where they recognize each other in parts. For if everything had come into existence at once, they would have had no sense of weakness, but would have thought they had not begun. For things that come into existence suddenly at once by the word of God do not feel themselves being made, unless by seeing one thing before them and another after them. And lest that which was made first should think itself uncreated, seeing greater things made after it, it believes this about itself which it sees in another more powerful. Finally, the light, which is called day, has before it heaven and earth, that is, water and dry land.

But since water and dry land and darkness had been made in a confused state, they could not claim eternity for themselves, because none of them dared to claim for itself a fixed state and proper nature. Again, the sun and the moon, although they are very bright, have many things before them. Thus it happened that, when the more powerful things are later and the earlier things are inferior, seeing themselves, none of them claims eternity for itself. Moreover, because the work was completed in six days, it contains within itself the age of the whole world, so that the works of the six days would have the pattern of six thousand years, since what was to happen in each age is contained in the works of the six days in order: so that—I think because in the earlier ages there was not to be such great knowledge of God on earth—the earlier days would appear without splendor; and so that beasts would be made before man, because our uncultivated and rustic ancestors were to live in the manner of beasts; and so that man would be made on the sixth day, this fact brought it about that in the sixth thousandth year the coming of Christ made man, so that he would not be subject to death; and so that man would be the image of God, because by the gift of God he was to be co-formed with the Son of God, as the apostle John says: "But we know," he says, "that when he appears, we will be like him." And the vessel of election says: "co-formed," he says, "with the Son of God." Moreover, the tree of life, which was placed in paradise, was an image of the future grace of God, which is the body of the Lord; whoever eats it will live forever.

For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the law given through Moses, which, when it had made known the sin that previously lay hidden, gave the knowledge of good and evil. For it showed what was good and what was evil. But that he rested on the seventh day from his works signified this: that when the sixth thousandth year was completed, in the seventh thousandth he would rest, the world already ceasing from all secular work. 20. We have said these few things out of many, to open a way of understanding according to what we have shown above. CVII. ON THE ORDER OF DAY AND NIGHT. As far as the reason of the world is concerned, we read of darkness before light. For those things which contributed to the building of the world and which seem to have been made together are considered to have been deprived of light, that is, water, earth, and darkness, from which the world was put together, as is contained in the Wisdom which is called Solomon's: from invisible matter, that is, dark matter. And both darkness and water were made, the sacred volumes of the Lord himself testify through the prophet Isaiah: For I, he says, am the God who made light and created darkness. Similarly, through David, the Holy Spirit shows both that waters were made and that the earth was established upon the waters. This agrees with evangelical authority and apostolic tradition, in which all things are read as having been made and, so that nothing be excepted, whether those which are in the heavens, it says, or those which are on the earth.

In this part, therefore, which pertains to the earth, we read of darkness before light. This, however, pertains to the order of the reading, not to the order of dignity; for light is certainly much better than darkness. Yet in the rationale of the world, light received the name by which it is called 'day,' and darkness 'night,' but for this reason, namely, that while darkness is illuminated and light passes away, that time—as long as light returns—is called 'night,' and that time in which darkness is illuminated is called 'day.' Therefore, when 'night' is said, the coming day is hoped for, and when 'day' is said, the coming night is expected. But when these functions have ceased as the world passes away, only 'darkness' and 'light' will be spoken. For it cannot be called 'night' when there is perpetual darkness, nor 'day' when light has ceased to set. For where eternity exists, these names cease, because they began with the world. Finally, before light was made, which was called 'day,' it is not read that 'night' existed, but 'darkness'; which, after it was illuminated and light passed away, was called 'evening' and 'night.

Therefore, as far as can be seen, night is subject to day. For just because darkness is read before light, it should not for that reason be thought preferable, since heaven is before the sun and yet the sun is greater in brightness, and earth is before man and cattle and other living creatures and yet they are subject to man. Night, therefore, ought not to be preferred to day simply because darkness is read first, when it is evident that light is superior to darkness in dignity and day is placed before night in time. For, as has been shown above, when there was darkness, light was made. And God called the light day and the darkness he called night; and evening came and morning came, and it was one day. For if there had been no day, there would have been no night either; for there was darkness, and when it was illuminated and the day had passed through its course, evening came. And when after evening it had dawned, the first day was made, with night having passed, so that night would follow day. This is both fitting and commended by reason, that the inferior nature should in all things be subject to the superior.

