PL 35 · cols. 2205–2385

Pseudo-Augustinus (Ambrosiaster), Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, cum admonitione et elencho

Editors' preface

ADMONITIO IN LIBRUM QUAESTIONUM VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI.

Admonition on the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testament.

Hoc opus Augustino abjudicant eruditi quique. Nec injuria sane, quandoquidem res ratioque docendi, ut de stili distantia nihil dicamus, procul abhorret a S. Doctoris ingenio et fide. In quaestione secunda dicitur Deus, ut diaboli praesumptionem non potestate sed ratione destrueret, materiam condidisse, quae esset rerum confusio, ex qua faceret mundum. In Q. decima tertia infantes qui in Sodomis cum parentibus perierunt, a gehenna liberos esse, quia in aliena causa occisi sunt, absolute pronuntiatur. Quo loco Quaestionum auctor, quisquis est, originale peccatum inficiari videbatur Bellarmino. Et revera ad hanc ipsam quaestionem respondens Alcuinus in opere super Genesim, interrog. 103, cum alioquin iisdem, quae hic leguntur, verbis usus fuerit, nequaquam tamen originalis peccati reatum dissimulavit: Nonne, ait, provisum est illis, ne diu viventes exempla sequerentur patrum; et ut levius in futuro crucientur, vel omnino non, aliena causa occisi? In Q. vigesima prima, et quadragesima quinta, contendit auctor, mulierem non esse creatam ad imaginem Dei: contra quam docet Augustinus in lib. 3 de Genesi ad litt., cap. 22. In Q. vigesima tertia non patitur quidquam difficultatis, ut Augustinus, circa originem animae. Q. vigesima septima non Samuelem a pythonissa excitatum, sed ejus spectrum sive diabolum Saüli apparuisse sic asserit, ut falsam et absurdam esse velit aliam opinionem: quam tamen pulchre congruere sacris Scripturis ostendit Augustinus in lib. 2 Quaest. ad Simplicianum. Q. quadragesima prima illud Geneseos, Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas, pugnat ne intelligatur de Spiritu sancto, de quo passim ab Augustino explicatur. Q. quadragesima tertia vehementer improbat votum Jephte, quem facinorosum appellat, nullumque justitiae testimonium habere dicit, cum is tamen inter insignes viros laudetur in Epistola ad Hebr., cap. 11. In Q. quadragesima sexta nota ignorantiae aut stultitiae condemnat eos, qui dicunt Samuelem functum officio sacerdotis, quod ipse cum aliis plurimis sentit Augustinus in lib. 17 de Civit. Dei, cap. 4. In Q. quadragesima octava de Filio Dei loquitur more Arianorum. Q. quinquagesima sexta dicit immerito quibusdam videri (quod tamen Augustino etiam visum est) Joseph esse filium Heli et Jacob, unius secundum naturam, alterius secundum Legem. Q. quinquagesima nona quod apud Joannem dixit Dominus, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, vult de vento interpretandum esse, non de Spiritu sancto: cum Augustinus aliter interpretetur. Q. centesima octava multis conviciis insectatur eos, qui volunt Hebraeos dictos ab Heber, non ab Abraham: at Augustinus in lib. 2 Retract., cap. 16, et de Civitate Dei lib. 16, cap. 11, eam sequitur sententiam. Q. centesima nona incumbit ut suadeat Melchisedech non hominem fuisse, sed Spiritum sanctum, ipsumque in oblatione dici summum sacerdotem improbat. Q. centesima decima quinta dicit Abrahamum cum patre suo idola coluisse: contra Augustinus, in lib. 16 de Civit. Dei, cap. 13. In Q. centesima decima sexta ille pascha a passione, Augustinus vero ab hebraea voce transitum significante censet fuisse appellatum, in Epist. 53 ad Januarium, n. 2. Praeterea Pelagianam haeresim quaestiones aliquot resipiunt Lovaniensium Theologorum judicio, veluti Quaest. septuagesima nona, octogesima, octogesima tertia, etc. Perpaucae demum sunt, quae non aliqua ex parte pugnent in Augustini doctrinam; ut superfluum sit his addere, quod hujus operis prolixi nullam S. Doctor mentionem facit in libris Retractationum, cum illic diligenter Quaestionum libros alios recenseat.

All the learned deny this work to Augustine. And not without reason, since its matter and manner of teaching, to say nothing of the difference of style, are far removed from the holy Doctor's mind and faith. In the second question God is said, in order to destroy the devil's presumption not by power but by reason, to have created matter, which was a confusion of things, out of which He might make the world. In Q. 13 it is declared absolutely that the infants who perished in Sodom with their parents are free from Gehenna, because they were killed in another's cause. In this place the author of the Questions, whoever he is, seemed to Bellarmine to deny original sin. And indeed Alcuin, answering this very question in his work on Genesis, interrogation 103, although he otherwise used the same words that are read here, by no means concealed the guilt of original sin: Was it not provided for them, he says, that they should not live long and follow the examples of their fathers; and that they might be tormented more lightly in the future, or not at all, being killed in another's cause? In Q. 21 and 45 the author contends that woman was not created in the image of God: against which Augustine teaches in book 3 of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 22. In Q. 23 he admits no difficulty whatever concerning the origin of the soul, as Augustine does. In Q. 27 he asserts that it was not Samuel who was raised by the pythoness but his phantom, that is, the devil, that appeared to Saul, and asserts it in such a way as to have the other opinion be false and absurd: yet Augustine shows, in book 2 of the Questions to Simplician, that this opinion agrees beautifully with the sacred Scriptures. In Q. 41 he fights against that text of Genesis, The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters, being understood of the Holy Spirit, of Whom it is everywhere explained by Augustine. In Q. 43 he vehemently condemns the vow of Jephthah, whom he calls criminal and says has no testimony of righteousness, although he is nevertheless praised among the illustrious men in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 11. In Q. 46 he condemns with the mark of ignorance or folly those who say that Samuel performed the office of priest, which Augustine himself holds together with very many others in book 17 of the City of God, chapter 4. In Q. 48 he speaks of the Son of God in the manner of the Arians. In Q. 56 he says that it seems to some, without warrant (which nevertheless seemed so to Augustine too), that Joseph was the son of Heli and of Jacob, of the one according to nature, of the other according to the Law. In Q. 59 he wants what the Lord said in John, The Spirit breathes where it will, to be interpreted of the wind, not of the Holy Spirit: whereas Augustine interprets it otherwise. In Q. 108 he pursues with many reproaches those who hold that the Hebrews were named from Heber, not from Abraham: yet Augustine, in book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 16, and in the City of God, book 16, chapter 11, follows that opinion. In Q. 109 he labours to persuade that Melchizedek was not a man but the Holy Spirit, and he disapproves of his being called high priest in the oblation. In Q. 115 he says that Abraham worshipped idols with his father: against this Augustine, in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 13. In Q. 116 that man holds that the Pasch was so named from the passion, but Augustine from a Hebrew word signifying passage, in Epistle 53 to Januarius, no. 2. Moreover, in the judgement of the Louvain theologians, several questions savour of the Pelagian heresy, for instance Questions 79, 80, 83, etc. Finally, there are very few that do not in some part fight against Augustine's doctrine; so that it is superfluous to add to these that the holy Doctor makes no mention of this lengthy work in the books of the Retractations, though there he carefully reviews his other books of Questions.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2205

Footnotes

(*) ‹no call: editors' admonition set full width in small type below the rule at the page foot› · spans cols 2205-2206 Hoc opus Augustino abjudicant eruditi quique. Nec injuria sane, quandoquidem res ratioque docendi, ut de stili distantia nihil dicamus, procul abhorret a S. Doctoris ingenio et fide. In quaestione secunda dicitur Deus, ut diaboli praesumptionem non potestate sed ratione destrueret, materiam condidisse, quae esset rerum confusio, ex qua faceret mundum. In Q. decima tertia infantes qui in Sodomis cum parentibus perierunt, a gehenna liberos esse, quia in aliena causa occisi sunt, absolute pronuntiatur. Quo loco Quaestionum auctor, quisquis est, originale peccatum inficiari videbatur Bellarmino. Et revera ad hanc ipsam quaestionem respondens Alcuinus in opere super Genesim, interrog. 103, cum alioquin iisdem, quae hic leguntur, verbis usus fuerit, nequaquam tamen originalis peccati reatum dissimulavit : Nonne, ait, provisum est illis, ne diu viventes exempla sequerentur patrum; et ut levius in futuro crucientur, vel omnino non, aliena causa occisi? In Q. vigesima prima, et quadragesima quinta, contendit auctor, mulierem non esse creatam ad imaginem Dei : contra quam docet Augustinus in lib. 3 de Genesi ad litt., cap. 22. In Q. vigesima tertia non patitur quidquam difficultatis, ut Augustinus, circa originem animae. Q. vigesima septima non Samuelem a pythonissa excitatum, sed ejus spectrum sive diabolum Saüli apparuisse sic asserit, ut falsam et absurdam esse velit aliam opinionem : quam tamen pulchre congruere sacris Scripturis ostendit Augustinus in lib. 2 Quaest. ad Simplicianum. Q. quadragesima prima illud Geneseos, Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas, pugnat ne intelligatur de Spiritu sancto, de quo passim ab Augustino explicatur. Q. quadragesima tertia vehementer improbat votum Jephte, quem facinorosum appellat, nullumque justitiae testimonium habere dicit, cum is tamen inter insignes viros laudetur in Epistola ad Hebr., cap. 11. In Q. quadragesima sexta nota ignorantiae aut stultitiae condemnat eos, qui dicunt Samuelem functum officio sacerdotis, quod ipse cum aliis plurimis sentit Augustinus in lib. 17 de Civit. Dei, cap 4. In Q. quadragesima octava de Filio Dei loquitur more Arianorum. Q. quinquagesima sexta dicit immerito quibusdam videri (quod tamen Augustino etiam visum est) Joseph esse filium Heli et Jacob, unius secundum naturam, alterius secundum Legem. Q. quinquagesima nona quod apud Joannem dixit Dominus, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, vult de vento interpretandum esse, non de Spiritu sancto : cum Augustinus aliter interpretetur. Q. centesima octava multis conviciis insectatur eos, qui volunt Hebraeos dictos ab Heber, non ab Abraham : at Augustinus in lib. 2 Retract., cap. 16, et de Civitate Dei lib. 16, cap. 11, eam sequitur sententiam. Q. centesima nona incumbit ut suadeat Melchisedech non hominem fuisse, sed Spiritum sanctum, ipsumque in oblatione dici summum sacerdotem improbat. Q. centesima decima quinta dicit Abrahamum cum patre suo idola coluisse : contra Augustinus, in lib. 16 de Civit. Dei, cap. 13. In Q. centesima decima sexta ille pascha a passione, Augustinus vero ab hebraea voce transitum significante censet fuisse appellatum, in Epist. 53 ad Januarium, n. 2. Praeterea Pelagianam haeresim quaestiones aliquot resipiunt Lovaniensium Theologorum judicio, veluti Quaest. septuagesima nona, octogesima, octogesima tertia, etc. Perpaucae demum sunt, quae non aliqua ex parte pugnent in Augustini doctrinam; ut superfluum sit his addere, quod hujus operis prolixi nullam S. Doctor mentionem facit in libris Retractationum, cum illic diligenter Quaestionum libros alios recenseat.

All learned men deny this work to Augustine. And rightly so, since its matter and its manner of teaching, to say nothing of the difference of style, are far removed from the holy Doctor's mind and faith. In the second question God is said to have created matter, which was a confusion of things, out of which to make the world, so that He might destroy the devil's presumption not by power but by reason. In question thirteen it is declared outright that the infants who perished with their parents in Sodom are free from Gehenna, because they were killed in another's cause. In this place the author of the Questions, whoever he is, seemed to Bellarmine to deny original sin. And indeed Alcuin, answering this very question in his work on Genesis, interrogation 103, although he otherwise used the same words that are read here, by no means passed over the guilt of original sin: "Was it not provided for them," he says, "that they should not live long and follow their fathers' example; and that they should be tormented more lightly in the future, or not at all, killed in another's cause?" In questions twenty-one and forty-five the author contends that woman was not created in the image of God, against which Augustine teaches in book 3 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 22. In question twenty-three he admits no difficulty at all about the origin of the soul, as Augustine does. Question twenty-seven asserts that it was not Samuel raised by the pythoness but his phantom, or the devil, that appeared to Saul, and so asserts it as to hold the other opinion false and absurd; yet Augustine shows, in book 2 of the Questions to Simplician, that this other opinion agrees finely with the holy Scriptures. Question forty-one fights against taking that verse of Genesis, "The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters," of the Holy Spirit, as Augustine everywhere explains it. Question forty-three strongly condemns the vow of Jephthah, whom it calls a criminal and says has no testimony of righteousness, although he is praised among the illustrious men in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 11. In question forty-six he brands with the mark of ignorance or folly those who say that Samuel performed the office of a priest, which Augustine himself holds with very many others in book 17 of the City of God, chapter 4. In question forty-eight he speaks of the Son of God in the manner of the Arians. Question fifty-six says that some wrongly think (as Augustine nevertheless also thought) that Joseph was the son of Heli and of Jacob, of the one by nature, of the other by the Law. Question fifty-nine would have what the Lord said in John, "The Spirit breathes where it will," interpreted of the wind, not of the Holy Spirit, whereas Augustine interprets it otherwise. Question one hundred and eight attacks with many insults those who hold that the Hebrews are named from Heber, not from Abraham; but Augustine, in book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 16, and in the City of God, book 16, chapter 11, follows that opinion. Question one hundred and nine labours to persuade that Melchisedech was not a man but the Holy Spirit, and rejects his being called high priest in the offering. Question one hundred and fifteen says that Abraham worshipped idols with his father; against this, Augustine in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 13. In question one hundred and sixteen he holds that the pasch was named from the passion, but Augustine, in Epistle 53 [as printed] to Januarius, n. 2, holds that it was named from the Hebrew word meaning passage. Moreover, in the judgement of the Louvain theologians, some of the questions savour of the Pelagian heresy, such as questions seventy-nine, eighty, eighty-three, etc. Finally, there are very few that do not in some respect conflict with Augustine's doctrine; so that it is superfluous to add that the holy Doctor makes no mention of this lengthy work in the books of the Retractations, although there he carefully reviews his other books of Questions.

(printed under page 451)

Page

other: col 2206 is the right-hand number of a full-width page, set whole under col 2205 (corpus full_width rule); nothing of its own: pointer only

PL 35:2207

Superest ut examini judicioque Lectorum subjiciamus opinionem eruditis hodie quamplurimis probatam, quae hasce Quaestiones eidem auctori, cui Commentarios in Apostolum Ambrosii nomine vulgatos attribuit. Quippe collatis ad invicem utrisque operibus, scilicet Quaest. vigesima quarta ad Comment. in I Cor. 11, ℣. 5; Quaest. septuagesima quarta ad Comment. in II Cor. 5, ℣. 21, et in Gal. 3, ℣. 13; Quaest. centesima secunda ad Comment. in II Timoth. 2, ℣. 20; Quaest. centesima octava ad Comment. in Philipp. 3, ℣. 5; Quaest. centesima decima tertia ad Comment. in Ephes. 3, ℣. 10, etc., concordiam in rebus, in sententiis, in verbis etiam ipsis, quam maximam deprehenderunt. Ad haec utrumque opus eodem fere tempore confectum putant: Commentarios quidem cum Damasus Papa, qui sub anni 384 finem obiit, Romanam Ecclesiam regeret, uti eorumdem auctor testatur in I Timoth. 3, ℣. 15; Quaestiones autem anno circiter 300 ab excidio Jerosolymitano, ex Quaest. quadragesima quarta Adversus Judaeos, tametsi non nemo sit qui hunc annum ab adventu Christi numerari arbitretur. Jamvero Commentariorum scriptor creditur designatus ab Augustino in lib. 4, ad Bonifacium, cap. 4, ubi Hilarii nomine sententiam profert, quae ad verbum in iisdem Commentariis sup. Rom. 5, ℣. 12, continetur: porro autem cum ab Hilarii episcopi Pictavensis stilo et doctrina plurimum dissideant iidem Commentarii, non alius esse existimantur quam Hilarii diaconi, qui Damaso Pontifice pariter vivebat, illius nimirum qui secta Luciferianus, patria Sardus dicitur. Hic nos, ut de Commentariorum auctore nihil pronuntiemus, juvat in subjectas Quaestiones observare, manuscriptorum codicum eam a nobis deprehensam esse varietatem, quae efficere possit, ut jam demum revocetur, atque invalescat opinio Erasmi et aliorum, qui primum suspicabantur non unius hominis esse illud Quaestionum opus, in quo eadem quae dicta sunt iterari, et propositis titulis rursum tractari eamdem quaestionem; tum dissimile dicendi genus adhiberi; nec ipsa constanter eadem, sed plane contraria dogmata propugnari cernebant. Enimvero duo sunt manuscriptorum codicum genera. Quidam centum viginti septem illas quae primo vulgatae fuerunt, quaestiones complectuntur: scilicet quadraginta septem ex Veteri Testamento, reliquas omnes ex Novo Testamento inscriptas; nihilque ab editis differunt, nisi quod titulum huncce tertium, ex utroque mixtim, qui posterioribus triginta quaestionibus a typographis praefixus fuit, nusquam habent. Hujus primi generis manuscripti duo sunt in Bibliotheca Sorbonica, in Victorina totidem, in Colbertina unus antiquior multo et ante annos circiter 700 exaratus. Alterius generis manuscriptos non plus quam tres reperimus, unum Sorbonicum, alium Victorinum, tertium Germanensem nostrum, qui licet centum quinquaginta unam quaestiones contineant, scilicet quinquaginta sex ex Veteri, et nonaginta quinque ex Novo Testamento, adeoque primi generis codicibus sint viginti quatuor quaestionibus auctiores, non tamen habent tractatus plerosque, et conciones ex istis primum vulgatas: quodque ad rem facit, carent quadragesima quarta illa, Adversum Judaeos; et centesima decima quinta, Adversum Mathematicos quaestione aliisque nonnullis, unde auctoris aetas et patria comperiri posse credebatur. Ex hoc secundo manuscriptorum genere eruit Jacobus Haemer alteram collectionem quaestionum, quae post vulgatae sunt. Damus hic denique Quaestionum Elenchum duplicem, in quo manuscriptorum diversitas uno conspectu intelligitur. Quaestiones quae codicibus sive primi sive secundi generis propriae sunt, stellula designandas curavimus.

It remains for us to submit to the examination and judgement of the readers an opinion approved today by very many learned men, which attributes these Questions to the same author to whom [it attributes] the Commentaries on the Apostle published under the name of Ambrose. For, having compared the two works with each other, namely Question twenty-four with the Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:5; Question seventy-four with the Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21 and on Gal. 3:13; Question one hundred and two with the Commentary on 2 Tim. 2:20; Question one hundred and eight with the Commentary on Phil. 3:5; Question one hundred and thirteen with the Commentary on Eph. 3:10, etc., they have detected the greatest possible agreement in matters, in opinions, even in the very words. Besides this, they think that both works were composed at about the same time: the Commentaries, indeed, while Pope Damasus, who died towards the end of the year 384, was governing the Roman Church, as their author testifies on 1 Tim. 3:15; the Questions, on the other hand, about the year 300 from the destruction of Jerusalem, on the evidence of Question forty-four, Against the Jews, although there is one or another who thinks this year is to be counted from the coming of Christ. Now the writer of the Commentaries is believed to be designated by Augustine in book 4 to Boniface, chapter 4, where he brings forward under the name of Hilary an opinion which is contained word for word in those same Commentaries on Rom. 5:12; but further, since those same Commentaries differ very greatly from the style and doctrine of Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, they are reckoned to be by none other than Hilary the deacon, who lived likewise under Pope Damasus, namely that one who is said to be a Luciferian by sect and a Sardinian by birth. Here, so that we may pronounce nothing about the author of the Commentaries, we are glad to observe concerning the Questions set out below that such a diversity of manuscript codices has been detected by us as could bring it about that the opinion of Erasmus and others be at last revived and prevail, who first suspected that that work of Questions was not by one man, since they perceived that in it things that had been said were repeated, and the same question was treated again under titles already put forward; then that a dissimilar manner of speaking was employed; and that not the same doctrines were consistently defended, but plainly contrary ones. Indeed, there are two kinds of manuscript codices. Some comprise those one hundred and twenty-seven questions which were first published: namely forty-seven headed as from the Old Testament, all the rest as from the New Testament; and they differ in nothing from the printed editions, except that they nowhere have this third title, from both mixed together, which was prefixed by the printers to the last thirty questions. Of this first kind there are two manuscripts in the Sorbonne Library, as many in the Victorine, and in the Colbertine one much older and written about 700 years ago. Of the other kind we have found no more than three manuscripts, one of the Sorbonne, another of Saint-Victor, the third our own of Saint-Germain, which, although they contain one hundred and fifty-one questions, namely fifty-six from the Old and ninety-five from the New Testament, and are thus richer than the codices of the first kind by twenty-four questions, nevertheless do not have most of the treatises and discourses first published from those; and, what is to the point, they lack that forty-fourth, Against the Jews, and the one hundred and fifteenth question, Against the Astrologers, and some others, from which it was believed that the author's age and country could be discovered. From this second kind of manuscripts Jacobus Haemer brought out the other collection of questions, which were published afterwards. Finally, we give here a double List of the Questions, in which the diversity of the manuscripts is understood at a single glance. We have taken care that the Questions which are peculiar to the codices either of the first or of the second kind should be marked with a little star.

ELENCHUS QUAESTIONUM.

List of the Questions.

EX MANUSCRIPTIS CODICIBUS

From the manuscript codices

Primi generis.

Of the first kind.

QUAESTIONES VETERIS TESTAMENTI.

Questions of the Old Testament.

I. Quid est Deus.

I. What God is.

II. Cur Deus mundum fecerit.

II. Why God made the world.

III. Quid opus erat per Moysen, et non ante, exordium mundi et ordinem creaturae exponere.

III. What need there was to set forth the beginning of the world and the order of creation through Moses, and not before.

IV. Quare Legem non in primordio dedit.

IV. Why He did not give the Law at the beginning.

V. Utquid Abel sacrificium acceptatum est, et Cain refutatum.

V. Why the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

VI. Si Lamech occidit ⟨C⟩ain, sicut putatur.

VI. Whether Lamech killed Cain, as is supposed.

VII. Quae decem verba in tabulis data sunt, etc.

VII. What the ten words given on the tablets are, etc.

VIII. Utquid Moyses descendens de monte vultum splendidum habuit.

VIII. Why Moses, coming down from the mountain, had a shining face.

IX. Si omnia Deus bona fecit, quid est ut dicat ad Noe de mundis et immundis: Induc tecum, etc.

IX. If God made all things good, what does it mean that He says to Noah concerning the clean and unclean: Bring in with you, etc.

X. Cum Deus dicat quod quarta progenie exituri essent filii Israel de Aegypto, cur Moyses quinta, inquit, progenie exierunt.

X. Since God says that the children of Israel would go out of Egypt in the fourth generation, why does Moses say they went out in the fifth generation.

XI. Si viri justi voluntas bona est, quare Isaac non Esau quem voluit, sed Jacob benedixit quem noluit.

XI. If the will of a just man is good, why did Isaac bless not Esau, whom he wished to, but Jacob, whom he did not wish to.

XII. Quare Abraham fidei suae signum circumcisionem accepit.

XII. Why Abraham received circumcision as the sign of his faith.

EX MANUSCRIPTIS CODICIBUS.

From the manuscript codices.

Secundi generis.

Of the second kind.

CAPITULA DE VETERI TESTAMENTO.

Chapters on the Old Testament.

1. De Deo et de hominis libero arbitrio.

1. On God and on the free will of man.

2. Adversum eos qui negant ad Deum aliquid pertinere.

2. Against those who deny that anything pertains to God.

3. Cur Deus mundum fecerit.

3. Why God made the world.

4. Quid opus erat per Moysen postea et non ante, exordium mundi et ordinem creaturae ex⟨p⟩onere.

4. What need there was to set forth the beginning of the world and the order of creation through Moses afterwards and not before.

5. Quare Legem non in primordio dedit.

5. Why He did not give the Law at the beginning.

6. Utquid Abel sacrificium acceptatum est, Cain repudiatum.

6. Why the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, Cain's repudiated.

7. Si Lamech occidit Cain, sicut putatur.

7. Whether Lamech killed Cain, as is supposed.

8. Quae decem verba in tabulis data sunt.

8. What the ten words given on the tablets are.

9. Utquid Moyses descendens de monte, etc.

9. Why Moses, coming down from the mountain, etc.

10. Si omnia Deus bona fecit, quid est, etc.

10. If God made all things good, what does it mean, etc.

11. Cum Deus dicat ad Abraham de filiis Israel quod quarta progenie exituri essent, etc.

11. Since God says to Abraham concerning the children of Israel that they would go out in the fourth generation, etc.

12. Si viri justi voluntas bona est, quid est ut Esau, etc.

12. If the will of a just man is good, what does it mean that Esau, etc.

13. Qua ratione David Saül, postquam Deus ab eo recessit, christum Domini vocat.

13. For what reason David calls Saul, after God had departed from him, the anointed of the Lord.

14. Quare Abraham fidei suae signum, etc.

14. Why Abraham [received] as the sign of his faith, etc.

15. Si judicium Dei justum est, quare infantes in Sodomis, etc.

15. If the judgement of God is just, why [did] the infants in Sodom, etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2207

Footnotes

(a) ‹Primi generis› · call in col 2207

Hac serie continentur omnes quaestiones primo vulgatae.

In this series are contained all the questions first published.

(printed under page 452)

Footnotes

(a) ‹Secundi generis› · call in col 2208

Hac serie inter alias continentur quaestiones post vulgatae.

In this series are contained, among others, the questions published later.

(printed under page 452)

Page

running head: 2209 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: list of capitula of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti (‹XIII. Si judicium Dei›), set as printed; asterisks before XLIII-XLVII omitted as calls; XXX "sui" read with some doubt (type looks like "sua"); XVII "reliquerint" and XXII "animam" have damaged type, read as intended; stray dot after "Dominus" in LV ignored as a speck; right-hand column (next column, items 16-56 and 1-10) cut off and not set

PL 35:2210

16. Quid est ut Deus qui justus praedicatur, etc.

16. What does it mean that God, Who is proclaimed just, etc.

17. Cum justum praedicet Lex, contra Salomon, etc.

17. Since the Law proclaims a man just, and Solomon on the contrary, etc.

18. Quare angelus qui in via volebat occidere Moysen, etc.

18. Why the angel who on the way wished to kill Moses, etc.

19. Quid est ut maledictos dicat qui, etc.

19. What does it mean that he calls accursed those who, etc.

20. Quare Saül peccans petit orari pro se, etc.

20. Why Saul, when he sinned, asks that prayer be made for him, etc.

21. Si Adam corpus immortale habuit, etc.

21. Whether Adam had an immortal body, etc.

22. Quid est quod dicitur, Panem, etc.

22. What is it that is said, Bread, etc.

23. Quid sit ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei, etc.

23. What it is [to be made] to the image and likeness of God, etc.

24. Quid est ut dicat Salomon, Justifica, etc.

24. What does it mean that Solomon says, Justify, etc.

25. An ex traduce sint animae.

25. Whether souls come by propagation.

26. Quid est ut vir imago Dei sit, etc

26. What does it mean that man is the image of God, etc

27. Utquid Joseph adjurat filios Israel, etc.

27. Why Joseph adjures the sons of Israel, etc.

28. De Elisaeo, an id quod dure petiit, etc

28. Concerning Elisha, whether that which he asked for harshly, etc

29. An Pythonissa Samuel excitaverit.

29. Whether the Pythoness raised up Samuel.

30. Quid contradicendum his qui mundum aeternum dicunt.

30. What must be said in reply to those who say that the world is eternal.

31. Quare octavo die circumcidi mandatum est.

31. Why it was commanded that circumcision be performed on the eighth day.

32. In Proverbiis ait, Justus sui accusator est, etc.

32. In Proverbs it says, The just man is his own accuser, etc.

33. An cum muliere natura serpens locutus sit, etc.

33. Whether the serpent spoke with the woman by nature, etc.

34. Legimus apud Salomonem, Dives et pauper, etc.

34. We read in Solomon, Rich and poor, etc.

35. Salomon, Anni, inquit, impiorum minuentur, etc.

35. Solomon says, The years of the impious shall be shortened, etc.

36. Apud Salomonem, Deus mortem non fecit, etc.

36. In Solomon, God did not make death, etc.

37. Cur Deus dixit, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro, et erunt anni illorum centum viginti.

37. Why God said, My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh, and their years shall be a hundred and twenty.

38. Quid contineat benedictio Jacob, quam dedit.

38. What the blessing of Jacob, which he gave, contains.

39. Cur angelus Moysi et in igne et in rubo apparuit.

39. Why the angel appeared to Moses both in fire and in a bush.

40. Non fuit aliud signum, quod fieret a Moyse palam Pharaoni, nisi serpens.

40. There was no other sign to be done by Moses openly before Pharaoh except the serpent.

41. Quid est quod in Psalmo, Homines, inquit, et jumenta salvos facies. Et ad Jonam, Non parcam, ait, civitati, in qua habitant centum viginti millia hominum et pecora multa, etc.

41. What is it that in the Psalm it says, Men and beasts Thou wilt save. And to Jonah He says, Shall I not spare the city in which dwell a hundred and twenty thousand men and many cattle, etc.

42. Si Adam factus a Deo et animatus Spiritum sanctum accepit.

42. Whether Adam, made by God and given a soul, received the Holy Spirit.

43. Si anima quae peccat ipsa morietur, quid est ut in causa Charmi triginta sex viri occisi sunt.

43. If the soul that sins shall itself die, what does it mean that in the case of Carmi thirty-six men were killed.

44. Quid est ut missa mors in Jacob venerit in Israel.

44. What does it mean that death sent upon Jacob came upon Israel.

45. In sole, inquit, posuit tabernaculum suum, id est corpus suum in quo habitavit Christus, qui a Pilato flagellis caesus est: quomodo ergo dicitur in Psalmo de Christo, Flagellum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo.

45. In the sun, it says, He has set His tabernacle, that is, His body, in which Christ dwelt, Who was beaten with scourges by Pilate: how then is it said in the Psalm concerning Christ, The scourge shall not come near Thy tabernacle.

46. Cur Adam in mundo positus mandatum accepit.

46. Why Adam, placed in the world, received a commandment.

47. Vetus Lex Deum jurasse allegat, salvator autem jurare prohibuit: quomodo non destruxit vetera.

47. The old Law alleges that God swore, but the Saviour forbade swearing: how then did He not destroy the old things.

48. Cur in Lege etiam ipsi Aaron dictum est ut pro peccatis suis holocausta offerret, cum dicat David, Pro delictis holocaustum non postulasti, etc.

48. Why in the Law it was said even to Aaron himself that he should offer holocausts for his own sins, when David says, For sins Thou hast not required a holocaust, etc.

49. Cur Salomon spiritum sapientiae habuit, cum vitam mundam non habuit.

49. Why Solomon had the spirit of wisdom, when he did not lead a clean life.

50. In Tobia, Opera Dei revelare et confiteri honorificum est: salvator autem opus Dei faciens, Nulli, ait, dixeris.

50. In Tobit, It is honourable to reveal and confess the works of God: but the Saviour, when doing a work of God, says, Tell no one.

51. Utquid circumcisio et praecepta data sunt populo, quae prius non erant, neque nunc in auctoritate habentur.

51. Why circumcision and precepts were given to the people, which did not exist before and are not held in authority now.

52. Quid est ut dicatur terra benedicere Dominum, etc.

52. What does it mean that the earth is said to bless the Lord, etc.

53. Quid est quod legitur in Salomone, Spes est in tenebris, etc.

53. What is it that is read in Solomon, There is hope in darkness, etc.

54. In Sapientia, Qui creavit, inquit, orbem ex materia invisa. Et contra quia ex nihilo facti sumus.

54. In Wisdom it says, Who created the world out of unseen matter. And on the other hand, that we were made out of nothing.

55. Quid est quod dicit propheta. Laetare sterilis, quae non paris, etc.

55. What is it that the prophet says, Rejoice, barren one, you who do not bear, etc.

56. An spiritus, qui super aquas ferebatur Spiritus sanctus intelligatur.

56. Whether the spirit which was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit.

CAPITULA DE NOVO TESTAMENTO.

Chapters concerning the New Testament.

1. Deus perfectio est: quid ergo opus fuit Christo ut nasceretur.

1. God is perfection: what need, then, was there for Christ to be born.

2. Si unus Deus est, cur in tribus spes salutis, et quare prius non est Trinitas praedicata.

2. If God is one, why is the hope of salvation in three, and why was the Trinity not proclaimed earlier.

3. Cur facta et dicta Dominica quatuor libris, et a quatuor Evangelistis scripta.

3. Why the deeds and sayings of the Lord were written in four books, and by four Evangelists.

4. Quis ordo quatuor Evangeliorum.

4. What the order of the four Gospels is.

5. Quare Matthaeus scribit: Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David; cum prior sit Abraham.

5. Why Matthew writes: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David; when Abraham comes first.

6. Quid est ut generationes in tres partes divideret Matthaeus.

6. What does it mean that Matthew divided the generations into three parts.

7. Quare cum quadraginta una sint generationes, Evangelista quadraginta duas numerasse videtur.

7. Why, when there are forty-one generations, the Evangelist seems to have counted forty-two.

8. Quid est ut cum constet a David ad transmigrationem Babylonis octodecim esse generationes, Evangelista quatuordecim dicat.

8. What does it mean that, when it is agreed that there are eighteen generations from David to the migration to Babylon, the Evangelist says fourteen.

9. Cur salvator baptizatus sit.

9. Why the Saviour was baptized.

10. Si ideo Salvator baptizatus est ut exemplo esset, quare non ita et in circumcisione.

10. If the Saviour was baptized in order to be an example, why was it not so in circumcision also.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2210

Footnotes

(a) ‹accepit› · call in col 2210

Haec quaestio diversa est a cxxiii quaest. Mss. primi generis.

This question is different from question 123 of the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 453)

Page

running head: 2211 ELENCHUS QUÆSTIO[NUM] (cut off at the image's right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set: the whole column is part of the list of questions (Elenchus quaestionum), entries LXI to CV, each set as its own paragraph; the asterisks before LXX, LXXVIII, LXXXVIII, C, CI, CII, CIII, CIV and the dagger mark before CV are omitted as marks/calls; the right-hand column (numbered 11 to 54, cut off at the image edge) belongs to column 2212 and is not set; LXXIV printed ending with a comma; CI printed without a full stop after the numeral; damaged type: qui⟨d⟩ (LXVII), Qui⟨d⟩ (LXXXVI, the d reads like "l", as in LXVII), eu⟨m⟩ (LXXIX, which reads like "eun"), Quid ⟨e⟩st (XCIX, gap in the type), ⟨R⟩omanorum (CI); CV printed without a final full stop

PL 35:2212

11. Si ex semine David Christus Filius Dei factus, id est jam natus est, quare cum baptizatur audit: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te.

11. If Christ the Son of God was made, that is, was already born, of the seed of David, why, when He is baptized, does He hear: Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.

12. Si de Spiritu sancto natus est Christus, cur dictum est, Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum.

12. If Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, why was it said, Wisdom has built herself a house.

13. Quomodo intelligatur, Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te.

13. How is it to be understood, The Holy Spirit will come upon you.

14. Quid est ut VIII calend. januar. Salvator natus dicatur.

14. Why is the Saviour said to have been born on the eighth day before the Kalends of January.

15. Quid causae fuit ut VIII calend. april. crucifigi se permitteret Dominus.

15. What was the reason that the Lord allowed Himself to be crucified on the eighth day before the Kalends of April.

16. Quare in Matthaeo pater Joseph Jacob scribitur, et in Luca Heli, etc.

16. Why in Matthew is Joseph's father written as Jacob, and in Luke as Heli, etc.

17. Utquid Salvator quadraginta diebus jejunavit et postea esuriit.

17. Why did the Saviour fast for forty days and afterwards hunger.

18. Cur baptismus Joannis cessavit.

18. Why did the baptism of John cease.

19. Quare Lex usque ad Joannem, cum Apostolus dicat Legi nos subjectos esse debere.

19. Why [was] the Law until John, when the Apostle says that we ought to be subject to the Law.

20. Si praedicante Joanne Lex cessavit, quomodo Salvator, Non veni, ait, solvere Legem, etc.

20. If the Law ceased when John preached, how does the Saviour say, I have not come to abolish the Law, etc.

21. Si Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem, quare Salvator ad sacerdotes mittit, etc.

21. If the Law and the Prophets [were] until John, why does the Saviour send [people] to the priests, etc.

22. Quomodo non evacuata Lex est, quando sabbatum solutum est.

22. How was the Law not made void, when the sabbath was loosed.

23. Cur Salvator discipulos suos filios tonitrui appellavit.

23. Why did the Saviour call His disciples sons of thunder.

24. Cur Nicodemo ait Dominus, Si terrena dixi vobis, etc.

24. Why does the Lord say to Nicodemus, If I have told you earthly things, etc.

25. Quid est ut Judaeis discipulos accusantibus Dominus David exemplum proferret, etc.

25. Why, when the Jews accused the disciples, did the Lord bring forward the example of David, etc.

26. Qua ratione Magi per stellam Christum regem Judaeorum natum intellexerunt.

26. By what reasoning did the Magi understand through a star that Christ, the king of the Jews, had been born.

27. Quid est ut occisis filiis Liae, Rachel filios suos plangere dicatur.

27. Why, when the sons of Leah were slain, is Rachel said to bewail her sons.

28. Cur post baptismum accessit ad Salvatorem tentator dicens, Si Filius Dei es, etc.

28. Why after the baptism did the tempter approach the Saviour, saying, If Thou art the Son of God, etc.

29. Cur Salvator tentatori non aliter, quam exemplis Legis restitit.

29. Why did the Saviour resist the tempter in no other way than with examples from the Law.

30. Quid est ut cum in Malachia scriptum sit, Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum; Marcus dicat in Isaia.

30. Why, when it is written in Malachi, Behold, I send My messenger, does Mark say [it is] in Isaiah.

31. Qua ratione negat Joannes Christum se nosse ante baptismum, cum probet ante eum nosse.

31. For what reason does John deny that he knew Christ before the baptism, when he shows that he knew Him beforehand.

32. Quomodo Deum nemo vidit unquam, cum Filius dicat videri Patrem cum ipse videtur.

32. How has no one ever seen God, when the Son says that the Father is seen when He Himself is seen.

33. Cur Salvator mulieri alienigenae, id est Chananeae, initio misericordiam denegabat, non item Centurioni alienigenae, etc.

33. Why did the Saviour at first refuse mercy to the foreign woman, that is, the Canaanite, but not likewise to the foreign Centurion, etc.

34. Quomodo probatur post tres dies et noctes resurrexisse Salvatorem.

34. How is it proved that the Saviour rose again after three days and nights.

35. Cur tres Evangelistae sexta hora, et Marcus tertia dixerit passum Dominum.

35. Why did three Evangelists say that the Lord suffered at the sixth hour, and Mark at the third.

36. Quid est ut in cruce Dominus dicat, Pater, ignosce illis, etc.

36. Why does the Lord say on the cross, Father, forgive them, etc.

37. Marcus daemonia cognovisse dixit Dominum: Apostolus vero de principibus saeculi, Si cognovissent, ait, etc.

37. Mark said that the demons knew the Lord; but the Apostle says of the princes of this world, If they had known, etc.

38. Orandum pro inimicis docemur: quare animae occisorum vindicari se petant.

38. We are taught that we must pray for our enemies: why do the souls of the slain ask to be avenged.

39. Quid est, Propter quod donavit illi nomen, etc., cum imperfectus videatur, qui per opera sua augetur.

39. What is meant by, For which reason He gave Him a name, etc., when He who is increased through His works seems imperfect.

40. In Evangelio, Lex, ait, per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Christum. An antea veritas non erat, etc.

40. In the Gospel it says, The Law was given through Moses, grace and truth through Christ. Was there then no truth before, etc.

41. Quid est quod legitur in Marco, Intrans in domum voluit neminem scire, et non potuit latere.

41. What is meant by what is read in Mark, Entering into a house He wished no one to know, and He could not be hidden.

42. Cur Joannes ad Dominum, Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus?

42. Why [does] John [say] to the Lord, Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another?

43. Quid est ut Salvator alios verbo, caecum autem facto luto de sputo curaret.

43. Why did the Saviour cure others by a word, but the blind man with clay made from spittle.

44. Quid est ut Lazarum resuscitaturus fleret; aut locum ubi positus erat, quasi ignarus quaereret.

44. Why, when about to raise Lazarus, did He weep; or ask, as if not knowing, the place where he had been laid.

45. Quid est, ut Herodem mortuum legamus; infra autem, et post multos annos Herodem Joannem occidisse.

45. Why do we read that Herod was dead; but further on, and after many years, that Herod killed John.

46. Quid es quod probet matrem Domini esse de tribu David.

46. What is there that proves that the mother of the Lord is of the tribe of David.

47. Si arbitrio proprio vivimus, cur Salvator dixit, Nemo venit ad me ni⟨s⟩i Pater attraxerit eum.

47. If we live by our own choice, why did the Saviour say, No one comes to Me unless the Father has drawn him.

48. Cur Apostolus omnibus omnia se factum dicit, quod factum videtur adulatoris et hypocritae.

48. Why does the Apostle say that he became all things to all, which seems the deed of a flatterer and a hypocrite.

49. Quid est quod dicitur in Apocalypsi, Vade et accipe librum, et devora, etc.

49. What is meant by what is said in the Apocalypse, Go and take the book, and devour it, etc.

50. Quid est ut Apostolus factum Salvatorem dicat ex semine David.

50. Why does the Apostle say that the Saviour was made of the seed of David.

51. Quid est quod dicit Apostolus ad Galatas, Estote sicut ego, quia ego sicut vos.

51. What is meant by what the Apostle says to the Galatians, Be as I am, because I am as you are.

52. Quomodo liberi sumus arbitrii ac voluntatis, cum dicat Apostolus: Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, et spiritus adversus carnem, ut non quae vultis ea faciatis.

52. How are we free in choice and will, when the Apostle says: The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do the things that you will.

53. Qua ratione sapientia carnis inimica est Deo, etc.

53. For what reason is the wisdom of the flesh hostile to God, etc.

54. Quid est quod dicit Simeon ad Mariam matrem Domini, Positus est hic in ruinam, etc.

54. What is meant by what Simeon says to Mary the mother of the Lord, This [child] is set for the fall, etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2212

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge]CHUS QUÆSTIONUM. 2212 (presumably ELENCHUS QUAESTIONUM)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set: list of questions (11. Si ex semine David ... to 54. Quid est quod dicit Simeon), each item its own paragraph; asterisks before many items omitted as calls/marks; question numbers set in sequence where the worn scan makes 3/5/6 ambiguous (e.g. 13, 15, 23, 25, 26, 33, 35, 43, 46); in 46 "es" may be damaged type rather than misprint; in 47 "ni i" read as ni⟨s⟩i; overlapping lines of images set once

PL 35:2213

CVI. Quomodo intelligenda sunt quae leguntur in Genesi de opere sex dierum.

CVI. How the things read in Genesis about the work of the six days are to be understood.

CVII. De ordine diei et noctis, utra sit prior.

CVII. On the order of day and night, which of the two is first.

CVIII. De lingua hebraica, unde nomen accepit.

CVIII. On the Hebrew language, whence it received its name.

CIX. De Melchisedech, quomodo Abrahamo benedixerit, etc.

CIX. On Melchizedek, how he blessed Abraham, etc.

CX. De psalmo primo.

CX. On the first psalm.

CXI. De psalmo vigesimo tertio.

CXI. On the twenty-third psalm.

CXII. De psalmo quinquagesimo.

CXII. On the fiftieth psalm.

CXIII. Cur Filius Dei missus sit, et non alius.

CXIII. Why the Son of God was sent, and not another.

CXIV. Adversus paganos.

CXIV. Against the pagans.

CXV. De fato.

CXV. On fate.

CXVI. De Paschate unde dictum sit, et quomodo mystice celebretur per sanguinem.

CXVI. On the Pasch, whence it is so called, and how it is mystically celebrated through blood.

CXVII. De Abraham et ejus fide.

CXVII. On Abraham and his faith.

55. Quid est quod Joannes dicit ad Christum, Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus? an dubitans dixerit.

55. What it is that John says to Christ, "Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another?" whether he said it doubting.

56. Quid sibi vult ut Isaias dicat de Christo, Qui peccatum non fecit; et Apostolus, Qui pro nobis peccatum fecit.

56. What it means that Isaiah says of Christ, "Who did no sin"; and the Apostle, "Who for us made sin."

57. Quid est quod Apostolus dicit Galatis, Miror quod sic tam cito transferimini ab eo qui vocavit vos in gratiam in aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud, etc.

57. What it is that the Apostle says to the Galatians, "I marvel that you are so very quickly being transferred from Him Who called you into grace to another Gospel, which is not another," etc.

58. Quare Apostolus dicit, Omne peccatum quod fecerit homo extra corpus est; qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat: cum peccare in corpus suum videantur, qui sibi vim inferunt.

58. Why the Apostle says, "Every sin that a man has done is outside the body; but he who commits fornication sins against his own body": when those who do violence to themselves seem to sin against their own body.

59. Cur Salvator pro se tantum et pro Petro didrachma solvit.

59. Why the Saviour paid the didrachma only for Himself and for Peter.

60. Cur Apostolus Paulus reprehendat Petrum quod circumcisionem daret, cum et ipse Timotheum circumcidit.

60. Why the Apostle Paul rebukes Peter for granting circumcision, when he himself also circumcised Timothy.

61. Quem spiritum Apostolus salvandum asserit cum dicit, tradi hujusmodi hominem Satanae in interitum carnis, ut spiritus, etc.

61. What spirit the Apostle declares is to be saved when he says, "that such a man be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit," etc.

62. Quare Salvator orat et ait, Ne fiat fuga vestra hieme vel sabbato: cum tempus persecutionis hujus differri non possit.

62. Why the Saviour prays and says, "Let not your flight be in winter or on the sabbath": when the time of this persecution cannot be put off.

63. Certe aut filius Dei quisque est, aut diaboli: quid ergo nascatur requirendum est.

63. Certainly each man is either a son of God or of the devil: therefore it must be asked what is born.

64. Apostolus ait, Nos natura Judaei. De Judaeis ergo nasci Judaeos ostendit, non de proselytis, etc.

64. The Apostle says, "We by nature Jews." He shows therefore that Jews are born of Jews, not of proselytes, etc.

65. Quid est quod Apostolus dicat, Nemo potest dicere Dominum Deum nisi in Spiritu sancto; cum Photinus, Marcion, Manichaeus, meretrices et spurci dicant.

65. What it is that the Apostle says, "No one can say the Lord God except in the Holy Spirit"; when Photinus, Marcion, Manichaeus, harlots and the unclean say it.

66. Si in Lege nemo justificatur, utquid maledictus est, qui non implevit Legem.

66. If no one is justified in the Law, why is he cursed who has not fulfilled the Law.

67. Si in Christo omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae; quomodo de die et hora judicii dicit se nescire.

67. If in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, how does He say that He does not know of the day and hour of judgement.

68 Pagani elementis subjecti sunt; quare ergo dicat Apostolus, Eramus sub elementis, etc.

68 The pagans are subject to the elements; why then does the Apostle say, "We were under the elements," etc.

69. Salvator ait, Qui non reliquerit omnia, etc., non potest meus esse discipulus: cum ex Evangelio discipulus Jesu fuerit Joseph ab Arimathia homo dives, etc.

69. The Saviour says, "He who has not left all things," etc., "cannot be My disciple": when from the Gospel Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, was a disciple of Jesus, etc.

70. Quid est ut Salvator dicat Mariae, Noli me tangere, etc., cum legatur ab aliis mulieribus tactus.

70. What is it that the Saviour says to Mary, "Do not touch Me," etc., when He is read to have been touched by other women.

71. Quid est, Qui ante me fuerunt, fures sunt, etc., quod videtur Prophetas pulsare.

71. What is meant by "Those who were before Me are thieves," etc., which seems to strike at the Prophets.

72. Apostolus dicit Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse: at ipse Dominus ait se dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis.

72. The Apostle says that Christ died for all: but the Lord Himself says that He gives His life as a redemption for many.

QUAESTIONES VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI.

QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT.

Ex Veteri Testamento.

From the Old Testament.

QUAESTIO PRIMA. — Quid est Deus.

FIRST QUESTION. — What God is.

Hoc est quod nulla attingit opinio. Plus est enim quam quidquid dici poterit aut cogitari. Sed dicamus aliquid, quod licet impar sit, tamen ex aliqua conveniat ratione his quae Deo digna videntur. Nam unaquaeque natura pro capacitate sui suspicatur de Deo, ut quantum natura distat a natura, tantum distet sententia

He is that which no opinion reaches. For He is more than whatever can be said or thought. But let us say something which, though it be unequal [to Him], yet in some measure accords with the things that seem worthy of God. For each nature conjectures about God according to its own capacity, so that as far as nature stands apart from nature, so far does judgement stand apart

Editors' notes and page, col. 2213

Page

running head: 2213 APPENDIX. (page head across both columns: 2213 APPENDIX. 2214)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The two lists (OT questions CVI–CXVII, NT questions 55–72) are the end of the editors' ELENCHUS QUAESTIONUM: editors' matter, set and translated; its other half, CXVIII–CXXVII and 73–95, stands in col. 2214. The asterisks before most entries are printed marks of the list, kept as printed.
other: The work title "Quaestiones / Veteris et Novi Testamenti." and the sub-caption "Ex Veteri Testamento." are printed across the full page width (spanning 2213–2214); set once, whole, here. Title printed in mixed blackletter and capitals; set in capitals.
other: "sententia" split at the column break (sen-|tentia); set whole here from the first line of 2214.
other: Entry 55: "exspectamus" and "an dubitans" read through blurred type (scan shows "ca.spectamus", "aa duintons"); UNSURE only as to the image, the reading is the obvious one. Entry 68 numeral printed without a full stop ("68"), kept.

PL 35:2214

CXVIII. De Job

CXVIII. On Job

CXIX. De Tobia.

CXIX. On Tobias.

CXX. De jejunio.

CXX. On fasting.

CXXI. De Paschate, quam laudabilis et gloriosa sit solemnitas.

CXXI. On the Pasch, how praiseworthy and glorious a solemnity it is.

CXXII. De eo quod legitur apud Evangelium, In principio erat Verbum.

CXXII. On what is read in the Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word."

CXXIII. Utrum Adam Spiritum sanctum habuerit.

CXXIII. Whether Adam had the Holy Spirit.

CXXIV. Quomodo idem opus differt secundum personas sive in laudem sive in condemnationem.

CXXIV. How the same deed differs according to persons, whether unto praise or unto condemnation.

CXXV. Contra Eusebium, utrum Spiritus sanctus scivit mysterium nativitatis Dominicae.

CXXV. Against Eusebius, whether the Holy Spirit knew the mystery of the Lord's nativity.

CXXVI. De eo qui fidem percepit, quid plus habeat ad gratiam consequendam.

CXXVI. On him who has received the faith, what more he has towards obtaining grace.

CXXVII. De Adam et Eva.

CXXVII. On Adam and Eve.

73. Quid est ut David, Luge, in malo accipit, Salvator in bono ponit.

73. What is it that David takes "Mourn" in a bad sense, the Saviour puts it in a good one.

74. Quid sit, Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana.

74. What is meant by "Let no temptation take hold of you but such as is human."

75. Quomodo Lex sancta et justa et bona, siquidem iram operatur.

75. How the Law is holy and just and good, since it works wrath.

76. Si dura mandata propter diffidentiam acceperant Judaei, quid est ut eorum posteri iisdem astringerentur.

76. If the Jews had received hard commandments because of their distrust, what is it that their descendants were bound by the same.

77. Salvator dicit, Non pro mundo rogo: quid ergo Joannes ait, eum advocatum esse pro universo mundo.

77. The Saviour says, "I do not pray for the world": why then does John say that He is an advocate for the whole world.

78. Quomodo regni Christi non erit finis, cum Apostolus dicat, Cum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patri.

78. How there will be no end of Christ's kingdom, when the Apostle says, "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father."

79. Si per Christum salus et vera cognitio, cur non ante venit, etc.

79. If salvation and true knowledge are through Christ, why did He not come earlier, etc.

80. Cur Apostolus ad Galatas ait, Deus unus est: quasi unum Deum negarent.

80. Why the Apostle says to the Galatians, "God is one": as though they denied the one God.

81. Cum Salvator dixerit: Postquam resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam, ibi me videbitis; quid est ut inveniatur versus Jerusalem.

81. Since the Saviour said, "After I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see Me," what is it that He is found towards Jerusalem.

82. Quomodo Apostolus contristandum vetat, cum ipse contristandum se, si Epaphroditus obiisset, declarat.

82. How the Apostle forbids being saddened, when he himself declares that he would have been saddened if Epaphroditus had died.

83. Apostoli alios sibi oblatos sanarunt; quid est ut propriis infirmis medelam non dederint.

83. The apostles healed others brought to them; what is it that they did not give healing to their own sick.

84. Unde origo Pentecostes.

84. Whence is the origin of Pentecost.

85. Jacob appellatus est homo videns Deum: quomodo Deum nemo vidit unquam.

85. Jacob was called a man seeing God: how then has no one ever seen God.

86. Quare lunae cursum in ratione Paschae custodientes, reprehendimus Paganos, quia lunares dies custodiant.

86. Why, while we observe the course of the moon in reckoning the Pasch, we rebuke the pagans because they observe lunar days.

87. Quid est quod Salvator dicit de Spiritu sancto, quod veniens arguet mundum, etc.

87. What it is that the Saviour says of the Holy Spirit, that when He comes He will convict the world, etc.

88. Si satanas diabolus est, quare dicit Judaeis, De Patre diabolo estis.

88. If Satan is the devil, why does He say to the Jews, "You are of your father the devil."

89. Quomodo intelligitur quod dicit Dominus, Pacem meam do vobis.

89. How is what the Lord says to be understood, "My peace I give to you."

90. An Apostoli Spiritum sanctum habuerunt praesente Domino in carne.

90. Whether the apostles had the Holy Spirit while the Lord was present in the flesh.

91. Si Pascha transitus interpretetur.

91. Whether Pasch is to be interpreted "passing over."

92. De aeternitate Filii.

92. On the eternity of the Son.

93. Adversus Photinum, etc.

93. Against Photinus, etc.

94. Adversus Arium.

94. Against Arius.

95. De Spiritu sancto.

95. On the Holy Spirit.

a sententia in judicando quid sit Deus. Quia enim supra omnia est, necesse est ut omnium mentes excedat. Homines enim quantum possunt aciem mentis extendere, aspiciunt quid Deus sit, opinione non definitione. Angeli autem qui superiores hominibus sunt, quia plus de Deo aliquid sentiunt, non est dubium; Archangeli vero eo ipso amplius; Cherubim

from judgement in judging what God is. For since He is above all things, He must needs surpass the minds of all. For men, as far as they can stretch the edge of the mind, perceive what God is by opinion, not by definition. But that the angels, who are higher than men, perceive something more of God, there is no doubt; the archangels, indeed, more fully than they; the cherubim

Editors' notes and page, col. 2214

Footnotes

(a) ‹De Spiritu sancto› · call in col 2214

Sic Elenchus collectioni praefixus in Mss., qui tamen hujus nonagesimae quintae quaestionis loco exhibent Hieronymi dialogum adversus Luciferianos.

So runs the list prefixed to the collection in the manuscripts, which nevertheless give, in the place of this ninety-fifth question, Jerome's dialogue against the Luciferians.

(printed under page 455)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2214 (page head across both columns: 2213 APPENDIX. 2214)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The lists (CXVIII–CXXVII, 73–95) close the editors' ELENCHUS QUAESTIONUM: editors' matter, set and translated. Asterisks kept as printed.
other: The work title and "Ex Veteri Testamento." printed full width across 2213–2214 are set once in col. 2213. The column opens with the second half of "sen-|tentia", set whole at the end of 2213.
other: Entry numeral 73 is badly printed (looks like "75."); 74 and 75 follow, so 73 is set. Column ends mid-sentence at "Cherubim"; continues in 2215.

PL 35:2215

autem et Seraphim, quae potentiae juxta Deum esse dicuntur, majora de Deo sentiunt, non tamen comprehendunt penitus quid Deus sit. Quia nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius, nec Filium quis novit nisi Pater (Matth. XI, 27). Igitur Deus est, sicut hominibus videtur, spiritus natura simplex, lux inaccessibilis, invisibilis, inaestimabilis, infinitus, perfectus, nullius egens, aeternus, immortalis omnimodo, a quo omnia initium consecuta sunt, venerandus, diligendus, metuendus, extra quem nihil est, imo in quo sunt omnia quaeque sunt sursum et deorsum, summa et ima; omnipotens, omnitenens, vere in omnibus dives, quia nihil est quod ejus non sit; bonus, justus, misericors: bonus, quia fecit existere quae non erant; justus, quia quaecumque fecit ut proficerent, proprio libertatis arbitrio dimissa sunt; quia tamen non tam perfecta sunt ut labi non possint, semina his legis inesse decrevit naturaliter, addens auxilium manifestatae legis, ut auctoritas ejus perfecta esset hominibus: misericors vero, quia peccantibus non facile reddit, sed sustinet ut conversis ignoscat. Est et severus, ut terrore quae ab eo bene condita sunt conserventur, ne negligentia pareret vitae praecipitium. Et ne quod admirabilius est praetermittamus, tanta est ejus clementia, ut contumelias passus ab his quos fecit, sufferat, et prior vocet eos ad pacem. Numquid non majoris virtutis hoc est, quam condidisse creaturam? In quo si permaneret nimia bonitas ejus, obesset creaturae. Unde aliquando diligi, aliquando timeri se vult, ne aberrantes ab eo depereant. Hinc est unde, ne patientia ejus non utique ad damnum ipsius, sed ad nostrum omnino contemnenda putaretur, ait: Tacui; numquid semper tacebo (Isai. XLII, 14)? Itaque Deus bonus, et omnia quae fecit bona sunt. Unde ergo malum? Nihil est malum nisi praevaricatio boni, dum aut inconcessa praesumuntur, aut concessa inordinate fiunt: ut alibi mandatum, alibi peccatum fiat. Ut quando quod in uxore concessum est, fit in meretrice; et quod Deo offerendum erat, offertur diabolo: et cum quis non tollit suum, sed alienum; et cum praevaricator occidi debeat, occiditur innocens. Nulla igitur natura probatur malum. Voluntas autem est accidens naturae, concepta ex causis, quae male moventur, dum excedit modum, ut illa gerat quae naturae suae non sunt. Causae autem praevaricationis oriuntur ex sensibus, quando aliquid male videmus aut audimus. Quem errorem haec res facit, quia homo non est Deus, qui solus errare non potest. Natura igitur hominum proprio arbitrio remissa et dimissa est, ut possit facere quod vult: ut si bonum naturae suae exercitio melioret, honorabilior sit; si autem infirmet vigorem suum, contumelia dignus habeatur hujusmodi. Facit enim quod contra se sit. Non est minimum quod concessum est homini, ut cum recta sequitur, gaudeat in sese per id quod opere suo videt se meliorem; aut certe imputet sibi, qui cum potuit, non dedit operam ut melioraret se bonis. Si autem homo potestatis suae non esset, subjectus fuerat necessitati, ut neque boni operis haberet gloriam, neque mali poenam, sed fuisset unum ex pec⟨o⟩ribus. Quoniam ergo ad utrumque facti sumus possibiles, ut per negligentiam delinquamus, si quod bene audire et videre debemus, male, id est, extra normam et rationem audiamus; per vigilantiam autem naturae bonum custodiamus: et cauti esse semper non possumus, quia, sicut dixi, ad utrumque facti sumus possibiles; si peccamus, non jam condemnamur, nisi iterum delinquamus, jam quasi proditores. Qui enim semel peccaverit, reparare se debet ne denuo peccet, ne par sit ei qui se vicerat, ut iterum si non peccet, jam superior habeatur. Quia semel elisus bis triumphabit. Haec justitia est, ut quia colluctatio est in mundo, qui propensior ad peccandum est, in non peccando coronetur. Nihil ergo in Dei opere malum est. At si a quibusdam mala quaedam dicantur, ut venenum, aut tenebrae, quia corpora

and the Seraphim, who are said to be powers near God, think greater things of God, yet they do not fully comprehend what God is. For no one knows the Father except the Son, nor does anyone know the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27). Therefore God is, as it seems to men, a spirit simple in nature, light inaccessible, invisible, inestimable, infinite, perfect, lacking nothing, eternal, immortal in every way, from Whom all things have received their beginning, to be venerated, to be loved, to be feared, outside Whom there is nothing, indeed in Whom are all things whatsoever that are above and below, the highest and the lowest; almighty, all-holding, truly rich in all things, since there is nothing that is not His; good, just, merciful: good, because He made exist things that were not; just, because whatever things He made, that they might advance, were left to the free choice of their own liberty; yet because they are not so perfect that they cannot fall, He decreed that seeds of law should be in them by nature, adding the help of the manifested law, so that His authority might be complete for men; and merciful, because He does not readily repay those who sin, but bears with them so that He may pardon them once converted. He is also severe, so that the things well founded by Him may be preserved by terror, lest negligence bring forth the ruin of life. And lest we pass over what is more wonderful, so great is His clemency that, having suffered insults from those whom He made, He bears them, and is the first to call them to peace. Is this not of greater power than to have founded the creation? In which, if His excessive goodness remained, it would harm the creature. Hence He wishes at times to be loved, at times to be feared, lest those straying from Him perish. Hence it is that, lest His patience be thought wholly to be despised, not indeed to His loss but to ours, He says: I have kept silent; shall I always keep silent? (Isa. 42:14). Thus God is good, and all things that He made are good. Whence then evil? Nothing is evil except the transgression of good, when either things not granted are presumed, or things granted are done in disorderly fashion: so that in one place it becomes a command, in another a sin. As when what is granted in a wife is done with a harlot; and what was to be offered to God is offered to the devil; and when someone takes not his own but another's; and when, though the transgressor ought to be killed, the innocent is killed. Therefore no nature is proved to be evil. But the will is an accident of nature, conceived from causes which are moved badly, when it exceeds measure, so as to do the things which are not of its nature. And the causes of transgression arise from the senses, when we see or hear something badly. This thing produces error, because man is not God, Who alone cannot err. The nature of men therefore has been released and left to its own choice, so that it can do what it wills: so that if it improves the good of its nature by exercise, it may be more honourable; but if it weakens its vigour, it is held worthy of insult of this kind. For it does what is against itself. It is no small thing that has been granted to man, that when he follows right things, he rejoices in himself through that by which he sees himself better by his own work; or at least imputes it to himself that, when he could, he did not take pains to better himself with good things. But if man were not in his own power, he would have been subject to necessity, so that he would have neither glory for good work nor punishment for evil, but would have been one of the beasts. Since therefore we have been made capable of both, so that through negligence we offend, if what we ought to hear and see well we hear badly, that is, outside the norm and reason; but through vigilance we guard the good of nature; and we cannot always be cautious, because, as I said, we have been made capable of both; if we sin, we are not yet condemned, unless we offend again, now as traitors. For he who has sinned once ought to restore himself so that he does not sin anew, lest he be on a par with the one who had overcome him, so that if he does not sin again, he may now be held the superior. For he who has once been dashed down will triumph twice. This is justice: that, since there is a struggle in the world, he who is more inclined to sinning should be crowned in not sinning. Nothing therefore in the work of God is evil. But if certain things are called evil by some, such as poison, or darkness, because bodies

Editors' notes and page, col. 2215

Footnotes

(1) ‹extra normam› · call in col 2215

Mss., naturam.

Manuscripts: "nature" (for "norm").

(printed under page 456)

Page

running head: 2215 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI TE[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2216

nostra vim veneni ferre non possunt; malum dicant etiam ignem aut aquam: et ferrum vel plumbum, quia multum ab auro distat, malum dicatur. Ad comparationem enim lucis tenebras condemnant, cum sciant pro loco suo necessarias esse, sicut plumbum aut testam. Nam utique requiem dant post laborem. Igitur omnis qui colluctatur in mundo, sic eniti debet, ne in re aspera victus abscedat, et fiat reus, vix aut tarde se reparans, et forte inter haec proveniat exitus, et exeat hinc cum peccato. Qui enim omni virtute renititur, si elisus forte fuerit, qu⟨a⟩si vir cadit, nec succenset ei quisquam, sed hortatu quodam animum ejus reparat. Videt enim eum propositum habuisse vincendi, et sperat talem posse proficere ad victoriam, quem non sine fatigatione sui hostis elisit. Qui enim facile vincitur, non habet animum resistendi; nec vincitur, sed consentit. Hic acerbius peccat. Hujusmodi vix ad veniam admittendus est, qui votum habet delinquendi. Qui enim id meditatur ne peccet, etiam si peccaverit, non aspere peccat. Diligentioribus enim aliquando minora peccata subrepunt. Quanto autem minora sunt, tanto subtiliora; et dum contemnuntur, non vitantur. Majora enim longe apparent. Ac per hoc qui in majoribus peccat, voluntatis ejus est crimen. Sane quoniam superius peccata ex sensibus or⟨t⟩um capere diximus, dum contra legis imperium vel rationem, aliquid aspicimus aut audimus, id est, si solem videntes adorandum eum putemus propter pulchritudinem ejus, tunc male videmus: quia ad injuriam pertinet Creatoris communis, ut quod illi soli debitum est, deputetur creaturae. Quippe cum ab eo prohibitum sit per legem. Aut cum corpora bene composita et decora videmus, aut aliquid proximi, si concupiscamus, et aliter ea aspiciamus, quam mandat lex: tunc facimus peccatum quod vocatur malum. Sed forte dicatur, Nihil igitur formosum debuit fieri, ne nos peccaremus, ut tutela nostra ex aliorum deformitate constaret. Quod si esset, nec ferrum esset, ne de eo fierent homicidia. Neque lucerna in usu esset, ne fures lumine ejus ad effringendum uterentur, ut quod magnopere omnibus utile est, deesset propter quorumdam vaniloquia. Cum constet nos semper omnia aspicere, nec tamen semper omnia concupiscere; quia non illorum vitium, sed nostrum est cum sumus negligentes: quod constat ex intervallo creari, quia non sumus quod Deus est. Sic autem male audimus, si audientes idola deos esse, consentiamus, aut si turpia cantantibus aurem accommodemus. Tunc autem bene audimus, si audientes de Deo quod unus sit, oblectemur. Si quis autem contra legem aliquid audiens assentiat, peccat: et hoc erit male audire.

our [bodies] cannot bear the force of poison; let them call fire or water evil too: and let iron or lead be called evil, because it stands far off from gold. For by comparison with light they condemn darkness, though they know that it is necessary in its own place, as lead or a potsherd is. For it certainly gives rest after toil. Therefore everyone who wrestles in the world ought so to strive that he does not withdraw defeated in a hard situation and become guilty, restoring himself scarcely or late, and perhaps meanwhile his end comes, and he departs hence with sin. For he who resists with all his strength, if perhaps he has been dashed down, falls like a man, nor is anyone angry with him, but by a kind of encouragement he restores his spirit. For he sees that he had the purpose of conquering, and hopes that such a one, whom his enemy did not dash down without exhausting himself, can advance to victory. For he who is easily conquered does not have the spirit of resisting; nor is he conquered, but he consents. This man sins more bitterly. Such a one, who has the wish to transgress, is scarcely to be admitted to pardon. For he who ponders this, that he may not sin, even if he has sinned, does not sin harshly. For lesser sins sometimes creep up on the more diligent. But the smaller they are, the subtler they are; and while they are despised, they are not avoided. For the greater ones appear from afar. And therefore whoever sins in greater things, the crime is his will's. Indeed, since we said above that sins take their origin from the senses, when contrary to the command of the law or to reason we look at or hear something, that is, if on seeing the sun we think it is to be worshipped on account of its beauty, then we see badly: because it pertains to the injury of the common Creator that what is owed to Him alone should be assigned to a creature. Especially since it has been forbidden by Him through the law. Or when we see bodies well formed and comely, or something of our neighbour's, if we covet them and look at them otherwise than the law commands: then we commit the sin that is called evil. But perhaps it may be said: Then nothing beautiful ought to have been made, lest we should sin, so that our safety might consist in the ugliness of other things. If that were so, there would be no iron either, lest homicides be committed with it. Nor would the lamp be in use, lest thieves use its light for breaking in, so that what is greatly useful to all would be lacking on account of the empty talk of certain people. Since it is evident that we always look at all things, and yet do not always covet all things; because the fault is not theirs but ours when we are negligent: which, it is evident, arises from the distance [between us and God], because we are not what God is. Thus, moreover, we hear badly if, hearing that idols are gods, we consent, or if we lend our ear to those who sing shameful things. But then we hear well if, hearing concerning God that He is one, we are delighted. But if anyone, hearing something against the law, assents, he sins: and this will be hearing badly.

II. — Cur Deus mundum fecerit?

II. — Why did God make the world?

Fecit, quia est opifex; aut negetur, si non est. Sed esse, ipsa opera manifestant. Fecit ergo ut esset quod ante non erat, quia sine dubio melius est esse, quam non esse. Si dicatur, Numquid inane fuit aliquid ubi faceret, aut quid prius erat ubi fecit? Hoc Vas electionis paucis absolvit. Ait enim cum de Deo esset sermo, In ipso vivimus et movemur, et sumus (Act. XVII, 28): hoc est, omnia in Deo, quia ubique est, et ante omnia solus ac aeternus, invisibilis omni creaturae. Et ne mysterium praetermisisse videamur, aut potius ignorasse cur mundus factus sit; dicimus diaboli apostasiam multos angelos, id est spirituales potentias, secum in praevaricationem traxisse, dum voluit sibi regnum impia praesumptione defendere: quod propheta Isaias significat, dicens, Quomodo cecidisti de coelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris (Isai. XIV, 12)? id est, qui caeteris lucidior apparebas. Erat enim quasi princeps multorum, inter quos clarior erat, et cum quorum societate ad impium descendit certamen. Videns enim infra se multas spirituales potentias; quippe cum in paradiso Dei praestantior esset cognitione mysterii coelestis, ipsa elatione inflatus.

He made it because He is a maker; or let it be denied, if He is not. But that He is, the works themselves make plain. He made, therefore, so that there might be what before was not, because without doubt it is better to be than not to be. If it is said: Was there some void where He might make, or what was there before, where He made? The Vessel of election resolved this in a few words. For he says, when the discourse was about God: In Him we live and move, and are (Acts 17:28): that is, all things are in God, because He is everywhere, and before all things alone and eternal, invisible to every creature. And lest we seem to have passed over the mystery, or rather to have been ignorant of why the world was made, we say that the apostasy of the devil drew many angels, that is, spiritual powers, with him into transgression, while he wished to defend a kingdom for himself by impious presumption: which the prophet Isaiah signifies, saying: How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, you who rose in the morning (Isa. 14:12)? that is, you who appeared brighter than the rest. For he was as it were the prince of many, among whom he was the brighter, and in whose company he went down to the impious contest. For seeing beneath him many spiritual powers; since indeed in the paradise of God he was more excellent in knowledge of the heavenly mystery, puffed up by that very elation,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2216

Footnotes

(1) ‹call not legible in the image› · call in col 2216

Mss. secundi generis, nec.

Manuscripts of the second class: "nec" ("nor").

(printed under page 456)

Page

running head: [left part cut off] EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2216
marginal letters: (none visible)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2217

voluit dici deus : hac scilicet ratione, qua etiam in praesenti vita exemplum ejus quosdam imitatos videmus, qui contemplatione aggregatorum circa se militum elati, satellitibus in hac re fomitem conspirationis praebentibus, imperium sibi vindicare voluerunt. Hinc est unde Deus, ut ejus praesumptionem non potestate, sed ratione destrueret, materiam condidit, quae esset rerum confusio, ex qua faceret mundum. Distincta enim, quae simul confusa erant, hunc praestiterunt quem videmus ornatum. Discretis enim ab invicem substantiis, facta compaginatione mundus vocatur; quia unaquaeque res ab altera segregata ad mundum apparuit : ut hic homo positus, creatus ex supernis et infernis, id est, ex coelestibus et terrenis, unius Dei dominium, non tantum voce, sed et imagine, qua unus ab uno Deo factus est, ex quo caeteri orientur, ostenderet. Ideo enim unus unum fecit, ut doceret ab uno omnia esse, ac per hoc unum esse Deum, ut superior creatura ad confusionem suam in homine disceret, qui de terra conditus est, veritatem. Ex eo diabolus inimicus exstitit hominis. Praevidit enim quia ad accusationem ejus factus est homo : unde subtilitate sua id egit, ut in eamdem illum praevaricationem in quam ipse ruit, induceret, ut accusatorem suum participem suae damnationis efficeret. Ex transgressione enim deitatem illi spopondit, ad quam ipse dum affectaret, ab ea dejectus est. Et quia omnis natura a crimine libera est, ex accidenti sumit nomina. Ante enim res, postea significatio : ac per hoc satanas et diabolus ex actu ejus composita sunt nomina, ut sit non naturae ejus, sed voluntatis significatio. Itaque ut propositum Dei, quod in causa creati hominis decrevit, maneret, et factum diaboli, per quod hominem circumvenit, ad cumulum ejus reatus proficeret; Christus de sacris sedibus etiam ad terras venire dignatus est : ut et hominem a transgressionis sententia liberaret, et diaboli futuram perditionem, ne quis factum ejus imitaretur, ostenderet. Propterea dixit Joannes apostolus, Ideo venit Filius Dei ut solveret opera diaboli (I Joan. III, 8); qui si natura malus esset, poenam ei promittere, aut dementis erat, aut iniqui. Quis enim arguat eum, quem videt non aliter aliquid facere, quam natura ejus admittit? Si igni potest succenseri, quia urit, aut aquae quia infrigidat, cum non utique voluntate hoc faciat, sed natura? Unde etiam diabolus si natura malus esset, voluntatem non haberet. Nec enim posset discernere, sed uno atque eodem modo omnibus se quasi caecus ingereret. Porro autem judicio quodam hoc agit : nam suam voluntatem facientibus parcit, a quibusdam neophytis dissimulat, ad Dei auxilium confugere volentibus offendicula et impedimenta opponit, servis Dei insidias tendit, et promptioribus circa ejus obsequia magis infestus est. Unde manifestum est, voluntatem ejus esse in crimine. Quamobrem Petrus apostolus ait, Sobrii estote et vigilate; quia adversarius vester diabolus, tanquam leo rugiens, circumit quaerens quem devoret (I Petr. V, 8). Gentiles non quaerit, Judaeos non quaerit, malae vitae et conversationis non quaerit : sed quaerit Dei servos et Christi famulos, quos sibi scit inimicos; quia factum ejus et praesumptionem ejus condemnant. Denique Lege data, plus exarsit invidia adversus eos qui sub Lege erant, sciens Legis documenta unum Deum tradere, et bonam conversationem hominibus. Igitur si hoc naturaliter putatur facere, reus constitui non potest : quia hoc facit quod naturae suae est, et potest; et non facit quod non potest, quia naturae suae non est. Itaque neque laudandus, neque condemnandus est. Laudandus non est, quia obsunt quae agit; condemnandus autem non est, quia non voluntate haec facit, sed impulsu naturae. Nam aliquos scimus subito dementes factos, fuste, ferro, lapidibus, morsibus, multis nocuisse, quosdam etiam occidisse; captos autem industria et judicibus oblatos, minime reos factos, eo quod non voluntate, sed impellente vi nescio

wished to be called god: in just the way, namely, in which even in the present life we see certain men imitating his example, who, elated by the sight of the soldiers gathered around them, with their attendants supplying the tinder of conspiracy in this matter, have wished to claim empire for themselves. Hence it is that God, in order to destroy his presumption not by power but by reason, created matter, which was to be the confusion of things, out of which He would make the world. For the things which were confused together, once distinguished, produced this adornment which we see. For when the substances had been separated from one another, the fitting together having been accomplished, it is called the world; because each thing, separated from another, appeared for the world: so that man, placed here, created from things above and things below, that is, from heavenly and earthly things, might show the lordship of the one God, not only by voice but also by the image in which he, one, was made by the one God, he from whom the rest were to arise. For the One made one for this reason, to teach that all things are from one, and by this that God is one, so that the higher creature might learn, to its own confusion, the truth in man, who was formed from the earth. From that time the devil became the enemy of man. For he foresaw that man was made for his accusation: whence by his subtlety he brought it about that he might lead him into the same transgression into which he himself had fallen, so as to make his accuser a partaker of his own damnation. For through transgression he promised him deity, and while he himself was striving after it, he was cast down from it. And since every nature is free from crime, it takes its names from what befalls it. For first comes the thing, afterwards the signification: and by this Satan and devil are names formed from his act, so that the signification is not of his nature but of his will. Therefore, so that the purpose of God which He decreed in the cause of man's creation might stand, and the deed of the devil by which he deceived man might go to the heaping up of his guilt, Christ deigned to come from the sacred seats even to the earth: so that He might both free man from the sentence of transgression and show the future perdition of the devil, lest anyone imitate his deed. Therefore the apostle John said, For this reason the Son of God came, that He might undo the works of the devil (1 John 3:8); for if he were evil by nature, to promise him punishment would be the part either of a madman or of an unjust one. For who would blame one whom he sees doing nothing other than what his nature allows? Can one be angry with fire because it burns, or with water because it chills, when it certainly does not do this by will but by nature? Hence the devil too, if he were evil by nature, would not have a will. For he could not discriminate, but would thrust himself upon all in one and the same manner, as if blind. But in fact he does this with a certain judgement: for he spares those who do his will, he overlooks certain neophytes, he sets stumbling-blocks and hindrances before those wishing to flee to the help of God, he lays snares for the servants of God, and he is more hostile to those who are readier in His service. Whence it is manifest that his will is in the crime. Wherefore the apostle Peter says, Be sober and keep watch; for your adversary the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8). He does not seek the Gentiles, he does not seek the Jews, he does not seek those of evil life and conduct: but he seeks the servants of God and the household of Christ, whom he knows to be his enemies, because they condemn his deed and his presumption. Finally, when the Law had been given, his envy blazed up the more against those who were under the Law, knowing that the teachings of the Law hand down one God and good conduct to men. Therefore, if he is thought to do this by nature, he cannot be held guilty: because he does what belongs to his nature, and what he can; and he does not do what he cannot, because it does not belong to his nature. And so he is neither to be praised nor to be condemned. He is not to be praised, because the things he does are harmful; but he is not to be condemned, because he does these things not by will but by the impulse of nature. For we know that some who suddenly went mad have harmed many with club, iron, stones and bites, and have even killed some; yet when caught by diligence and brought before judges, they were by no means held guilty, because not by will but by the impelling of I know not what force

Editors' notes and page, col. 2217

Footnotes

(1) ‹se quasi caecus ingereret› · call in col 2217

Mss. Colb. et Germ., immergeret.

The Colbert and Saint-Germain manuscripts: "immergeret" ("would plunge [himself]").

(printed under page 457)

Page

running head: 2217 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2218

qua haec gesserint nescientes. Quomodo enim reus constituitur, qui nescit quid fecerit? Ita et diabolus si bonum nescit, quare condemnandus censetur, qui non facit quod nescit? Imo, si posset fieri, laudandus erat, quia facit quod non novit. Nos autem jure rei constituimur, quia illud non facimus quod scimus debere nos facere, vel quia illud facimus quod scimus debere nos non facere. Sed quia per omnem Scripturam reum diabolum constitui videmus, et propterea gehennam illi paratam legimus, legibus illum damnandum scimus: quia cum sciret et posset facere bonum, fecit malum. Nec enim Deus qui justus est, damnaret eum, quia bonum non fecerat, quod nescierat; sed quia malum fecerat, quod sciverat. Manifestatum itaque puto, nullam naturam debere dici malum; quia omne malum, sicut claruit, ex voluntate fit, quae per sensus accidit naturae.

they did these things without knowing it. For how is someone made guilty who does not know what he has done? So also the devil, if he does not know the good, why is he judged worthy of condemnation, when he does not do what he does not know? Rather, if it could be so, he would deserve praise, because he does what he has not known. But we are rightly made guilty, because we do not do that which we know we ought to do, or because we do that which we know we ought not to do. But since throughout all Scripture we see the devil made guilty, and for that reason read that Gehenna has been prepared for him, we know that he is to be condemned by laws: because, though he knew the good and was able to do it, he did evil. For God, Who is just, would not condemn him because he had not done the good, which he had not known; but because he had done the evil, which he had known. I think, therefore, it has been made plain that no nature ought to be called evil; because all evil, as has become clear, arises from the will, which befalls nature through the senses.

III. — Quid opus erat per Moysen postea, et non ante, exordium mundi et ordinem creaturae exponere.

III. — What need there was for the beginning of the world and the order of creation to be set out through Moses later, and not before.

Prius describi non debuit, quia adhuc ex hac causa error tantus non erat in hominibus. At ubi jam error creverat generi humano, ita ut etiam filii Israel contra hanc expositionem in Aegypto tradi audirent a philosophis Aegyptiorum, a quibus etiam Moyses fuerat instructus omnem peritiam Aegyptiacam, quae Apim quemdam mundum istum asserit per malos angelos condidisse; hunc quoque principem mundi videri, id est, satanam Quam sententiam Marcion secutus, ruit in mortem. Nam et Manichaei ab eodem satana hominem dicunt factum, non mundum istum, stultiores caeteris. Cum enim mundum constet hominis causa fabricatum, illi a Deo dicunt mundum factum, licet de alieno: hominem vero ab adversario creatum, ut in domo alterius alter posuerit dominum. Oportuit ergo Moysen, ut errorem istum proderet et auferret, manifestare mundi et hominis fabricati Deum esse auctorem. Accepta enim auctoritate per signa et prodigia quae fecit, docuit, sine dubio id verum esse, quod testibus signis tradebat. Quis enim non crederet ei, cujus tanta signa in rebus gestis existerent? Denique hinc est, unde qui contra disciplinam hanc sentiunt, errare nescuntur, quia nudis verbis assertionem suam allegare nituntur. Itaque ut nihil Deo coaeternum esse doceret, ordinem ipsum creatarum rerum exponit, ut dum minora prius facta memorat, postea autem majora, nihil horum infectum habeatur: quia quae tempore minora sunt, virtute majora sunt: ut si illa praescribere de tempore se putent, ipsa infirmitate qua posterioribus subjecta sunt, convincantur: aut si haec de virtute praesumendo primatum sibi vindicent, posteritate ipsa humilientur, ut nihil horum non initio subjectum videatur. Ante quidem coelum factum est et terra; deinde lux, quae in officio diei est: post firmamentum, quod appellatum est coelum, et congregationes aquarum quas appellavit maria, ut appareret terra in qua possit habitari. Terram autem quam post coelum factam dicit, non terram solam vult intelligi, sed materiam significavit, id est, omnia inferna quae in mundi omnem speciem profecerunt. Coelum autem non hoc carnale, sed illud supernum quod spirituale est, in principio factum contendit: ut cum coelum primo dicit factum, deinde terram in coelo omnia invisibilia, et in terra omnia visibilia creata a Deo significaret. Totius enim naturae summa et ima comprehendit, ut quidquid medium est, procul dubio etiam factum credatur. Luminaria vero quae ad gubernandum mundum instituit, quarto die asserit facta, ut quanto majora sunt virtute, tanto inferiora

It ought not to have been described earlier, because as yet there was no such great error among men on this matter. But when error had by now grown up in the human race, so that even the children of Israel in Egypt heard things handed down contrary to this account by the philosophers of the Egyptians, by whom Moses too had been instructed in all Egyptian learning, which asserts that a certain Apis founded this world through evil angels, and that he is also seen to be the prince of the world, that is, Satan. Following this opinion Marcion rushed into death. For the Manichaeans too, more foolish than the rest, say that man was made by the same Satan, but not this world. For although it is established that the world was fashioned for the sake of man, they say that the world was made by God, albeit out of what belonged to another, but that man was created by the adversary, as though in one person's house another had set up the master. It was necessary, therefore, for Moses, in order to expose and remove this error, to make plain that God is the author of the world and of man, both fashioned [by Him]. For having received authority through the signs and wonders which he performed, he taught that what he handed down with signs as witnesses was without doubt true. For who would not believe him in whose deeds such great signs appeared? Accordingly it is for this reason that those who think contrary to this teaching are known to err, because they strive to put forward their assertion with bare words. So, in order to teach that nothing is coeternal with God, he sets out the very order of created things, so that, while he records that the lesser things were made first and the greater afterwards, none of these may be held to be unmade: because the things that are lesser in time are greater in power: so that if the former think to claim precedence on the ground of time, they may be refuted by the very weakness by which they are subject to those that come after; or if the latter, presuming on their power, claim primacy for themselves, they may be humbled by their very posteriority, so that none of these may seem not subject to a beginning. First, indeed, heaven was made, and earth; then light, which serves the office of day; after that the firmament, which was called heaven, and the gatherings of the waters, which He called seas, so that the earth might appear on which there could be dwelling. But the earth which he says was made after heaven he does not wish to be understood as the earth alone, but he signified matter, that is, all the lower things which have advanced into every form of the world. And he maintains that heaven, not this fleshly one but that supernal one which is spiritual, was made in the beginning: so that, in saying that heaven was made first and then earth, he might signify that in heaven all things invisible, and in earth all things visible, were created by God. For he embraces the highest and the lowest of the whole of nature, so that whatever lies between may without doubt be believed to have been made as well. But the luminaries which He established to govern the world, he asserts were made on the fourth day, so that the greater they are in power, the lower

Editors' notes and page, col. 2218

Footnotes

(1) ‹Sed quia› · call in col 2218

Mss.: quia aliud facimus, quam scimus debere nos facere. Sed quia, etc.