How, then, will night be said to be before day, when you read its name after day? For night would not have been called, nor evening, unless light had been made and driven out the day, after which evening came, which is night: day indeed became evening, so that you may know that night is a part of day. For day is then completed when it passes, and we do not finally say thus: 'a year has 365 days,' not without nights, of course. For when we say 'days,' we count the nights as well. For under the authority of day we signify also night; for if night preceded day, under the term 'night' day would also be counted. For what man says: 'after five nights I will see you,' and not 'after five days'? Nor do we recall having read anywhere that night is signified before day. For it says: 'Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights'; and in the Psalm: 'the sun,' it says, 'will not burn you by day, nor the moon by night'; and to give an example from the very beginnings: 'Let there be,' it says, 'luminaries in the firmament of the sky, so that they shine upon the earth; the greater luminary for the beginning of day and the lesser luminary for the beginning of night.' If the moon can be set before the sun, so also night before day, but, just as the moon is under the sun, so also night is under day. And in the Gospel we have nights signified under the authority and number of days. For among other things the Lord says: 'There are some here standing around who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man in his kingdom.' And he added: 'And it happened after eight days,' and so forth.

Are not the nights also contained in this number? And in another place: "These things," he says, "were done in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day he saw Jesus coming." Did he say "on the next night"? Again it follows: "On the following day he wished to set out for Galilee," and in the subsequent passages: "And on the third day the wedding took place at Cana of Galilee." Behold, everywhere day is established in authority, having night subject to it. For if the number were contained under the name of night, night would precede day. For just as the Romans hold the empire, and the Spaniards, Gauls, Africans, and others subject to them are called Romans under their name, so also night, because it is subject to day, is contained under its name. But some are deceived in this matter because the Jews are commanded to enter the Sabbath in the evening, not considering why it was so commanded. For indeed, on the previous day they need to buy food for themselves and prepare for the Sabbath and bathe. Could they do these things by night, so that at sunrise they would enter the Sabbath? The Lord certainly rose in the evening, and it is attributed to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on the day, which is called the Lord's day—for thus it is written: "This day which the Lord made," yet not "the Lord's night," because the day holds primacy. For whether in relation to the past day or the future, night is always subject, because it is both inferior in order and by nature, as the apostle says: "You are sons of the day and of light, not of night and of darkness.

If we infer from the consuls, we see that the one who is elected first is named first. Indeed, it is customary to say: 'With him, who will be consul?' Therefore, if night also came before day, it would be named first. For the count begins from the day to such an extent that, for example, if we say: 'Tomorrow is the sixth Kalends,' it is reckoned from morning until the next morning, so that the day and night having passed are computed. For the moon also was made the fourteenth at the beginning of the morning; for it had to shine throughout the whole night and began the fifteenth at the next morning. Why, then, is it doubted that the beginnings are held from the day? On account of the contentions of certain people about a manifest matter, we have been compelled to speak at greater length, although the reading itself explains it, in which day before night is signified by clear reasoning. All these things have been mentioned above according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more deeply, raising our understanding with spiritual vigor, we will find it incongruous to assert that darkness was created before light. For if light is of a celestial nature and darkness of an earthly one, it is certainly inept to think that light was made after darkness, because Moses says that light was made, but in the part of the world in which it now exists, not that it was then created, since all spiritual things were created before carnal ones, so that the light which was in the higher regions might be made in the lower, like a lamp in a house. But by what reasoning are darkness said to be before light, when they are always seen after light?

Finally, celestial and spiritual things are believed to be light by nature, while earthly and carnal things are of darkness, so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because every low point belongs to the summit. For if we inquire, we detect darkness even in the sun itself: when, if you are near it, it appears so exceedingly bright that it cannot be looked at; if at a distance, it is indeed very bright, but can be looked at; if far away, it is less bright, and whatever is farther away appears as a kind of defect, which announces darkness, and so it proceeds until darkness seems to take its origin from light. Thus, He who made light also created darkness in this way, just as in making water He simultaneously created earth; so that, just as earth is the solid base of water, darkness is the defect of light. But God alone is He who suffers no defect; He, who is everywhere, or rather holds all things within Himself, is so brilliant that He is seen by no one, unless He has chosen to temper Himself. Finally, the Savior, when He was in a body and was not confined, was nevertheless not seen unless He wished. For indeed, that He was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great glory, this was as if He were hidden in the body, which He manifested when He wished. How, then, did He hide who was not confined? For if He entered to the disciples with a body through closed doors, how does His divinity not penetrate everything? That is, it cannot be confined, because it suffers no defect.