Manuscripts: "because we do other than we know we ought to do. But because," etc.

(printed under page 457)

(2) ‹Apim› · call in col 2218

Germ. Ms., Saclam. Colb. Ms., Salam.

Saint-Germain manuscript: "Saclam". Colbert manuscript: "Salam".

(printed under page 457)

(3) ‹ab eodem satana› · call in col 2218

Mss. Germ. et Colb., Saclam.

Saint-Germain and Colbert manuscripts: "Saclam".

(printed under page 457)

(4) ‹praesumendo primatum› · call in col 2218

Mss, primatus.

Manuscripts: "primatus" ("primacy", plural/genitive form).

(printed under page 457)

(5) ‹in officio diei› · call in col 2218

Mss., dies.

Manuscripts: "dies" ("day", for "of the day").

(printed under page 457)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2218
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprints kept as printed: no full stop after "satanam" before "Quam"; "nescuntur" (for "noscuntur"; the English translates the sense "are known"; the second letter is faint on the scan).

PL 35:2219

siat tempore. Hominem autem sexto die constituit, ut in domum jam factam habitatorem introduceret. Et valde sublimior est homo, quem utique sexto die factum declaratum est: quem idcirco sublimiorem dixi, quia interior ejus natura invisibilis est, et intellectu capax: sed fortitudine major est sol, et lumine potior luna est, quam terra. Hinc est quod quibusdam displicet dictum, Et vidit lucem quia bona est: ut quia omnia a malo facta dicebantur, et bona credi non poterant, Moyses ut bona quae facta sunt probaret, ipsi Deo placita quae fecit ostendit, ut cui displicerent, reum faceret. Nam quomodo possit nescire lucem qui dixit, Fiat lux, et facta est lux? Aut quis facit quod nescit? Facta autem lux placuit ei qui se fecit. Quis opifex in opere suo non laetetur? Sic dictum est, Vidit Deus lucem quia bona est (Gen. I, 3, 4). Et non desunt qui dicant, quod mala est. Quid, si sine testimonio esset relictum? Igitur descripta mundi fabrica, e primi hominis origine traducem tenuit generis Seth, qui redditus est pro Abel, et per ordinem venit ad Abraham patrem Judaeorum: ut ostenderet Abraham huic Deo credidisse, qui opifex mundi est, et ipsum Legem dedisse, in qua futurus Christus promissus est, qui liberaret genus humanum de dominio diaboli. Ex his rationabilis probatur fides nostra. Testimonium enim huic dat origo descripta, quia ab initio genus est Christianorum. Ex Seth enim filio Adae venitur ad Enoch, ab Enoch ad Noe, ex Noe ad Abraham, ab Abraham descenditur ad David, a David ad Mariam, ex Maria de Spiritu sancto nascitur Christus. Retro ergo omnes quotquot fidem habuerunt unius Dei, quam Salvator praedicavit, jure Christiani dicendi sunt. Ab initio enim Salvator venturus promissus est. Unde Joannes in Apocalypsi ait, Agnus qui occisus est a constitutione mundi (Apoc. XIII, 8). Itaque semper Christiani fuerunt. Ii enim omnes, quos supra dixi, a primo homine creato in mundo, per quos tradux tenditur ad Salvatorem, hujus Dei fidem habuerunt, de quo Christus locutus est dicens: Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum et verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. XVII, 3). Potest dici e contrario, Si ante et illi Christiani fuerunt, quae notitia per Christum? Hunc intelligentiae profectum adventus contulit Christi, quia praedicatio unius Dei ostendit mysterium, et quid cuique personae competat, demonstravit, et ad explendam Legis justitiam, addidit quae reservata erant.

in time. But He established man on the sixth day, so as to bring an inhabitant into a house already made. And man, who is declared to have been made on the sixth day, is indeed far loftier: I have called him loftier for this reason, that his inner nature is invisible and capable of understanding; but the sun is greater in strength, and the moon is more powerful in light, than the earth. Hence it is that the saying, And He saw the light, that it was good, displeases some: because all things were said to have been made by an evil one, and could not be believed to be good, Moses, in order to prove that the things which were made are good, showed that the things He made were pleasing to God Himself, so as to make guilty anyone to whom they were displeasing. For how could He not know the light Who said, Let there be light, and there was light? Or who makes what he does not know? Now the light, once made, pleased Him Who made it. What craftsman does not rejoice in his own work? Thus it is said, God saw the light, that it was good (Gen. 1:3–4). And there are not lacking those who say that it is evil. What if it had been left without testimony? So, the structure of the world having been described, from the origin of the first man he held to the line of the descent of Seth, who was given in place of Abel, and in order came to Abraham, the father of the Jews: to show that Abraham believed this God, Who is the craftsman of the world, and that He Himself gave the Law, in which Christ was promised as one to come, Who would free the human race from the dominion of the devil. From these things our faith is proved reasonable. For the origin described gives testimony to it, since the race of Christians is from the beginning. For from Seth the son of Adam one comes to Enoch, from Enoch to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham one descends to David, from David to Mary, from Mary Christ is born of the Holy Spirit. Therefore all those in the past, as many as had the faith of the one God which the Saviour preached, are rightly to be called Christians. For from the beginning the Saviour was promised as one to come. Whence John says in the Apocalypse, The Lamb Who was slain from the establishment of the world (Rev. 13:8). And so there have always been Christians. For all those whom I named above, from the first man created in the world, through whom the line of descent stretches to the Saviour, had faith in this God, of Whom Christ spoke, saying: And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only and true God, and Him Whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ (John 17:3). It can be said in reply, If those men too were Christians before, what knowledge [came] through Christ? The coming of Christ brought this advance in understanding, that the preaching of the one God showed the mystery, and demonstrated what belongs to each person, and, to fulfil the righteousness of the Law, added the things that had been reserved.

IV. — Quare Deus Legem non in primordio dedit?

IV. — Why did God not give the Law at the very beginning?

Primum Lex formata in litteris dari non debuit, quia in natura ipsa quodammodo inserta est, et Creatoris notitia ex traduce non latebat. Nam quis nesciat, quid bonae vitae conveniat; aut ignoret, quia quod sibi fieri non vult, alii minime debeat facere? At ubi naturalis lex evanuit, oppressa consuetudine delinquendi, tunc oportuit Legem manifestari, ut in Judaeis omnes homines audirent. Non quod penitus oblitterata esset, sed quia maxima ejus auctoritate carebant, idololatriae studebatur. Timor Dei in terris non erat. Fornicatio operabatur. Circa rem proximi avida erat concupiscentia. Danda ergo Lex erat, ut et quae sciebantur auctoritatem haberent, et quae latere coeperant, manifestarentur. Nam invenimus ante Moysen non solum non latuisse, sed etiam vindicata esse peccata. Quamobrem et justi fuisse reperiuntur multi, qui scientes Deum vindicem, timebant peccare. Quod cum coepisset jam negligi, legem naturalem revelari oportuit, ut scirent cuncti aperta ratione, Deum requisiturum actus humanos. Quamvis per diluvium vindicatum legatur, et in Sodomam et Gomorrham (Gen. VII, XIX): sed haec vetustatis oblivio texerat. Unde per Moysen terroris causa ad disciplinam corrigendam, et fidem in Deum reformandam, commemorata sunt. Quare et

At first the Law formed in letters ought not to have been given, because it is in a certain way implanted in nature itself, and knowledge of the Creator was not hidden, [being handed down] by descent. For who would not know what befits a good life, or be ignorant that what he does not wish done to himself he ought by no means to do to another? But when the natural law faded away, overwhelmed by the habit of sinning, then it was necessary for the Law to be made manifest, so that in the Jews all men might hear it. Not that it had been entirely blotted out, but because they lacked its greatest authority, idolatry was pursued. The fear of God was not on earth. Fornication was at work. Covetousness was greedy concerning a neighbour's property. The Law, therefore, had to be given, so that both the things that were known might have authority, and the things that had begun to be hidden might be made manifest. For we find that before Moses sins were not only not hidden, but were even punished. For this reason many are also found to have been righteous, who, knowing God to be an avenger, feared to sin. When this had begun to be neglected, it was necessary for the natural law to be revealed, so that all might know by open reasoning that God would require an account of human acts. Although one reads that [sin] was punished through the flood, and upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 7; 19): yet the forgetfulness of long ages had covered these things. Hence through Moses, for the sake of terror, to correct discipline and to restore faith in God, they were recalled. Wherefore also

Editors' notes and page, col. 2219

Footnotes

(1) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2219

Ms. Germ., rationibus.

Saint-Germain manuscript: "rationibus" ("by reasons").

(printed under page 458)

(a) ‹Joan. XVII, 3› · call in col 2219

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 458)

(b) ‹Primum Lex formata› · call in col 2219

Confer Alcuini, quaest. 14 in Genesim.

Compare Alcuin, question 14 on Genesis.

(printed under page 458)

Page

running head: 2219 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI TE[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2220

Apostolus, Justis, ait, Lex non est posita, sed injustis, idola colentibus, fornicatoribus (I Tim. I, 9), et talia. Nunc videamus an conveniat iis, qui Dei judicium audientes rident futurum; si proderit, an oberit; si veritate munitur, an caret ratione. Lex quidem data est mundo, sed videmus eam circa multos cessare. Non ergo justum videtur, ut qui hic peccant per potentiam, securi sint. Alii legibus illudunt, pauperes deprimuntur, justis accusatio componitur, bene agentes opprobrio sunt, pii indigent, mali florent, iniqui et corruptores in honore sunt, avari et raptores locupletantur, judex venalis est. Nonne iniquum videtur si Conditor rerum non haec requirat: ut qui hic injuste oppressi sunt, releventur; et qui bene vivendo indiguerunt, remunerentur; et qui propter justitiam opprobrio erant, honorentur: illi autem qui per potentiam leges contempserunt, aut tergiversatione illuserunt, iniquitatem sectantes, sic gloriosi in his, ut ipsi justitiae insultare videantur, ut humiliati et confusi tormentis subjiciantur in conspectu eorum, in quorum malis et despectione gaudebant; ut et ipsi de poena illorum laeti Deo gratias referant, apud quem solum personarum acceptio cessat (Rom. II, 11)?

the Apostle says, The law is not laid down for the just, but for the unjust, for those who worship idols, for fornicators (1 Tim. 1:9), and the like. Now let us see whether it suits those who, hearing of the judgement of God to come, laugh at it; whether it will profit or harm; whether it is fortified by truth or lacks reason. The law indeed was given to the world, but we see that in the case of many it falls idle. It does not therefore seem just that those who sin here through their power should be secure. Some make sport of the laws, the poor are oppressed, an accusation is put together against the just, those who do well are held in reproach, the godly are in want, the wicked flourish, the unjust and the corrupt are in honour, the greedy and the plunderers grow rich, the judge is for sale. Does it not seem unjust if the Founder of things should not require these things: that those who here have been unjustly oppressed should be raised up; and those who suffered want through living well should be rewarded; and those who were held in reproach for the sake of justice should be honoured: but that those who through their power despised the laws, or made sport of them by evasion, pursuing iniquity, so glorious in these things that they seem to insult justice itself, should be humbled and confounded and subjected to torments in the sight of those in whose misfortunes and contempt they rejoiced; so that they too, glad at their punishment, may give thanks to God, with Whom alone respect of persons ceases (Rom. 2:11)?

V.—Utquid Abel sacrificium acceptatum est, et Cain refutatum?

V.—Why was Abel's sacrifice accepted, and Cain's rejected?

Ex verbis hoc ipsius lectionis potest colligi, quia non est litterarum arte velata historia. Nam Abel prudentem et devotum in eo ipso sermo indicat Scripturae, Cain vero negligentem et improvidum, ac per hoc minus devotum. Abel ergo de placidis potiora elegit, quae Domino offerret creatori, ut de iis utique quae creaverat, praecipua illi offerret ut per hoc et dicationem suam et meritum ejus probaret, ut et propriam reverentiam et Deum auctorem ostenderet. Hoc Cain velut rusticus praesentare nequivit. Totum enim animum terrae inserens, mentis oculos ad coelum levare non potuit, ut quid Creatore dignum esset aspiceret; qualiacumque enim Deo obtulit munera. Quae causa etiam in Judaeis obliquae mentis deprehenditur. Saepe enim reprehensi sunt, cum munera sua improvide Dei altari offerrent, quae nec hominibus digna viderentur, dicente Domino, Caecas et luscas offertis mihi; non haec suscipiam de manibus vestris. Offer ea praeposito aut duci tuo, si acceperit ea (Malach. I, 8). Cum constet apud omnes, personae sublimi maxima offerri debere munera. Ideoque Cain munera repudiata sunt, dicente ei Domino, Quid contristatus es, et utquid concidit vultus tuus? Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti? Quiesce. Apud te conversio ejus, et tu dominaberis ejus (Gen. IV, 6, 7). Vides ergo quia divisio incurrit peccatum, dum non aestimans quid dignum Deo esset, potiora reservavit suis usibus. Itaque non quia obtulit reprehensus est, sed quia indigna obtulit. Neque ex eo damnatus est, sed quia factum noluit emendare commonitus. Ad te enim, ait, conversio ejus, et tu ejus dominaberis: hoc est, me non accipiente, ad tuum dominium conversum est munus a te oblatum; ut de caetero sciret quid faceret. Hinc invidia exarsit ut occideret fratrem, ut ab injusto occideretur, qui justitiam primus ostenderat, et exemplum malum daretur hominibus. Sic enim aemulatione zeli caecatus est, ut non solum gratias non ageret, eo quod reus factus n⟨o⟩n fuerat, sed et didicerat quomodo hoc emendaret; verum etiam adderet aliud gravius, per quod damnari mereretur. Talis est causa improvidi ac fratricidae Cain, qualis et illius nequam servi, cui cum ignotum esset a domino, ingratus effectus exiens suffocabat conservum suum, ut et de praeterito ignoto sibi facinore, et de impietate in conservum suum admissa inexcusabilis damnaretur (Matth. XVIII, 27, sqq.). Et tamen ad praesens non est damnatus Cain, sed confusus et reus sub terrore dimissus est super terram; ut, si poeniteret, ignosceretur ei. Denique timens ne aliquis eum pro hoc facto occideret, ait ad Dominum, Major causa

From the very words of the reading it can be gathered that the history is not veiled by literary art. For the word of Scripture in that very place shows Abel to be prudent and devout, but Cain negligent and improvident, and for that reason less devout. Abel therefore chose the better things from among those that were pleasing, to offer to the Lord the Creator, so that from the things He had created he might offer Him the choicest, so that by this he might prove both his own dedication and His desert, so that he might show both his own reverence and God as author. This Cain, like a rustic, was unable to present. For sinking his whole mind into the earth, he could not raise the eyes of the mind to heaven, so as to see what would be worthy of the Creator; for he offered to God gifts of whatever sort. This cause of a crooked mind is also detected in the Jews. For they were often rebuked, when they improvidently offered at the altar of God gifts that would not seem worthy even of men, the Lord saying, You offer Me the blind and the one-eyed; I will not receive these from your hands. Offer them to your governor or to your leader, whether he will accept them (Mal. 1:8). Since it is agreed among all that the greatest gifts ought to be offered to an exalted person. And therefore Cain's gifts were rejected, the Lord saying to him, Why are you saddened, and why has your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be still. Its turning is towards you, and you shall have dominion over it (Gen. 4:6–7). You see therefore that the division incurred sin, since, not considering what would be worthy of God, he reserved the better things for his own uses. So he was not rebuked because he offered, but because he offered unworthy things. Nor was he condemned on that account, but because, when admonished, he was unwilling to amend the deed. For, He says, Its turning is towards you, and you shall have dominion over it: that is, since I do not accept it, the gift offered by you has been turned back to your dominion; so that he might know what to do for the future. Hence envy blazed up, so that he killed his brother, so that he who had first shown justice was killed by an unjust man, and an evil example was given to men. For he was so blinded by the rivalry of jealousy that not only did he not give thanks, because he had not been made guilty but had also learned how he might amend this; but he even added another, graver thing, through which he deserved to be condemned. Such is the case of the improvident and fratricide Cain as is also that of the wicked servant, who, though he had been pardoned by his master, became ungrateful and going out choked his fellow servant, so that he was condemned without excuse both for the past crime pardoned him and for the impiety committed against his fellow servant (Matt. 18:27 ff.). And yet Cain was not condemned for the present, but, confounded and guilty, he was sent away under terror upon the earth; so that, if he repented, he might be pardoned. Then, fearing lest anyone should kill him for this deed, he said to the Lord, Greater is my cause

Editors' notes and page, col. 2220

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2220

Alcuin., quaest. 15 in Gen.

Alcuin, question 15 on Genesis.

(printed under page 458)

Page

running head: EX VETERI TESTAMENTO.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word causa was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2221

PL 35:2221

est mea, relinqui me; si ejicis me hodie a facie tua, et a facie terrae abscondam me, et ero gemens et tremens super terram. Et erit, omnis qui invenerit me, occidet me. Territus itaque Cain verbis justi judicis, timet despici a Domino, ita ut et a conspectu hominum confugere se debere putet; certus, quia qui irato Deo vivit, etiam ab homine possit occidi. Sed quid ei respondet Dominus? Non sic, inquit: hoc est, non ad hoc te remisi cum non merearis vivere, ut ab aliquo occidaris; sed ut gemas et tremas, quasi qui primus malum exemplum dederis super terram, dum laboribus tuis non respondet fructus ex humo. Itaque omnis qui occiderit, inquit, Cain, septem vindictas exsolvet. Haec sententia ostendit jure damnandum Cain. Quando enim vidit legem datam sub tali comminatione, ne quis imitaretur factum ejus, plus coepit timere, sciens quid mali admiserat. Septem ergo vindictas promittit, si quis ad hoc facinus aspirasset, ut videns ex hoc opere Cain reum factum, et cum adhuc legis manifestatio non erat, sciret se septemplici poena multari si hoc non vitaret: ut legis notitia sex plagas adderet supra quam meruerat Cain, ut cum plaga Cain septem numerarentur vindictae. Hoc etiam numero remunerandi sunt qui relictis omnibus Dominum sequuntur, et in futuro vitam aeternam habebunt. Hoc est signum quod posuit Dominus in Cain, ne occideret eum omnis qui invenisset eum (Gen. IV, 13⟨-⟩15). In parricida enim posita lex est, ut si quis homicidium fecisset, quia omne parricidium homicidium est, septies reus esset, quam fuerat Cain, ut hac severitate perterriti caeteri, ab hoc se facinore cohiberent.

than that I should be let go; if Thou cast me out today from Thy face, I shall also hide myself from the face of the earth, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth. And it will be that everyone who finds me will kill me. Terrified, therefore, by the words of the just Judge, Cain fears that he is despised by the Lord, so that he thinks he must also flee from the sight of men; he is certain that one who lives with God angry at him can be killed even by a man. But what does the Lord answer him? Not so, He says: that is, I have not sent you back, though you do not deserve to live, for this purpose, that you should be killed by someone; but that you should groan and tremble, as one who was the first to give an evil example upon the earth, while the fruit from the ground does not answer to your labours. Therefore whoever kills Cain, He says, will pay seven vengeances. This sentence shows that Cain was rightly to be condemned. For when he saw a law given under such a threat, so that no one should imitate his deed, he began to fear more, knowing what evil he had committed. He therefore promises seven vengeances if anyone had aspired to this crime, so that, seeing Cain made guilty by this deed, and while there was not yet a manifestation of the law, he might know that he would be punished with a sevenfold penalty if he did not avoid it: so that the knowledge of the law would add six blows beyond what Cain had deserved, so that together with Cain's blow the vengeances would be counted as seven. By this number too are those to be rewarded who, having left all things, follow the Lord, and in the future will have eternal life. This is the sign which the Lord set upon Cain, that no one who found him should kill him (Gen. 4:13–15). For the law was laid down in respect of the parricide, that if anyone had committed homicide, since every parricide is homicide, he would be seven times as guilty as Cain had been, so that the rest, terrified by this severity, would restrain themselves from this crime.

VI. — Si Lamech occidit Cain, sicut putatur?

VI. — Whether Lamech killed Cain, as is supposed?

Frustra hoc putant, qui arbitrantur quod Lamech dixerit de Cain, Occidi virum in livore meo, et juvenem in vulnere meo. Jam enim in quinta generatione natus erat Lamech a Cain, id est, de Mathusalem abnepote Cain. Hoc autem idcirco commemorat Lamech, ut ostenderet acrius astringendum eum qui sub manifestata lege peccaverit. Ac per hoc si post Cain in imitatorem ejus septies vindicatum est, quanto amplius in eum vindicandum est, quem nec factum Cain et correptio, nec post in eum lata sententia terruit, ut a tam impio et crudeli facinore voluntatem averteret? Post Cain ergo Lamech hoc homicidium perpetravit, qui sine dubio juxta ea quae supra dicta sunt, septem vindictas exsolvit: et quid post Lamech ei qui hoc secutus fuisset, esset futurum, ostendit dicens, De Lamech autem septuagies septies (Gen. IV, 23, 24). Ut quia malum opus poenitentia non subsequitur, septuaginta septem plagarum ictibus feriatur, unde et Salvator etiam septuagies septies peccanti, converso tamen remitti praecepit (Matth. XVIII, 22). Sed ne putetur alius ante Lamech homicidium post Cain fecisse, quia dixit, De Cain vindicatum est (Gen. IV, 24, sec. LXX), quasi jam factum. Lamech autem de se quomodo diceret quia vindicatum in eum erat, cum adhuc recens esset homicidium, quod confessus fuerat se fecisse? Cum constet omne factum sententiam secum habere. Quando enim alia spes non est, praeterquam quod expleto operi dignum scitur, futurum pro facto habetur. Denique dictum est Adae et Evae, Qua die manducaveritis, morte moriemini (Gen. II, 17): et utique non statim mortui sunt, sed post longum temporis intervallam: sed quia jam spem immortalitatis amiserant, futura mors praesens dicta est, quia haec coepit in spe haberi. Igitur cum Lamech juvenem se occidisse fatetur, et Cain sicut claruit, usque ad hoc tempus pervenire non potuit, aut si pervenit, quod impossibile videtur, senior fuit; eum non occidit.

Those suppose this in vain who think that Lamech said of Cain, I have killed a man to my bruising, and a young man to my wounding. For Lamech had already been born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Mathusalem, the great-great-grandson of Cain. But Lamech mentions this for this reason, to show that he who has sinned under a law made manifest is to be bound more severely. And for this reason, if after Cain vengeance was taken sevenfold upon his imitator, how much more is vengeance to be taken upon him whom neither Cain's deed and its rebuke, nor the sentence afterwards passed upon him, terrified so as to turn his will away from so impious and cruel a crime? After Cain, therefore, Lamech committed this homicide, who without doubt, according to the things said above, paid seven vengeances: and what would happen after Lamech to him who had followed in this, he shows, saying, But of Lamech seventy times seven (Gen. 4:23–24). So that, since penitence does not follow an evil deed, he is struck with the blows of seventy-seven plagues; whence also the Saviour commanded that forgiveness be given even seventy times seven to one who sins, provided however that he is converted (Matt. 18:22). But lest it be thought that another before Lamech committed homicide after Cain, because he said, Of Cain vengeance has been taken (Gen. 4:24, according to the Septuagint), as if already done: how could Lamech say of himself that vengeance had been taken on him, when the homicide which he had confessed that he had committed was still recent? Since it is agreed that every deed has its sentence with it. For when there is no other hope except what is known to be fitting for the completed deed, the future is held as done. Finally it was said to Adam and Eve, On the day you eat, you shall die the death (Gen. 2:17): and indeed they did not die at once, but after a long interval of time; but because they had already lost the hope of immortality, the future death was called present, since it began to be held in expectation. Therefore, since Lamech confesses that he killed a young man, and Cain, as has become clear, could not have reached this time, or if he did reach it, which seems impossible, was an old man; he did not kill him.

VII. — Quae decem verba in tabulis data sint; aut singulae tabulae, quae et quot verba habuerint?

VII. — What the ten words given on the tablets are; or what and how many words each tablet held?

Decem sententias, decem verba appellavit: quia et Salvator sensum verbum significavit, dicens inter

He called ten sentences ten words: because the Saviour too signified a meaning by "word", saying among

Editors' notes and page, col. 2221

Footnotes

(1) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2221

Mss., relinque.

Manuscripts: "relinque" ("leave").

(printed under page 459)

Page

running head: 2221 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2222

caetera ad Judaeos, Interrogo vos et ego unum verbum; respondete mihi: baptismus Joannis unde erat, e coelo, an ex hominibus (Matth. XXI, 24.)? Hunc sensum verbum appellavit. Simili modo et in duabus tabulis decem verba scripta dicuntur, quae decem sensus sunt. Denique dicit, Non sint tibi dii alii praeter me: primum verbum hoc est: et subjecit secundum, Non facies tibi ullam similitudinem in coelo sursum, et in terra deorsum, neque in aqua quae est sub terra. Deinde adjecit tertium, Non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum. Non enim mundabit eum Dominus, qui sumit nomen ejus in vanum: hoc est, Non in mendacio nomen Dei tui assumes, ut perjures per illud. Dehinc quarto loco dicit, Sabbatum Domini Dei tui servabis, et non facies in illo ullum opus servile. Haec qu⟨a⟩tuor verba ad Deum proprie pertinent, et in prima tabula continentur. Reliqua haec sunt: Primum verbum est, Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam: secundum, Non occides: tertium, Non fornicaberis: quartum, Non furaberis: quintum, Non falsum testimonium dices: sextum, Non concupisces quidquam proximi tui (Exod. XX, 3-17). Haec in secunda tabula scripta probat apostolus Paulus, dicens, Honora patrem et matrem, quod est mandatum primum in promissione (Ephes. VI, 2). Quomodo enim esset primum, nisi in secunda tabula ab ipso coepisset? In promissione autem ideo dicit, quia statim subjecit, Ut sis longaevus super terram, et bene sit tibi. Haec est promissio facta iis qui mandata custodiunt. Itaque habes et mandata distincta, et numerum eorum consummatum, et quae et quot singulis tabulis scripta sunt.

the rest to the Jews: I also will ask you one word; answer Me: the baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or from men? (Matt. 21:24). This sense He called a word. In like manner the ten words are also said to have been written on the two tables, which are ten senses. Then He says, Let there be no other gods for you besides Me: this is the first word; and He added the second, You shall not make for yourself any likeness in heaven above, or on earth below, or in the water which is under the earth. Next He added the third, You shall not take the name of your God in vain. For the Lord will not cleanse him who takes His name in vain: that is, You shall not take the name of your God in a lie, so as to perjure yourself by it. Then in the fourth place He says, You shall keep the sabbath of the Lord your God, and you shall not do any servile work on it. These four words pertain properly to God, and are contained in the first table. The rest are these: the first word is, Honour your father and your mother; the second, You shall not kill; the third, You shall not commit fornication; the fourth, You shall not steal; the fifth, You shall not speak false testimony; the sixth, You shall not covet anything of your neighbour's (Exod. 20:3–17). That these were written on the second table the apostle Paul proves, saying, Honour father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise (Eph. 6:2). For how would it be the first, unless the second table had begun with it? And he says 'with a promise' for this reason, that He immediately added, That you may be long-lived upon the earth, and that it may be well with you. This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. So you have the commandments distinguished, and their number completed, and which and how many were written on each table.

VIII. — Utquid Moyses descendens de monte cum tabulis vultum splendidum habuit et intolerabilem?

VIII. Why did Moses, coming down from the mountain with the tables, have a face shining and unbearable?

Accepta potestate in peccatores cum honorificentia descendit de monte, facie gloriosa. Lex enim contra peccatores data est. Moyses ergo quia non peccaverat, gloriosus apparuit, et in tantum ut a peccatoribus videri non posset. Ostensum enim in eo est, quia peccatores gloriam Dei non merentur aspicere. Post simulacrum enim vituli fusilis, et confractionem tabularum in quibus data Lex fuerat, rursus ascendit Moyses in montem cum tabulis, in quibus accepta Lege cum descenderet, glori⟨o⟩sa facta est facies ejus, ita ut n⟨o⟩n posseat aspicere filii Israel vultum ejus, neque Aaron, quia et ipse peccaverat. Sed interposito velamine loquebatur ad illos, ut tamdiu indigni essent gloria Dei, quamdiu in peccatis versarentur (Exod. XXXIV, 29, sqq.). Unde dicit Apostolus, Cum conversus fuerit ad Deum, auferetur velamen (II Cor. III, 16), ut dono Dei abluti, digni fierent intendere gloriam Dei. I⟨n⟩ confractione enim tabularum, quas ante acceperat, Judaeorum populum reprobum significavit, eo quod peccat⟨i⟩s studentes, promissione Dei indigni futuri erant. Quod autem reiterata Lex est, alter populus futurus significatus est, cui proficeret Lex data in monte.

Having received power against sinners, he came down from the mountain with honour, his face glorious. For the Law was given against sinners. Moses, then, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious, and so much so that he could not be looked upon by sinners. For in this it was shown that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. For after the image of the molten calf, and the breaking of the tables on which the Law had been given, Moses went up again into the mountain with tables, and when he came down with the Law received on them, his face was made glorious, so that the sons of Israel could not look upon his face, nor Aaron either, because he too had sinned. But he spoke to them with a veil placed between, so that they should be unworthy of the glory of God for as long as they remained in sins (Exod. 34:29ff.). Hence the Apostle says, When he has turned to God, the veil will be taken away (2 Cor. 3:16), so that, washed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to gaze upon the glory of God. For in the breaking of the tables which he had received before, he signified the reprobate people of the Jews, in that, being devoted to sins, they were going to be unworthy of the promise of God. But in that the Law was given again, another people to come was signified, whom the Law given on the mountain would profit.

IX. — Si omnia Deus bona fecit et valde bona, utquid dixit ad Noe, De mundis et immundis induc tecum in arcam (Gen. VII, 2), cum immundum bonum dici absolute non possit?

IX. If God made all things good, and very good, why did He say to Noah, Bring with you into the ark of the clean and of the unclean (Gen. 7:2), since the unclean cannot without qualification be called good?

Per id quod multimodam rationem habent verba, faciunt quaestiones. Nam si ad causam de qua agitur referantur, nulla erit qu⟨ae⟩stio, quia per ordinem res ipsae se produnt. Nam aliquando commune dicimus, quod indivisum est; aliquando, quod immundum est. Duobus enim modis appellatur commune. Denique Petrus apostolus, Commune, inquit, et immundum nunquam introivit in os meum (Act. X, 14). Et apostolus Paulus, Omne, inquit, quod non est ex fide peccatum est (Rom. XIV, 23); et alibi, Lex, ait, non est ex fide (Galat. III, 12), et tamen non est peccatum. Vides ergo, quia unus atque idem sermo non eadem semper significat. Ideo et cum dicitur, immundum, considerandum est qua ex causa dicatur; quia aliquando ad comparationem melioris immundum dicitur, aliquando ad opera sordida refertur, ut malum intelligatur. Nulla igitur substantia malum; quia quae per substantiam immunda

Because words carry manifold meaning, they give rise to questions. For if they are referred to the matter under discussion, there will be no question, because the things themselves reveal themselves in due order. For sometimes we call common what is undivided; sometimes, what is unclean. For common is spoken of in two ways. Thus the apostle Peter says, Nothing common and unclean has ever entered my mouth (Acts 10:14). And the apostle Paul says, Everything that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23); and elsewhere he says, The Law is not of faith (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. You see, then, that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing. Therefore also, when unclean is said, one must consider for what reason it is said; for sometimes a thing is called unclean by comparison with something better, sometimes it refers to sordid works, so that evil is meant. No substance, therefore, is evil; because the things which by substance unclean

Editors' notes and page, col. 2222

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2222
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: UNSURE whether Exod. reference reads XX, 3-17 or 5-17; "Ia confractione" read as damaged In; "qu estio" has a visible gap, set qu⟨ae⟩stio; coelo read as œ ligature in both places; "sqq." as printed; left column (end of 2221) not set; no editors' matter; no full-width line

PL 35:2223

dicuntur, ad comparationem pulcherrimarum rerum immunda sunt. Nam et canis immundus dicitur ad ovem, et plumbum ad comparationem auri immundum est, et corvus ad pavum, et cum unius corporis membra sint, alia honesta, alia inhonesta vocantur, cum sciantur mala non esse. Itaque omnia in sua natura bona sunt, quia utilia.

are called, are unclean in comparison with the most beautiful things. For the dog too is called unclean in relation to the sheep, and lead is unclean in comparison with gold, and the raven in relation to the peacock; and although they are members of one body, some are called honourable, others dishonourable, though they are known not to be evil. Therefore all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful.

X. — Cum Deus dicat ad Abraham de filiis Israel, quod quarta progenie exituri essent de potestate Aegyptiorum (Gen. XV, 16), cur Lex dicit, Quinta progenie exierunt filii Israel de terra Aegypti?

X. — Since God says to Abraham concerning the sons of Israel that they would go out from the power of the Egyptians in the fourth generation (Gen. 15:16), why does the Law say, In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out of the land of Egypt?

Quantum ad verba pertinet, videtur esse contrarium; si autem sensus requiratur, invenietur esse non dispar. Sic enim Lex loquitur, ut a diligentibus et sedulis possit intelligi, ut ratio veritatis non incuriosis, sed sollicitis se revelet. Nam utique Deus dixit, Quarta progenie, et Moyses scripsit, Quinta progenie: quamvis utrumque Moyses retulerit, et fallere cum impossibile sit, in quo tanta virtus operata sit: ac per hoc investigandus est sensus, quia non otiose aliquid aut improvide divina loquitur Scriptura. Itaque duae partes sunt, quas singuli memorarunt. Deus enim quatuor generationes significavit, quae natae sunt in Aegypto; Moyses autem addens his unam, ex qua hae ortum acceperunt, cum intrassent in Aegyptum, Quinta, inquit, generatione exierunt filii Israel. Generationem enim quae intravit in Aegyptum, et quatuor quae illic natae sunt, simul complexus est. Nam ab Abraham usque ad exitum filiorum Israel de Aegypto, generationes sunt octo. Ducentis enim quindecim annis a promissione facta Abrahae, habitaverunt in Chanaan, et ducentis quindecim in Aegypto. Hi sunt anni quos comprehendit Apostolus ad Galatas dicens, Post quadringentos et triginta annos facta est Lex (Galat. III, 17.) Igitur hae quatuor generationes natae sunt in Chanaan. In Isaac una, altera in Jacob, tertia in Levi, quarta in Gerson, et Caath, et Merari. Cum intrassent autem filii Israel in Aegyptum, Caath genuit Amram: haec est prima generatio facta in Aegypto. Amram autem genuit Aaron et Moysen et Mariam, quae est secunda generatio facta in Aegypto. Et Aaron genuit Eleazar et fratres ejus, quae est generatio tertia. Eleazar autem genuit Phinees quarta generatione. Hae sunt generationes quatuor procreatae in Aegypto. Unde ait Dominus ad Abraham, Peregrinum erit semen tuum, et servitio oppriment eos: ego autem liberabo eos, et quarta generatione exient inde. Vide si non apertum est, quia non aliquid aliud significavit Deus, quam quod gestum est in Aegypto. Moyses autem ut etiam illam generationem poneret, quae cum Jacob patre suo intravit in Aegyptum, ex qua istae quatuor originem habent, dixit, Quinta progenie exierunt filii Israel de terra Aegypti.

As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be contradictory; but if the sense is sought, it will be found not to be at variance. For the Law speaks in such a way that it can be understood by the diligent and assiduous, so that the reason of truth reveals itself not to the incurious but to the solicitous. For God indeed said, In the fourth generation, and Moses wrote, In the fifth generation: although Moses reported both, and since it is impossible for one in whom so great a power was at work to deceive; and for this reason the sense must be investigated, because divine Scripture says nothing idly or heedlessly. Accordingly there are two parts, which each of them mentioned. For God signified four generations, which were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding to these one, from which these took their origin, when they had entered Egypt, said, In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out. For he comprised together the generation which entered Egypt and the four which were born there. For from Abraham up to the going out of the sons of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For for two hundred and fifteen years from the promise made to Abraham they dwelt in Canaan, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt. These are the years which the Apostle includes, saying to the Galatians, After four hundred and thirty years the Law was made (Gal. 3:17). Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan. One in Isaac, another in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. But when the sons of Israel had entered Egypt, Kohath begot Amram: this is the first generation brought about in Egypt. And Amram begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation brought about in Egypt. And Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation. And Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations begotten in Egypt. Hence the Lord says to Abraham, Your seed shall be a sojourner, and they will oppress them with servitude; but I will free them, and in the fourth generation they shall go out from there. See whether it is not plain that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt. But Moses, so as to include also that generation which entered Egypt with Jacob its father, from which these four have their origin, said, In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out of the land of Egypt.

XI. — Si viri justi voluntas bona est, quid est ut Isaac, non Esau, quem voluit; sed Jacob, quem noluit, benedixit (Gen. XXVII, 27)?

XI. — If the will of a just man is good, how is it that Isaac blessed not Esau, whom he wished to bless, but Jacob, whom he did not wish to bless (Gen. 27:27)?

Justi hominis, quantum ad conscientiam ejus pertinet, voluntas bona est; quantum autem ad praescientiam, immunis est ab adversis. Deus enim solus est, qui de futuris judicat. Ac per hoc Isaac justus quantum ad praesentem humanitatem, dignum esse majorem filium suum benedicendum magis putabat. Sed Deus qui occultorum cognitor est, minorem benedictionem mereri ostendit, ut in benedictione non hominis ostenderet esse beneficium, sed Dei; quia officii dignitas est, non hominis meritum, quam Dei sequitur benedictio. Denique dictum est a Deo in Numeris ad Moysen et Aaron sacerdotes, Vos ponite nomen meum super filios Israel; ego Dominus benedicam eos (Num. VI, 27): ut gratiam traditio per ministerium ordinantis transfundat hominibus, nec voluntas sacerdotis obesse aut prodesse possit, sed meritum benedictionem poscentis. Quanta autem sit dignitas ordinis sacerdotalis, hinc advertamus. Dictum est enim de nequissimo Caipha interfectore Salvatoris inter caetera, Hoc autem a semetipso non dixit; sed cum esset

The will of a just man, as far as concerns his conscience, is good; but as far as concerns foreknowledge, it is free from [responsibility for] contrary outcomes. For God alone it is who judges of things to come. And for this reason Isaac, just as far as present humanity goes, thought rather that his elder son was worthy to be blessed. But God, who is the knower of hidden things, showed that the younger deserved the blessing, so that He might show that in a blessing the benefit is not man's but God's; since it is the dignity of the office, not the merit of the man, that the blessing of God follows. Finally, it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests, Put My name upon the sons of Israel; I the Lord will bless them (Num. 6:27): so that the tradition, through the ministry of the one ordaining, may pour grace into men, and the will of the priest can neither harm nor profit, but the merit of the one asking for the blessing. But how great is the dignity of the priestly order, let us perceive from this. For it was said of the most wicked Caiaphas, the slayer of the Saviour, among other things, This, however, he did not say of himself; but since he was

Editors' notes and page, col. 2223

Footnotes

(a) ‹Justi hominis› · call in col 2223

Exstat apud Alcuinum, q. 228 in Gen.

It is found in Alcuin, question 228 on Genesis.

(printed under page 460)

Page

running head: 2223 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI T[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2224

princeps sacerdotum anni illius, prophetavit (Joan. XI, 51). Per quod ostenditur spiritum gratiarum non personam sequi aut digni aut indigni, sed ordinationem traditionis: ut quamvis aliquis boni meriti sit, non tamen possit benedicere, nisi fuerit ordinatus, ut officium ministerii exhibeat. Dei autem est effectum tribuere benedictionis.

chief priest of that year, prophesied (John 11:51). By this it is shown that the spirit of graces follows not the person, whether of the worthy or of the unworthy, but the ordination of the tradition: so that although someone may be of good merit, he cannot bless unless he has been ordained, so as to discharge the office of the ministry. But it belongs to God to grant the effect of the blessing.