Therefore, although God is never absent, He is said to be there where He appears and wishes to be seen. Since all things are in God—for, as the Apostle says, “in Him we live and move and have our being”—He Himself, however, is in nothing except where He wills. For by a certain mystery He is in all things, and by a certain providence He appears where He wills. CVIII. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, FROM WHENCE IT TOOK ITS NAME. Everything that comes from God is rational, and to each thing a beginning gives a cause, which is its own origin, so that it may not seem to be named or to subsist absurdly, but so that the name might reveal the thing, which is understood to be the head of that name itself. Therefore, the reason of a human being is the cause by which he consists. He consists, however, of four elements—earth, air, water, fire—with God alone as author; the fifth is the mind, like a charioteer, so that it may move the concrete and formed body as its commander. From this we all have taken our beginning and are named by its name. For we are called “human beings” on account of the earth (humus), from which our external father has his origin. Therefore, cause and reason bring it about that, from the name of someone, the rest subsisting under the same name are called, signifying that one in themselves.

Therefore, let us see whether it is fitting, as some think, that the Hebrews are named from Heber. For it seems, as far as the name is concerned, that the origin of this name descends from him; for Heber is earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are from the tribe of Heber ought to be called by the same name after him; for Abraham was born in the seventh generation from Heber. Therefore, if Abraham or Abraham himself was called a Hebrew, without doubt the Hebrews are named from Heber; but if it is not read that the Hebrews were called so before Abraham, but after Abraham, then they are certainly not called from Heber, but from Abraham, since the sons of Abraham are known to have been first called by this name. For in Genesis, Joseph and his brothers are called Hebrews. For, knowing that Abraham, who had come down from Syria into Canaan and had multiplied, was, on account of his faith, filled with all resources, called king and prophet and father of many nations, and that with three hundred and eighteen of his own household men he pierced through five kings—since these deeds and words were not done in a corner so as to be hidden—they called those who were from his seed Hebrews. Therefore, it was by reason of order and merit that Abraham became the head of those who have their descent from him.

by God's judgment, a prince and origin was placed in the land of Canaan, so that those born from him would be of another allegiance and manner of life than he himself had been before he descended into the land of Canaan; for he himself, renewed, would establish a new people devoted to God. Hence it is that the apostle Paul declares himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for this seemed to be a title of distinction. For it was a testimony and nobility of lineage that they should be named after him who had pleased God in many ways and who was their origin. Let it be rejected, if it does not agree with reason; let it be scorned, if it is inconsistent; let it be torn down, if it is foreign to the merits of Abraham, and let us be refuted as his flatterers. What is this hostility against Abraham, this rivalry, by which his enemies disparage him, and who are these, if not those who are called his sons? What is there in Abraham that displeases, so that this glory is thought alien to him? And what is there that pleases in Heber, that he should be said to hold this primacy? If his manner of life could be investigated, it would perhaps be found that he worshipped idols, like Terah and Nahor and Nahor's father, who are known not to have been far from him, as Joshua son of Nun testifies, because they worshipped idols.

Or certainly those who are of a different opinion should show by what reasoning this is to be attributed to Heber, lest perhaps his merit be suppressed by us; but there is none, because the scriptures are common to us and what is due to each one is manifest. For if they think this ought to be defended on the basis of name alone, it is weak and improbable. For then it would rightly be attributed to his name if some causes existed as witnesses which would confirm this; for some persons of the same name could claim for themselves something not their own, and therefore that is true which is confirmed not only by name but also by clear reason. For since it happened by the grace of God that in Abraham the human race was visited and a salutary form was made for men, no one doubts this. Therefore in him was restored what had been lost through the fault of human frailty. For he was placed as a kind of image, so that the human race might return to God in his likeness, and so that he might recover for men both the worship of God and the language which had previously been given for the use of men, because, just as in the beginning in Adam there was the image of God, so that knowledge of him might exist on earth, so after the ruins of the human race and the oblivion of the truth it was restored in Abraham, so that from him faith in God, begun anew, might germinate into fruit. Hence it is not absurd that the people begun from him should receive a name from his name.