XII. — Quare Abraham fidei suae signum, circumcisionis accepit sacramentum (Gen. XVII, 10)?

XII. — Why did Abraham receive the sacrament of circumcision as the sign of his faith (Gen. 17:10)?

Si velis advertere, non incongruum videbis quod putas diversum esse a ratione. Credens enim se filium habiturum, in quo omnes gentes benedicerentur, et a quo sanctimonium exoriendum erat, illa in parte signum accepit, per quam generatio filiorum et inchoat, et cessat, ut sanctior sit. Sed si aliquibus deformatio videtur, animadvertant Abraham in eo gavisum, et filios ejus hoc testimonio fuisse gloriosos. Nam Achior utique unus ex principibus Gentilium videns tantam virtutem esse in Deo Abrahae, ut Holofernem ducem exercitus Assyriorum, cujus potentiam tota terra tremebat, proprio gladio manu feminae decollaret; sponte se circumcidit, arbitratus ex eo ipso dignitatem sibi esse quaesitam (Judith. XIV, 6). Nonne prae se fert, si aliquis pro nomine Christi oculum aut aliquod membrum amiserit? Nonne partem ipsam humanis vultibus ingerit, ut appareat gloriosus? Pro fide enim aliquid ad tempus amittere, lucrum est facere. Ita et Abraham fidei suae signum accipiens, non deformatus est, sed melioratus. Spiritualiter vero hoc significavit, quia nebula carnis circumcidi debebat a cordibus hominum per fidem Christi: quia carnalis error obstabat, caliginem praestans humanis cordibus, ne cognoscerent Creatorem. Abraham autem, quia et promissus est ex semine ejus futurus Christus, qui hanc caliginem abstergeret, ideo circumcisus est, quia filium credidit se habiturum, qui errorem hunc amputaret. Jam vide, si non congrue illa in parte vel tale signum accepit.

If you are willing to take notice, you will see that what you think to be at variance with reason is not incongruous. For believing that he would have a son, in whom all nations would be blessed, and from whom holiness was to arise, he received the sign in that part through which the generation of sons both begins and ceases, so that it might be holier. But if to some it seems a disfigurement, let them observe that Abraham rejoiced in it, and that his sons were glorious by this testimony. For Achior, indeed one of the chiefs of the Gentiles, seeing that there was such power in the God of Abraham that He beheaded Holofernes, the commander of the army of the Assyrians, at whose might the whole earth trembled, with his own sword by the hand of a woman, circumcised himself of his own accord, judging that by that very thing dignity had been acquired for himself (Jdt. 14:6). Does not a man display it openly, if he has lost an eye or some limb for the name of Christ? Does he not thrust that very part before human faces, so as to appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the faith is to make a gain. So also Abraham, in receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured but improved. Spiritually, however, this signified that the cloud of the flesh had to be circumcised from the hearts of men through faith in Christ: because carnal error stood in the way, casting darkness over human hearts, so that they should not know the Creator. Abraham, moreover, since it was also promised that Christ would come from his seed, Who would wipe away this darkness, was therefore circumcised, because he believed that he would have a son who would cut off this error. Now see whether he did not fittingly receive even such a sign, and in that part.

XIII. — Si judicium Dei justum est, quare infantes in Sodomis simul cum parentibus cremati sunt (Gen. XIX, 25)?

XIII. — If the judgement of God is just, why were infants in Sodom burned together with their parents (Gen. 19:25)?

Ut nimis impium facinus Sodomitarum possit adverti, peccatum eorum pervenit usque ad necem filiorum ipsorum, ne de origine illorum signum aliquod remaneret. Nonne provisum est illis ne diu viventes exempla sequerentur patrum? A gehenna enim liberi sunt, in aliena causa occisi. Parentes enim tam pro se, quam pro his rei sunt, quia ut eorum opera oblitterarentur, omnis progenies ipsorum erasa est. Nam sicut de bonis parentum laeti sunt filii, eo quod commendentur praerogativa illorum; sic et de morte, quae pro malis illorum infertur, queri non possunt. Quemadmodum enim participes in lucro sunt, necesse est ut sint et in damno. Similiter et in Aegypto pro noxis patrum plexi sunt filii, sed ut ad emendationem eorum proficeret: ut quia ex aliis causis Deum credere et venerari, qui in Moyse erat, noluerunt, hac plaga territi confiterentur cum satisfactione, ne gravius hunc reatum sentirent. Haec ergo mors filiorum, crimen est patrum. Quocumque enim modo filii debitum spiritum reddiderunt, futuri accusatores parentum, quia perfidiam s⟨u⟩am nec sanguine filiorum vincere potuerunt. Non ergo in futurum, sed ad praesens tempus mala parentum filios invenerunt. Nec qualecumque be⟨n⟩eficium est, gloriosum non esse, nec tamen reum. Nam si quidam cum precibus enituntur, in postremis positi, ad fidem veram accedere, ut, si non coronam, vel veniam mereantur; quomodo poterunt hinc aliquid queri, cum quibus ita actum est, ut neque esset unde ignosci sibi precarentur, neque sublimes haberentur quia minime laboraverunt? Confer nunc

So that the exceedingly impious crime of the Sodomites might be noticed, their sin reached even to the slaying of their own sons, so that no sign of their origin should remain. Was it not provided for them that they should not live long and follow the examples of their fathers? For they are free from Gehenna, having been killed in another's cause. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, since, so that their works might be blotted out, their whole progeny was erased. For just as sons rejoice in the good things of their parents, because they are commended by their prerogative, so too they cannot complain of the death which is inflicted for their [parents'] evil deeds. For just as they are partners in the gain, it is necessary that they be partners also in the loss. Likewise in Egypt too sons were punished for the offences of their fathers, but so that it might serve for their amendment: that since for other reasons they had refused to believe in and venerate God, Who was in Moses, they might, terrified by this plague, confess with satisfaction, lest they feel this guilt more heavily. This death of the sons, therefore, is the crime of the fathers. For in whatever manner the sons gave back the spirit that was owed, they will be accusers of their parents, because these could not overcome their faithlessness even with the blood of their sons. Not, therefore, for the future but for the present time did the evils of the parents befall the sons. Nor is it a slight benefit not to be glorious, and yet not guilty. For if certain people, placed at their last, strive with prayers to come to the true faith, so that they may merit, if not a crown, at least pardon, how will those be able to complain of anything here with whom it was so dealt that there was nothing for which they should pray to be forgiven, nor were they held exalted, because they did not labour at all? Compare now

Editors' notes and page, col. 2224

Footnotes

(1) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2224

Mss. secundi generis, ordinem traditionis.

Manuscripts of the second class: "the order of the tradition".

(printed under page 460)

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2224

Alcuin., q. 174 in Gen.

Alcuin, question 174 on Genesis.

(printed under page 460)

(b) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2224

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 460)

Cautius Alcuinus q. 183 in Gen. « Et ut levius crucientur, vel omnino non in aliena causa occisi. »

More cautiously Alcuin, question 183 on Genesis: "And so that they might be tormented more lightly, or not at all, killed in another's cause."

(printed under page 460)

(d) ‹nec tamen reum› · call in col 2224

Apud Alcuin. clarius in q. 183 in Gen. « Est qualecumque beneficium, reum non esse qui gloriosus non est. »

More clearly in Alcuin, question 183 on Genesis: "It is some kind of benefit for one who is not glorious not to be guilty."

(printed under page 460)

Page

running head: EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2224
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2225

unius momenti cruciatum ad multi temporis poenam. Arbitrare etiam multos laborare, et quia perseverare non possunt, non solum effectum laboris amittere, sed et poena multari. Adde etiam, quia difficile de malis nati, et inter nequissimos educati vel conversati, mentem suam temperant ad disciplinam Dei sequendam. Vide ergo, si non magis bene actum est cum filiis perditorum.

the torment of a single moment to a punishment of long duration. Consider also that many labour, and because they cannot persevere, not only lose the fruit of their labour but are also punished with a penalty. Add too that those born of wicked parents, and brought up or living among the most wicked, only with difficulty temper their mind to following the discipline of God. See, then, whether it has not rather gone better with the children of the lost.

XIV. — Quid est ut Deus, qui justus praedicatur, peccata patrum filiis reddere promiserit in tertiam et quartam progeniem (Exod. XX, 5)?

XIV. — How is it that God, who is proclaimed just, has promised to repay the sins of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation (Exod. 20:5)?

Nihil injuste Deum facere aut dicere, qui dubitat, insanus est. Itaque si verba Domini non supprimantur, sed omnia quae ad eamdem quaestionem pertinent, proponantur; lucebit quod obscurum videtur, et pium aestimabitur quod minime justum putatur. Qui enim verba supprimit quaestionis, aut imperitus est, aut tergiversator, qui calumniae magis studeat quam doctrinae. Porro autem repromisit quidem Dominus, reddere se peccata patrum filiis, sed qui oderint eum, hoc est, qui in paternis malis versati servierint idolis, sicut et patres illorum. Ille enim inimicus Dei est, qui honorem nominis ejus vindicat creaturae. Sicut enim justorum filii et ipsi justi nobilitant in se genus justitiae, dum et patrum et sua justitia sublimantur; ita et nequissimorum, et ipsi filii nequissimi crementum faciunt malitiae, quia et malorum filii sunt, et nequitiam illorum exemplarunt ad perditionem multorum. Cum terrore ergo locutus videtur Deus: sed verum est, et hoc habet ratio. Quis enim malum et mali hominis filium non duplici genere exsecretur; quomodo bonum et boni filium duplici mercede censet honorandum? Idcirco autem in tertiam et quartam progeniem reddere se promisit, ut si post patrem malum filius non sequatur perfidiam patris, nepos autem avi in malis imitator existens, sciat se non immunem futurum a severitate sententiae; aut si et nepos forte non avi, sed patris secutus vestigia Testamentum diligat Dei, non ignoret pronepos ad se usque pervenire sententiam, si aemulus sit proavi perfidiae. Hac legis manifestatione deterreri voluit Deus impios patres, ut agnoscentes quantum mali pareret sectatio idololatriae, vel affectu filiorum revocarentur ad reverentiam Creatoris; aut filii timentes ne incurrerent peccata patrum, Dei legi obtemperarent. Illi autem addentes ad nequitiam, aliter hoc interpretari coeperunt dicentes, Patres nostri manducaverunt uvam acerbam, et dentes filiorum obstupuerunt: ut securi de impunitate, eo quod filiis ipsorum redderentur peccata, neque spiritus neque carnis haberent pietatem. Hinc dicitur eis, Non morietur filius pro patre, neque pater pro filio; sed, anima quae peccavit, ipsa morietur (Ezech. XVIII, 2, 4). Ut addiscerent non impune sibi futurum, sed sic reddi peccata patrum filiis, ut quia impietatem parentum secuti, mala, quae oblitteranda erant, exemplaverint, acerbius puniantur. Postquam ostendit Deus ⟨q⟩uid mali pariat idololatria, addidit statim quae bona diligentes se sequantur, dicens, Et faciens misericordiam in millia millium iis, qui diligunt me, et custodiunt praecepta mea (Exod. XX, 6): ut bonum patris, non usque ad pronepotem, sed usque ad millia millium reddat. Ut puta, si quis ex semine David diligat Deum, quem constat utique porro ante mille annos fuisse: huic additur misericordia Dei, ut in necessitate, duabus suffragantibus causis, misericordiam accipere mereatur; quia et ipse Dei cultor est, et ex ejus semine est, qui amaverit Deum. Et in hoc clementia Dei laudabilis est, ut odio habentibus se usque in tertiam et quartam reddat progeniem, et non in millia millium: ut si in quintam progeniem tractum fuerit malum, inde iterum caput habere incipiat, ut ex eo numeretur usque ad tertiam et quartam progeniem. Sed dicet quis: Auctori magis amplius reddendum justum videtur, quam imitatori. In auctorem congrue datur vindicta; filiis autem quod plus dicit reddi, poena est patrum. Et si

Whoever doubts that God does or says nothing unjustly is insane. Therefore, if the words of the Lord are not suppressed, but all that pertain to this same question are set forth, what seems obscure will become clear, and what is thought by no means just will be judged holy. For he who suppresses the words of the question is either unskilled or an evader, who is more eager for calumny than for teaching. Furthermore, the Lord did indeed promise to repay the sins of the fathers upon the sons, but upon those who hate Him, that is, those who, steeped in their fathers' evils, have served idols, just as their fathers did. For he is an enemy of God who claims the honour of His name for a creature. For just as the sons of the just, being themselves just, ennoble in themselves the stock of justice, while they are exalted both by their fathers' justice and by their own; so too the sons of the most wicked, being themselves most wicked, bring an increase of malice, because they are both sons of the wicked and have copied their wickedness to the ruin of many. God, then, seems to have spoken with terror: but it is true, and reason bears this out. For who would not execrate a wicked man and the son of a wicked man on a twofold count, just as he judges that a good man and the son of a good man should be honoured with a twofold reward? But for this reason He promised to repay unto the third and fourth generation, so that if after a wicked father the son does not follow his father's faithlessness, but the grandson proves an imitator of his grandfather in evil, he may know that he will not be immune from the severity of the sentence; or if the grandson too, perhaps following the footsteps not of the grandfather but of the father, loves the Testament of God, the great-grandson may not be unaware that the sentence reaches even to him, if he emulates the faithlessness of his great-grandfather. By this manifestation of the law God wished to deter impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry would bring forth, they might be recalled to reverence for the Creator at least by affection for their sons; or that the sons, fearing to incur the sins of the fathers, might obey the law of God. But they, adding to their wickedness, began to interpret this otherwise, saying, Our fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the teeth of the sons are set on edge: so that, secure of impunity because the sins would be repaid upon their sons, they had piety neither of spirit nor of flesh. Hence it is said to them, The son shall not die for the father, nor the father for the son; but the soul that has sinned, it shall die (Ezek. 18:2, 4). This was so that they might learn that it would not go unpunished for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid upon the sons in this way: because, having followed the impiety of their parents, they have copied evils that ought to have been blotted out, they are punished more harshly. After God had shown what evil idolatry brings forth, He immediately added what good things follow those who love Him, saying, And showing mercy unto thousands of thousands to those who love Me and keep My commandments (Exod. 20:6): so that He repays the good of a father not as far as the great-grandson, but as far as thousands of thousands. For example, if someone of the seed of David, who is certainly known to have lived over a thousand years before, loves God, the mercy of God is added to him, so that in need, with two causes supporting him, he may deserve to receive mercy; because he is himself a worshipper of God, and he is of the seed of one who loved God. And in this the clemency of God is praiseworthy, that to those who hold Him in hatred He repays as far as the third and fourth generation, and not unto thousands of thousands: so that if the evil has been drawn out to the fifth generation, it begins from there to have a head again, so that from it the count runs to the third and fourth generation. But someone will say: It seems just that more should be repaid to the originator than to the imitator. Upon the originator vengeance is fittingly inflicted; but as for what he says is repaid in greater measure to the sons, that is a punishment of the fathers. And if

Editors' notes and page, col. 2225

Footnotes

(1) ‹duplici mercede› · call in col 2225

Mss. secundi generis, merito.

Manuscripts of the second class: "merito" ("by merit", for "mercede", "by reward").

(printed under page 461)

Page

running head: 2225 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2226

causam quaeras, accessu Legis peccatores plus fiunt rei, sicut Lamech et post Lamech. Quibusdam tamen videtur, sic reddita esse peccata patrum in filios, dum in captivitatem ducti sunt causa patrum, et fuerunt ibi usque ad quartam generationem. Quod si verum est, non solum odio habentibus se reddidit peccata patrum, sed et diligentibus nomen suum: quia et Daniel abductus est, et tres pueri, et Baruch, et Ezechiel, et Esdras ibi natus est. Liquido ergo apparet illud convenire propositae quaestioni, quod supra diximus.

you seek the reason, by the coming of the Law sinners become more guilty, like Lamech and after Lamech. To some, however, it seems that the sins of the fathers were repaid upon the sons in this way, when they were led into captivity because of the fathers, and they were there up to the fourth generation. But if this is true, He repaid the sins of the fathers not only to those who hated Him, but also to those who loved His name: for Daniel too was carried off, and the three youths, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. It is therefore clearly evident that what we said above fits the question proposed.

XV. — Cum justum Lex praedicet, et hic vere justus sit, qui plenam habet justitiam, quomodo contra Salomon, Noli, inquit, esse justus multum (Eccle. VII, 17)?

XV. — Since the Law proclaims the just man, and he is truly just who has full justice, how is it that Solomon to the contrary says, Do not be very just (Eccl. 7:17)?

Nimia justitia incurrit peccatum, temperata vero justitia facit perfectos. Non enim sine malitia est, qui multum est justus; quia peccantibus ad singula si respondeas, non deerit ubi pecces. Denique Dei temperata justitia est. Peccantibus enim aliquando ignoscit, aliquando irascitur, aliquando reddit non quantum digni sunt: suffert enim eos, ut sint qui proficiant. Lex enim quia seipsam mollire non potest, a nobis mitiganda est, ut possit prodesse sub se agentibus. Hic ergo justus non est multum, qui Dei imitator est.

Excessive justice incurs sin, but tempered justice makes men perfect. For he who is very just is not without malice; because if you answer sinners for each single thing, there will be no lack of occasion for you to sin. Indeed, God's justice is tempered. For sometimes He pardons sinners, sometimes He is angry, sometimes He repays not as much as they deserve: for He bears with them, so that there may be those who make progress. For since the Law cannot soften itself, it must be mitigated by us, so that it may be of profit to those who live under it. He, therefore, is not very just who is an imitator of God.

XVI. — Quare angelus qui volebat in via Moysen occidere, circumcisione infantis placatus est (Exod. IV, 24)?

XVI. — Why was the angel who wished to kill Moses on the way appeased by the circumcision of the infant (Exod. 4:24)?

Quod sine consilio Moyses fecerat, apparentia comminantis angeli emendavit. Denique videns fieri, quod per negligentiam fuerat praetermissum, cessavit ab ira. Idcirco ergo sic infestum angelum in se vidit Moyses, et paratum ad vindictam, quia viri sublimis culpa, grave peccatum est. Quanto enim persona ejus sublimis est, tanto magis grave delictum ejus. Quod ergo a summo viro, utpote a ductore populi, fit, acerbissimum est peccatum. Pergebat itaque ad filios Israel, missus a Deo Abrahae, et signum justitiae Abrahae non ferebat, in quo gloriari sciebat Judaeos, ut aut ipse sollicitator diceretur, aut non ab eodem Deo missus, qui Abraham elegerat. In Madian enim habitans filios suos minime circumcidit: quos aut ducere secum ad Aegyptum non debuit, qui caeteros ibat inde educere; aut certe circumcisos assumere, propter quae supra diximus. Sephora ergo uxor Moysi, quod compendio loquitur Scriptura, non ignorans qua causa viro suo infestus angelus videbatur, accipiens petram, circumcidit filium suum, et recessit angelus. Ea enim ratione, mitigata est ira, qua fuerat accensa. Nam aliquando compendio loquitur Scriptura, quae subintelligi vult ex proposita ratione: sicut et illud, quod Salvator dicit inter caetera ad Judaeos, Quare et vos praeteritis mandatum Dei, ut traditionem vestram statuatis? Nam Deus dixit, Honora patrem tuum et matrem; et, Qui maledixerit patri aut matri, morte moriatur. Vos autem dicitis, Quicumque dixerit patri aut matri, Omne munus quodcumque fuerit ex me, tibi proderit, et non honorificabit patrem aut matrem suam (Matth. XV, 3-6). Sine dubio per compendium dixit hoc Salvator, ut subintelligantur sacerdotes Judaeorum, dum avaritiae studerent, Dei Legem sprevisse. Impia enim conspiratione consilium dederunt filiis, ut maledicentes patrem aut matrem, quodcumque offerrent quasi donum Deo, per quod data sententia in maledicos solveretur: unde securi facti filii, contra Dei praeceptum contemnebant parentes. Ita et Moyses cum infestum sibi videret angelum, intelligens causam, quid fieri deberet ostendit uxori ut recederet ab eo angelus, qui eum quaerebat occidere. Hoc subintelligitur in hac causa, sicut et illud quod supra diximus in sacerdotes.

What Moses had done without forethought, the appearance of the threatening angel corrected. Indeed, seeing done what had been omitted through negligence, he ceased from his anger. For this reason, then, Moses saw the angel so hostile towards him and ready for vengeance, because the fault of an exalted man is a grave sin. For the more exalted his person is, the more grave is his offence. What therefore is done by the highest man, namely by the leader of the people, is a most bitter sin. He was going, then, to the sons of Israel, sent by the God of Abraham, and he did not bear the sign of the justice of Abraham, in which he knew the Jews gloried, so that he would either be called an instigator himself, or not sent by the same God Who had chosen Abraham. For while dwelling in Midian he did not circumcise his sons: these he either ought not to have taken with him to Egypt, he who was going to lead the others out of there; or at any rate he ought to have taken them circumcised, for the reasons we stated above. Zipporah therefore, the wife of Moses (which Scripture expresses in compressed form), not ignorant of the reason why the angel appeared hostile to her husband, taking a stone, circumcised her son, and the angel withdrew. For the anger was mitigated by the same reason by which it had been kindled. For sometimes Scripture speaks in compressed form, wishing something to be understood from the reasoning set forth: as also that which the Saviour says among other things to the Jews, Why do you also pass over the commandment of God, in order to establish your tradition? For God said, Honour your father and mother; and, He who curses father or mother, let him die the death. But you say, Whoever says to father or mother, Every gift that may be from me will profit you, and he will not honour his father or his mother (Matt. 15:3–6). Without doubt the Saviour said this in compressed form, so that it may be understood that the priests of the Jews, while they pursued avarice, despised the Law of God. For by an impious conspiracy they gave counsel to sons that, when cursing father or mother, they should offer something as a gift to God, by which the sentence passed upon cursers would be annulled: whence the sons, made secure, despised their parents against the precept of God. So also Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed his wife what ought to be done so that the angel who was seeking to kill him might withdraw from him. This is understood in this case, just as that which we said above concerning the priests.

XVII. — Quid est ut maledictos dicat Lex, qui semen non reliquerint in Israel; per Isaiam autem nihil obesse dicatur spadonibus, quia generare non possunt (Exod. XXIII, 26; Deut. VII, 14, et Isai. LVI, 3-5)?

XVII. — How is it that the Law calls accursed those who have not left seed in Israel; but through Isaiah it is said that it is no hindrance to eunuchs that they cannot beget (Exod. 23:26; Deut. 7:14, and Isa. 56:3–5)?

Quoniam aliter quam dictum erat, intelligi coeperat: idcirco I⟨sa⟩ias propheta ostendit postea, quo sensu dictum

Because it had begun to be understood otherwise than had been said: for this reason Isaiah the prophet showed afterwards in what sense it had been said

Editors' notes and page, col. 2226

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2226
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "I⟨sa⟩ias": middle letters blotted, read Isaias; "sollicitator" set as printed, sense uncertain; "contemnebant" printed with a stray accent-like mark over the e, set without it; column ends with "di-", split across the column break (English left incomplete); left-column fragments belong to col. 2225 and are not set
other: the word dictum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2227

PL 35:2227

esset. Cum enim hoc ex causa offensi Dei sententiae loco positum esset, quia deserentes Deum in eo percutiebantur, ne ducentes uxores semen relinquerent; sic hoc arripuit error humanus, ut putarent reos esse apud Deum, si qui aut uxores nollent, aut accipientes, ut assolet, generare non possent; quasi nihil aliud quam semen quaereret Deus, sicut arguuntur per Malachiam prophetam. Isaias ergo ut consolaretur eos quos mala intelligentia contristaverat, docuit nihil obesse, si quis aut non posset habere filios, aut nollet, dummodo legem Dei servaret. Maledictum enim illis competebat, qui cum possent ac vellent, divino obstante judicio, steriles erant, ne fructum haberent creationis Dei, quem spernebant; ut cum viderent aut generare se non posse, aut genitos minime possidere, cognoscerent indignantis Dei iram esse, et conversi satisfacerent. Nam et sancti viri cum cupidi essent filiorum, et non id obtinerent, aestimabant peccata obstare et dolebant, ignorantes Dei esse providentiam, cui servabantur. Denique ad Dei procurationem, et Anna concepit, et peperit Samuelem (I Reg. I, 20), et Elisabeth Joannem (Luc. I, 57), et uxor Manue Samsonem (Judic. XIII, 24). Spiritualis enim intelligentia in hac causa ista est, ut maledicti habeantur qui non reliquerint semen, quod videat Deum, id est, qui non imbuerint aut filium, aut servum, aut proximum, qui Dei timorem doceat super terram.

For since this had been set down by way of a sentence of God offended, because those who were deserting God were being struck in this, that on marrying wives they should not leave seed, human error so seized upon it that men thought those guilty before God who either were unwilling to take wives, or on taking them could not beget, as happens; as if God sought nothing other than seed, as they are reproved through the prophet Malachi. Isaiah therefore, in order to console those whom a bad understanding had saddened, taught that it was no hindrance if anyone either could not have children or did not wish to, provided that he kept the law of God. For the curse applied to those who, though they were able and willing, were barren because the divine judgement stood in the way, so that they should not have the fruit of God's creation, which they spurned; so that when they saw either that they could not beget, or that they by no means kept those they had begotten, they would recognize that it was the wrath of an indignant God, and would turn and make satisfaction. For holy men too, when they were desirous of sons and did not obtain it, reckoned that sins stood in the way and grieved, not knowing that it was the providence of God for which they were being reserved. Thus by God's arranging Anna both conceived and bore Samuel (1 Sam. 1:20), and Elizabeth John (Luke 1:57), and the wife of Manoah Samson (Judg. 13:24). For the spiritual understanding in this matter is this: that those are held accursed who have not left seed that may see God, that is, who have not instructed either a son, or a servant, or a neighbour, who may teach the fear of God upon the earth.

XVIII. — Quare Saül peccans petiit orari pro se ut ignosceretur sibi, et impetrare non potuit; David autem peccans postulavit, et veniam consecutus est (I Reg. XV, 24-26; II Reg. XII, 13)?

XVIII. — Why did Saul, having sinned, ask that prayer be made for him so that he might be pardoned, and could not obtain it, whereas David, having sinned, made request and obtained pardon (1 Sam. 15:24–26; 2 Sam. 12:13)?

Dei judicium retractari non convenit: nam humana imbecillitas atque imperitia, Dei se debet judicio erudire, in hoc quod non sapit, ut ex sententia Dei intelligat veritatem, et nihil aliud fieri debuisse, quam quod videt fecisse Deum, quem scit acceptorem personarum non esse (Act. X, 34). Si enim David precem suscepit, et Saül refutavit, nihil adversum sentiendum est Deum fecisse. Sciens enim qua mente uterque locutus est, ejus petitionem accepit, quem vid⟨i⟩t tribulato corde veniam postulare; illum autem despexit, quia animam ejus poenitentiae non tetigerat dolor. Qu⟨i⟩a Deus cordis auditor est magis quam vocis. Hinc dictum est, Homo videt in facie, Deus autem in corde (I Reg. XVI, 7). Ideo etiam fallimur, quia simulatio in verbis et vultu circumvenit nos: in corde enim quid sit videre non possumus. Quamobrem Dei judicium sequi nos oportet, qui secundum cor, in quo uniuscujusque sententia est, examinat singul⟨o⟩s. Hoc etiam et Salvatorem fecisse invenimus. Scribam enim se offerentem non suscepit (Matth. VIII, 19); sedentem autem Levi ad telonium vocavit (Id. IX, 9; Luc. V, 27): quia verba Scribae non secutum est cor, Levi autem tacens hoc in corde habebat, quod Scriba in verbis: Jesus autem, qui juxta quod scriptum est, sciebat quid esset in homine (Joan. II, 25), Levi elegit. Praeterea David non alium pro se voluit humiliari sicut Saül, sed ipse supplex tribulato corde veniam precabatur.

It is not fitting that the judgement of God be called into question: for human weakness and inexperience ought to instruct itself by the judgement of God in that which it does not understand, so that from God's sentence it may understand the truth, and that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees God to have done, Whom it knows not to be a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). For if He accepted the prayer of David and rejected Saul, it must not be thought that God did anything contrary [to justice]. For knowing with what mind each spoke, He accepted the petition of the one whom He saw asking pardon with a troubled heart; but the other He disdained, because the pain of repentance had not touched his soul. For God is a hearer of the heart rather than of the voice. Hence it is said, Man sees in the face, but God in the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). For this reason too we are deceived, because pretence in words and countenance gets round us: for what is in the heart we cannot see. Therefore we must follow the judgement of God, Who examines each one according to the heart, in which each man's mind lies. We find that the Saviour also did this. For He did not accept the scribe who offered himself (Matt. 8:19), but He called Levi as he sat at the tax-office (ibid. 9:9; Luke 5:27): because the scribe's heart did not follow his words, whereas Levi, keeping silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in words: and Jesus, Who, according to what is written, knew what was in man (John 2:25), chose Levi. Moreover David did not want another to be humbled on his behalf, as Saul did, but he himself as a suppliant begged for pardon with a troubled heart.

XIX. — Quaerendum est, si Adam factus, corpus immortale habuit, an mortale?

XIX. — It must be asked whether Adam, when he was made, had an immortal body or a mortal one.

Deus hominem fecit, qui quamdiu non peccaret, immortalitate vigeret: ut ipse sibi auctor esset aut ad vitam, aut ad mortem; ut custodiens se a peccato, labore suo gauderet, esse se immortalem; negligens vero factus, ipse sibi imputaret, quia coeperat esse mortalis. Quamdiu enim in Creatoris lege duravit, dignus fuit edere de arbore vitae, ut mori non posset. Nec enim corpus tale erat, quod dissolvi impossibile videretur; sed gustus arboris vitae corruptionem corporis inhibebat. Denique etiam post peccatum potuit indissolubilis manere, si modo permissum esset illi edere de arbore vitae. Nam quomodo immortale corpus habebat, quod cibo sustentabatur? Immortalis

God made man such that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish in immortality: so that he himself would be the author for himself either of life or of death; so that, guarding himself from sin, he might rejoice by his own labour that he was immortal, but, having become negligent, he might impute it to himself that he had begun to be mortal. For as long as he persisted in the Creator's law, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life, so that he could not die. For his body was not such that it seemed impossible for it to be dissolved; but the tasting of the tree of life held back the corruption of the body. Indeed even after the sin he could have remained indissoluble, if only he had been permitted to eat of the tree of life. For how did he have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? For what is immortal

Editors' notes and page, col. 2227

Footnotes

(1) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2227

Mss. secundi generis, vetaret.

Manuscripts of the second class: "vetaret" ("forbade").

(printed under page 462)

(a) ‹Levi elegit› · call in col 2227

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 462)

Page

running head: 2227 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI T[ESTAMENTO] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2228

enim non eg⟨e⟩t esca neque potu, Cibus enim vires praestabat, vitae autem arbor medicinae modo corruptionem omnem prohibebat. Sic enim homini erat quasi inexpugnabilis murus.

does not need food or drink. For food supplied strength, while the tree of life, in the manner of a medicine, prevented all corruption. For thus there was for man, as it were, an impregnable wall.

XX. — Quid est quod dicitur, Panem Angelorum manducavit homo (Psal. LXXVII, 25), cum Angeli non egeant cibo; quippe cum sint natura simplices, et potentia spirituali vigentes?

XX. — What is it that is said, Man ate the bread of angels (Ps. 77:25), when angels do not need food, seeing that they are simple by nature and flourish in spiritual power?

Panis quem Angelorum appellat, manna est. Manna autem interpretatur, Quid est hoc? Videntes enim filii Israel, quasi semen coriandri cadere super terram candidum, dixerunt ad invicem, Quid est hoc (Exod. XVI, 15)? Quod in Hebraea lingua dicitur, Man hu? Hic ergo panis aut cibus, non mundi lege creatus est, commixtione elementorum; sed desuper venit spirituali ratione provisus. Nec quidem in supernis habebatur, quia corporibus alendis ad momentum, Dei virtute creatus est. Ideo autem Angelorum panis dictus est, quia ea virtute creatus est, qua angelica natura subsistit et vivit. Sine Deo enim nulla vita est. Per id ergo quod de caelo venisse dicitur, Angelorum dictus est panis. Ut enim quanta et qualia beneficia Dei circa hominem sunt, memoraret; sic locutus est, ut agnoscentes Deo gratias referrent, qui tanta cura servos suos gubernat, ut eis haec in carne adhuc positis, si necesse fuerit, exhibeat, per quae vivunt Angeli. Dixit Apostolus inter caetera, Petra autem erat Christus (I Cor. X, 4), ut quia Christi virtute aqua fluxit de petra (Exod. XVII, 6), petra appellatus sit Christus. Simili modo, et quia manna potestate ejus venit de caelo, manna, id est, panis dicatur: ut quod tunc factum est, ejus rei, quae nunc in Ecclesia offertur, figura fuisse existimetur; ut Christiani populi, quos in Angelis significavit Scriptura, panem manducarent homines, id est, Judaei. Et quia major gratia est nunc, quam fuit in Prophetis et libertas data per Christum, quia ubi spiritus Domini, ibi libertas (II Cor. III, 17); ad comparationem temporum et gratiarum, Christiani Angeli dicti sunt: quorum pane, qui Christus est, satiati sunt Judaei, quos homines dixit. Horum enim magis Christus est, quibus et revelatus est, et qui hoc nomine vocari censentur. Duplici ergo genere potest intelligi supra dicta quaestio, ut et panis Angelorum caelestium dici possit, et Christianorum secundum ea quae dicta sunt.

The bread which he calls the angels' is manna. Now manna is interpreted, What is this? For the sons of Israel, seeing something white like coriander seed falling upon the ground, said to one another, What is this (Exod. 16:15)? Which in the Hebrew language is said, Man hu? This bread or food, then, was not created by the law of the world, by a mixing of the elements; but it came from above, provided by a spiritual design. Nor indeed was it kept in the heavens, because it was created by the power of God for the moment, for the nourishing of bodies. Now it was called the bread of angels for this reason, because it was created by that power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives. For without God there is no life. So, from the fact that it is said to have come from heaven, it was called the bread of angels. For in order to recall how great and of what kind are the benefits of God towards man, he spoke thus, so that, recognizing them, they might give thanks to God, Who governs His servants with such great care that to them, while still set in the flesh, He supplies, if need be, the things by which the angels live. The Apostle said among other things, But the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), so that, because by the power of Christ water flowed from the rock (Exod. 17:6), Christ is called the rock. In like manner also, because the manna came from heaven by His power, He is called manna, that is, bread: so that what was done then may be reckoned to have been a figure of that thing which is now offered in the Church; so that men, that is, the Jews, ate the bread of the Christian people, whom Scripture signified by the angels. And because there is greater grace now than there was in the Prophets, and freedom has been given through Christ, since where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17); in comparison of times and of graces, Christians have been called angels: with whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews were filled, whom he called men. For Christ belongs rather to these, to whom He has also been revealed, and who are deemed to be called by this name. The question stated above can therefore be understood in two ways, so that it may be called both the bread of the heavenly angels and that of the Christians, according to what has been said.

XXI. — Quid sit ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei feci⟨s⟩se hominem (Gen. I, 27), et an mulier imago Dei sit?

XXI. — What is it [for God] to have made man to the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27), and whether woman is the image of God?

Hoc est ad imaginem Dei factum esse hominem, quia unus unum fecit: ut sicut ab uno Deo sunt omnia, ita et ab uno homine omne genus humanum. Similitudo autem haec est, ut quemadmodum de Patre est Filius, sic et de viro mulier, ut unius principii auctoritas conservetur. Sed filius ineffabiliter et incomprehensibiliter natus est de Deo Patre: mulier autem corporaliter, sicut legimus (Id. II, 21, 22), facta est de viro, ut per eam nativitas oriretur. Filius vero Dei ideo natus est, ut per ipsum fieret creatura. In hoc ergo dissimile est. Nam et de Deo Deus natus est, de viro autem femina: quia illic simplicitas est, et non potuit nisi de simplici simplex nasci, spiritus de spiritu, Deus de Deo. Igitur vir imago Dei est. Sic enim scriptum est, Fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit eum. Unde et Apostolus, Vir quidem, inquit, non debet velare caput, cum sit imago et gloria Dei: muli⟨e⟩r autem, inquit, v⟨e⟩let caput (I Cor. XI, 7, 6). Quare? Quia non est imago Dei. Unde denuo dicit Apostolus, Mulieri autem docere non permittitur, neque dominari in virum (I Tim. II, 12).

Man was made to the image of God in this, that the One made one: so that just as all things are from the one God, so also the whole human race is from one man. But the likeness is this, that just as the Son is from the Father, so also woman is from man, so that the authority of one principle may be preserved. But the Son was born ineffably and incomprehensibly from God the Father, whereas woman was made bodily from man, as we read (Gen. 2:21–22), so that through her birth might arise. The Son of God, however, was born for this reason, that through Him creation might come to be. In this, therefore, it is unlike. For God was born of God, but woman of man: because there there is simplicity, and the simple could not be born except from the simple, spirit from spirit, God from God. Therefore man is the image of God. For thus it is written, God made man, to the image of God He made him. Hence the Apostle too says, A man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God: but a woman, he says, should veil her head (1 Cor. 11:7, 6). Why? Because she is not the image of God. Hence the Apostle says again, But a woman is not permitted to teach, nor to have dominion over a man (1 Tim. 2:12).

XXII. — Quid est, ut dicat Salomon: Justifica animam tuam ante obitum tuum: et in Psalmo, Non justificabitur, ait, in conspectu tuo omnis homo vivens (Eccli. XIV, 17; Psal. CXLII, 2)?

XXII. — What does it mean that Solomon says, Justify your soul before your death: and in the Psalm he says, No man living shall be justified in Thy sight (Ecclus. 14:17; Ps. 142:2)?

Hic justificat animam suam ante mortem, qui spe vitae futurae consequitur fidem, ne moriatur impius.

He justifies his soul before death who, in the hope of the life to come, attains faith, so that he may not die ungodly.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2228

Footnotes

(1) ‹spirituali ratione provisus› · call in col 2228

Mss. secundi generis, pro justis.

Manuscripts of the second class: "pro justis" ("for the righteous").

(printed under page 462)

Page

running head: …S EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2228 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): de caelo venisse | de coelo venisse
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): venit de caelo | venit de coelo
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): Angelorum caelestium | Angelorum coelestium

PL 35:2229

Sed Salomon de eo dicit, qui sub Lege vivit, et non conversatur juste. Hujusmodi ergo si corrigat animum ut justitiae vias ambulet, justificat animam suam ante mortem. Salomon enim propter judicium futurum consilium dedit, ne quis indiligens circa se in peccatis moriatur. David vero de perfectione justitiae locutus est; quia nemo justificabitur apud Deum, ut dignus promissione sit, nisi fuerit mortuus cum justitia. Quamdiu enim vivit, futurorum meritum non habet adhuc plenum. Unde dicit Salvator, Qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit (Matth. X, 22, et XXIV, 13).

But Solomon speaks of the one who lives under the Law and does not conduct himself justly. If such a man, then, corrects his mind so as to walk in the ways of justice, he justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave counsel on account of the judgement to come, so that no one careless about himself should die in his sins. David, however, spoke of the perfection of justice; for no one will be justified before God so as to be worthy of the promise, unless he has died with justice. For as long as a man lives, he does not yet have the full merit of the things to come. Hence the Saviour says, He who perseveres to the end, he will be saved (Matt. 10:22, and 24:13).

XXIII. — An ex traduce sint animae sicut et corpora?

XXIII. — Whether souls come by propagation, as bodies also do?

Inhonestum puto, si dicantur animae cum corporibus generari, ut anima nascatur ex anima, quod nec animae ipsi competit: aut si certe singulae coelestes potestates factae sunt, et ex ipsis caeterae natae sunt, potest ex una Adae anima credibile videri caeteras nasci. Sed non convenit, quia soli Deo hoc possibile fuit, ut simplex generaret, nec caeteris concederetur. Quod tam mysticum est in causa Salvatoris, ut non solum a solis gentilibus vel Judaeis, verum etiam ab ipsis qui Christianos se dicunt, incredibile reputetur. Photiniani enim et Ariani hanc fidem spernunt, nec credunt Deum generasse. Nam si eo tempore quo seminatur corpus, etiam anima generatur ex anima, de Adam costam sublatam legimus, non tamen animam natam ex anima: sed si costa secum habuit animam, jam non nata est, sed detracta in partem. Sed nec hoc scriptum est. Propheta enim Zacharias inter caetera, Qui plasmavit, inquit, animam hominis in eum (Zach. XII, 1). Nec Isaias ab his dissentiens ait, Sic dicit Dominus Deus qui fecit te, et finxit te in utero (Isai. XLIV, 2). Si ergo in utero fingitur, jam formato corpori tribuitur. Cum enim omnia membra implet corporis, figurata dicitur in corpore. Ut sicut aqua, cum sit sine effigie, missa tamen in vas figurata videtur; ita et anima cum sit natura incorporea et simplex, quasi formatur in corpus, singula membra vivificans. Quod quidem Moyses manifestius tradidit dicens, Si quis percusserit mulierem in utero habentem, et abortiverit: si formatum fuerit, det animam pro anima; si autem informatum fuerit, multetur pecunia (Exod. XXI, 22): ut probaret non inesse animam ante formam. Itaque si jam formato corpori datur, non in conceptu corporis nascitur cum semine derivata. Nam si cum semine et anima existit ex anima, multae animae quotidie pereunt, cum semen fluxu quodam non proficit nativitati. Sed si propius respiciamus, videbimus quid sequi debeamus. Contemplemur facturam Adae. In Adam enim exemplum datum est, ut ex eo intelligatur, quia jam formatum corpus accepit animam. Nam potuerat animam limo terrae admiscere, et sic formare corpus. Sed ratione informabatur, quia primum oportebat domum compaginari, et sic habitatorem induci. Anima certe quia spiritus est, in sicco habitare non potest, ideo in sanguine fertur. Cum ergo corporis lineamenta compacta non fuerint, ubi erit anima? An foris vagatur, quamdiu immittatur; cum ratio tradat sic dari eam ut animet corpus, non ut otiosa vagetur? Sed ex quo detur, dicant qui aliud putant; ex mare, an ex femina? Si ex femina, non convenit; quia aliud in exemplo est. Proponunt enim ex viro cum costa datam et animam: quod multis rationibus infirmari docuimus. Unde forte videatur dari ex femina, maxime propter Salvatorem, quem scimus sine complexu carnis de Spiritu sancto natum ex femina. Quod si arbitrantur, plus dant feminis: auctoritatem enim viri immutant in feminam. Cum enim tam corporis quam animae originem ex viro dicant, convertunt se ut id quod potius est, ex muliere dicant, id est, animam; quod vero minus, ex masculo, id est, corpus: cum manifestum sit ordinem exempli a Deo traditi

I think it unseemly if souls are said to be generated together with bodies, so that soul is born from soul, which does not befit even the soul itself: or, if indeed the individual heavenly powers were made, and the rest were born from them, it may seem credible that the rest are born from the one soul of Adam. But it is not fitting, because to God alone was this possible, that, being simple, He should beget, nor was it granted to others. And this is so mystical in the case of the Saviour that it is reckoned incredible not only by the Gentiles alone or the Jews, but even by those very people who call themselves Christians. For the Photinians and Arians spurn this faith, and do not believe that God begot. For if, at the time when the body is sown, the soul too is generated from soul, we read that a rib was taken from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul: but if the rib had a soul with it, then it was not born, but drawn off as a part. But neither is this written. For the prophet Zechariah, among other things, says, Who fashioned the soul of man in him (Zech. 12:1). Nor does Isaiah, differing from these, say otherwise: Thus says the Lord God, Who made you, and formed you in the womb (Isa. 44:2). If, therefore, it is formed in the womb, it is bestowed on a body already formed. For since it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be shaped in the body. So that, just as water, though it is without shape, yet when poured into a vessel seems shaped, so also the soul, though it is incorporeal and simple in nature, is as it were formed into the body, giving life to the individual members. Moses indeed delivered this more plainly, saying, If anyone strikes a woman who has [a child] in her womb, and she miscarries: if it was formed, let him give soul for soul; but if it was unformed, let him be fined money (Exod. 21:22): so as to prove that the soul is not present before the form. Therefore, if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born at the conception of the body, derived together with the seed. For if the soul too comes from soul together with the seed, many souls perish daily, when the seed, through some flux, does not advance to birth. But if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us contemplate the making of Adam. For in Adam an example was given, so that from it it might be understood that the body, already formed, received the soul. For He could have mixed the soul with the mud of the earth, and so formed the body. But it was shaped in due order, because first the house had to be put together, and so the inhabitant brought in. The soul, certainly, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in what is dry; therefore it is borne in the blood. When, then, the features of the body have not been put together, where will the soul be? Does it wander outside until it is sent in, when reason teaches that it is given so as to animate the body, not to wander about idle? But let those who think otherwise say from what it is given: from the male, or from the female? If from the female, it does not fit, because the example shows otherwise. For they propose that the soul too was given from the man together with the rib, which we have shown by many reasons to be untenable. Hence perhaps it might seem to be given from the female, especially on account of the Saviour, Whom we know to have been born of a woman from the Holy Spirit without the embrace of the flesh. But if they think this, they grant more to women: for they transfer the authority of the man to the woman. For whereas they say that the origin both of the body and of the soul is from the man, they turn round so as to say that what is more excellent, that is, the soul, is from the woman, but what is lesser, that is, the body, from the male: whereas it is plain that the order of the example handed down by God

Editors' notes and page, col. 2229

Footnotes

(1) ‹an ex femina› · call in col 2229

Mss. secundi generis, aliud putant ex mare dari, aliud ex femina.