But lest they suffer scruple on account of the name Heber, because the name Heber sounds more like Hebrews, since they are called Hebrews, not Habraei, let them recognize again that they are called Hebrews, not Hebereans; for he was called Heber, not Hebrer. If, therefore, they think to attack on this ground, they suffer what they do, and neither of us will have victory from this part, except he who, by presenting the reasoning in order, shows what he asserts to be true. For he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost, if he is found unequal in another; for the letter was changed on account of sound, so that they were called Hebrews instead of Habraei, because it sounds better, just as from Iuda they are not called Iudai, but Iudaei. For wherever it seemed absurd, the letter was changed, so that the utterance might have a composed sound. For we say 'meridie' instead of 'medidie,' and there are many such things. Therefore, it is fitting, as has been shown, that both the language and the people be named from the name of Abraham.

This therefore is the language which we say was first given to Adam and the others, which we believe was scattered and confused into many languages because of the presumption of the tower that was built, so that it was no longer this one language, but many arose from it through a change in certain words, so that it did not retain its form, yet did not perish entirely, but was completely intermingled with the other languages. For it was done thus at that time, lest men understand one another and dare greater things. As many languages are therefore understood to have come into existence then as there were men, who, scattered in the places where they dwelt, each one established his own language. But if it is thought that this language itself was not the one that was then one, this will remain: that it was gathered piece by piece from the other languages and joined together into the form of a single language which Abraham would use, so that, because he was the father of many nations, he would have a speech composed from many languages and would be entirely renewed in every respect. But because those whom the book of Genesis mentions as being of one voice and speech are read to have migrated from the east and then to have been scattered again by God over the face of the whole earth, that language did not remain there. For the language first given would have remained with someone. Finally, it has neither any land among men, as other languages do, nor any people except the Jews, because it was given to the first man in paradise. And after the languages were confused, this language which is now called Hebrew was found nowhere.

If, therefore, it has a place among no people or nation—but Abraham was a Syrian by nation—, whence did Abraham or the rest of his seed have this language, unless either that language is earlier or certainly it was fitted together from many? For we see that some languages have similarities to it. But it does not suit reason as well as that, if it is said to be the first language itself; for reason proves that this was not done idly. For Abraham ought to have had the same language which the first man had, so that Moses, when he came and described creation and man as made by God, would use that voice by which God spoke and called man Adam and Adam’s wife was called Eve, so that this voice would be in the book of Moses which had also been in those whom he describes, so that he might truly teach that the first cause and the divine benefit in Abraham were restored in all things. CVIIII. ON MELCHISEDECH. We read in the book of Genesis about Melchisedech, and similarly in the letter written to the Hebrews, that Melchisedech, the priest of the most high God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and brought forth bread and wine and offered them to him and blessed him, saying: “Blessed are you, Abraham, by the most high God, who made heaven and earth, who delivered your enemies into your hands,” and, to indicate what the same Melchisedech was to be understood to be, he added: “For without doubt,” he says, “the lesser is blessed by the better.” This indeed he did not refer to the tradition of ecclesiastical office.

For who would doubt that the rule of dominical tradition, by which those subject to the Lord are blessed, is better than those who are blessed by it? For the mystery of the Lord works in these words, which encompass and recall him. But he wished to demonstrate the proper merit and power of his person. Who, then, is this, and how great is he, in comparison to whom Abraham is called least, Abraham who is known to have among all the faithful the sign of the testimony of nobility and faith! Therefore, this Melchisedech is understood not to have blessed Abraham in the way that human priests do, as if by delegation he gave a blessing with solemn words, but as his own, which he received not through words but through nature substantially, so that it is proper to him. But the priests, whom we call bishops, have a rule ordained and handed down to them with solemn words, which they impose upon men when they bless, not those whom they wish, but sometimes even those whom they do not wish, because the giver of the rule himself knows to whom the most sacred blessing ought to be given or infused.