Manuscripts of the second class: "they think one thing is given from the male, another from the female".

(printed under page 463)

Page

running head: 2229 APPENDIX. (column number of the right-hand column cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2230

immutari non posse.

cannot be changed.

XXIV. — Quid est, ut cum vir et mulier una sint caro, vir imago Dei sit, et non femina?

XXIV. — How is it that, although man and woman are one flesh, the man is the image of God and not the woman?

Unius substantiae quidem sunt vir et mulier, et in anima et in carne: sed gradu major est vir, quia ex eo est femina, sicut dicit Apostolus, Capnt mulieris vir (Ephes. V, 23; I Cor. XI, 3). Causa enim majorem fecit virum, non substantia. Nam et in uno corpore majora membra sunt et minora, non natura, sed ordinatione.

Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh; but the man is greater in rank, because the woman is from him, as the Apostle says, The head of the woman is the man (Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:3). For it was the cause [of her origin], not the substance, that made the man greater. For in one body too there are greater members and lesser ones, not by nature but by ordering.

XXV. — Utquid Joseph post prophetiam adjurat filios Israel, ut cum a Deo liberarentur, cineres ejus de Aegypto transferrent (Gen. L, 24)?

XXV. — Why does Joseph, after his prophecy, put the sons of Israel under oath that, when they were set free by God, they would carry his ashes out of Egypt (Gen. 50:24)?

Non otiose illud mandasse Joseph filiis Israel, in absoluto est. Qui enim prophetare potuit, non improvide locutus esse credendus est. Cum enim esset in Dei Creatoris devotione propensior, sciens autem ab Aegyptiis se coli causa administrationis, qua in magna egestate Aegyptum gubernavit; post exitum suum errorem petivit auferri: certus vanitatem vulgi mortuos magis ut deos venerari quam vivos, ne ei deferretur debitus Creatori honor. Hic ergo ostendit se liberum fuisse a vana superstitione Aegyptiorum, quando ne ad Dei injuriam proficeret, cineres suos transferri mandavit. Quod quidem et Apostolos invenimus secutos. Paulus enim et Barnabas cum sacrificari sibi velle vidissent, scientes hoc exosum Deo, sciderunt vestimenta sua dicentes, Quid facitis? et nos homines sumus vobis similes: et sic compescuerunt turbas (Act. XIV, 10-17).

It is plain that Joseph did not give that charge to the sons of Israel idly. For one who was able to prophesy must be believed not to have spoken without foresight. For since he was especially inclined in devotion to God the Creator, and knew that he was revered by the Egyptians on account of the administration by which he had governed Egypt in a great famine, he sought that an error be removed after his departure; being certain that the vanity of the common people venerates the dead as gods rather than the living, [he acted] lest the honour due to the Creator be paid to him. Here, then, he showed that he was free of the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when, lest it should advance to the wrong of God, he ordered his ashes to be carried away. And this indeed we find the Apostles also followed. For when Paul and Barnabas saw that people wished to sacrifice to them, knowing this to be hateful to God, they tore their garments, saying, What are you doing? We too are men like you; and so they restrained the crowds (Acts 14:10–17).

XXVI. — Requirendum de Elisaeo, an id quod dure petiisse ab Elia dictus est (IV Reg. II, 10), consecutus sit?

XXVI. — It must be asked concerning Elisha whether he obtained that which he is said to have asked hard of Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:10).

Cupidus spiritus Elisaeus faciendarum virtutum, illectus exemplo magistri, accepta facultate poscendi quodcumque voluisset, avarus ad bonum, dupliciter spiritum sibi inesse, quam in magistro erat, postulavit. Cui homo Dei Elias ait, Dure petiisti. Aviditate enim non consideravit discipulum non esse super magistrum (Matth. X, 24). Elias tamen sciens illum non ambitione praesentis gloriae hoc postulasse, respondit: Attamen si videris me assumi abs te, erit tibi sic. Sensus hic ponderandus est. Subindignatus autem cum dixisset, Dure petiisti; subjecit, Si videris me tamen assumi, erit tibi sic; neque negasse illi visus fuerat. Ostendit sic illi futurum sicut dignum erat, non sicut ipse postulaverat. Multa enim subintelligi vult Scriptura, ut collectus sensus ex verbis, non sit rationi religionis adversus. Nam utique dura petitio, etiam meritum debebat amittere: sed quia cupidus boni sic postulavit, Deus qui scit quid unicuique dandum sit, bonis privari illum non passus est meritis suis. Videamus itaque si Eliae meritum admitteret, ut Elisaeus duplum donum ejus mereretur accipere. Dictum namque est a Spiritu sancto per Zachariam, cujus meriti futurus esset Joannes, Veniet, inquit, in spiritu et virtute Eliae (Luc. I, 17). Parem ergo Joannem Eliae ostendit. Et Dominus dicit, Nemo major inter natos mulierum propheta Joanne Baptista (Matth. XI, 11). Non dixit, omnibus major est: sed, nemo illo major est; hoc est, aequalem habet, majorem non habet. Elias ergo par illi est, nullo utique minor; quomodo Elisaeus major illo est, cum Joannes quo nemo major est, par Eliae sit? Nam veniens ad aquarum transitum, non accepit honorem ab eis, ut potuisset transire, nisi nominasset Deum Eliae (IV Reg. II, 14): ut per hoc dura petitio correpta videretur, dum nonnisi nomine Eliae auditus est, ne id quod dure petierat, accepisse putaretur, quasi non sufficeret pro temporis merito dispensatio spiritus concessa Eliae.

Elisha, eager for the spirit of working mighty deeds, drawn on by the example of his master, having been given the opportunity of asking for whatever he wished, greedy for the good, asked that the spirit be in him doubly as compared with what was in his master. To him Elijah, the man of God, said, You have asked a hard thing. For in his eagerness he did not consider that the disciple is not above the master (Matt. 10:24). Elijah, however, knowing that he had not asked this out of ambition for present glory, answered: Yet if you see me taken up from you, it shall be so for you. The sense here must be weighed. But although, somewhat indignant, he had said, You have asked a hard thing, he added, If nevertheless you see me taken up, it shall be so for you; and he had not appeared to refuse him. Thus he showed that it would be for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked. For Scripture wishes many things to be understood beneath the words, so that the sense gathered from the words may not be contrary to the reason of religion. For a hard request ought certainly to have lost even its merit; but because he asked thus out of eagerness for the good, God, Who knows what is to be given to each, did not allow him to be deprived of his good merits. Let us see, then, whether Elijah's merit would allow Elisha to deserve to receive a double gift of it. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah, of what merit John would be: He shall come, he says, in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). He therefore showed John to be the equal of Elijah. And the Lord says, Among those born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). He did not say, He is greater than all; but, No one is greater than he; that is, he has an equal, he has no greater. Elijah, therefore, is his equal, certainly in no way less; how is Elisha greater than he, since John, than whom no one is greater, is the equal of Elijah? For coming to the crossing of the waters, he did not receive honour from them so that he could cross, until he had named the God of Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:14): so that by this the hard request might be seen to be rebuked, since he was heard only in the name of Elijah, lest he should be thought to have received what he had asked hard, as though the dispensation of the spirit granted to Elijah were not sufficient for the merit of the time.

XXVII. — An Pythonissa Samuelem excitaverit, et ipse ab ea visus sit, et locutus sit ad Saül: quae historia refert in libro Regnorum (I Reg. XXVIII, 7-20)?

XXVII. — Whether the woman with a divining spirit raised up Samuel, and whether he himself was seen by her and spoke to Saul: things which the history relates in the Book of Kingdoms (1 Sam. 28:7–20)?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2230

Footnotes

(1) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2230

Mss. secundi generis, ordine.

Manuscripts of the second class: "ordine" ("in order").

(printed under page 463)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2231

Indignum facinus aestimo si secundum verba historiae commendetur assensus. Quomodo enim fieri poterat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir, et nativitate sanctus, et vitae operibus justus? aut si non attractus est, consensit? Quod utrumque de viro justo credere absurdum est. Si enim invitus adductus est, nullum suffragium habet justitia; si autem voluntarius, amisit meritum spirituale, quod positus in carne quaesiverat: quod valde absurdum est; quia qui hinc justus recedit, permanet justus. Porro autem hoc est praestigium satanae, quo ut plurimos fallat, etiam bonos in potestate se habere confingit. Quod Apostolus inter caetera ait, Ipse satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis (II Cor. XI, 14). Ut enim errorem faceret, in quo et ipse gloriaretur, in habitu viri justi et nomine se subornavit: ut nihil proficere spem quae praedicabatur Dei cultoribus, mentiretur; quando hinc exeuntes justos finxit in sua esse potestate. Sed hoc quosdam fallit, quod de morte Saül et filiorum ejus non sit mentitus: quasi magnum sit diabolo, ante diem occasum corporis praevidere, cum signa quaedam soleant apparere morituris; quippe a quibus Dei protectio amota videtur. Quanto magis diabolus quem angelica majestate sublimem prophetica oracula fuisse testantur; de cujus magnitudine Apostolus ait, An ignoratis altitudinem satanae (Id. II, 11)? Quid mirum ergo si imminentem prope mortem potuit praevidere, cum hoc sit unde fallit, et se in Dei potestate vult adorari? Nam tanta hebetudine demens effectus est Saül, ut ad pythonissam confugeret. Depravatus enim causa peccati, ad haec se contulit quae damnaverat. Sed si quis propter historiam, et ea quae verbis expressa sunt putet non praetermittenda, ne ratio historiae inanis sit; recte faciet quidem, si tamen minime istud ad veri rapiat rationem, sed ad visum et intellectum. Saül namque reprobus factus, non poterat bonum intellectum habere. Historicus enim mentem Saül et habitum Samuelis descripsit, ea quae dicta et visa sunt exprimens; praetermittens, si vera an falsa sint. Quid enim ait? Audiens in quo habitu esset excitatus, Intellexit, inquit, hunc esse Samuelem. Quid intellexerit retulit, et quia non bene intellexit, contra Scripturam alium adoravit quam Deum; et putans Samuelem, adoravit diabolum, ut fructum fallaciae suae haberet satanas. Hoc enim nititur, ut adoretur quasi Deus. Si enim vere Samuel illi apparuisset, non utique vir justus permisisset se adorari, qui praedicaverat Deum solum esse adorandum. Et quomodo homo Dei, qui cum Abraham in refrigerio erat, dicebat ad virum pestilentiae, dignum ardore gehennae, Cras mecum eris? His duobus titulis subtilitatem fallaciae suae prodidit improvidus satanas, quia et adorari se permisit sub habitu, et nomine Samuelis contra Legem; et virum peccatis pressum, cum magna distantia peccatorum et justorum sit, cum Samuele justissimo futurum mentitus est. Verum potest videri si de Samuelis nomine taceatur, quia Saül cum diabolo futurus erat. Ad eum enim transmigravit, quem adoravit. Semper enim diabolus sub velamine latens, prodit se, dum ea confingit quae abhorreant a personis, per quas fallere nititur.

I consider it an unworthy thing if assent is given according to the words of the narrative. For how could it have come about that by magic art a man should be drawn up who was both holy by birth and righteous in the works of his life? Or, if he was not drawn up, did he consent? Either of which it is absurd to believe of a righteous man. For if he was brought unwillingly, righteousness has no support; but if willingly, he lost the spiritual merit which he had sought while placed in the flesh: which is very absurd, because he who departs hence righteous remains righteous. Moreover, this is a delusion of Satan, by which, in order to deceive as many as possible, he pretends that he holds even the good in his power. As the Apostle says among other things, Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). For in order to produce an error in which he too might glory, he disguised himself in the appearance and name of a righteous man, so as to lie that the hope which was preached to the worshippers of God avails nothing, when he pretended that the righteous who go out hence are in his power. But this deceives some, that he did not lie about the death of Saul and his sons: as though it were a great thing for the devil to foresee the fall of the body before the day, since certain signs are wont to appear in those about to die, namely in those from whom the protection of God seems to have been withdrawn. How much more the devil, whom the prophetic oracles testify to have been exalted in angelic majesty; of whose greatness the Apostle says, Are you ignorant of the height of Satan (2 Cor. 2:11)? What wonder, then, if he could foresee a death impending close at hand, since this is the means by which he deceives, and wishes to be adored in the power of God? For Saul had been made so mad with dullness that he took refuge with the pythoness. For, depraved by reason of sin, he betook himself to those things which he had condemned. But if anyone thinks that, for the sake of the narrative, the things expressed in words ought not to be passed over, lest the account of the narrative be empty, he will indeed do rightly, provided, however, that he by no means draws this to the account of truth, but to appearance and understanding. For Saul, having become reprobate, could not have a good understanding. For the historian described the mind of Saul and the appearance of Samuel, expressing the things that were said and seen, passing over whether they are true or false. For what does he say? Hearing in what guise the one raised up was, He understood, he says, that this was Samuel. He related what he understood; and because he did not understand well, contrary to Scripture he adored another than God; and thinking it Samuel, he adored the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deceit. For this is what he strives for, that he may be adored as God. For if Samuel had truly appeared to him, assuredly a righteous man would not have allowed himself to be adored, who had preached that God alone is to be adored. And how would a man of God, who was in refreshment with Abraham, say to a man of pestilence, worthy of the burning of Gehenna, Tomorrow you will be with me? By these two marks the improvident Satan betrayed the subtlety of his deceit: because he both allowed himself to be adored under the appearance and name of Samuel contrary to the Law, and lied that a man weighed down by sins would be with Samuel, most righteous, although there is a great distance between sinners and the righteous. Yet it can appear [true] if the name of Samuel is passed over in silence, because Saul was going to be with the devil. For he passed over to him whom he adored. For the devil, always lurking under a veil, betrays himself while he contrives things which are foreign to the persons through whom he strives to deceive.

XXVIII. Quid contradicendum iis sit, qui mundum istum ab aeterno naturaliter moveri inquiunt, neque initio, neque abolitioni obnoxium?

XXVIII. What is to be said in contradiction to those who say that this world is moved naturally from eternity, and is subject neither to a beginning nor to abolition?

Mundum ab aeterno constare et nulli debere subjectionem, improbabile et impossibile est: quem videmus tanta diversitate exstare corporum; cum nihil divinum et aeternum possit esse nisi simplex, in quo nulla diversitas videatur, sed sit unitas. Nam et vices ipsas temporum non servat, ut non solum in temporibus varius sit, aut contrariis constet substantiis, sed et in ipsis vicibus temporum: cum res aeterna diversitatem abhorreat, et sit nec tactu nec visu capienda, utpote incorporalis: hic autem passioni obnoxius est, quia et aqua repugnat igni; et ignis si amplius fuerit, superat aquam; et terra cum sit natura arida et frigida, patitur incendium, quasi res corporalis. Itaque inconveniens est mundum aeternum dicere, quem cum videmus

That the world exists from eternity and owes subjection to no one is improbable and impossible: for we see it exist with so great a diversity of bodies; whereas nothing can be divine and eternal unless it is simple, in which no diversity is seen, but there is unity. For it does not even keep the very successions of the seasons, so that it is variable not only in the seasons, or consists of contrary substances, but also in the very successions of the seasons: whereas an eternal thing shuns diversity, and is to be grasped neither by touch nor by sight, being incorporeal; but this [world] is subject to passion, since water also fights against fire, and fire, if it is greater, overcomes water; and earth, although it is by nature dry and cold, suffers burning, as a corporeal thing. Therefore it is unfitting to call the world eternal, which, when we

Editors' notes and page, col. 2231

Page

running head: 2231 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI T[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-discussion (question XXVII, on Samuel and the pythoness); "exstare" has damaged s, set as exstare; "Quid enim ait" and "inconveniens" have worn type, read as such; last word "vi-" (videmus) split at column break; marginal letters not visible in images; right-hand column partly visible but not set (belongs to 2232); no full-width line seen; no editors' matter in text block
other: the word videmus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2232

PL 35:2232

passioni subjectum, et per saecula senectute deficere, credimus et finiri. Quid censetur de homine, qui mundum aeternum putat? Certe homo coepit in mundo: sine homine ergo cui proficiebat annua fecunditas mundi? An sine aliqua providentia generabat? Et quomodo aeternus corruptibilia et mortalia generabat, cum de aeterno debeat aeternum existere? Et quod visibile est et sentitur et tangitur, qua audacia vocatur aeternum? Et quod vicibus temporum ministratur, ita ut ipsa tempora aliquando non servent officia sua, quomodo appellatur aeternum? Aeternitas enim non corrumpitur, nec immutatur.

see subject to suffering, and failing through the ages by old age, we believe also comes to an end. What is to be thought of a man who holds the world to be eternal? Certainly man began in the world: without man, then, for whom did the yearly fruitfulness of the world bring profit? Or did it generate without any providence? And how did an eternal [world] generate corruptible and mortal things, when from the eternal the eternal ought to come into being? And what is visible and is perceived and touched, with what audacity is it called eternal? And what is ordered by the alternations of the seasons, so that the seasons themselves sometimes do not keep their duties, how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, nor is it changed.

XXIX. — Quare octavo die mandatum est circumcidi (Gen. XVII, 12)?

XXIX. Why was it commanded that circumcision be done on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12)?

Octavo die a nativitate idcirco praeceptum est circumcidi, quia juxta numerum et curricula dierum septem, ipse rursum primus invenitur quasi post sabbatum, ut jam non octavus habeatur, sed primus. Quia enim salus futura per Christum in primo die erat praedestinata (qui Dominicus ideo dicitur, quia in eo resurrexit Dominus), qui est post sabbatum; propterea salutis hujus figura in circumcisione data est, ut quasi renovatio futura in circumcisionis lege dignosceretur. Et quia per fidem salvari haberent homines, quae primo die resurrectionis Domini firmata est; figura hujus rei in circumcisione primo die data est, quae etiam esset signum fidei Abrahae. Integra ergo causa est, quia signum praeteritae fidei primo die signatae, figura fuit futurae fidei primo die constabilitae.

Circumcision was commanded on the eighth day from birth for this reason: that according to the number and the courses of the seven days, that day is found to be the first again, coming as it were after the sabbath, so that it is no longer reckoned the eighth but the first. For since the salvation to come through Christ had been predestined on the first day (which is called the Lord's Day for this reason, that on it the Lord rose again), which comes after the sabbath, the figure of this salvation was therefore given in circumcision, so that the renewal to come might, as it were, be discerned in the law of circumcision. And because men were to be saved through faith, which was established on the first day, the day of the Lord's resurrection, the figure of this thing was given in circumcision on the first day, which was also to be the sign of Abraham's faith. The reason, then, is complete: the sign of a past faith sealed on the first day was a figure of the future faith established on the first day.

XXX. — In Proverbiis, Justus, ait, accusator est sui in primordio sermonis (Prov. XVIII, 17): quomodo justus, si peccator?

XXX. In Proverbs it says: The just man is the accuser of himself at the beginning of his speech (Prov. 18:17). How is he just, if he is a sinner?

Omnis veritas justitia est. Quia ergo confitetur quod est, justus est: veritatem enim loquitur; peccatores autem vindicantes sua delicta, justificari non possunt. Unde hujusmodi digne justus dicitur, quia pronuntians peccatum suum, remitti sibi utique postulat, misericordiam Dei implorans. Scit enim dictum in Lege, Confitere peccata tua, ut justificeris (Isai. XLIII, 26). Quid est autem, in primordio sermonis confiteri; nisi non coactum fateri, sed voluntarium? Quis enim etiam timens Deum, sine peccato est; cum et in cogitatione admisceantur delicta, et aliquoties peccemus inviti? Potest tamen et de eo dici vel sentiri, qui catechumenus dicitur, ut accedens ad fidem justificetur. Cum enim petit immutari se, sine dubio peccatorem se confitetur ut justificetur.

All truth is justice. Since, then, he confesses what is so, he is just, for he speaks the truth; but sinners who defend their offences cannot be justified. Hence such a man is fittingly called just, because in declaring his sin he certainly asks that it be forgiven him, imploring the mercy of God. For he knows that it was said in the Law: Confess your sins, that you may be justified (Isa. 43:26). What, then, is it to confess at the beginning of one's speech, unless to acknowledge it not under compulsion but willingly? For who, even among those who fear God, is without sin, since offences mingle even with our thoughts, and we sometimes sin unwillingly? It can, however, also be said or understood of one who is called a catechumen, that in approaching the faith he may be justified. For when he asks to be changed, without doubt he confesses himself a sinner so that he may be justified.

XXXI. — An cum muliere, natura serpens locutus sit; an actu dictus serpens diabolus eam seduxerit (Gen. III, 1)?

XXXI. Whether it was a serpent by nature that spoke with the woman, or whether the devil, called a serpent from his act, seduced her (Gen. 3:1)?

Quantum ad historiam pertinet, serpens natura dictus est, qui sapientior esset caeteris bestiis, quas fecerat Dominus Deus super terram. Denique et sententiam Deus in serpentem dedit. Nam quid mirum si diabolus sapientior erat bestiis, de quo dicit Apostolus inter caetera, An ignoratis altitudinem satanae (II Cor. II, 11)? Usque adeo autem natura serpens fuit, ut diceretur illi, Supra pectus et ventrem tuum repes, et terram edes omnibus diebus vitae tuae (Gen. III, 14). Haec longe sunt a conditione satanae; quia neque corporeus est, neque mortalis. Et si proprius aspiciatur, videbitur sententia data nihil obfuisse serpenti: sed in eo in quo factus est, jussus est permanere. Quia enim minister factus est satanae ad hominem subjugandum, cui omnia Deus subjecerat; idcirco Deus in ea subjectione qua omnia homini subjecerat, repressit elationem serpentis qua coeperat minister esse superbiae. Videbatur enim homo factus sub serpente, per quem, accepto consilio legem datam contempsit. Quoniam autem serpentes prudentes sunt, confirmat in Evangelio Dominus dicens, Estote astuti ut serpentes (Matth. X, 16). Igitur quia claruit vere serpentem locutum esse cum Eva; illud superest ut discernatur, an potuerit tam prudens esse et astutus, ut dolo falleret eam. Si enim caeteris bestiis prudentior erat, non

As far as the history is concerned, it is a serpent by nature that is spoken of, which was wiser than the other beasts that the Lord God had made upon the earth. Moreover, God also passed sentence upon the serpent. For what wonder is it if the devil was wiser than the beasts, the devil of whom the Apostle says, among other things: Are you ignorant of the depth of Satan (2 Cor. 2:11)? But the serpent was so truly a serpent by nature that it was said to it: Upon your breast and belly you shall crawl, and earth you shall eat all the days of your life (Gen. 3:14). These things are far removed from the condition of Satan, since he is neither bodily nor mortal. And if it is looked at more closely, the sentence given will be seen to have done the serpent no harm; rather, it was ordered to remain in that state in which it was made. For because it had become the minister of Satan for subjugating man, to whom God had subjected all things, God therefore, in that subjection by which He had subjected all things to man, repressed the arrogance of the serpent by which it had begun to be a minister of pride. For man seemed to have been made subject to the serpent, through which, having accepted its counsel, he despised the law that had been given. Moreover, that serpents are prudent the Lord confirms in the Gospel, saying: Be cunning as serpents (Matt. 10:16). Since, therefore, it has become clear that a serpent truly spoke with Eve, it remains to be determined whether it could have been so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by guile. For if it was more prudent than the other beasts, not

Editors' notes and page, col. 2232

Footnotes

(a) ‹an actu› · call in col 2232

Forte, astu.

Perhaps "astu" ("by cunning", for "actu", "by act").

(printed under page 464)

Page

running head: S EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2232 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2233

tamen hominibus; quippe cum nullum animal rationale sit, nisi homo. Itaque serpentem subtilitatem istam composuisse impossibile e⟨s⟩t: quamvis enim prudens dicatur, sed non ultra naturam suam. Nec enim deliberat aut excogitat, aut consilium capit. Idcirco diabolum fuisse, qui per serpentem mulierem circumvenit, dubium non est. Admiscens enim se serpenti, egit per illum quasi per organum, ut nec mulier occulti diaboli intelligeret dolum, sciens prudentem esse serpentem. Ac per hoc corporaliter data sententia, spiritualiter in satanam cecidit: quia sententia reum tenet. Non enim ab homine data sententia est, ut innocentem forte perimeret per errorem aut malevolentiam; sed a Deo qui falli utique non potest, ut sententia ejus eum solum teneat, qui reus est. Quia enim cum sit invisibilis satanas, dolum corporaliter egit, corporalis videtur data sententia, ut illum spiritualiter teneat, cujus factum elicuit dari sententiam. Nam projectus de sacratissimis coelorum sedibus impudentissimus satanas in terra volutatur gemens semper. Sed forte dicatur, In qua, putas, lingua serpens locutus est ad mulierem? Serpentis utique ore. Si enim hodie non desunt, qui latratum canum intelligant, et luporum ululatum, et barritum elephantorum, et cantum gallorum; quare non magis rud⟨i⟩s adhuc mulier scire potuit et intelligere sibilum serpentum, cum multos sciamus avium voces discernere? Nam et constat diabolum ejus lingua uti, cujus corpus intraverit: nec aliter falleret mulierem. Ac per hoc serpentis ore locutus est per serpentem.

however, than human beings; since there is no rational animal except man. Therefore it is impossible that the serpent devised this subtlety: for although it is called prudent, yet not beyond its own nature. For it does not deliberate or contrive, or form a plan. Therefore there is no doubt that it was the devil who deceived the woman through the serpent. For mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman did not perceive the guile of the hidden devil, since she knew the serpent to be prudent. And thus the sentence, given bodily, fell spiritually upon Satan: because a sentence holds the guilty. For the sentence was not given by a man, so that it might perhaps destroy an innocent through error or ill will; but by God, Who certainly cannot be deceived, so that His sentence holds him alone who is guilty. For because Satan, though he is invisible, carried out the guile bodily, the sentence appears to have been given bodily, so that it may hold spiritually him whose deed drew forth the giving of the sentence. For, cast down from the most sacred seats of the heavens, the most shameless Satan rolls about on the earth, ever groaning. But perhaps it may be said: In what language, do you think, did the serpent speak to the woman? With the serpent's mouth, surely. For if even today there is no lack of those who understand the barking of dogs, and the howling of wolves, and the trumpeting of elephants, and the crowing of cocks, why could not the woman, still untaught, rather know and understand the hissing of serpents, when we know that many discern the voices of birds? For it is also established that the devil uses the tongue of him whose body he has entered: nor otherwise would he have deceived the woman. And thus with the serpent's mouth he spoke through the serpent.

XXXII. — Legimus apud Salomonem, Dives et pauper obviaverunt sibi; fecit autem ambos Dominus (Prov. XXII, 2): quomodo ergo personarum acceptio non est apud Deum?

XXXII. — We read in Solomon, The rich man and the poor man met one another; but the Lord made them both (Prov. 22:2): how then is there no respect of persons with God?

Longe absit a fidelium mentibus haec impietatis assertio. Nam Scr⟨i⟩ptura ne pauperem contemnendum doceret, et divitem honorificandum, ostendit amborum opificem esse Deum: non utique in paupertate et divitiis, sed in eo quod sunt. Si enim facultatibus ab invicem discrepant, non tamen naturae substantia. Nec enim quia occasiones proventus quosdam faciunt in mundo, aut prosperos in divitiis, aut infaustos in paupertate, idcirco despiciendi sunt quos Deus non humiliavit, aut suspiciendi quibus veritas non dedit testimonium. Contemnendi p⟨l⟩ane sunt, sed corruptores morum et sacrilegi in Lege Dei; honorandi vero diligentes Deum et disciplinae cultores. Hi enim divites apud Deum habentur, qui bonae conversationis sunt: et quanto in mundo contemptibiliores sunt, tanto magis honorificentiores sunt in coelo. Nam qui beneficium temporis habent in ampliandis facultatibus, si se cognoscant, et Dei intelligant voluntatem, qui terram omnibus dedit, et solem suum cunctis oriri jubet, et pluvias indiscretas effundit (Matth. V, 45); iniquitas autem temporis, aut fortuitae occasionis, aut indigentia quibusdam abnegat quae Deus omnibus dedit; ipsi ministrant eis, ut perficientes Dei voluntatem, non solum in mundo, sed et in coelo divites sint, ne pauci temporis divitiae excludant aeternas. Illi vero quos paupertatis causa despiciendos putant, si futurum Dei judicium contemplentur, illic semper divites erunt, ubi divites saeculi egebunt, poenitentes se pauperes non fuisse.

Far be this assertion of impiety from the minds of the faithful. For Scripture, lest it should teach that the poor man is to be despised and the rich man to be honoured, showed God to be the maker of both: not, certainly, in their poverty and riches, but in that which they are. For if they differ from one another in means, yet not in the substance of their nature. For it is not because occurrences bring about certain results in the world, [making men] either prosperous in riches or unfortunate in poverty, that those whom God has not humbled are therefore to be despised, or those to whom the truth has not given testimony are to be looked up to. Those to be despised are plainly rather the corrupters of morals and the sacrilegious in the Law of God; but those to be honoured are those who love God and cultivate discipline. For these are held rich with God who are of good conduct: and the more contemptible they are in the world, so much the more honourable are they in heaven. For those who have the benefit of the time in enlarging their means, if they know themselves, and understand the will of God, Who gave the earth to all, and bids His sun rise upon all, and pours out the rains without distinction (Matt. 5:45); but the iniquity of the time, or of chance occurrence, or want denies to some what God gave to all; they themselves minister to these, so that, fulfilling the will of God, they may be rich not only in the world but also in heaven, lest the riches of a short time shut out the eternal. But those whom they think fit to be despised on account of poverty, if they contemplate the future judgement of God, will be rich forever there, where the rich of the world will be in need, repenting that they were not poor.

XXXIII. — Salomon, Anni, inquit, impiorum minuentur (Prov. X, 27): quomodo ergo est quod videamus impios aliquantos longaevos?

XXXIII. — Solomon says, The years of the impious shall be diminished (Prov. 10:27): how then is it that we see some of the impious long-lived?

Dignum erat quidem omnes impios, non solum citius hac luce carere, verum etiam nec unius momenti temporis vita frui, qui Conditoris sui immemores, vitae totius auctoritatem imputant creaturae. Sed Scriptura hos impios alloquitur, qui cum sub Dei Lege agerent, propensiores in idolis erant. Pejores enim sunt caeteris impiis: scientes enim Deum et contemnentes eum, obtemperant servis. Et quod de his dictum sit, probat Apostolus dicens, Scimus autem quoniam

It would indeed have been fitting for all the impious not only to lose this light more quickly, but even not to enjoy life for a single moment of time, since, unmindful of their Creator, they ascribe the authority of all life to the creature. But Scripture addresses those impious who, while they lived under the Law of God, were more inclined towards idols. For they are worse than the other impious: for knowing God and despising Him, they obey slaves. And that this was said of them the Apostle proves, saying, But we know that

Editors' notes and page, col. 2233

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2233

Reliquum abest a Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is absent from the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 465)

Page

running head: 2233 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word quoniam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2234

PL 35:2234

quaecumque Lex loquitur, his qui in Lege sunt loquitur (Rom. III, 19). Gentiles autem non habentur in numero vivorum.

whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law (Rom. 3:19). But the gentiles are not counted among the number of the living.

XXXIV. — Quomodo idem Salomon, Deus, inquit, mortem non fecit: cum alio loco dicat, Bona et mala, vita et mors, paupertas et honestas a Deo sunt (Sap. I, 13; Eccli. XI, 14)?

XXXIV. — How does the same Solomon say, God did not make death, when in another place he says, Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and honour are from God (Wis. 1:13; Sir. 11:14)?

Nulli dubium est bona omnia a Deo esse, mala autem quae dixit, solum mala sunt, dum vindicatur de nobis. Poena enim quamvis juste inferatur, patienti tamen mala videtur. Nam et per prophetam ad peccatores loquitur Deus dicens, Faciam vobis mala, id est, poenis vos agam. Vita autem et mors sic a Deo est, quia legem dedit, quae servantibus se vitam promittit, contemptoribus vero mortem, sed illam quae secunda dicitur. Dum enim unumquemque adjudicat quid meretur, ab ipso est, sive absolutio ad vitam, sive reatus ad mortem. Non ergo inventor mortis est, sed judex, quia mortis auctor peccatum est. Quomodo ergo Deus poterat facere mortem, qui nescit peccare? Sed dum peccatis retribuit, ab ipso dicta est esse mors cum non ex ipso sit, sed ex hoc qui peccavit. Eadem ratione paupertas et divitiae a Deo sunt. Quidam enim habentes timorem Dei, luxuriam spernunt, vitam prodigam fugiunt, ab egeno et paupere oculum non avertunt: hujusmodi crementum faciunt bonorum. Scriptum est enim in Proverbiis, Paupertatem et ignobilitatem aufert disciplina (Prov. XIII, 18). At hi qui timorem Dei non habent, solutius viventes et egenum despicientes, sicut scriptum est, in inopia erunt; non solum negligentes et improvidi circa se, verum etiam contemptores datae legis. Hoc modo fecit Deus pauperes ac divites: quia dum offensio legis parit egestatem, a Deo fieri dicitur auctore legis; et cum aliqui terrore disciplinam legis custodiunt, a Deo auctore legis divites fiunt.

No one doubts that all good things are from God; but the evils of which he spoke are evils only while vengeance is taken on us. For punishment, although it is justly inflicted, nevertheless seems an evil to the one who suffers it. For through the prophet too God speaks to sinners, saying, I will do evil things to you, that is, I will drive you with punishments. But life and death are from God in this way: because He gave the law, which promises life to those who keep it, but death to those who despise it, though that death which is called the second. For while He adjudges to each one what he deserves, it is from Him, whether acquittal unto life or condemnation unto death. He is therefore not the inventor of death but its judge, because the author of death is sin. How then could God make death, Who does not know how to sin? But since He requites sins, death is said to be from Him, although it is not from Him but from him who sinned. By the same reasoning poverty and riches are from God. For some, having the fear of God, spurn luxury, flee a prodigal life, and do not turn their eye away from the needy and the poor: such people bring about an increase of goods. For it is written in Proverbs, Discipline takes away poverty and ignominy (Prov. 13:18). But those who do not have the fear of God, living more loosely and despising the needy, will be in want, as it is written; not only being careless and improvident about themselves, but also despisers of the law that was given. In this way God made poor and rich: because when offence against the law begets want, it is said to be done by God as the author of the law; and when some keep the discipline of the law out of fear, they become rich by God as the author of the law.

XXXV. — Qua ratione David Saül, postquam Deus ab eo recessit, christum Domini vocat, et honorem defert ei (I Reg. XXVI, 16, 18, sqq.)?

XXXV. — For what reason does David call Saul the anointed of the Lord, after God had departed from him, and pay him honour (1 Sam. 26:16, 18 ff.)?

Non nescius David divinam esse traditionem in officio ordinis regalis, idcirco Saül in eadem adhuc traditione positum honorificat, ne Deo injuriam facere videretur, qui his ordinibus honorem decrevit. Dei enim imaginem habet rex, sicut et episcopus Christi. Quamdiu ergo in ea traditione est, honorandus est, si non propter se, vel propter ordinem. Unde Apostolus inquit, Potestatibus sublimioribus subditi estote. Non est potestas nisi a Deo: quae enim sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt (Rom. XIII, 1). Hinc est ut gentilem, in potestate tamen positum, honorificemus, licet ipse indignus sit, qui Dei ordinem tenens gratias agit diabolo. Potestas enim exigit, quia meretur honorem. Nam ideo Pharaoni futurae famis somnium revelatum est (Gen. XLI, 1-37): et Nabuchodonosor aliis secum assistentibus solus filium Dei vidit in camino ignis (Dan. III, 92), non utique merito suo, qui in idolo se adorari voluit, se merito ordinis regalis.

David, not being unaware that there is a divine conferral in the office of the royal order, therefore honours Saul as still placed in that same conferral, lest he should seem to do injury to God, Who decreed honour for these orders. For the king bears the image of God, as the bishop bears that of Christ. As long, then, as he stands in that conferral, he is to be honoured, if not for his own sake, at least for the sake of the order. Hence the Apostle says, Be subject to the higher powers. There is no power except from God: for those that exist are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1). Hence it is that we honour a gentile who is nevertheless placed in power, although he himself is unworthy, who, while holding God's order, gives thanks to the devil. For the power demands it, because it deserves honour. For this is why the dream of the coming famine was revealed to Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1–37): and Nebuchadnezzar, while others stood with him, alone saw the Son of God in the furnace of fire (Dan. 3:92), certainly not by his own merit, since he wished to be worshipped in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.

XXXVI — Si anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur, quid est ut Achar filius Charmi peccaverit, et triginta viri occisi sunt in causa ejus (Josue VII, 24, 5)?

XXXVI — If the soul that has sinned, it itself shall die, how is it that Achar the son of Charmi sinned, and thirty men were killed on his account (Josh. 7:24, 5)?

Alio sensu Scriptura locuta est qnam propositum est. Non enim de hac morte quae communis utique omnibus est, dixit; sed de illa quae appellatur secunda. Haec enim peccatores suscipit: illis autem qui in pugna mortui sunt, non peccatum Achar redditum est; sed obfuit illis, ne in protectione divina adjuti invalescerent hostibus. Nec enim causa Achar infirmati sunt, sed Dei auxilio minime muniti, ut dum fortiter facere nequeunt, occiderentur. Nam pauci fuerunt contra multos, unde et superati noscuntur. Nulla ergo injustitia in voluntate Dei est. In potestate enim habet, si adjuvare vult: ut si affuerit, misericors sit; si noluerit, justus: nec enim in talibus debitor est, ut teneatur obnoxius. Hinc est quod Jesus Nave contristatus scidit vestimenta sua (Ibid. 6),

Scripture spoke in another sense than the one proposed. For it did not speak of this death which is indeed common to all, but of that which is called the second. For this receives sinners: but to those who died in battle the sin of Achar was not repaid; rather it hindered them, so that they were not helped by divine protection to prevail over the enemy. For they were not weakened by reason of Achar, but, being in no way fortified by God's help, they were killed since they could not act bravely. For they were few against many, whence they are known also to have been overcome. There is therefore no injustice in the will of God. For He has it in His power whether He wills to help: so that if He is present, He is merciful; if He does not will it, He is just: for in such matters He is not a debtor, so as to be held liable. Hence it is that Jesus Nave, grieved, tore his garments (ibid. 6),

Editors' notes and page, col. 2234

Footnotes

(1) ‹triginta viri› · call in col 2234

Mss. secundi generis, triginta sex viri. Et verius. M.

Manuscripts of the second class: "thirty-six men". And more correctly. M.

(printed under page 465)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2234
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2235

intelligens non sine causa Deum auxilium suum subtraxisse.

understanding that not without cause had God withdrawn His help.

Charmi quidem peccavit, et mortuus est lapidibus. Illi autem triginta sex viri, qui in pugna mortui sunt, non utique pressi a Deo sunt, sed non adjuti. Imbecillitate enim sua, dum fortiter facere nequiverunt, occisi sunt. Charmi ergo causa hoc praestitit vel obfuit, quia qui adjuvari habuerant, neglecti a Deo sunt. Hinc ergo est quod Jesus filius Nave contristatus exscidit vestimenta sua, quia intellexit Deum adjutorem suum auxilium subtraxisse in hoc loco.

Charmi indeed sinned, and died by stones. But those thirty-six men who died in the battle were certainly not crushed by God, but were not helped. For through their own weakness, since they were unable to act bravely, they were slain. Charmi's case, therefore, brought this about, or did this harm, since those who were to have been helped were neglected by God. Hence, therefore, it is that Jesus the son of Nave, being grieved, tore his garments, because he understood that God his helper had withdrawn His help in this place.

XXXVII. — Quid est ut missa mors in Jacob venerit in Israel, cum Jacob ipse dictus sit Israel (Isai. IX, 8, sec. LXX)?

XXXVII. — What does it mean that death, sent into Jacob, came into Israel, when Jacob himself was called Israel (Isa. 9:8, according to the LXX)?

Unius populi duo nomina posuit, ut ex nominibus merita eorum possint intelligi. Nam utique qui Israel cognominatus est, prius Jacob dicebatur. Colluctans enim cum Salvatore, intellexit Deum esse, quem in specie corporis videbat: ideoque appellatus est, Homo videns Deum (Gen. XXXII, 24-28). Populum ergo, quem Jacob nuncupat, hoc loco et in hac causa carnalem significat, quomodo nomina quae natis a parentibus imponuntur. Sed hi, id est, Judaei, propter mala opera non Israelitae dicti sunt, quia vaccis et lucis sacrificabant in Samaria, studio et imperio Jeroboam regis. Ille autem populus, qui in Jerosolymis in templo Domini hostias offerebat per sacerdotes Dei, Israel appellatus est. Samaria ergo propter impietatem suam tradita est captivitati et morti: Jerosolyma autem reservata est, propter quod habuit reges diligentes Deum. At ubi autem et ipsa Jerusalem impietatem secuta est Samariae, sententia illam comprehendit data in Samariam. Ideo ergo dictum est, Misit Deus mortem in Jacob, id est, in populum Samariae, qui carnaliter conversatus est, sicut supra diximus; Et venit in Israel, hoc est, in populum Jerusalem, quia idololatriam secuta est, imitata Samariam: ut simili modo abduceretur in captivitatem a Nabuchodonosor, sicut et Samaria a Salmanasar rege Assyriorum. Hoc est aperte: sententia data in malos, invenit et bonos, dum desierint esse justi. Missa enim mors in Jacob, sicut supra ostensum est; pervenit in Israel, non praetermittens Samariam, sed dum causa, qua missa est in Samariam, inventa est in Jerusalem, missa illuc venit etiam in eum locum, quo eadem res erat. Quia vindicta causam sequitur, non discernens personam.

He set down two names of one people, so that from the names their deserts might be understood. For certainly he who was surnamed Israel was formerly called Jacob. For wrestling with the Saviour, he understood that it was God Whom he saw in bodily form: and therefore he was called, A man seeing God (Gen. 32:24–28). The people, therefore, whom he calls Jacob, in this place and in this matter he signifies as carnal, like the names which are given by parents to those born to them. But these, that is, the Jews, on account of their evil works were not called Israelites, because they sacrificed to heifers and in groves in Samaria, by the zeal and command of King Jeroboam. But that people which offered victims in Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord through the priests of God was called Israel. Samaria, therefore, on account of her impiety was delivered to captivity and death: but Jerusalem was preserved, because she had kings who loved God. But when Jerusalem too followed the impiety of Samaria, the sentence passed against Samaria overtook her. Therefore, then, it was said, God sent death into Jacob, that is, into the people of Samaria, which lived carnally, as we said above; And it came into Israel, that is, into the people of Jerusalem, because it followed idolatry, imitating Samaria: so that in like manner it was led away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, as Samaria also was by Salmanasar king of the Assyrians. This is plainly said: the sentence passed against the wicked finds the good as well, when they have ceased to be just. For death was sent into Jacob, as was shown above; it reached Israel, not passing over Samaria, but when the cause for which it was sent into Samaria was found in Jerusalem, having been sent there it came also into that place where the same thing was. For punishment follows the cause, not distinguishing the person.

Unius populi duo nomina posuit. Nam utique qui prius Jacob dicebatur, postea accepit nomen Israel, cum colluctatus est cum Filio Dei, et vidit eum per intellectum homo videns Deum. Populus ergo quem Jacob nuncupat, hoc in loco et in hac causa non videns Deum intelligitur, sed quasi carnalis habetur, propter opera bona: ut sicut Jacob priusquam videret Deum Christum, non dicebatur Israelita, et hi dum populus dicuntur Jacob, non videntes Deum designentur. Israel autem populum dicit, qui operibus Dei factus dignus habetur videre Deum. Itaque populus Jacob, quia carnali fretus erat auxilio, desperans de adjutorio Dei (idola enim diligebat) traditur morti, dum excitatur adversus eos rex Assyriorum. De Samaria autem hoc dictum intelligitur ab Isaia propheta, quae prius malum fecit coram Deo, vaccas instituens quibus sacrificarent, adinveniente nova sacerdotia Jeroboam. Mors ergo ad eos missa est: primi enim ipsi capti sunt, et transmigrati a Salmanasar rege Assyriorum, ut illorum exemplo populus Juda et Benjamin et Levi, quae duae tribus remanserunt, et dimidia in Jerusalem Roboam filio Salomonis, quae in templo Domini per sacerdotes Domini sacrificabant. Hos ergo dicit populum Israel propter tribum Juda et Levi, qui et ipsi cum exemplo Samariae territi recte

He set down two names of one people. For certainly he who was formerly called Jacob afterwards received the name Israel, when he wrestled with the Son of God, and saw Him through understanding, a man seeing God. The people, therefore, whom he calls Jacob, in this place and in this matter is understood as not seeing God, but is held as carnal, on account of good works: so that, just as Jacob, before he saw God the Christ, was not called an Israelite, these too, while they are called the people Jacob, may be marked out as not seeing God. But he calls Israel the people which, made so by the works of God, is held worthy to see God. And so the people Jacob, because it relied on carnal help, despairing of the aid of God (for it loved idols), is delivered to death, when the king of the Assyrians is stirred up against them. And this is understood to have been said by the prophet Isaiah about Samaria, which first did evil before God, setting up heifers to which they might sacrifice, Jeroboam devising new priesthoods. Death, therefore, was sent to them: for they themselves were the first to be captured, and carried away by Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, so that by their example the people of Judah and Benjamin and Levi, which two tribes remained, and the half [tribe] in Jerusalem under Roboam son of Solomon, which sacrificed in the temple of the Lord through the priests of the Lord. These, therefore, he calls the people Israel on account of the tribe of Judah and Levi, who themselves too, terrified by the example of Samaria, ought to have acted rightly,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2235

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2235

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis quae inter post vulgatas Veter. Test. fuit hactenus decima quarta.

The same question from the manuscripts of the second class, which among the later-published questions on the Old Testament has hitherto been the fourteenth.

(printed under page 466)

(b) ‹Unius populi› · call in col 2235

Ibid. Quaestio decima tertia.

Ibid., question thirteen.

(printed under page 466)

Forte, non bona.

Perhaps "non bona" ("not good").

(printed under page 466)

Page

running head: 2235 QUAESTIONES EX VETERI (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2236

agere debuerunt, maligne fecerunt idolis servientes. Tamen fuerunt aliquanti reges in Jerusalem. qui post excessum Salomonis et filii ejus Roboam, viam secuti sunt David, recte ambulantes in conspectu Dei. Omnes autem reges Samariae maligne egerunt in conspectu Domini usque ad transmigrationem suam. Ideoque carnali nomine nuncupati sunt. Et quia Jerusalem eorum impietatem secuta est, traditur etiam ipsa in captivitatem Nabuchodonosor regi Babyloniae: et hoc est misisse mortem in Jacob, et venisse in Israel. Missa est enim in Samariam; sed dum causa per quam missa est in Samariam, inventa est in Jerusalem, missa illuc venit etiam in locum in quo eadem res erat. Non enim locum sequitur vindicta, sed causam.

acted wickedly, serving idols. Yet there were some kings in Jerusalem who, after the death of Solomon and of his son Rehoboam, followed the way of David, walking uprightly in the sight of God. But all the kings of Samaria acted wickedly in the sight of the Lord until their deportation. And for that reason they were called by a carnal name. And because Jerusalem followed their impiety, it too is handed over into captivity to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: and this is what it means that death was sent into Jacob and came into Israel. For it was sent into Samaria; but since the cause on account of which it was sent into Samaria was found in Jerusalem, having been sent there it came also into the place in which the same thing was. For punishment follows not the place but the cause.

XXXVIII. — Si equus et mulus non habent intellectum, quanto magis terra res sine sensu? Quid ergo est ut dicatur terra benedicere Dominum (Psal. XXXI, 9; Dan. III, 74)?

38. If the horse and the mule have no understanding, how much more the earth, a thing without sense? What then does it mean that the earth is said to bless the Lord (Ps. 31:9; Dan. 3:74)?

Non est sic intelligendum ut sonant verba. Opus est enim, quod licet mutum sit, clamare dicitur laudem Creatoris: hortatur enim aspicientes se, benedicere opificem; sicut et omne vas bene compositum, laudat artificem. Quippe cum legatur in Psalmis, Numquid confitebitur tibi pulvis, aut annuntiabit veritatem tuam (Psal. XXIX, 10)? In omni ergo insensata substantia, non voluntas, quae utique nulla est, sed opera benedicunt auctorem. Si autem spiritualiter vis hoc accipere; per terram hominem significatum intellige, secundum dictum prophetae, Memento enim ait, Domine, quoniam terra sumus (Psal. CII, 14); quem opera creaturae in laudem Conditoris sui prorumpere exhortantur.

It is not to be understood as the words sound. For it is the work which, though it be mute, is said to cry out the praise of the Creator: for it exhorts those who look upon it to bless its maker; just as every well-made vessel also praises the craftsman. Indeed, since one reads in the Psalms, Shall the dust confess to Thee, or declare Thy truth (Ps. 29:10)? In every insensible substance, then, it is not the will, which certainly is none, but the works that bless their author. But if you wish to take this spiritually, understand man to be signified by the earth, according to the saying of the prophet, For remember, he says, O Lord, that we are earth (Ps. 102:14); man, whom the works of creation exhort to break forth into the praise of his Maker.

Benedicat terra Dominum, ait; hoc est, laudet et confiteatur veritatem tuam. Quomodo ergo in Psalmis, Numquid confitebitur tibi, inquit, pulvis, aut annuntiabit veritatem tuam? Non est sic intelligendum ut legitur et sonant verba. Neque enim sensum habet terra, ut gratias agat Creatori. Si autem spiritualiter hoc acceperis, terram hominem intellige, secundum dictum prophetae, Memento, Domine, quoniam terra sumus. Quam operam facti mundi in laudem Creatoris prorumpere exhortatur, ut confessionem veritatis ejus acquirat illis, quae licet taceat, clamare dicitur laudem Creatoris, cujus opus est. Haec ergo causa est, quod in creatione terra Deum dicitur benedicere.

Let the earth bless the Lord, he says; that is, let it praise and confess Thy truth. How then in the Psalms, Shall the dust, he says, confess to Thee, or declare Thy truth? It is not to be understood as it is read and as the words sound. For the earth has no sense, so as to give thanks to the Creator. But if you take this spiritually, understand the earth as man, according to the saying of the prophet, Remember, O Lord, that we are earth. This work of the made world he exhorts to break forth into the praise of the Creator, so that it may gain for them the confession of His truth, the work which, though it be silent, is said to cry out the praise of the Creator, whose work it is. This, then, is the reason why the earth in creation is said to bless God.

XXXIX.— Quid est quod legitur in Salomone, Spes est, inquit, in tenebris. Melior est canis vivus leone mortuo (Eccle. IX, 4)?

39. What is it that is read in Solomon, There is hope, he says, in darkness. A living dog is better than a dead lion (Eccl. 9:4)?

Tenebrae gentilitatem et ignorantiam significant. Spem ergo mojorem in gentili populo esse, quam in apostata, vult intelligi per id quod subjecit, dicens, Melior est canis vivus le⟨o⟩ne mortuo: quia sicut leo omnibus feris fortior est, ita Christianitas omnibus sectis. Si quis ergo ab hac destiterit, amittit salutem, ita ut deterior gentili sit. Potest enim fieri ut credat gentilis, et acquirat salutem, quam perdidit apostata. At si non credat, adhuc pejor est apostata; quia deterius est amisisse salutem, quam non habuisse. Canem autem, gentilem significatum Salvator ostendit dicens, Non licet accipere panem filiorum, et mittere canibus (Matth. XV, 26).

Darkness signifies paganism and ignorance. He wishes it to be understood, then, that there is greater hope in the gentile people than in the apostate, by what he added, saying, A living dog is better than a dead lion: because just as the lion is stronger than all wild beasts, so is Christianity than all sects. If anyone, then, abandons it, he loses salvation, so that he is worse than a gentile. For it can happen that the gentile believes and acquires the salvation which the apostate has lost. But if he does not believe, the apostate is still worse; because it is worse to have lost salvation than not to have had it. And that the gentile is signified by the dog the Saviour showed, saying, It is not lawful to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs (Matt. 15:26).

Tenebrae ignorantiam significant et gentilitatem: quia spes est in gentili potius, quam in apostata. Hunc enim dicit leonem mortuum, hoc est, christianum apostatam: quoniam quamdiu in fide duravit, leo erat; at ubi recessit, mortuus dicitur. Canem vero, gentilem dixit de quo spes est, ut credat: quamdiu enim vivit, speratur de illo. Illius autem spes peribit. Nam canem, gentilem significari Salvator ostendit dicens, Non licet panem accipere filiorum, et mittere canibus.

Darkness signifies ignorance and paganism: because there is hope rather in the gentile than in the apostate. For this one he calls a dead lion, that is, the Christian apostate: since as long as he persevered in the faith he was a lion; but when he withdrew, he is called dead. But the dog he called the gentile, of whom there is hope that he may believe: for as long as he lives, there is hope for him. But the other's hope will perish. For the Saviour showed that the gentile is signified by the dog, saying, It is not lawful to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.

XL. — Quid est quod dicit propheta, Laetare

40. What is it that the prophet says, Rejoice

Editors' notes and page, col. 2236

Footnotes

(a) ‹Benedicat terra Dominum› · call in col 2236

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas Veter. Test. decima sexta.

The same question from the manuscripts of the second class, the sixteenth among the later-published questions on the Old Testament.

(printed under page 466)

(b) ‹Tenebrae ignorantiam› · call in col 2236

Ibid. Quaestio decima nona.

Ibid., question nineteen.

(printed under page 466)

Page

running head: S EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2236 (left edge of the head cut off in the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2237

sterilis quae non paris, erumpe et exclama quae non parturis: quia multi filii desertae magis, quam ejus quae habet virum (Isai. LIV, 1)?

barren one who do not bear, break forth and cry out, you who do not give birth: for many are the children of the deserted one, more than of her who has a husband (Isa. 54:1)?

Quoniam filii Jerusalem terrenae apostataverunt a Deo, non potest huic gaudium adscribi, sed moeror. Ad opprobrium ergo hujus Jerusalem propheta illam superiorem Jerusalem laetari debere dicit, quam Apostolus matrem nostram appellat (Galat. IV, 26): quia sine gemitu et doloribus multo plures filios habet, quam haec quae cum lacrymis generat carnaliter, Judaeos utique: illa autem Christianos per fidem spiritualiter. Quam ideo desertam dicit, quia ipsa est vita, quam deseruit Adam primus, et secutus est mortem. Cum regenerantur ergo homines, revertuntur ad eam, quam deseruerant, vitam. Haec vita Christus est, quia ipse dicit, Ego sum vita (Joan. XIV, 6). Est et Deus Pater vita, quia ait Dominus, Sicut habet Pater vitam, ita dedit Filio vitam (Id. V, 26). Sine dubio et Spiritus sanctus vita est, dicente Domino. Quia de meo, inquit, accipiet (Id. XVI, 15). De vita utique qui accipit, vita est. Tres ergo sunt una vita. Haec est vita, per cujus fidem regeneramur. Ipsa est mater nostra, sicut in Genesi legimus, quia ipsa, id est, Vita, est mater omnium vivorum (Gen. III, 20). Qui sunt qui vivunt, nisi qui credunt?

Since the children of the earthly Jerusalem apostatized from God, joy cannot be ascribed to her, but grief. So, to the reproach of this Jerusalem, the prophet says that that higher Jerusalem, which the Apostle calls our mother (Gal. 4:26), ought to rejoice: because without groaning and pains she has far more children than this one who with tears gives birth carnally, namely to the Jews, whereas that one [gives birth] spiritually, through faith, to Christians. He calls her deserted for this reason, that she herself is the life which the first Adam deserted, and he followed death. So when men are reborn, they return to that life which they had deserted. This life is Christ, since He Himself says, I am the life (John 14:6). God the Father too is life, since the Lord says, As the Father has life, so He has given the Son life (John 5:26). Without doubt the Holy Spirit too is life, as the Lord says. For of Mine, He says, He will receive (John 16:15). He who receives of life is certainly life. So the Three are one life. This is the life through faith in which we are reborn. She herself is our mother, as we read in Genesis, that she, that is, Life, is the mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20). Who are those who live, if not those who believe?

Duas matres hoc in loco intelligimus, coelestem, et terrestrem: id est Jerusalem liberam, de qua dicit Apostolus, quae est mater nostra; et Jerusalem istam quam servire dicit cum filiis suis, hoc est, Judaeis. Propheta enim adventum Domini praedicans, et tempus gratiae plenum in exsultatione vocis obtestans, Jerusalem coelestem, quae ideo deserta dicta est, quia inhabitantes filios per fidem generatos non habebat, laetari debere hortatur. Tempus enim venerat, ut haberet filios olim praedictos et multo plures quam fuerant hujus Jerusalem: quia Christiani supergressi sunt numerum Judaeorum. Sterilis ergo dicta est, quia virgo est, quae non per mixtionem et complexum generat filium, sed per solam fidem spiritualiter. Unde nec parturire dicitur; quae enim parturit, dolores patitur. Haec enim exclamat in laetitiam salutis humanae. Jerusalem vero terrena ideo virum habuisse dicta est, quia carnaliter generabat. Civitas enim quasi in matrem est significata, sicut et habitatio coelestis illa ad quam vocamur, mater nostra dicitur.

We understand two mothers in this place, a heavenly and an earthly: that is, the free Jerusalem, of which the Apostle says, who is our mother; and this Jerusalem which he says is in servitude with her children, that is, with the Jews. For the prophet, proclaiming the coming of the Lord and bearing witness with exultation of voice to the time full of grace, exhorts the heavenly Jerusalem to rejoice, she who was called deserted for this reason, that she did not have children begotten through faith dwelling in her. For the time had come for her to have children foretold long before, and many more than this Jerusalem had had: because the Christians have surpassed the number of the Jews. So she was called barren because she is a virgin, who gives birth to a son not through intercourse and embrace, but spiritually through faith alone. Hence she is not said to be in labour either; for she who is in labour suffers pains. For she cries out in joy at the salvation of mankind. But the earthly Jerusalem was said to have had a husband for this reason, that she gave birth carnally. For the city has been signified as a mother, just as that heavenly dwelling too, to which we are called, is called our mother.

LXI.— An spiritus qui super aquas ferebatur, Spiritus sanctus intelligatur, quia dictum est, Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas (Gen. I, 2)?

61.— Whether the spirit which was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, since it was said, The Spirit of God was borne over the waters (Gen. 1:2)?

Si videtur hic errasse in ista sententia, non est accipiendum quod dixit. Ideo et a quibusdam Spiritus sanctus esse putatur, quia Dei spiritus legitur esse. Invalida autem et inanis assertio est: non solum enim ordo hoc non patitur, et ratio abnuit, sed et verba ipsa infirma probantur ad causam istam astruendam. Nam his verbis frequenter aliud invenimus significatum in Lege. Inter caetera autem ait Dominus Deus dicens, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro. Et in subjectis. Sed deleam, inquit, omnia, ab homine usque ad pecus (Id. VI 3, 7). Propterea quia diluvium facturus erat super terram, numquid Spiritus sanctus potest intelligi? Nonne de animabus locutus est? Nam non solum nostrae animae spiritus dicuntur, sed et pecorum. Sic enim scriptum est, Et mortua est omnis caro in aqua, in qua erat spiritus vitae (Id. VII, 22). Et in Ezechiele propheta sic dictum est, dum de reformatione hominum promittit Deus dicens, Haec dicit Dominus Deus ossibus istis: Extendam super vos cutem, et dabo in vobis spiritum meum, et vivetis (Ezech. XXXVII, 5). Numquid de sancto Spiritu locutus est et non de anima? Omnia quidem coelestia spiritus sunt, sed differunt ab invicem, et Deus spiritus est (Joan. IV, 24; II Cor. III, 17), sed longe aliter. Omnis itaque spiritus Dei est; non tamen Deus est, nisi spiritus qui de ipso est. Cujus significatio haec est ut sanctus dicatur. Nam et homines filii Dei vocantur, et

If he seems to have erred here in this statement, what he said is not to be accepted. For this reason too it is thought by some to be the Holy Spirit, because it is read to be the spirit of God. But it is a weak and empty assertion: for not only does the order [of the text] not allow this, and reason refuses it, but even the words themselves are shown to be feeble for establishing this case. For with these words we frequently find something else signified in the Law. Among other things the Lord God speaks, saying, My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh. And in what follows: But I will destroy, He says, all things, from man even to beast (Gen. 6:3, 7). Since He was about to bring a flood upon the earth, can the Holy Spirit possibly be understood? Did He not speak of souls? For not only are our souls called spirits, but also those of beasts. For thus it is written, And all flesh died in the water, in which there was the spirit of life (Gen. 7:22). And in the prophet Ezekiel it is said thus, when God promises the restoration of men, saying, Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will stretch skin over you, and I will give My spirit in you, and you shall live (Ezek. 37:5). Did He speak of the Holy Spirit and not of the soul? All heavenly things are indeed spirits, but they differ from one another, and God is spirit (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17), but in a far different way. So every spirit is God's; yet it is not God, except the Spirit which is from Him. The signification of this is that He is called holy. For men too are called sons of God, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 2237

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2237

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, et inter post vulgatas Veter. Test.

The same question from the manuscripts of the second class, and among the later-published questions on the Old Testament [no number printed].

(printed under page 467)

Page

running head: 2237 APPENDIX. 2238 (only "2237 APPENDIX." visible; right half cut off)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2238

Christus dicitur Filius Dei; sed intervallum est, quia hic verus est, illi adoptivi. Sic quoque et inter spiritum Dei diversitas est. Spiritus enim sanctus de Deo est, et consubstantivus ei; reliqui vero spiritus Dei esse dicuntur, sed creatura sunt. Sed nec ordinis est ut Spiritus sanctus ferri super aquas intelligatur; cum super aquas spiritualem creaturam esse tradat ratio, et quae super se habeat potiorem creaturam alteram, quia creatura a creatura differt in claritate (I Cor. XV, 41): quidquid enim prope sedem Dei acceditur, clariora sunt ministeria. Unde dicit Raphael angelus inter caetera: Ego sum, inquit, unus ex septem angelis sanctis, qui astamus et conversamur ante majestatem Dei (Tob. XII, 15).

Christ is called the Son of God; but there is a distance, because He is the true [Son], they are adoptive. So also within the spirit of God there is a diversity. For the Holy Spirit is from God, and consubstantial with Him; but the other spirits are said to be of God, yet they are creatures. Nor is it in keeping with order that the Holy Spirit should be understood to be borne over the waters, since reason teaches that above the waters there is a spiritual creature, and one that has above itself another, more excellent creature, because creature differs from creature in brightness (1 Cor. 15:41): for the nearer one approaches the seat of God, the brighter are the ministries. Hence the angel Raphael says, among other things: I am, he says, one of the seven holy angels, who stand by and go about before the majesty of God (Tob. 12:15).

Si ideo a quibusdam Spiritus sanctus putatur, quia Dei esse spiritus legitur, invalida et inanis assertio est. Non solum enim ordo hoc non patitur, et ratio abnuit, sed et verba ipsa infirma probantur ad hanc assertionem astruendam. His enim verbis aliud dictum significatur frequenter in Lege. Ait autem Dominus Deus, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, propterea quod sint caro. Et in subjectis, Sed deleam, inquit, omnia ab homine usque ad pecus. Hoc utique dicit, quia diluvium inducere habuit super terram. Nunquam hic Spiritus sanctus potest intelligi. De animabus enim dixit. Nam non solum nostrae animae spiritus dicuntur, sed et pecorum. Sic enim scriptum est, Et mortua est omnis caro in aqua, in qua erat spiritus vitae. Et in Ezechiele propheta sic dictum est, cum de reformatione hominum promittit Deus dicens, Haec dicit Dominus ossibus istis. Extendam super vos cutem, et dabo in vos spiritum meum, et vivetis. Non utique ex eo Spiritus sanctus debet intelligi, quia dictum est a Domino, Dabo spiritum meum in vos: cum manifeste de anima dixerit Deus. Commune est enim hoc omni spiritui cum sancto Spiritu, ut similiter dicatur omnis spiritus, Dei spiritus. Intelligentia enim hic necessaria est quae discernat res unius nominis. Nam Deus utique spiritus dicitur, et anima hominis spiritus dicitur, et ventus similiter, et aer, et anima pecoris, et angeli, et quaecumque acceperunt ut vivant per substantiam propriam. Sed jam per intelligentiam discernis aliter Deum spiritum dici, et aliter creaturam: sicut aliter intelligis Christum dici Filium Dei, et aliter homines vocari filios Dei. Quotiescumque autem spiritum qui proprie de Deo est, vult Scriptura significare, addit dicens, Spiritum sanctum; ut per hoc non creatura intelligatur, sed quia de Deo est, non aliud esse quam est Deus, credatur. Moyses autem cum creaturam hylicam, id est confusionem rerum describeret, quae utique sensu bruta est, super terram et abyssum et tenebras spiritum Dei superferri interlocutus est, ut ex eo spiritu et loco in quo ferebatur, superior creatura, quam spiritualem dicimus, cognoscatur. Nam et ex eo quod superferri illum dixit, creaturam illum significavit, quia omnis creatura Dei fertur virtute a quo accepit ut sit. Nam quis ordo est ut Spiritus sanctus super aquas ferretur, quem constat utique super omnem esse creaturam? Si enim Christus in dextera Dei est super omnes coelos (Coloss. III, 1), illic est et Spiritus sanctus. Res enim unius meriti et naturae simul sint oportet: quanquam ubique Deus esse non negetur, hoc est Trinitatis potestas; tamen debita honorificentia etiam reservatur, ut super omnem creaturam esse dicatur, ut proprium illi hoc sit. Quare et dicimus, Pater noster qui es in coelis (Matth. VI, 9); et, qui lucem habitat inaccessibilem (I Tim. VI, 16).

If it is supposed by some to be the Holy Spirit for this reason, that it is read to be the spirit of God, the assertion is weak and empty. For not only does order not permit this, and reason refuse it, but the very words are also shown to be weak for establishing this assertion. For by these words something else is frequently signified in the Law. Now the Lord God says, My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh. And in what follows, But I will destroy, He says, everything from man even to beast. This He says indeed because He was to bring a flood upon the earth. Here the Holy Spirit can never be understood. For He spoke of souls. For not only are our souls called spirits, but those of beasts also. For thus it is written, And all flesh died in the water, in which was the spirit of life. And in Ezekiel the prophet it is said thus, when God makes a promise concerning the restoration of men, saying, Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you, and I will put my spirit in you, and you shall live. Not indeed on this account ought the Holy Spirit to be understood, because it was said by the Lord, I will put my spirit in you: since God clearly spoke of the soul. For this is common to every spirit with the Holy Spirit, that every spirit is likewise called the spirit of God. For understanding is needed here, which may distinguish things of one name. For God is indeed called spirit, and the soul of man is called spirit, and likewise the wind, and the air, and the soul of a beast, and the angels, and whatever things have received the power to live by their own substance. But now by understanding you distinguish that God is called spirit in one way, and the creature in another: just as you understand that Christ is called Son of God in one way, and that men are called sons of God in another. But whenever Scripture wishes to signify the spirit that is properly from God, it adds, saying, the Holy Spirit; so that by this not a creature may be understood, but, because He is from God, He may be believed to be nothing other than what God is. Moses, however, when he was describing the hylic creation, that is, the confusion of things, which is indeed brute in sense, interposed that the spirit of God was borne above the earth and the abyss and the darkness, so that from that spirit and from the place in which it was borne a superior creature, which we call spiritual, might be recognized. For also by saying that it was borne above, he signified it to be a creature, because every creature of God is borne by the power of Him from Whom it received its being. For what order is it that the Holy Spirit should be borne over the waters, Whom it is agreed is indeed above every creature? For if Christ is at the right hand of God above all the heavens (Col. 3:1), there also is the Holy Spirit. For things of one merit and nature must be together: although it is not denied that God is everywhere, that is, the power of the Trinity; yet due honour is still reserved, so that He is said to be above every creature, so that this may be proper to Him. Wherefore we also say, Our Father, Who art in the heavens (Matt. 6:9); and, Who dwells in inaccessible light (1 Tim. 6:16).

XLII. — Cur angelus missus loqui ad Moysen, in igne et in rubo apparuit in monte (Exod. III, 1, 2)?

XLII. Why did the angel sent to speak to Moses appear in fire and in a bush on the mountain (Exod. 3:1–2)?

Deus excelsus est: dignum ergo fuit ut in alto appareret, scilicet in loco qui vicinus est coelo. Et quia ignis semper superiora appetit sursum crescendo

God is exalted: it was fitting, therefore, that He should appear on high, namely in a place which is near to heaven. And because fire always seeks the higher things, growing upwards

Editors' notes and page, col. 2238

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2238

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, et inter post vulgatis vester. Test. secunda.

The same question from the manuscripts of the second class, and the second among the later-published questions on the Old Testament [printed "vulgatis vester."].

(printed under page 467)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2238
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word crescendo was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2239

PL 35:2239

ad coelum, in eo debuit coelorum Dominus apparere, qui de humo ad superna contendit. In rubo vero causa fecit, ut appareret, delictorum. Quia enim peccatorum causa Legem descenderat dare, spinae autem in peccatis significantur, quia sustinui, inquit, ut faceret uvam, fecit autem spinas (Isai. V, 2); et Lex statim vindicare non venerat, sed prius ostendere: ideo ignis rubum non combussit; id est, data Lex non fecit reos de praeterito peccatores. Nam et quia peccata non sunt de natura, sed ex accidenti; rubi, id est, spinarum materia non habet radicem spinis armatam. Ratione ergo factum est, ut ita Dominus appareret Moysi.

to heaven, the Lord of the heavens had to appear in that which strives from the ground towards the things on high. In the bush, however, the cause of offences made Him appear. For since He had come down to give the Law on account of sins, and thorns signify sins (for "I waited," He says, "for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns" (Isa. 5:2)), and the Law had not come to punish at once, but first to show, therefore the fire did not burn up the bush; that is, the Law, once given, did not make sinners guilty for what was past. For also, because sins are not from nature but from accident, the material of the bush, that is, of thorns, does not have a root armed with thorns. It was therefore done with reason, that the Lord should appear thus to Moses.

Natura angelica secundum se simplex est, cujus substantia superiora appetit, non inferiora. Ideoque Dominus in igne apparuit, cujus natura semper ad superiora tendit, ubi Christus est. In rubo autem idcirco, quia et spinas habet quae noceant, et facilis est ad combustionem et tamen ab igne non combustus est. Ignem fac esse Legem, quia peccatoribus ignis est. Rubus autem in peccatis significatur, quia a Salvatore ad comparationem caeterorum rubus mala arbor significata est: et peccata nihil aliud quam malitia. Igitur ignis cum in persona Legis apparuit, non tamen exussit rubum: sicut Lex data praeteriti peccati causa, non utique vindicavit, sed magis abstinuit vim justitiae suae, ut postea jam data si contempta fuisset, vindicaret. Hac ergo causa Dominus in igne et rubo apparuit, quia in rubo ignis Legem significavit.

The angelic nature is in itself simple, and its substance seeks the higher things, not the lower. And therefore the Lord appeared in fire, whose nature always tends towards the higher things, where Christ is. And He appeared in a bush for this reason: because it both has thorns which harm and is easy to burn, and yet it was not burnt by the fire. Take the fire to be the Law, because for sinners it is fire. The bush, for its part, signifies sins, because the bush was signified by the Saviour as a bad tree in comparison with the others; and sins are nothing other than malice. Therefore, although the fire appeared in the person of the Law, it nevertheless did not burn up the bush: just as the Law, given on account of past sin, did not punish at all, but rather held back the force of its justice, so that afterwards, once it had been given, it would punish if it had been despised. For this reason, therefore, the Lord appeared in fire and in a bush, because in the bush the fire signified the Law.

XLIII. — Cum Abraham filium immolare prohibitus sit, cur Jephte filiae sacrificium persolvere non est prohibitus (Gen. XXII, 11, 12; Judic. XI)?

XLIII. — Since Abraham was forbidden to sacrifice his son, why was Jephthah not forbidden to carry out the sacrifice of his daughter (Gen. 22:11, 12; Judg. 11)?

Multum intervallum est inter causam Abrahae, et causam Jephte. Primo quidem Abraham legitime natus est, Jephte vero spurius: erat enim filius meretricis. Deinde Abraham conversationis optimae, Jephte autem princeps latronum. Abraham vir justus, et in tentatione probatus; in Jephte autem nullum justitiae testimonium. Abrahae itaque praeceptum est, ut filium suum Deo offerret, ut ostenderetur hominibus quantum Deo crederet Abraham, qui nec filium suum jubente eo dubitavit occidere. Qui enim contra mundi spem nasci eum potuit facere de sterili et anicula, non fuit ambiguum quod contra mundi rationem posset eum suscitare a mortuis (Hebr. XI, 19). Hoc facto cumulatus est justitia Abraham. Ostendit enim Deus, quia non sanguinem pueri poposcerat, sed ut famulus suus Abraham hoc facto auctior fieret. Diligentes enim se aliquid pati vult, ut juste illos promovere videatur. Nam Jephte homo facinorosus et improvidus, stulta devotione munus Deo promisit dicens, Quidquid mihi redeunti a caede occurrerit ante ostia domus meae, hoc offeram Deo. Numquid coactus devovit, aut numquid intellexit quomodo deberet votum facere? Quid enim si canis illi aut asinus occurrisset, quod Dominus offerri prohibuit; aut si filius alienus, aut si uxor, ut in dolore alieno exsultans redderet votum? Idcirco inprovidae menti quod in alienam perniciem devoverat, in illum ipsum Judicio divino retortum est: et usque adeo insensatus fuit jephte, ut nec postea stulte se devovisse cognosceret, ut error ejus qui ab ipso coeperat, per ipsum emendaretur. Intelligere enim debuit Deum non tali sacrificio delectari, et rogare pro stultitia sua, et aliud offerre quod contra Legem non esset: sed fidelem se praestitit factus parricida, cum constet fidem stultam non solum minime prodesse, sed obesse. In causa itaque filiae suae ipse mactatus est, unde et Deus a tali sacrificio dissimulavit. Si enim hoc prohibuisset, aliud offerre sibi illum voluisse videretur, cum sciret ut indignum non debere

There is a great distance between the case of Abraham and the case of Jephthah. First of all, Abraham was born legitimately, but Jephthah was a bastard: for he was the son of a harlot. Next, Abraham was of the best manner of life, but Jephthah was a chief of robbers. Abraham was a just man, and proved in temptation; but in Jephthah there is no testimony of righteousness. Abraham, therefore, was commanded to offer his son to God, so that it might be shown to men how much Abraham believed God, he who did not hesitate to kill even his own son when He commanded it. For it was not doubtful that He Who, against the hope of the world, could cause him to be born of a barren woman and an old woman could raise him from the dead against the reckoning of the world (Heb. 11:19). By this deed Abraham was heaped with righteousness. For God showed that He had not demanded the boy's blood, but that His servant Abraham might be made greater by this deed. For He wishes those who love Him to suffer something, so that He may be seen to advance them justly. Jephthah, on the other hand, a wicked and improvident man, with a foolish vow promised a gift to God, saying: Whatever meets me before the doors of my house as I return from the slaughter, this I will offer to God. Was he compelled to vow, or did he understand how he ought to make a vow? For what if a dog or an ass had met him, which the Lord forbade to be offered; or if it had been another man's son, or if it had been his wife, so that he would fulfil his vow exulting in another's grief? Therefore what he had vowed with an improvident mind to another's destruction was turned back by divine Judgement upon himself: and Jephthah was so senseless that not even afterwards did he recognize that he had vowed foolishly, so that his error, which had begun from himself, might be corrected through himself. For he ought to have understood that God does not take delight in such a sacrifice, and to have prayed for his folly, and to have offered something else which would not be against the Law: but he showed himself faithful by becoming a parricide, although it is established that foolish faith not only profits not at all, but does harm. In the case of his daughter, therefore, he himself was slain, and hence God also took no notice of such a sacrifice. For if He had forbidden it, He would have seemed to have wished him to offer Him something else, since He knew that as unworthy it ought not

Editors' notes and page, col. 2239

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2239

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis inter post vulgatas Veter. Test. septima.

The same question from the manuscripts of the second class, the seventh among the later-published questions on the Old Testament.

(printed under page 468)

(b) ‹XLIII› · call in col 2239

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 468)

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI T (cut off at the image edge; column number printed 2239, partly blurred)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): caede | coede

PL 35:2240

illum offerre. Filia autem ejus lucrum fecit : quia enim innocens in malis patris mortua est, poena caruit inferi; quod diu forte vivendo adipisci nequisset. Ut autem triumphus victoriae Jephte prosequeretur, non meritum ejus fecit, neque populi : nec enim legitur supplices illos fuisse Deo, ut daret eis defensorem. Aut numquid ipsum Jephte Dominus misit, aut allocutus est? Sed quia Allophyli deos suos laudabant, quasi qui subjectos illis fecerant filios Israel, vituperantes Deum Abrahae; idcirco propter honorem nominis sui Deus vindicavit in Allophylos, si non propter istos vel propter meritum Abrahae et suum culmen. Aut numquid quia spiritus Domini insiliit in Samsonem meretricantem (Judic. XIV, 6, 19; XV, 14), dignus dicetur, cum hoc factum intelligatur ad Allophylorum perniciem?

to offer him. But his daughter made a gain: for since she died innocent amid her father's evils, she escaped the punishment of the underworld, which perhaps by living long she could not have attained. Now that the triumph of victory should attend Jephthah was not the work of his merit, nor of the people's: for it is not read that they were suppliants to God, that He should give them a defender. Or did the Lord send Jephthah himself, or speak to him? But because the foreigners praised their gods, as those who had made the sons of Israel subject to them, reviling the God of Abraham, therefore for the honour of His name God took vengeance on the foreigners, if not for the sake of these men, then for the merit of Abraham and His own eminence. Or because the spirit of the Lord leapt upon Samson while he was whoring (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14), will he be called worthy, when this deed is understood to have been for the destruction of the foreigners?

XLIV. — Quomodo ostendi posset ex Prophetarum testimonio jam in Novo Testamento a gentibus recepto, promissionem quam Deus Abrahae fecerat, per Christi adventum esse completam?

XLIV. — How could it be shown from the testimony of the Prophets, already received by the gentiles in the New Testament, that the promise which God had made to Abraham was fulfilled through the coming of Christ?