But he who has the blessing substantially in his nature, whom he calls the priest of the highest God, gives the blessing by will. For the words of blessing and his nature agree with his will. He neither errs, so as to will where he ought not, nor does he not will where he ought, but to whom he has given the words, he has given the effect. Our priests, however, daily pronounce the name of the Lord and the words of blessing over many, but the effect is in few; and again, sometimes they bless those better than themselves. For although a man is holy, he nevertheless bows his head to receive the blessing, because it is not the priest's own, but a discovery of God. For Eli the priest blessed Anna, and the effect followed, not by any means due to the priest's merit, but to Anna herself, whose pure heart God beheld. Therefore Melchisedech is said to be better than Abraham not only on account of the office of the priesthood, but his nature is also set before him, so that he is understood to be beyond men. For it cannot happen in any way that he who is set above such a friend of God and so faithful, to the point that for love of him he did not hesitate to kill his own dearest son, should be thought a man. For by what justice, by what works could he have merited more than Abraham merited? For there was nothing more that he could do to commend his merits than what Abraham did.

First, when he did not know God and had seen no sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him, "Leave your land, your kindred, and your father's house," he did not delay but immediately obeyed, fulfilling not only the will of the present God but also of the future Lord. For the Lord says: "Whoever does more for his house, parents, brothers, or kindred than for me is not worthy of me." What kind of man, then, was Abraham, and of what merit, that he fulfilled the commandments of the Savior before they were preached! The Apostle strongly teaches that hospitality is to be pursued: this Abraham cultivated so devoutly and to such an extent that the Apostle seems to have learned from him to preach it. Then, advanced in years, he believed that his seed would be multiplied as the stars of the sky—which seems foolish to the wise of the world—so that, before judgment was passed by the wise of the age, they appear condemned by him. For later it was said: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise." At God's command he is circumcised—which is certainly not done without pain—and he does not bear it grudgingly, so as to give a pattern of patience to posterity. A son is promised to him from Sarah, his wife, already an old woman, and he does not doubt, to show to future generations that the authority of God is to be yielded to so much that, even if He commands or promises things that seem irrational, one should not waver, because His person is to be regarded more than His words, so that what in words seems weak or impossible, His person confirms and makes appear possible.

For it is God who promises, and he is to be believed because he can do what seems impossible to men. For what offense can be judged, when one thinks more highly of God than humanity feels about itself? For this reason, when God commanded him to kill the son given to him by God, Abraham does not hesitate, does not delay the time, nor does he marvel at God’s will—that the son, whom grace had given as a great benefit and object of admiration, should be ordered killed—being certain that God’s will ought not to be reconsidered by man, and that God’s command and action are not without providence. To fulfill this with all devotion and haste, he does not inform the boy’s mother, his own wife, not unaware that women are weaker concerning their children and could bring hindrance to this devotion through the compassion of tears; nor does he even let the boy himself know until the hour of the slaughter, so that he might obey God’s command with the full obedience of his mind, not deeming this a parricide, but a holocaust, since it was done by the authority of a just judge.

What greater things, then, could Melchisedech have done, by which he would surpass Abraham, whom, as we see, is in no respect proven to have been disobedient? For Moses, to whom the Lord is read to have spoken face to face, was unwilling to go when sent to his people and his brothers. Jonah, likewise a prophet, broke the command given to him to preach to the Ninevites, so that he might go to another place to which he had not been sent. Job, clearly outstanding in all things, was nevertheless moved by the loss of his sons to tear his garments and shave the hair of his head. Abraham, however, is not read to have grieved at the death of his dearest son, whom he had been ordered to kill himself, nor is he read anywhere to have trembled when God commanded him. Therefore, through these things it appears that Melchisedech is beyond human, because there was no way he could be better than Abraham, unless his nature alone precedes him. For nature incapable of suffering has blessedness through its substance, but human birth acquires blessedness through deeds. For because it does not have the perfection of divinity, it advances through exercise and struggle to become better, when it conquers more than it is conquered. For if it acted in such a way—which is impossible—that it never sinned, it would become better than God—which God forbid!—because a nature which can sin, as well as not sin, if it always conquered, would have to be preferred to that nature which does not sin because it is incapable of suffering. For it would not seem great not to sin because one cannot, but it would be magnificent if, when one could sin, one did not sin.