Scriptum est in Isaia propheta, Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur omnibus gentibus (Isai. LVI, 7). Sed forte dicant Judaei, Domus Dei, id est synagoga, omnibus patet. Nec renitimur; ita tamen ut, sicut semper, circumcisi applicentur ad Legem. Lex enim eorum est qua jussi sunt more Abrahae circumcidi. Nihil ergo novum hoc exemplo prophetae poterit videri; quia ex quacumque gente quis veniens, non est prohibitus adjungere se Legi ab exordio Judaismi. Nihil novum a propheta dictum poterit aestimari; imo superflue, si semper admissi sunt servire Gentiles Deo Abrahae, nec aliquando prohibiti inveniuntur. Et verum est, quia subjicientes se Legi, nunquam non suscepti probantur. Si igitur haec ita sunt, superflue videtur admonuisse propheta, quod semel traditum custoditum est semper. Et an quis tam hebes poterit inveniri, qui dicat tantum prophetam rem superfluam et inanem locutum? Nescio cui hoc tutum sit vel audire et non prohibere. Nam cum Judaicus utique populus propter peccata, quae in Deum delinquebant, ab idolis suffragia requirentes, a Prophetis saepe correpti, poenitentiae iter ingredi nollent, ut reverterentur ad Deum; ad exprobrationem illorum domum suam Deus aperturum se omnibus gentibus ad orandum significavit, ut abdicatis Judaeis, alios in loco illorum positurum se ostenderet. Nam si semper admissae sunt gentes ad Legem, sicut supra dictum est, quomodo hoc propheta dicebat futurum, nisi quia aliud significavit quam praeceptum erat prius? Non enim posset dicere de re quae quotidie fiebat, quia futura erat. Unde manifestum est istud ad necem proficere Judaeorum, quibus ostendit propheta, quod alii his amotis vocandi essent, ac recepturi domum gratiae Dei, quod promissum fuerat Judaeis. Quid sit autem promissum, Isaias propheta docet, dicens, Veniet ex Sion qui eripiet et avertet impietatem ab Jacob; et hoc illis a me testamentum (Isai. LIX, 20, 21). Igitur hoc testamentum est abolitio peccatorum. Hoc est testamentum Novum, quod promissum est per Jeremiam dicentem, Ecce venient dies, dicit Dominus, et consummabo domui Israel et domui Juda Testamentum novum, non secundum Testamentum quod disposui patribus illorum in die, qua apprehendi manum illorum, ut educerem illos de terra Aegypti: quia ipsi non permanserunt in Testamento meo, et ego neglexi eos, dicit Dominus (Jerem. XXXI, 31, 32). Haec est praevaricatio illorum, quando simulacrum vituli fecerunt, tunc Testamentum ejus corruperunt. Unde et tabulae in quibus data Lex fuerat, sub monte confractae sunt (Exod. XXXII, 4, 19), ex eo quod graviora praecepta meruerunt accipere. Sed quia clemens et misericors Deus est, promisit per Prophetas mutare se Legem, ut aliud Testamentum

It is written in the prophet Isaiah, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isa. 56:7). But perhaps the Jews may say, The house of God, that is, the synagogue, is open to all. Nor do we resist this; yet only so that, as always, the circumcised are joined to the Law. For their Law is that by which they were ordered to be circumcised after the manner of Abraham. Nothing new, then, could be seen in this example of the prophet, since anyone coming from whatever nation was not forbidden to attach himself to the Law from the beginning of Judaism. Nothing new could be reckoned to have been said by the prophet; nay rather, it was said superfluously, if the Gentiles have always been admitted to serve the God of Abraham and are never found to have been forbidden. And it is true that those submitting themselves to the Law are shown never to have been refused. If then these things are so, the prophet seems to have given a superfluous admonition, since what was once handed down has always been kept. And can anyone be found so dull as to say that so great a prophet spoke a superfluous and empty thing? I do not know for whom it would be safe even to hear this and not forbid it. For since the Jewish people, on account of the sins which they committed against God, seeking help from idols, though often rebuked by the Prophets, were unwilling to enter the path of penance so as to return to God, to reproach them God signified that He would open His house to all nations for prayer, so as to show that, the Jews being cast off, He would put others in their place. For if the nations were always admitted to the Law, as was said above, how did the prophet say that this was to come, unless because he signified something other than what had been prescribed before? For he could not say of a thing which was happening daily that it was going to be. Hence it is plain that this tends to the destruction of the Jews, to whom the prophet showed that, they being removed, others were to be called and would receive the house of the grace of God, which had been promised to the Jews. But what the promise is, the prophet Isaiah teaches, saying, There shall come out of Sion one who shall deliver and turn away impiety from Jacob; and this is the testament to them from Me (Isa. 59:20–21). Therefore this testament is the abolition of sins. This is the New Testament, which was promised through Jeremiah, who says, Behold, the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new Testament, not according to the Testament which I appointed for their fathers on the day when I took their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they did not abide in My Testament, and I disregarded them, says the Lord (Jer. 31:31–32). This is their transgression: when they made the image of a calf, then they corrupted His Testament. Hence also the tablets on which the Law had been given were broken beneath the mountain (Exod. 32:4, 19), because they deserved to receive heavier precepts. But because God is merciful and compassionate, He promised through the Prophets that He would change the Law, so that another Testament

Editors' notes and page, col. 2240

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2240

Adversum Judaeos. Haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Against the Jews. This is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 468)

Page

running head: EX VETERI TESTAMENTO 2240
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2241

daret, quod differret ab eo quod dederat prius : ut non solum quod grave erat mutaretur, sed et illa quae in figura data erant, id est, sabbatum et circumcisio : ut quia diu pressi erant, per omnia relevati supplices Deo gratias agerent. Et quia in praevaricatione paterna durantes animos ab idolis avertere noluerunt; gentes cum residuis qui fidem servaverunt, Testamento frui quod futurum dixerat, contestatur : ut duplici modo gravati excruciarentur perfidi Judaei. Et ad tempus enim gravati sunt praeceptis, et in futurum congruas poenas exsolvent, quia neque in Veteri, neque in Novo Testamento fideles inventi sunt. Novum ergo Testamentum dare se dixit, ut cessaret Vetus, quod datum erat Patribus. Ac per hoc qui in hoc Testamento servit Deo, neque sabbatum, neque neomenias, neque circumcisionem custodit, neque escarum discretiones; sed tantum Dei habet timorem in fide : quia non ex Lege justificabitur, sed ex fide, dicente Habacuc propheta, Quia justus ex fide vivet (Habac. II, 4) : ut non utique jam multis utatur praeceptis ad Deum promerendum, sed paucis : Isaia iterum de hoc sensu eadem dicente; ait enim, Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel tanquam arena maris, reliquiae eorum salvae fient. Verbum enim consummans et brevians in aequitate, quia verbum breviatum faciet Dominus in universo orbe (Isai. X, 22, 23). Reliquis qui in fide promissionis perseveraverint, caeteris diffidentibus, breviatum Legis verbum ostendit : hoc est Novum Testamentum quod promisit. Quod non aliter Testamentum diceretur, nisi simili modo etiam hoc sanguinis testimonio firmaretur; sicut et Testamentum Vetus, ut nomen unum sit utriusque : sed in Veteri multa, in novo autem pauca sint praecepta, sicut promisit. Ut quia Abraham patrem multarum gentium futurum dixerat (Gen. XVII, 4, 5), eodem modo justificarentur et filii, sicut fuerat justificatus et pater : ut cessantibus quae post fidem Abrahae coeperant, suscipientes fidem per quam justificatus est idem Abraham, filii essent Abrahae, sicut dictum est a Domino. Quod quidem nec mirum nec inauditum est, ut sine cura sabbati et circumcisione et reliquis hujusmodi mandatis justificentur homines. Nec enim per hoc placuit Deo Enoch, ut transferretur, neque, Noe hoc servando in diluvio solus inventus est justus, neque ipse Abraham postquam circumcisus est, justificatus est : Credidit, inquit, Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam (Hebr. XI, 5, 7, 8; Rom. IV, 3). Tunc circumcisus est, ut signum esset in eo, quia credidit cum senior esset, filium se habiturum. Non ergo circumcisio commendat Abraham, sed fides. Ideoque credentibus sufficit fides ad justificationem, ut filii sint Abrahae in fide, non in circumcisione, quia his non est opus circumcisione. Non enim hoc creditur, quod credidit Abraham. Judaei autem idcirco jussi sunt circumcidi, ut fidei Abrahae signum haberent, non suae fidei, sed ut filii ejus secundum carnem scirentur : si autem credant, erunt filii ejus et in justificatione. Quid enim prodest dici filium potentis eum qui impotens sit, nisi quia magis obest? Dedecus est enim, inclyti et gloriosi filium esse sine honore. Nam in tantum circumcisio carnis nullius meriti est, ut vindicaturum se dicat Deus per Jeremiam prophetam in omnes circumcisos praeputio, si non fuerint circumcisi corde (Jerem. IV, 4). Illis autem non indignatur, qui circumcisi corde praeputiati sunt carne, quia nemo sine cordis circumcisione placuit Deo. Quicumque ergo circumcisi sunt carne, genus significant Abrahae juxta carnem; nam qui circumcisi sunt corde, significant genus Dei secundum fidem, quia circumcisi omni mundano errore Deum profitentur parentem. Quid ergo prodest carnis circumcisio, si cum fides defuerit in Judaeo, ad meritum Abrahae pervenire non poterit? Aut quid obest praeputium, cum nemo, nisi qui aemulus fuerit fidei Abrahae, pervenit ad justitiam ejus? Superflue igitur gloriantur de carnis circumcisione, cum videant illam apud

He would give, which would differ from that which He had given before: so that not only what was burdensome would be changed, but also those things which had been given in figure, that is, the sabbath and circumcision: so that, because they had long been oppressed, being relieved in all things they might as suppliants give thanks to God. And because, persisting in their fathers' transgression, they refused to turn their minds away from idols, He solemnly declares that the Gentiles, together with the remnant who kept the faith, would enjoy the Testament which He had said was to come: so that the faithless Jews might be tormented in a twofold way. For they were both burdened with precepts for a time, and in the future they will pay fitting penalties, because they were found faithful neither in the Old nor in the New Testament. He said therefore that He would give a New Testament, so that the Old, which had been given to the fathers, might cease. And for this reason he who serves God in this Testament keeps neither the sabbath, nor new moons, nor circumcision, nor distinctions of foods; but has only the fear of God in faith: because he will be justified not from the Law, but from faith, as the prophet Habakkuk says, Because the just man will live by faith (Hab. 2:4): so that he may now no longer use many precepts to merit God, but few: Isaiah again saying the same things in this sense; for he says, If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnants of them will be saved. For [He is] completing the word and shortening it in equity, because the Lord will make a shortened word in the whole world (Isa. 10:22–23). To the remnant who would persevere in the faith of the promise, while the rest distrusted, He showed the shortened word of the Law: this is the New Testament which He promised. Which would not otherwise be called a Testament, unless this too were confirmed in like manner by the testimony of blood; just as the Old Testament also was, so that the name of both may be one: but in the Old there are many precepts, whereas in the new there are few, as He promised. So that, because He had said that Abraham would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4–5), the sons too might be justified in the same way as the father also had been justified: so that, the things which had begun after the faith of Abraham ceasing, those who take up the faith by which the same Abraham was justified might be sons of Abraham, as was said by the Lord. Which indeed is neither astonishing nor unheard of, that men should be justified without care for the sabbath, and without circumcision and the other commands of this kind. For neither did Enoch please God through this, so as to be translated, nor was Noah, by keeping this, alone found just in the flood, nor was Abraham himself justified after he was circumcised: Abraham, it says, believed God, and it was reckoned to him for justice (Heb. 11:5, 7, 8; Rom. 4:3). Then he was circumcised, so that there might be a sign in him that he had believed, when he was older, that he would have a son. Therefore it is not circumcision that commends Abraham, but faith. And so for believers faith suffices for justification, so that they are sons of Abraham in faith, not in circumcision, because for them there is no need of circumcision. For this is not what is believed, which Abraham believed. But the Jews were ordered to be circumcised for this reason, that they might have a sign of Abraham's faith, not of their own faith, but so that they might be known as his sons according to the flesh: but if they believe, they will be his sons also in justification. For what does it profit one who is powerless to be called the son of a powerful man, except that it rather harms him? For it is a disgrace to be the son of an illustrious and glorious man without honour. For circumcision of the flesh is of so little merit that God says through the prophet Jeremiah that He will take vengeance on all who are circumcised in the foreskin, if they have not been circumcised in heart (Jer. 4:4). But He is not angry with those who, circumcised in heart, are uncircumcised in the flesh, because no one has pleased God without circumcision of the heart. Whoever therefore are circumcised in the flesh signify the race of Abraham according to the flesh; for those who are circumcised in heart signify the race of God according to faith, because, circumcised from all worldly error, they profess God as their parent. What then does circumcision of the flesh profit, if, when faith is lacking in a Jew, he will not be able to attain to the merit of Abraham? Or what harm does the foreskin do, since no one attains to Abraham's justice except he who has been an emulator of his faith? Superfluously, therefore, do they glory in the circumcision of the flesh, when they see that with

Editors' notes and page, col. 2241

Page

running head: 2241 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence with "daret" (sentence continues from col. 2240); column ends mid-sentence at "apud", no hyphen; the right-hand column of the page (col. 2242) is cut off and not set; "sine cura sabbati et circumcisione" printed thus (circumcisionis possible), left as printed; "novo" lower-case as printed; "ut" before "fidei Abrahae" slightly blotted but legible; text is a single printed paragraph

PL 35:2242

Deum meritum non habere. Et si, sicut est ostensum, melius est fidem habere, quam circumcisionem, meliores sunt Gentiles Judaeis; quia isti fidem habent, Judaei circumcisionem. Et quos putas magis agnoscat filios Abraham; qui juxta carnem similes illi sunt, an qui in fide? Sed Abrahae fides testimonium perhibet, Ac per hoc non in carne, sed in fide gloriatur. Ideoque istos in filios suscepit, quos videt imitatores esse gloriae suae. Quomodo enim illos potest appellare filios, a quibus videt abhorrere unde pla⟨c⟩uit Deo et justificatus est? Non ergo filios suos, se⟨d⟩ inimicos poterit judicare. Invidi enim ejus videntur spernentes fidem, per quam glorificatus est. Nec mirum si Judaei diffidentes deprehendantur minime suscipientes Novum Testamentum, cum sciamus illos nec in Veteri fuisse fideles. Semper enim contra Deum rebelles et contumeliosi fuerunt, unde talia praecepta acceperunt, per quae cervices illorum, quae inflexibiles erant, premerentur. Nunquam enim bona de Deo sperare voluerunt, cujus tanta beneficia et virtutes tam mirandas agnoverant. Hinc est unde inter caetera dicit Ezechiel propheta, Levavi manum meam in deserto inter eos, ut dispergerentur inter gentes, et disseminarentur in regionibus, eo quod justificationes meas non fecerunt, et praecepta mea repulerunt. Et in subjectis, Ego dedi illis praecepta non bona, et justificationes meas, in quibus non vivent in eis (Ezech. XX, 23-25). Ostendit qua causa data sint illis praecepta tanta et tam aspera, ut quia ingrati tantis bonis exstiterunt, dictante justitia, praeceptis severioribus premerentur. Idcirco non bona ea dixit, cum justa sint: quia non illis ad justificationem proficiebant, sed ad exitium; et poena licet digne illata, patienti tamen bona non est. Post haec tamen, quia propius est Deus, Novum Testamentum daturum se promisit, in quo abbreviatio facta Legis justificaret credentes, sicut justificatus est Abraham: ut cessantibus neomeniis et sabbato et circumcisione et caeteris praeceptis, non quae naturalis legis sunt, id est, homicidium, adulterium, et talia; ita justificarentur, sicut Abraham. Renovata enim fide Abrahae, omnia voluit cessare, ut tale tempus esset, quale fuerat quando credidit Abraham. Sed forte dicant Judaei: Si ea quae a Moyse data sunt, cessare dicta sunt per abbreviationem Legis, numquid circumcisio a Moyse data est ut cesset? Ac per hoc signum patris nostri habemus, quia sumus filii Abrahae, quod propter testimonium generis cessare non debet. Tempore quidem suo servanda fuit circumcisio, id est, antequam Novum Testamentum daretur, quod promissum erat. At ubi Dei gratia praestante, onera Legis cessare jussa sunt, quid opus est circumcidi? Idcirco autem nova Lex data est, id est spiritualis, ut cessarent carnalia, et suscipientes eam signum ejus acciperent: ut sicut in Veteri Testamento Abrahae signum habuerunt, ex quo coepit Testamentum Vetus; ita et in Novo signum habeant Salvatoris, qui Novi Testamenti constitutor est. Quemadmodum enim ex Abraham Hebraei dicti sunt, sic et ex Christo Christiani dicuntur. Quicumque ergo adhuc Hebraei dicuntur, Novum Testamentum quod promisit Deus, non receperunt, beneficium et misericordiam Dei in irritum deducentes: qui populum suum jam non hominis nomine volens censeri, sub Filii sui nomine constituere illos dignatus est. Qua igitur audacia dicunt Judaei, non nostra nos lege uti, sed sua; cum dicat David, Confitebor tibi in gentibus (Psal. XVII, 50); et iterum, Epulamini, gentes, cum populo ejus? Et ad Jeremiam prophetam dicit Dominus, Priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te: et antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi tè; et prophetam in gentibus posui te (Jerem. I, 5). Judaismus certe proprias habet significationes: aut enim populus iste in Jacob significatur, aut in Samaria, aut in Jerusalem, aut in Judaea, aut in Israel. De gentibus autem apertum est, quia aliter illos significat, quam sunt Judaei. Noster ergo propheta est Jeremias. Quamvis enim in omnibus Prophetis gentes participes doni sui

God it has no merit. And if, as has been shown, it is better to have faith than circumcision, the Gentiles are better than the Jews; for these have faith, the Jews circumcision. And whom do you think he would rather acknowledge as sons of Abraham: those who are like him according to the flesh, or those who are like him in faith? But faith bears testimony to Abraham, And for this reason he glories not in the flesh, but in faith. And therefore he has received as sons those whom he sees to be imitators of his glory. For how can he call those men sons whom he sees shrinking from that by which he pleased God and was justified? He will therefore be able to judge them not his sons, but enemies. For they appear envious of him, spurning the faith through which he was glorified. Nor is it surprising if the Jews are found distrustful, in no way receiving the New Testament, since we know that they were not faithful even in the Old. For they were always rebellious and insolent against God, and hence they received such precepts as would weigh down their necks, which were unbending. For they never chose to hope for good things from God, Whose so great benefits and so wonderful mighty works they had come to know. Hence it is that, among other things, the prophet Ezekiel says: I lifted up My hand in the desert among them, that they should be scattered among the nations and dispersed through the regions, because they did not perform My justifications and rejected My precepts. And in what follows: I gave them precepts that were not good, and My justifications, in which they shall not live in them (Ezek. 20:23–25). He shows for what reason precepts so many and so harsh were given to them: that because they proved ungrateful for such great good things, they should, at the dictate of justice, be weighed down with severer precepts. He therefore called them not good, though they are just: because they did not profit them towards justification, but towards destruction; and punishment, though deservedly inflicted, is nevertheless not good for the one who suffers it. After this, however, because God is nearer, He promised that He would give a New Testament, in which an abridgement made of the Law would justify those who believe, just as Abraham was justified: so that, with new moons and the sabbath and circumcision and the other precepts ceasing (not those which belong to the natural law, that is, murder, adultery and the like), they might thus be justified, as Abraham was. For, the faith of Abraham being renewed, He willed all things to cease, so that the time should be such as it had been when Abraham believed. But perhaps the Jews may say: If the things which were given by Moses have been declared to cease through the abridgement of the Law, was circumcision given by Moses, that it should cease? And for this reason we have the sign of our father, because we are sons of Abraham, and on account of its testimony to our descent it ought not to cease. In its own time indeed circumcision was to be kept, that is, before the New Testament, which had been promised, was given. But when, by the bestowal of the grace of God, the burdens of the Law were ordered to cease, what need is there to be circumcised? For this reason, moreover, a new Law was given, that is, a spiritual one, that carnal things might cease, and that those who receive it might receive its sign: so that, just as in the Old Testament they had the sign of Abraham, from whom the Old Testament began, so also in the New they might have the sign of the Saviour, Who is the founder of the New Testament. For just as from Abraham they were called Hebrews, so also from Christ they are called Christians. Whoever, therefore, are still called Hebrews have not received the New Testament which God promised, bringing to nothing the benefit and mercy of God, Who, no longer willing that His people be reckoned by the name of a man, deigned to establish them under the name of His Son. With what audacity, then, do the Jews say that we do not use our own law, but theirs, when David says: I will confess to Thee among the nations (Ps. 17:50); and again: Feast, you nations, with His people? And to the prophet Jeremiah the Lord says: Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you; and I set you as a prophet among the nations (Jer. 1:5). Judaism certainly has its own designations: for that people is designated either in Jacob, or in Samaria, or in Jerusalem, or in Judaea, or in Israel. But as regards the nations it is plain, because he designates them otherwise than the Jews are designated. Jeremiah, therefore, is our prophet. For although in all the Prophets the nations are partakers of His gift

Editors' notes and page, col. 2242

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2242
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column number in head poorly printed (looks like 22|2), read as 2242; first two lines printed in heavier (bold-looking) type, set as ordinary text; column begins mid-sentence (preceding column appears to end "apud"); "pla⟨c⟩uit" and "se⟨d⟩" damaged type, readings placuit / sed; capital "Ac" after comma in "perhibet, Ac per hoc" as printed; "propius est Deus" as printed, possibly for propitius (UNSURE); "Abraham" before "Renovata" printed blurred (looks like Abrahain), read as Abraham; cut-off left column (end of col. 2241) not set; no full-width line; no editors' matter

PL 35:2243

ostenderit Deus, ad Jeremiam tamen specialiter dicit, quia nobis illum dedit prophetam. Hic enim Novum Testamentum futurum significavit, quod plus gentibus proficeret quam Judaeis, quod nunc declaratum videtur. Cum enim in universa terra Novi Testamenti sit praedicatio; tam raro et difficile Judaeus fidelis invenitur, ut omnes Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti, gentium nominentur, sicut dictum erat in Osee propheta, Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam; et non dilectam, dilectam (Osee II, 24; Rom. IX, 25). Repulsis ergo Judaeis, convocat gentes ea misericordia et gratia, qua vocare dignatus est et Abraham. Nec enim Abraham non vocatus cognovit Dominum. Itaque qui dignatus est Abraham, idem ipse dignatus est gentes. Cur ergo dicunt, Nostra est Lex; cum manifestum sit, donum Dei omnium esse volentium? Cesset itaque ista usurpationis temeritas, quia gratia Dei communis est omnibus. Quo namque pudore negant Christum nostrum in Lege promissum, cum videant omnia signa in eo, quae Lex futura praedixerat? Quia et secundum Abrahae promissionem omnes gentes justificantur, in eum credentes (Gen. XXII, 18); et secundum Isaiam prophetam de Virgine natus est (Isai. VII, 14) in Bethlehem ex tribu Juda, sicut fuit promissum, ex semine David (Michaeae V, 2); et juxta quod Jeremias prophetavit (Jerem. XXXI, 31, 32), Novum Testamentum, quod Deus tunc promiserat futurum, praedicavit; et post omnia signa virtutum ostensa, humiliavit se, secundum dicta Prophetarum; et omnia quae praedicta sunt, passus, tertia die resurrexit, quemadmodum scriptum est in propheta. Et si tempus promissionis requirant, sicut in Daniele propheta ostensum est (Dan. IX, 24, sqq.), invenient impletum tempore quo natus et passus est Christus: quia a tempore primi anni Darii regis Persarum usque ad nativitatem et passionem Domini et excidium Jerusalem, quod factum est per Vespasianum imperii Romani principem, impletae sunt hebdomadae septuaginta, quae sunt anni quadringenti nonaginta, qui computus per regna et per successores imperii manifestus est. Quomodo etiam a Tertulliano computatum invenitur in libro quem scripsit adversus Judaeos, quod ne ad injuriam ejus proficeret, quia recte computavit, praetermisimus. Et quis ambigat de hoc numero, cum trecenti circiter anni nunc super hunc numerum inveniantur? Impudentis ergo est post tantum superadditum numerum adventui Salvatoris, dicere, Non venit, Sub Apostolis enim, aut tempore quo agebat Dominus inter homines, se poterat occultare malitia contradicens veritati; ut cum omnia signa promissi Christi videret in Salvatore, de tempore tamen ambigere se diceret, ut perfidiam suam celaret. Post autem, cum super promissum numerum supercrescere multi anni coeperunt, quae impudentia est negare venisse, quod etiam et signis et temporibus adimpletum scitur? Nam quando aliquid plenum est, et non superabundat, potest contentiosus aliquis dicere non esse plenum, sed superabundantia clauditur os contentioso: ita et Judaei tempore Salvatoris potuerunt dicere, licet per fallaciam, non bene computatum a Darii tempore usque ad Dominum Christam, ut ipse dicatur esse qui promissus est. Fallimur enim in annis et in mensibus et in diebus Imperatorum, et ad liquidum non colligimus. Ubi autem creverint tempora super numerum praescriptum annorum promissi Christi, nulla potest praetendi excusatio, ut non ipse esse Christus dicatur. qui venit, nisi, quod absit, mentitus dicatur esse qui promisit. Quando enim tempus promissionis emensum est, et negatur venisse qui promissus est quid aliud quam mendacii arguitur qui promisit? Sed veracem esse qui promisit, signa omnia docent, quae praedicta in Christo sunt, et reperta in Christo noscuntur. Judaei autem, dum emendare erubescunt, non cogitant futurum judicium. Nihil enim pejus est, quam si neget quis verum esse, quod intelligit non esse mendacium.

God showed, yet to Jeremiah He says specially that He gave him to us as a prophet. For he signified the New Testament that was to come, which would profit the gentiles more than the Jews, which now is seen to be made plain. For since the preaching of the New Testament is in the whole earth, a believing Jew is found so rarely and with such difficulty that all the churches of the New Testament are named churches of the gentiles, as had been said in the prophet Hosea: I will call not-my-people My people, and the not-beloved, beloved (Hos. 2:24; Rom. 9:25). So, the Jews having been rejected, He calls together the gentiles by that mercy and grace by which He deigned to call Abraham too. For neither did Abraham know the Lord without being called. Therefore He who deigned [to call] Abraham, the very same deigned [to call] the gentiles. Why then do they say, The Law is ours, when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all who are willing? So let this rashness of usurpation cease, because the grace of God is common to all. For with what shame do they deny that our Christ was promised in the Law, when they see in Him all the signs which the Law foretold were to come? For both according to the promise to Abraham all the gentiles are justified believing in Him (Gen. 22:18); and according to the prophet Isaiah He was born of a Virgin (Isa. 7:14) in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah, as had been promised, of the seed of David (Mic. 5:2); and according to what Jeremiah prophesied (Jer. 31:31–32), He preached the New Testament which God had then promised would come; and after all the signs of mighty works had been shown, He humbled Himself, according to the sayings of the Prophets; and having suffered all the things that had been foretold, He rose again on the third day, just as it is written in the prophet. And if they ask for the time of the promise, as it was shown in the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24 ff.), they will find it fulfilled at the time when Christ was born and suffered: because from the time of the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, up to the birth and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was carried out by Vespasian, prince of the Roman empire, the seventy weeks were fulfilled, which are four hundred and ninety years, a reckoning which is manifest through the reigns and through the successors of the empire. Just as it is also found reckoned by Tertullian in the book which he wrote against the Jews; which we have passed over, lest it should turn to his injury, since he reckoned correctly. And who would be in doubt about this number, when some three hundred years are now found beyond this number? It is therefore the part of a shameless man, after so great a number added on to the coming of the Saviour, to say, He has not come. For under the Apostles, or at the time when the Lord was living among men, malice contradicting the truth could hide itself; so that, though it saw all the signs of the promised Christ in the Saviour, it might yet say that it was in doubt about the time, in order to conceal its faithlessness. But afterwards, when many years began to grow beyond the promised number, what shamelessness is it to deny that He has come, which is known to have been fulfilled both by signs and by times? For when something is full and does not overflow, some contentious person can say that it is not full, but the overflowing shuts the mouth of the contentious: so too the Jews at the time of the Saviour could say, albeit by deceit, that it had not been well reckoned from the time of Darius up to the Lord Christ, so that He should be said to be the one who was promised. For we are mistaken in the years and in the months and in the days of the emperors, and do not gather them to a certainty. But when the times have grown beyond the prescribed number of years of the promised Christ, no excuse can be put forward for saying that He who came is not the Christ, unless, God forbid, He who promised is said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has run its course, and it is denied that He who was promised has come, what else is He who promised charged with but falsehood? But that He who promised is truthful, all the signs teach which were foretold of Christ and are known to have been found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they are ashamed to amend, do not consider the judgement to come. For nothing is worse than if someone should deny to be true what he understands is not a falsehood.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2243

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI T[...] (cut off at the image edge), column number 2243
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2244

XLV.— Quomodo homo ad imaginem Dei factus sit, et utrum ad dominationem, et an mulier quoque?

XLV. — How man was made to the image of God, and whether [this refers] to dominion, and whether the woman too [was so made]?

Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26). Hoc quibusdam ex alia parte lectionis intelligendum esse videtur; ex hac videlicet, in qua legimus dixisse Deum, Venite, descendamus, et confundamus linguas eorum (Id. XI, 7). Quia quantum in superficie videtur, simile est: unius enim vox est, plurali numero loquentis: sed discrepat sensu, quia et dissimilis ratio est. Illic enim de creando homine dicit, quem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam Deus vult creari. Illud autem quod dicit, Venite, descendamus et confundamus linguas eorum, ad hoc pertinet, ne se intelligerent homines: unde ad Angelos potest videri locutus Deus, quasi imperator ad exercitum. Communiter enim dicit, quia facturus erat per illos, utpote Creator illorum: ac per hoc, Confundamus, inquit, linguas eorum. Nam cum dicit, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, non potest dici Angelis locutus; quia non potest dici una esse imago Dei et Angelorum, sicut imperatoris et comitum. Quia quorum imago est una, non potest dissimilis esse dignitas vel natura. Denique adjecit, Et fecit, inquit, Deus hominem; ad imaginem Dei fecit eum (Id. I, 27): ut Deus dixerit, et Deus fecerit; non alter deus aut differens, sed idem Deus. Quod enim unus ad unum dixit, non aliam naturam significavit, sed personam. Cum enim Deus unus sit, tres tamen personae sunt: et ideo unus est Deus, quia sive in Filio, sive in Spiritu sancto, Dei unius substantia est; quia non potest non hoc esse, quod de ipsa est, quod ipse est. Dei ergo Patris persona est dicentis, Faciamus; Filii vero facientis hominem ad imaginem Dei; sive ad Patris, sive ad suam, nihil interest, quia utriusque una imago est. Fecit autem Filius per Spiritum sanctum. Sicut enim Pater per Filium dicitur facere, ita et Filius per Spiritum sanctum, ipso dicente, quia ego in Spiritu Dei ejicio daemonia (Matth. XII, 28). Igitur una trium imago est; quia sive Pater, sive Filius, sive Spiritus sanctus, unus est Deus. Ac per hoc unus factus est homo ad unius Dei imaginem. In eo autem imago Dei est homo, ut sicut unus est Deus in coelis, ex quo omnia subsistunt spiritualia; ita unus esset in terris homo, ex quo caeteri haberent carnalem originem. Aliquibus tamen videtur, quia in dominatione Dei imago est factus homo; et quia dicit, Et dominetur piscium maris, et volatilium coeli, et totius terrae: cum non solum viro, sed et mulieri ista cernantur subjecta, quam constat Dei imaginem non habere. Quod quidem duplici modo caret ratione: per hoc enim neque ad Filium dixisse Deus asseritur, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, sed ad dominationes coelestes, quas Apostolus commemorat, si imaginem Dei homo in dominatione habet; et mulieri datur, ut et ipsa imago Dei sit, quod absurdum est. Quomodo enim potest de muliere dici, quia imago Dei est, quam constat dominio viri subjectam, et nullam auctoritatem habere? Nec docere enim potest, nec testis esse, neque fidem dicere, neque judicare: quanto magis non potest imperare?

"Let Us make," He says, "man to Our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). To some it seems that this is to be understood from another part of the reading, namely from that in which we read that God said, "Come, let Us go down and confound their tongues" (Gen. 11:7). For as far as appears on the surface, it is similar: for it is the voice of one who speaks in the plural number. But it differs in sense, because the reasoning too is dissimilar. For there He speaks of creating man, whom God wills to be created to His own image and likeness. But what He says, "Come, let Us go down and confound their tongues," pertains to this, that men should not understand one another. Hence God can be seen to have spoken to the angels, as a commander to his army. For He speaks in common because He was going to act through them, inasmuch as He is their Creator; and for this reason He says, "Let Us confound their tongues." For when He says, "Let Us make man to Our image and likeness," He cannot be said to have spoken to the angels, because it cannot be said that the image of God and of the angels is one, as [it might be] that of a commander and of his companions. For those whose image is one cannot be dissimilar in dignity or nature. Finally He added, "And God made man," it says, "to the image of God He made him" (Gen. 1:27): so that God spoke, and God made; not another god or a different one, but the same God. For in that one spoke to one, He signified not another nature but a person. For although God is one, yet there are three persons. And therefore God is one, because whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, the substance is that of the one God; because what is from that [substance] cannot fail to be what He Himself is. It is therefore the person of God the Father that says, "Let Us make," and that of the Son that makes man to the image of God; whether to the Father's or to His own makes no difference, because the image of both is one. And the Son made [him] through the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is said to make through the Son, so too the Son [makes] through the Holy Spirit, as He Himself says, "I cast out demons in the Spirit of God" (Matt. 12:28). Therefore the image of the three is one, because whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, God is one. And for this reason one man was made to the image of the one God. Now man is the image of God in this, that just as there is one God in heaven, from Whom all spiritual things have their subsistence, so there should be one man on earth, from whom the rest should have their carnal origin. To some, however, it seems that man was made the image of God in dominion, and [they argue this] because He says, "And let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and the whole earth." Yet these things are seen to be subject not only to the man but also to the woman, who, it is agreed, does not have the image of God. This view indeed lacks reason in two ways. For by it God is asserted to have said "Let Us make man to Our image and likeness" not to the Son but to the heavenly dominions which the Apostle mentions, if man has the image of God in dominion. And it is granted to the woman that she too is the image of God, which is absurd. For how can it be said of the woman that she is the image of God, when it is agreed that she is subject to the dominion of the man and has no authority? For she can neither teach, nor be a witness, nor stand surety, nor judge: how much less can she command?

XLVI. — Utrum Samuel fuerit de filiis Aaron, et utrum sacerdos fuisse existimandus sit?

XLVI. — Whether Samuel was of the sons of Aaron, and whether he is to be considered to have been a priest?

Sunt quidam inter nos, qui partim negotiis saecularibus occupati, partim minus studiosi circa Scripturas sacras, errorem patiuntur, putantes Samuelem sacerdotem fuisse, id est, ex Aaron habere originem: ex cujus progenie constituit Dominus Deus nasci, non fieri sacerdotes. Nec alicui praeter filios ejus concessum est, ut poneret in altare incensum. Ex quibus aliqui plus errantes, negant quidem Samuelem de genere fuisse Aaron; hoc est, non illum dicunt natum

There are some among us who, partly occupied with secular business and partly less studious about the sacred Scriptures, fall into error, thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God appointed that priests should be born, not made. Nor was it granted to anyone except his sons to place incense on the altar. Some of these, erring still further, deny indeed that Samuel was of the race of Aaron; that is, they say that he was not born

Editors' notes and page, col. 2244

Footnotes

(a) ‹call above the cropped image› · call in col 2244

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 470)

(b) ‹XLVI› · call in col 2244

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 470)

Page

running head: S EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2244 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word natum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2245

PL 35:2245

sacerdotem, et nihilominus sacerdotio illum asserunt functum. Quibus prius respondendum est. Pejus enim est negare Samuelem natum fuisse sacerdotem, et tamen asserere illum functum esse sacerdotio, quam dicere sacerdotem illum fuisse ex filiis Aaron. Hic enim ignorantia est, illic stultitia. Cum enim didicerint, qui illum putant natum sacerdotem, ex filiis Aaron non esse; manifestum habebunt non illum fuisse sacerdotem: ignari quia non licuit agere alicui sacerdotium, nisi ei qui esset ex semine Aaron. Compertum enim habent; manifestum est enim, quod Chore cum non esset ex filiis Aaron, et voluisset super altare imponere incensum, hiatu terrae absumptus est cum sociis suis (Num. XVI, 1-34). Et Ozias rex, cum non utique esset ex semine Aaron, sed ex tribu Judae, et praesumpsisset agere sacerdotium, stans ante altare, percussus lepra in fronte est, et sic exspiravit (II Paral. XXVI, 16-21). Illi autem, qui dicunt Samuelem non natum esse sacerdotem, et nihilominus egisse illum asserunt sacerdotium, satis stultum est quod dicunt: et stulto suadere quod bonum est, laboris est maximi. Quanta enim hebetudine ducuntur, ut sole apparente super terram, dicant quia nox est? Cum enim legant, et non uno loco legant, hoc a Deo esse decretum, ut nemo auderet sacerdotium agere praeter Aaron et filios ejus, obstinata mente contendunt, sacerdotem fuisse Samuelem: non enim intelligunt, quia si natus sacerdos non est Samuel, et sacerdotium egit, praesumptor dicitur: quia hoc Deus statuit, ut nascerentur, non fierent sacerdotes. Et de Samuele hoc sentire puto tutum non esse. Quomodo enim posset fieri, ut vir laudabilis et Dei testimonio commendatus hoc ageret, quod inconcessum sciebat? Cujus etiam praesumptionis vindictam pro certo habebat semel et iterum factam. Neque enim Dei judicio potuit ad hoc aspirare, quem immutabilem sciebat: a quo, si forte hoc audisset, tentari se potius credidisset, sciendo Deum nullo modo sententiam suam posse rescindere. Posset enim magis sub Dei apparentia et nomine id agi secum credere, ut circumveniretur a parte adversa, quam judicium suum Deum posse mutare. Denique cum Balaam prohibitus fuisset a Deo, ne iret ad Balacn, et postea iterum requisisset, an iret; indignatus ei Deus, ex ore asinae corripuit eum: quia prohibentem angelum videns asina, coeptum iter implere nolebat (Num. XXII, 28). Balaam vero, prohibente Deo ne iret, iterum interrogans, an ire illum vellet; sic de Deo quasi de homine judicavit, qui per id quod impraescius est, varius et mutabilis est. Sed Balaam nullo divino testimonio commendatur; erat enim hariolus. Samuel autem vir Deo charus, et judiciorum ejus sciens fixam esse sententiam, quomodo aliud fieri debere crederet, quam sciebat a Deo esse constitutum? Sed Heli, inquiunt, mortuo, et filiis ejus sacerdotibus, Samuel coepit agere sacerdotium. Quod nec lectio docet, nec ratio admittit. Hoc enim dicentes, nullum putant tunc fuisse, qui ageret sacerdotium, ut his tribus mortuis, nisi Samuel populi munera obtulisset, sacerdotium agi desiisset. Quae asseveratio est Dei inimica. His enim Deus improvidus judicatur quasi nescius, cum id statuit, quod permanere non possit. Utquid enim nulli alii quam filiis Aaron sacerdotium agere usque in saeculum statuit, hoc est, usque ad tempora adventus Christi, si hoc deficere sciebat? Si autem nescivit, quod absit, improvidus fuit: et ideo fieri potuit, ut nec Samuel fuerit, illis deficientibus, sacerdos. Si autem providus et praescius Deus est, permansit quod statuit: et si permansit quod statuit, Samuel non egit sacerdotium, qui Dei non erat sacerdos. In Veteri enim Lege nasci decrevit Deus sacerdotes, in Nova vero fieri Dominus jussit sacerdotes. Eligant nunc unum e duobus; aut natum probent Samuelem sacerdotem, aut factum. Sed consentiunt non illum natum esse sacerdotem, quia sciunt illum non esse ex filiis Aaron. Si ergo natus non est sacerdos Samuel, factus autem non legitur, nec probatur, quia nec statuerat Deus fieri sacerdotes;

a priest, and nevertheless they assert that he performed the priesthood. These must be answered first. For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet to assert that he performed the priesthood, than to say that he was a priest from the sons of Aaron. For here there is ignorance, there folly. For when those who think he was born a priest have learned that he is not from the sons of Aaron, they will hold it manifest that he was not a priest: unaware that it was not permitted to anyone to perform the priesthood, except to him who was of the seed of Aaron. For they have it ascertained; for it is manifest that Korah, since he was not of the sons of Aaron and had wished to place incense upon the altar, was swallowed up by a chasm of the earth together with his companions (Num. 16:1–34). And King Uzziah, since he was certainly not of the seed of Aaron but of the tribe of Judah, and had presumed to perform the priesthood, was struck with leprosy on his forehead as he stood before the altar, and so died (2 Chr. 26:16–21). But as for those who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nevertheless assert that he performed the priesthood, what they say is foolish enough: and to persuade a fool of what is good is a task of the greatest labour. For by how great a dullness are they led, that while the sun is appearing above the earth they should say that it is night? For although they read, and read not in one place only, that this was decreed by God, that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, they contend with obstinate mind that Samuel was a priest: for they do not understand that if Samuel is not a priest by birth and performed the priesthood, he is called a presumer: because God established this, that priests should be born, not made. And I think it is not safe to hold this concerning Samuel. For how could it happen that a praiseworthy man, commended by the testimony of God, should do this, which he knew to be not permitted? Of which presumption he also held for certain that the punishment had been inflicted once and again. For he could not aspire to this by the judgement of God, Whom he knew to be unchangeable: by Whom, if perhaps he had heard this, he would rather have believed himself to be tested, knowing that God could in no way rescind His sentence. For he could rather believe that this was being done with him under the appearance and name of God, so that he might be deceived by the adverse party, than that God could change His judgement. Finally, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterwards had asked again whether he should go, God, indignant with him, rebuked him through the mouth of the she-ass: because the she-ass, seeing the angel forbidding, was unwilling to complete the journey begun (Num. 22:28). But Balaam, when God forbade him to go, asking again whether He wished him to go, thus judged of God as of a man, who, through the fact that he lacks foreknowledge, is variable and changeable. But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony; for he was a soothsayer. But Samuel, a man dear to God, and knowing that the sentence of His judgements is fixed, how should he have believed that anything ought to be done other than what he knew to have been established by God? But, they say, when Eli and his sons the priests had died, Samuel began to perform the priesthood. Which neither the reading teaches nor reason admits. For in saying this they think that there was no one then who might perform the priesthood, so that, these three being dead, unless Samuel had offered the gifts of the people, the priesthood would have ceased to be performed. Which assertion is hostile to God. For by these God is judged improvident, as if not knowing, when He established that which could not endure. For why did He establish that none other than the sons of Aaron should perform the priesthood for ever, that is, up to the times of the coming of Christ, if He knew that this would fail? But if He did not know, which be far from us, He was improvident: and therefore it could happen that not even Samuel was a priest when they failed. But if God is provident and foreknowing, what He established remained: and if what He established remained, Samuel, who was not God's priest, did not perform the priesthood. For in the Old Law God decreed that priests be born, but in the New the Lord commanded that priests be made. Let them now choose one of the two: either let them prove that Samuel was born a priest, or that he was made one. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know that he is not of the sons of Aaron. If therefore Samuel is not a priest by birth, and is not read nor proved to have been made one, since God had not even established that priests be made

Editors' notes and page, col. 2245

Page

running head: APPENDIX. (column number printed 22:5, damaged)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column ends with sa- split at the column break (sa-cerdotem); "Balacn" read as printed but type is poor, UNSURE; tunc, fuisse (in "sacerdotem fuisse Samuelem") and Quomodo are on worn type, read as such; no full-width line; no editors' matter in the text block
other: the word sacerdotes; was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2246

PL 35:2246

in absoluto est, Samuelem minime fuisse sacerdotem. Sed contradictores clausis oculis, Si sacerdos, inquiunt, non fuit, vicem tamen egit sacerdotis; quoniam legitur Deo sacrificium obtulisse. Quis audeat negare quod scriptum probatur (I Reg. VII, 9)? Obtulit enim Deo sacrificium Samuel, sed non inde vicem sacerdotis egisse cognoscitur. Ipse enim semper dicitur offerre, cujus oblationes sunt, quas super altare imponit sacerdos. Et Saül obtulit hoc utique genere, id est, per sacerdotem, sicut et nunc offertur; et David obtulit, et Salomon obtulit, et caeteri similiter obtulerunt: numquid omnes vicem sacerdotis egerunt? Quamvis enim proprio sacerdos fungatur officio, ille tamen offerre dicitur, cujus nomine agit sacerdos. Ipsi enim imputatur, cujus munera offeruntur. Et qui non fuit sacerdos, quomodo vicem agere poterat sacerdotis? Numquid diaconus potest vicem gerere sacerdotis? Praefectus etenim potest agere vicem praefecti, et praetor praetoris; non tamen privatus potest agere vicem potestatis alicujus: quanto magis sacerdotis vicem agere non potest, qui non est sacerdos? Quo enim consilio ad hoc aspirare audeat, quod sibi scit non licere? Nam si sacerdos alicubi desit, potest alterius loci sacerdos rogatus venire, et vicem ejus agere; non tamen propheta, quamvis sanctae vitae sit, agere potest quod scit sibi minime esse concessum. Aliud enim est bene vivere, et aliud potestatem alicujus officii accipere. Sicut enim qui sacerdos est, non ex eo vitam suam commendatam putare debet; ita et qui sanctae conversationis et vitae est, non jam ex eo sibi sacerdotium vindicare debebit. Quamvis enim bonum sit sacerdotium, tamen malum erit ei, cui concessum non est, et praesumit. Nam si respiciamus quod scriptum est de sancto Samuele, videbimus quale testimonium det ei Scriptura, dicens, Et innotuit, inquit, omni populo, quoniam fidelis est Samuel propheta Domino (Id. III, 20). Et in Psalmo, Fiant, inquit, Moys⟨e⟩s et Aaron in sacerdotes ejus, et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus (Psal. XCVIII, 6). Quis non advertat ex hac distinctione divisas es⟨s⟩e personas dignitatum causa, ut Moyses et Aaron sacerdotalem dignitatem adepti noscantur; Samuel vero inter prophetas Deo dignus exstitisse habeatur, qui precibus Deum invocabant ad protegendum populum suum, sicut legitur? In tantum autem sacerdotes minime defuisse probantur, ut revocata arca ab Allophylis, bajulis Levitis, viri Bethsamis obtulerint Deo sacrificia absente Samuele. Rege autem facto Saüle, Achimaas erat pronepos Heli sacerdotis, qui portabat ephod. Sed hinc, inquiunt, videtur sacerdos fuisse Samuel, quia vestitus erat ephod. Quasi non hodie diaconi dalmaticis induantur, sicut episcopi. Ephod autem etiam David legimus fuisse indutum, et duplicem ephod (II Reg. VI, 14). Samuel autem adhuc puerulus, succinctus erat ephod (I Reg. II, 18): numquid puerulus potuit Deo munera populi offerre? Vides ergo, quia ephod unum quidem nomen est, sed non unam rem semper significat. Sacerdotes enim portabant, non vestiebantur ephod; reges vero et levita Samuel induebantur ephod. Aliquando ergo vestis, aliquando quasi armariolum, quod portabant sacerdotes ad interrogandum Dominum, significatur ephod. Quantum apparet, probatum est Samuelem non sacerdotem, sed prophetam fuisse: nunc his respondemus, qui ignorantes quia Samuel non est de filiis Aaron sacerdotis, aestimant illum sacerdotem fuisse; nec enim fas erat, ut de origine Aaron descendens, sacerdos non esset. Quos primum volo cognoscere, quia si sacerdos erat Samuel, sine dubio et Helcana pater ejus sacerdos fuit: congruum quoque fuerat et filios ejus sacerdotes fuisse: quos, quia sacerdotes non erant, judices illos constituit filiis Israel (Id. VIII, 1), sicuti et idem ipse erat Samuel. Sic enim legimus, quia judicavit filios Israel. Helcana autem pater Samuelis, propter quod sacerdos non erat, Ascendebat,

it is settled that Samuel was by no means a priest. But the contradictors, with their eyes shut, say: If he was not a priest, he nevertheless acted in the place of a priest, since he is read to have offered sacrifice to God. Who would dare to deny what is shown to be written (1 Sam. 7:9)? For Samuel did offer sacrifice to God, but it is not on that account recognized that he acted in the place of a priest. For he is always said to offer whose oblations they are, which the priest places upon the altar. Saul too certainly offered in this manner, that is, through a priest, just as offering is made now also; and David offered, and Solomon offered, and the rest likewise offered: did they all act in the place of a priest? For although the priest performs his own office, yet he is said to offer in whose name the priest acts. For it is credited to him whose gifts are offered. And he who was not a priest, how could he act in the place of a priest? Can a deacon take the place of a priest? For a prefect can act in the place of a prefect, and a praetor in that of a praetor; yet a private man cannot act in the place of any authority: how much more can he not act in the place of a priest who is not a priest? For with what intention would he dare to aspire to that which he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is lacking somewhere, the priest of another place, when asked, can come and act in his place; but a prophet, however holy his life may be, cannot do what he knows has by no means been granted to him. For it is one thing to live well, and another to receive the power of some office. For just as he who is a priest ought not to think that his life is commended by that fact, so also he who is of holy conduct and life ought not on that account to claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is a good thing, yet it will be an evil thing for one to whom it has not been granted and who presumes upon it. For if we look at what is written about holy Samuel, we shall see what testimony Scripture gives him, saying: And it became known, it says, to all the people that Samuel was a faithful prophet to the Lord (1 Sam. 3:20). And in the Psalm it says: Let Moses and Aaron be among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His name (Ps. 98:6). Who would not notice that by this distinction the persons are separated by reason of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are known to have obtained the priestly dignity, while Samuel is held to have proved worthy before God among the prophets, who called upon God with prayers to protect His people, as is read? So far, moreover, is it shown that priests were by no means lacking, that when the ark had been brought back from the Philistines, with the Levites carrying it, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in Samuel's absence. And when Saul had been made king, Achimaas, the great-grandson of Eli the priest, was the one who carried the ephod. But from this, they say, Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed in an ephod. As if today deacons were not clothed in dalmatics, just as bishops are. But we read that David too was clothed in an ephod, and a double ephod (2 Sam. 6:14). And Samuel, while still a little boy, was girded with an ephod (1 Sam. 2:18): could a little boy offer the people's gifts to God? You see, then, that ephod is indeed one name, but does not always signify one thing. For the priests carried the ephod, they were not clothed in it; but kings, and the Levite Samuel, were clothed in the ephod. Sometimes, therefore, a garment, sometimes a kind of little chest, which the priests carried in order to inquire of the Lord, is signified by ephod. As far as appears, it has been proved that Samuel was not a priest but a prophet: now we answer those who, not knowing that Samuel is not of the sons of Aaron the priest, suppose that he was a priest; for indeed it was not lawful that one descended from the stock of Aaron should not be a priest. These I wish first to understand that, if Samuel was a priest, without doubt Elkanah his father was also a priest: it would also have been fitting that his sons were priests: yet since they were not priests, he appointed them judges for the sons of Israel (1 Sam. 8:1), just as Samuel himself also was. For thus we read, that he judged the sons of Israel. But Elkanah the father of Samuel, because he was not a priest, went up,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2246

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quasi armariolum› · call in col 2246

Ms. Colbert., armiliolum

The Colbert manuscript has armiliolum.

(printed under page 471)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2246 (the left column's number is cut off by the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2247

inquit, ex diebus in dies de civitate sua Ramathaim adorare et sacrificare Deo omnipotenti sabaoth : et ibi erat Heli et duo filii ejus, Ophni et Phinees sacerdotes Domini (I Reg. I, 3). Quid tam apertum, quia veniebat Helcana offerre munera sua ante Dominum per sacerdotes tempore competenti, secundum quod statuerat Moyses, ut tribus temporibus anni offerrent munera et decimas suas, ubi fuisset arca Domini et sacerdotes ? Quippe cum et duas uxores habuerit tempore uno, quod illicitum est sacerdotibus. Erat enim Heleana ex Levitis, sicut generationum ordo se continet in libro Paralipomenon (Paralip. VI, 33). Adhuc enim Levitae non erant habentes ordinem constitutum ministerii circa sacerdotes et arcam Domini. David enim in regno suo disposuit vices sacerdotibus et Levitis, ut a viginti annis et supra, in Lege autem a viginti quinque annis et supra, inciperent exhibere servitia dominicis caerimoniis, ut essent de filiis Aaron, id est de Phinees et Thamar traduce, classes sacerdotum viginti quatuor, quae vices suas agerent certis temporibus. Levitae autem constituti sunt, qui essent tabernaculi janitores, et qui bajuli arcae Domini, et qui excubias observarent, et qui vasorum essent custodes, et qui promiscuas susciperent oblationes. Et viginti quatuor classes institutae sunt cantantium et citharizantium et musicorum caeterorum, ita ut etiam hi, id est, omnes Levitae haberent temporum vices : quia necesse erat eos et otium habere, ut et domorum suarum agerent curam. Et non solum haec proficiunt ad causam supra dictam, quoniam Samuel non fuit de filiis Aaron ; sed et illud quod dicit mater ejus ad Dominum, quia Si mihi, inquit, dederis filium, commodo eum Domino omnibus diebus vitae suae (I Reg. I, 11). Non hoc diceret, si natus esset sacerdos, oportebat enim illum servire altari ; sed quia Levita erat, et adhuc lex Levitis non erat posita, sed unusquisque pro voluntate sua agebat, ita ut oberrantes illicita praesumerent. Jonatha enim filius filii Moysi, cum inter Levitas deputatus esset, sacerdotium agere praesumpsit tribui Dan. Ac per hoc legimus in libro Judicum, Quia unusquisque, inquit, placita sibi faciebat, eo quod non esset rex in Israel (Judic. XVII, 6). Idcirco vovit Anna dicens, Commodo eum Domino : ne cum caeteris oberraret. Et ut plenius quaestio discuti possit, etiam illud tractemus, quod dictum est de Helcana, quia veniebat ex diebus in dies offerre munera sua, et decimas : quomodo decimas offerebat, qui nihil possidebat ? Levitae enim non acceperunt agros ; quia de decimis, quae a plebe dantur, victum quaerebant. Sed potest fieri, et sic datur intelligi, quia potuit habere possessionem uxoris suae, aut emptam : quia de aliis tribubus accipiebant uxores, non solum hi, sed et caeteri ; ita ut et sacerdotes acciperent de aliis tribubus uxores. Nam Joiade sacerdos magnus uxorem duxit de tribu Juda filiam regis Joram (II Paral. XXII, 11).

he says, from days to days from his city Ramathaim to worship and to sacrifice to God almighty of hosts; and there were Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord (1 Sam. 1:3). What is so plain as that Elkanah came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the appointed time, according to what Moses had ordained, that at three times of the year they should offer their gifts and their tithes where the ark of the Lord and the priests were? Especially since he also had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests. For Elkanah was from the Levites, as the order of the generations is contained in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr. 6:33). For the Levites did not yet have an established order of ministry about the priests and the ark of the Lord. For David in his reign arranged courses for the priests and the Levites, that from twenty years and upward, but in the Law from twenty-five years and upward, they should begin to render service to the Lord's ceremonies, that there should be of the sons of Aaron, that is, of the stock of Phinehas and Thamar, twenty-four classes of priests, who should perform their courses at fixed times. And Levites were appointed to be doorkeepers of the tabernacle, and bearers of the ark of the Lord, and to keep the watches, and to be guardians of the vessels, and to receive the various offerings. And twenty-four classes were instituted of singers and harpers and the other musicians, so that these too, that is, all the Levites, should have their turns of times: because it was necessary for them also to have leisure, so that they might also take care of their households. And not only do these things serve the case stated above, that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron, but also that which his mother says to the Lord: If, she says, Thou givest me a son, I will lend him to the Lord all the days of his life (1 Sam. 1:11). She would not say this if he had been born a priest, for he was bound to serve the altar; but because he was a Levite, and the law had not yet been laid down for the Levites, but each acted according to his own will, so that, straying about, they presumed upon unlawful things. For Jonathan the son of the son of Moses, although he had been assigned among the Levites, presumed to exercise the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And for this reason we read in the book of Judges: Because each one, it says, did what pleased him, because there was no king in Israel (Judg. 17:6). Therefore Hannah vowed, saying, I will lend him to the Lord: lest he should stray about with the rest. And so that the question may be discussed more fully, let us also treat this, which is said of Elkanah, that he came from days to days to offer his gifts, and tithes: how did he offer tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, because they sought their living from the tithes which are given by the people. But it can be, and so it is given to be understood, that he could have had the property of his wife, or a bought one: because they took wives from other tribes, not only these but also the rest, so that even the priests took wives from other tribes. For Jehoiada the high priest took as wife from the tribe of Judah the daughter of King Joram (2 Chr. 22:11).

XLVII. — Quomodo hoc quod in Isaia dicitur, Et apprehendent septem mulieres, etc. (Isai. IV, 1), septem Ecclesiae catholicae significentur ?

XLVII. — How is it that by what is said in Isaiah, And seven women shall take hold, etc. (Isa. 4:1), the seven catholic Churches are signified?

Et apprehendent, inquit, septem mulieres unum hominem, dicentes, Panem nostrum manducabimus, et vestimentis nostris operiemur : verumtamen invocetur super nos nomen tuum, aufer opprobrium nostrum. In absoluto est, per septem mulieres septem Ecclesias esse significatas : quamvis enim una sit, sed septiformis dicitur, ut corpus unum septemplici numero constet membrorum : non solum enim nos, sed et superni cives Ecclesiae membra sunt, cujus caput Christus est (Ephes. V, 23). Sive igitur una, sive septem dicantur Ecclesiae, non discrepat. Una enim dicitur, quia unum habet caput, quod est Christus ; septem autem ideo, quia sicut membra diversa sunt ; ita et potentiae spirituales, inter quas et nos deputamur, diversae sunt virtutes, propter quod et aeriae

And seven women, it says, shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and be covered with our own garments: only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach. It is plain that by the seven women seven Churches are signified: for although it is one, yet it is called sevenfold, so that one body consists of a sevenfold number of members: for not only we, but also the citizens on high are members of the Church, whose head is Christ (Eph. 5:23). Whether therefore the Church is called one or seven, there is no discrepancy. For it is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; and seven for this reason, that just as the members are diverse, so too the spiritual powers, among whom we also are counted, are diverse virtues, on account of which also the aerial

Editors' notes and page, col. 2247

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quod et aeriae› · call in col 2247

Ms. Colbert., egere.

The Colbert manuscript has egere.

(printed under page 472)

(a) ‹anchor: XLVII› · call in col 2247

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 472)

Page

running head: 2247 QUÆSTIONES EX VETERI TE[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2248

dicuntur. Idcirco enim diversae sunt, ut non omnia singulae possint, sed simul omnes corpus sint Christi: quia ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae (Coloss. I, 18), ex quo totum corpus subsistit, id est ex quo omnia in coelis et in terra habent originem. In hac ergo quae in terris est Ecclesia, omnium Ecclesiarum facta est mentio: quia cum huic sacramentum Creatoris praedicatur, etiam coelestibus hujusmodi intimatur doctrina. Inferioribus enim cum insinuatur, necesse est ut audiant et superni. Unde Apostolus, Mihi, inquit, minimo omnium sanctorum data est haec gratia, inter gentes evangelizare incomprehensibiles divitias Christi, et illuminare omnes, quae sit dispositio ministerii absconditi a saeculis in Deo, qui universa creavit, ut innotesceret principibus et potestatibus in coelestibus per Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei (Ibid. 23, sqq.). Per hanc ergo Ecclesiam superni docentur, quia Veritas, ait, de terra orta est (Psal. LXXXIV, 12). Ut enim mentio superiorum fiat, hic septem Ecclesiae nuncupantur in una plebe, quas septem Ecclesias supplices propheta inducit Salvatori facto homini. Intellexerunt enim ad hoc natum esse Christum, ut auferret opprobrium, primum quidem sub Lege sua agentium, deinde caeterorum. Habebant autem in memoria, scriptum esse, Veniet ex Sion qui eripiat et avertat impietatem ab Jacob (Isai. LIX, 20). Hae ergo septem Ecclesiae apprehenderunt hominem unum, id est, natum Christum, dicentes, Panem nostrum manducabimus, et vestimentis nostris operiemur: verumtamen invocetur nomen tuum super nos, aufer opprobrium nostrum. Quid est hoc quod precantur? Si enim pane proprio utuntur, et vestimentis suis induuntur, id est, et vivunt, et nudae non sunt, quid eis deest? Si enim panis ad vitam significatur, et vestitus ad Dei induitionem, quia qui sine Deo est, nudus dicitur; unde Apostolus, Qui in Christo, ait, baptizati estis, Christum induistis (Galat. III, 27); et iterum, Si exspoliati, inquit, non nudi inveniamur (II Cor. V, 3); quid est quod poscunt ut auferatur ab eis opprobrium; nisi quia hic populus significatur in septem Ecclesiarum numero, qui sub Lege agens Christum exspectabat promissum ad abolenda peccata? Ideo dicunt, Panem nostrum manducabimus, hoc est, verbis Legis quae unum tradunt Deum, pascemur: quia non in pane tantum vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei (Deut. VIII, 3; Matth. IV, 4). Et vestimentis nostris operiemur, id est, Creatoris nostri nomine censebimur: quia hoc unusquisque indutus dicitur, quod et est et profitetur. Denique senatores vel officiales ex vestibus intelliguntur quid sint. Sed quia haec satis non faciunt ad Deum promerendum, hoc etiam statuit, ut per sacramentum cognitionis unius Dei, haeres esset homo regni coelorum. Per fidem enim peccatis ablutus, et a morte secunda (quae ex sententia data in Adam, homines apud inferos detinebat) alienus, nullo detinente, pergit in paradisum Dei Patris, in quo dixit latroni Dominus, quod secum esset futurus (Luc. XXIII, 43). Quamvis enim populus supradictus, qui per septem Ecclesias significatus est, sub Dei lege esset, et devotione tam proprii, quam paterni delicti, Quia omnes, inquit, peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei (Rom. III, 23); idcirco orant supra memoratae Ecclesiae, ut auferatur opprobrium earum invocatione nominis Christi: quia qui signum ejus habent quo vicit mortem, ab inimico teneri non possunt. Et non solum istae Ecclesiae Christi nomen super se invocari precantur, sed et supernae spirituales in coelestibus degentes. Quanquam enim spirituales sint et coelestes potentiae, opprobrio tamen subjacent, si a Creatore suo fuerint alienae, et nec membra erunt corporis, quae caput suum non cognoscentes oberrant. Et quia aliud non est quam explanavimus, in subjectis propheta testatur dicens, In illa autem die illuminabit Deus in consilio super terram.

are said [to be]. For they are diverse for this reason, that individually they may not be able to do all things, but that together all may be the body of Christ: because He is the head of the body of the Church (Col. 1:18), from Whom the whole body subsists, that is, from Whom all things in the heavens and on earth have their origin. In this Church, then, which is on earth, mention has been made of all the Churches: because when the mystery of the Creator is preached to it, a teaching of this kind is also made known to the heavenly ones. For when it is instilled into those below, it is necessary that those above also hear. Hence the Apostle says: To me, the least of all the saints, has been given this grace, to proclaim among the gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Christ, and to enlighten all as to what is the dispensation of the ministry hidden from the ages in God, Who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the Church (Ibid. 23ff.). Through this Church, then, those above are taught, because Truth, he says, has sprung from the earth (Ps. 84:12). For in order that mention may be made of those above, seven Churches are named here in one people, which seven Churches the prophet brings in as suppliants to the Saviour made man. For they understood that Christ was born for this, to take away reproach, first indeed of those living under His Law, then of the rest. And they held in memory that it is written: There shall come out of Sion one who will rescue and turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Isa. 59:20). These seven Churches, then, laid hold of one man, that is, of Christ born, saying: We will eat our own bread, and we will be covered with our own garments: only let Thy name be invoked over us, take away our reproach. What is this that they pray for? For if they use their own bread and are clothed in their own garments, that is, they both live and are not naked, what do they lack? For if bread is signified for life, and clothing for the putting on of God, because one who is without God is called naked; whence the Apostle says: You who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27); and again he says: If we are stripped, may we not be found naked (2 Cor. 5:3); what is it that they ask, that reproach be taken from them, unless that this people is signified in the number of the seven Churches, which, living under the Law, was awaiting the Christ promised for the abolishing of sins? Therefore they say: We will eat our own bread, that is, we shall be fed by the words of the Law which hand down one God: because man lives not by bread alone, but by every word of God (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4). And we will be covered with our own garments, that is, we shall be reckoned by the name of our Creator: because each one is said to be clothed in that which he both is and professes. Thus senators or officials are understood from their garments as to what they are. But because these things do not suffice for meriting God, He decreed this also, that through the mystery of the knowledge of the one God man should be heir of the kingdom of heaven. For, washed of sins through faith, and a stranger to the second death (which, by the sentence given in Adam, held men in the underworld), with none detaining him he proceeds into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord told the thief that he would be with Him (Luke 23:43). For although the people mentioned above, which was signified through the seven Churches, was under the law of God, and in devotion as much of its own offence as of its fathers', For all, he says, have sinned, and lack the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); therefore the aforementioned Churches pray that their reproach may be taken away by the invocation of the name of Christ: because those who have His sign, by which He conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only do these Churches pray that the name of Christ be invoked over them, but also the supernal spiritual ones dwelling in the heavenly places. For although they are spiritual and heavenly powers, they are nevertheless subject to reproach if they are estranged from their Creator, and they will not be members of the body, those which wander astray, not knowing their head. And because it is nothing other than what we have explained, in what follows the prophet testifies, saying: But in that day God will shine in counsel upon the earth.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2248

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ad Dei induitionem› · call in col 2248

Ms. Colbert., devotionem.

The Colbert manuscript has devotionem.

(printed under page 472)

(2) ‹anchor: tam proprii› · call in col 2248

Ms. Colbert., et devotione a mundi ipsius origine induebatur tunc purificatione tam proprii, etc.

The Colbert manuscript reads: "and by devotion from the very origin of the world it was then clothed with purification, of its own as much as …", etc.

(printed under page 472)

Page

running head: EX VETERI TESTAMENTO. 2248
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2249

Et adjecit. Quoniam abluet Dominus, inquit, sordes filiorum et filiarum, et sanguinem purgabit de medio eorum (Isai. IV, 2, sec. LXX). Quid tam evidens, quam in illo die, id est quo promissum Dei adimpletum est, et fidei sacramentum declaratum est hominibus, illuminati sunt, ut per Creatoris cognitionem purificati, qui rei fuerant mortis, fierent aeternae vitae haeredes? Promiscue igitur propheta locutus est, ut

And he added: For the Lord, he says, will wash away the filth of the sons and of the daughters, and will purge the blood from their midst (Isa. 4:2, according to the LXX). What is so evident as that on that day, that is, the day on which the promise of God was fulfilled and the sacrament of faith was declared to men, they were enlightened, so that, purified through knowledge of the Creator, those who had been guilty of death might become heirs of eternal life? The prophet therefore spoke without distinction, so that

QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO.

QUESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

XLVIII. — Deus certe perfectio est et nullius egens; quid ergo opus fuit Christo Salvatori ut nasceretur de Deo, et Filium haberet Deus per quem omnia faceret?

XLVIII. — God is certainly perfection and in need of nothing; what need was there, then, for Christ the Saviour to be born of God, and for God to have a Son through Whom He might make all things?

Cum ea quae non erant Deus voluisset existere, et majestatis suae, minime hoc condignum opus sciret; prius de se, cum sit natura simplex et incorporeus, Filium generavit, qui nihil ab eo distaret, ut magnitudini suae congruus responderet effectus. Quid enim ultra posset facere, quam ut ex se alterum, qui perfectus est, generaret? Hoc ergo perfectum opus est, quo nihil possit aliud videri praestantius. [Caetera enim omnia minora sunt: quanto enim excellentior his omnibus Christus est, tanto magis creatio illorum inferior est generatione ejus. Est et aliud:] Deus enim ex quo sunt omnia, volens condere creaturam, Verbum prius quod in mysterio apud se habebat, generavit, hoc est fecit existere. Quod Verbum idcirco Filium nuncupavit, ut ostenderet de se illum exstitisse, et esse sibi consubstantivum: ut lex, qua filii de parentibus sunt, hoc credibile faceret, per quod manifestaret creaturae mysterium, quod latuit in eo ex aeterno.

When God had willed that the things which were not should come to exist, and knew that this was by no means a work worthy of His majesty, He first, since He is simple in nature and incorporeal, begot from Himself a Son, Who should differ from Him in nothing, so that an effect befitting His greatness might answer to it. For what more could He do than beget from Himself another who is perfect? This, then, is the perfect work, than which nothing else could be seen to be more excellent. [For all other things are lesser: for by as much as Christ is more excellent than all these, by so much the more is their creation inferior to His generation. There is also another point:] For God, from Whom are all things, wishing to found creation, first begot the Word which He had in mystery with Himself, that is, He made it exist. He called this Word the Son for this reason, to show that the Word had come into being from Him and was consubstantial with Him: so that the law by which sons come from parents might make this credible, and through it He might make manifest to creation the mystery which lay hidden in Him from eternity.

XLIX. — Cur Salvator cum sanctus natus sit, et Christus Dominus in ipsa nativitate appellatus, baptizatus est; cum baptisma purificationis causa sit, et peccati (Luc. II, 11; Matth. III, 16)?

XLIX. — Why was the Saviour baptized, although He was born holy and was called Christ the Lord at His very birth, since baptism exists for the sake of purification and of sin (Luke 2:11; Matt. 3:16)?

Verum et manifestum est Salvatorem non eguisse baptismo; quia Christus non factus sed natus est, dicente angelo pastoribus, Ecce natus est vobis hodie Salvator, qui est Christus Dominus. Denique sciens Joannes sanctitatem ejus, prohibuit eum a baptismo: Salvator vero instituit fieri oportere; non utique propter peccatum suum, sed propter implendam justitiam. Dignum enim erat, ut ipse exemplo esset futuris filiis Dei qui per Baptismum filios Dei fieri docebat: et qui credentibus Spiritum sanctum a Deo dari promittebat, debuit istud in semetipso visibiliter demonstrare, quo comperto credentes invisibiliter se posse Spiritum sanctum habere sperarent. Nam Salvator utique, cum de Spiritu sa⟨n⟩cto nasceretur, purificatum corpus habuit. Unctio enim carni ejus spiritualiter in utero Virginis data est. Spiritus enim sanctus purificavit quod de Maria virgine in corpus Salvatoris profecit: et haec est unctio carnis corporis Salvatoris. Quare et natus Christus est appellatus. Quod enim per olei unctionem praestabat Deus ministerio Prophetarum iis, qui in reges ungebantur, hoc praestitit Spiritus sanctus homini Christo, addita exp⟨i⟩atione. Quia anteriores Christi solam potestatem imperii accipiebant per unctionem; Salvator autem et potestatem accepit homo natus, et purificatus est natus. Incongruum enim erat, ut Dei Filius in corpore peccatis subdito nasceretur. Hominis ergo causam suscipiens,

It is true and plain that the Saviour had no need of baptism; for Christ was not made but born, as the angel said to the shepherds: Behold, there is born to you today a Saviour, Who is Christ the Lord. Accordingly John, knowing His holiness, held Him back from baptism; but the Saviour laid down that it ought to be done; not, certainly, on account of His own sin, but for the fulfilling of righteousness. For it was fitting that He should be an example to the future sons of God, He Who taught that through Baptism men become sons of God; and He Who promised that the Holy Spirit would be given by God to believers had to demonstrate this visibly in Himself, so that, having learned this, believers might hope that they could have the Holy Spirit invisibly. For the Saviour certainly, since He was born of the Holy Spirit, had a purified body. For the anointing was given to His flesh spiritually in the Virgin's womb. For the Holy Spirit purified what passed from the Virgin Mary into the body of the Saviour: and this is the anointing of the flesh of the Saviour's body. That is why at His birth He was called Christ. For what God bestowed through the anointing with oil, by the ministry of the Prophets, on those who were anointed as kings, this the Holy Spirit bestowed on the man Christ, with expiation added. For the anointed ones before Him received through anointing only the power of rule; but the Saviour, born a man, both received the power and was born purified. For it was unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins. Therefore, taking up the cause of man,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2249

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: generavit (first, after incorporeus)› · call in col 2249

In Mss. secundi generis additur, in quo ipse videretur.

In the manuscripts of the second class there is added: in which he himself might be seen.

(printed under page 473)

(2) ‹anchor: Est et aliud› · call in col 2249

Haec quae uncis includuntur, omitt. in Mss. secundi generis; postque verbum, generavit, sic terminatur quaestio: Per quem faceret quae facta sunt, ut ostenderet creaturae mysterium, quod latuit in illo ex aeternis, sicut dicit Apostolus.

What is enclosed in brackets is omitted in the manuscripts of the second class; and after the word generavit the question ends thus: through whom he might make the things that were made, so as to show to the creature the mystery that lay hidden in him from eternity, as the Apostle says.

(printed under page 473)

Editors' prose

(pointer - the full-width section title QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO, Questions on the New Testament, is set in layer 1 in c2249 above Question XLVIII)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word suscipiens was split at the column break; its tail "piens," is printed in col 2250 below the full-width title, not at the column top. It stands whole here; the tail is not restored in col 2250 (corrected by QA Q2: the receipt join had taken "omnes", the first word of col 2250's upper half, giving "susciomnes")
other: misprint kept as printed: "Isai. IV, 2" for IV, 4 (the verse quoted is Isa. 4:4); the English follows the print

PL 35:2250

omnes dono Dei indigere significaret, ut sive peccatores, sive justi, Dei misericordiam exspectasse noscerentur: peccatores propter delicta propria, ut de faucibus mortis eriperentur; justi vero paterno absoluti peccato, deleta sententia data in Adam, per quam cuncti tenebantur a morte, libertate accepta Dei regnum intrarent, facti jam non servi, sed filii Dei.

might signify that all need the gift of God, so that both sinners and the righteous might be known to have awaited the mercy of God: sinners on account of their own offences, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death; but the righteous, absolved of the paternal sin, the sentence given against Adam, by which all were held by death, having been blotted out, might, having received freedom, enter the kingdom of God, made now not slaves but sons of God.

et per regenerationem filios Dei fieri docens, baptizari debuit, ut in se hoc ostenderet ratum. Facile enim probatum habetur et suadetur quod dicitur, si a magistro fieri videatur: sic utique et virtutum insignia oportuit fieri, ut jam Filius Dei apparens, per mysterium regenerationis medelam daret corporis passionibus, ut exemplo esset futuris fratribus, quia per regenerationem accipit unusquisque potestatem virtutis.

and teaching that through regeneration men become sons of God, He had to be baptized, so that He might show this ratified in Himself. For what is said is easily held proven and is persuasive, if it is seen to be done by the master: so too indeed it was fitting that the signs of powers should be done, so that the Son of God, now appearing, might through the mystery of regeneration give healing to the sufferings of the body, so that He might be an example to future brethren, because through regeneration each one receives the power of virtue.

L. — Si ideo Salvator baptizatus est, ut exemplo esset; quare circumcisus, caeteros prohibuit circumcidi?

L. — If the Saviour was baptized for this reason, that He might be an example, why, being circumcised, did He forbid others to be circumcised?

Circumcisio praeteriti temporis mandatum est, quam usque ad Christum oportuit habere auctoritatem, ut tamdiu curreret, quamdiu Christus nasceretur promissus Abrahae, ut de caetero cessaret circumcisio, promissione impleta. In figura enim Christi Isaac promissus est. Dixit enim ei Deus, In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes (Gen. XXII, 18): quod est Christus. Fides enim, quam Abraham acceperat, restaurata a Christo est, ut in semine Abrahae, quod est Christus, omnes gentes benedicerentur, sicut promissum fuerat Abrahae. Circumcisio itaque signum fuit promissi Filii Dei, id est Christi; quo nato cessare oportuit signum promissionis: ita tamen ut ipse promissus adveniens signum patris acciperet, ut sciretur is esse, qui promissus fuerat omnes gentes justificare per fidem in circumcisione cordis. Quia enim patri Abrahae carnaliter nascentis filii signaculum circumcisionis corporale fuit; ita et eorum qui spiritualiter nascuntur, spirituale signum est circumcisio cordis: ideoque recte post Christum non adhuc oportuit carnaliter circumcidi.

Circumcision is a command of past time, which had to keep its authority up to Christ, so that it should run for as long as it took until Christ, promised to Abraham, should be born, so that thereafter circumcision should cease, the promise having been fulfilled. For Isaac was promised as a figure of Christ. For God said to him, In your seed shall all nations be blessed (Gen. 22:18): which is Christ. For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations should be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. Circumcision therefore was the sign of the promised Son of God, that is, of Christ; and once He was born, the sign of the promise had to cease: yet in such a way that the promised one Himself, on coming, should receive the sign of the father, so that it might be known that He was the one who had been promised to justify all nations through faith in the circumcision of the heart. For just as for father Abraham the seal of circumcision of the son born according to the flesh was bodily, so also for those who are born spiritually the spiritual sign is the circumcision of the heart: and therefore rightly after Christ it was no longer fitting to be circumcised carnally.

Circumcisio usque ad Christum indulta est; Abraham autem circumcisionem in Christo promisso accepit, ut tamdiu circumcisio curreret, quamdiu Christus nasceretur promissus Abrahae, qui omnes gentes justificaret per fidem, sicut fuerat justificatus Abraham. Ideo debuit circumcidi, ut ipse probaretur esse qui promissus Abrahae esset: ita ut de caetero circumcisio cessaret, impleta promissione. Baptismus autem non debuit cessare, quia forma renascibilitatis est a Christo coepta: non prius data, et usque ad Christum consummata; sed a tempore Christi incipiens et cursum suum tenens usque ad consummationem mundi.

Circumcision was granted up to Christ; Abraham, moreover, received circumcision in the promised Christ, so that circumcision should run for as long as it took until Christ, promised to Abraham, should be born, Who would justify all nations through faith, as Abraham had been justified. Therefore He had to be circumcised, so that He Himself might be proved to be the one who had been promised to Abraham: so that thereafter circumcision should cease, the promise having been fulfilled. But baptism ought not to cease, because the form of rebirth was begun by Christ: not given earlier and brought to completion up to Christ, but beginning from the time of Christ and holding its course up to the consummation of the world.

LI. — Quomodo intelligatur, quod dicenti Mariae ad angelum, Et unde hoc sciam, quia virum non cognosco? respondit Gabriel angelus, Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi (Luc. I, 34, 35)?

LI. — How is it to be understood that, when Mary said to the angel, And whence shall I know this, since I do not know a man? the angel Gabriel replied, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:34–35)?

Ambigenti Mariae de conceptu, possibilitatem angelus praedicat, dicens, Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te; hoc est, Ne dubites, quia virum nescis: quod enim dixi quia concipies, Spiritus sanctus superveniens in te, operabitur ut concipias sine viro. Et virtus Altissimi, inquit, obumbrabit tibi. Altissimi virtus

To Mary, doubting about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying, The Holy Spirit will come upon you; that is, Do not doubt because you do not know a man: for as to my having said that you will conceive, the Holy Spirit, coming upon you, will bring it about that you conceive without a man. And the power of the Most High, he says, will overshadow you. The power of the Most High

Editors' notes and page, col. 2250

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Circumcisio usque› · call in col 2250

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter postvulgatas ex Novo Test. ordine vigesima secunda.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, twenty-second in order among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 473)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2250
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the full-width title QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO, spanning cols 2249 and 2250, is set once in n2249. The lower half of this column opens with "piens," the tail of suscipiens, which stands whole at the end of col 2249 and is not restored here (QA Q2)

PL 35:2251

sine dubio Christus est : hoc enim ad ipsius personam pertinet. Superveniens ergo Spiritus sanctus in Virginem, sanctificavit eam opere suo efficiens corpus sanctum ex ea, in quo Virtus quae dicitur Dei Filius, nasceretur. Cujus obumbratio in Virginem haec est, ut de immensitate divinitatis aliquid esset in utero Virginis, quantum posset capere natura humana, quod quasi ex splendore obumbratio diceretur, virtus Dei esset; quae Dei virtus, necnon et Deus. N⟨i⟩hil enim de Deo est, quod non dicatur Deus. Nam hoc corporeum est, ut sit in carne aliquid et caro dici non possit, ut pili, et ossa, et nervi et caetera.

is without doubt Christ: for this pertains to His person. The Holy Spirit, then, coming upon the Virgin, sanctified her by His work, making from her a holy body in which the Power that is called the Son of God might be born. His overshadowing upon the Virgin is this: that of the immensity of the Godhead something should be in the Virgin's womb, as much as human nature could hold, so that what was called, as it were, an overshadowing from splendour should be the power of God; and that which is the power of God is also God. For there is nothing of God that is not called God. For this is a bodily matter, that there should be something in the flesh which yet cannot be called flesh, such as hairs, and bones, and sinews and the rest.

Ambigenti Mariae de conceptu, etc. Virtus Altissimi sine dubio Christus est. Ad ipsius enim personam pertinet dictum hoc; signum enim Filii Dei, hoc est cum dicitur, Virtus Dei. Juxta divinitatem vero et Pater virtus est, et sanctus Spiritus virtus est, et trium horum una virtus, quia una substantia est. Spiritus sanctus ergo carnem ex Virgine fecit Salvatori : virtus Altissimi autem, id est Christus, obumbravit eam veniens in carnem factam a Spiritu, ut in corpore et anima lateret Filii virtus. Latere autem ejus, est ad tempus non intelligi. Obumbratio autem quid penitus intelligatur, considerandum est. Vis autem hujus verbi si exprimatur, obumbratio virtutis Dei, impetitio aliqua intelligitur, ut dum obumbratur corpus, aliquid sumere ex Dei virtute dignoscitur. Hoc autem aliquid totum est, quia non potest partiri divinitas. Sequitur itaque, Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei. Quod enim de Spiritu sancto natum est, in se habens obumbrationem virtutis Dei, quae est Filius Dei, sine dubio sanctum natum est, id est corpus Filii Dei. Sancti enim corpus sanctum est. Sanctus ergo Filius Dei in sancto corpore natus est. Sic etenim de carne Christi dixit David, Non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem (Psal. XVII, 9) : ut in corpore sancto ip⟨s⟩e significetur.

To Mary, doubting about the conception, etc. The Power of the Most High is without doubt Christ. For this saying pertains to His person; for it is the mark of the Son of God when He is called the Power of God. According to the Godhead, however, both the Father is power and the Holy Spirit is power, and of these three there is one power, because there is one substance. The Holy Spirit, then, made flesh from the Virgin for the Saviour; but the Power of the Most High, that is, Christ, overshadowed her, coming into the flesh made by the Spirit, so that the power of the Son might lie hidden in body and soul. His lying hidden, moreover, is His not being understood for a time. But what overshadowing is to be understood to mean precisely must be considered. If the force of this word is expressed, the overshadowing of the power of God is understood as a certain assault, so that, while the body is overshadowed, it is recognized to take something from the power of God. But this something is the whole, because the Godhead cannot be divided. It follows, therefore: Therefore also the holy thing that shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God. For what was born of the Holy Spirit, having in itself the overshadowing of the power of God, which is the Son of God, was without doubt born holy, that is, the body of the Son of God. For the body of the Holy One is holy. The holy Son of God, therefore, was born in a holy body. For so David said of the flesh of Christ: Thou wilt not give Thy holy one to see corruption (Ps. 17:9): so that He Himself is signified in the holy body.

LII. — Si de Spiritu sancto natus est Christus, id est effectu ejus ex Maria caro factus, cur dictum est, Sapientia, quae utique Christus est, aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX, 1)?

LII. — If Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, that is, was made flesh from Mary by His operation, why is it said: Wisdom, which is assuredly Christ, has built herself a house (Prov. 9:1)?

Quaestio ista gemina ratione potest intelligi. Primum enim domus Christi Ecclesia est, quam aedificavit sibi sanguine suo. Deinde etiam potest et corpus ejus dici domus ipsius, sicut dicitur et templum ejus. Si enim propter habitationem dicitur templum Dei, non absurde dicetur et domus, sicut legimus in Lege. Sed si effectu Spiritus sancti factum est corpus, et domum posse dici arbitramur, quare ad personam Christi relatum est, quaeritur. Factum Filii, factum Patris est, quia utrinsque una virtus est. Simili modo etiam factum Spiritus sancti, factum Filii Dei est, propter naturae et voluntatis unitatem. Sive enim Pater faciat, sive Filius, sive Spiritus sanctus, Trinitas est quae operatur : et quid⟨q⟩uid Tres fecerint, Dei unius est operatio.

This question can be understood in a twofold way. First, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built for Himself with His own blood. Then also His body can be called His house, just as it is also called His temple. For if it is called the temple of God on account of His dwelling there, it will not absurdly be called a house too, as we read in the Law. But if the body was made by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and we judge that it can be called a house, it is asked why it has been referred to the person of Christ. What the Son does is what the Father does, because the power of both is one. In like manner, too, what the Holy Spirit does is what the Son of God does, on account of the unity of nature and will. For whether the Father acts, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works: and whatever the Three have done is the working of the one God.

Factum Filii, factum Patris est; quia una virtus Patris et Filii est. Sic factum Spiritus sancti, factum Christi est; quia de ipsius accepit. Secundum personam ergo effectu Spiritus sancti Christus caro factus est, id est homo natus : secundum divinitatem autem Christus operatus est in Virgine, ut fieret caro. Quia Spiritus sancti et Christi una divinitas est; ac per hoc opus Spiritus sancti, opus Christi est.

What the Son does is what the Father does, because the power of the Father and of the Son is one. So what the Holy Spirit does is what Christ does, because He received of what is His. According to the person, then, Christ was made flesh by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that is, was born a man; but according to the Godhead Christ worked in the Virgin, so that He might become flesh. For the Godhead of the Holy Spirit and of Christ is one; and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Christ.

LIII. — Si omnia ratione facta sunt, quid est ut octavo calendas januarias Salvator natus esse dicatur?

LIII. — If all things were made by reason, what is the reason that the Saviour is said to have been born on the eighth day before the Kalends of January?

Nemo sic p⟨o⟩terit hebetari, ut neget omnia facere Deum cum ratione. Ideo ergo Christus descendens de sacris s⟨e⟩dibus ad salutem mundo tribuendam, ut

No one could be so dulled as to deny that God does all things with reason. Therefore Christ, descending from the sacred seats to bestow salvation on the world, so that

Editors' notes and page, col. 2251

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: virtus Dei esset (a)› · call in col 2251

Forte, obumbratio diceretur virtutis Dei, essetque Dei virtus.

Perhaps: "it would be called the overshadowing of the power of God, and it would be the power of God."

(printed under page 474)

(b) ‹anchor: (b) Ambigenti Mariae› · call in col 2251

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. ordine trigesima octava.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, thirty-eighth in order among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 474)

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 474)

Page

running head: 2251 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE[STAMENTO] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2252

etiam mundum ipsum, et tempora a se instituta doceret; tunc nasci homo voluit, ad diminutionem humani generis augmentandam in Deum, quando ex magna diminutione lux quae dies est, crementum incipit accipere: ut tempus nativitatis ejus ratione congruat doctrinae divinae, quae ex umbra mortis homines coepit multiplicare ad vitam.

also the world itself, and the times instituted by Himself, He might show; then He willed to be born a man, in order to increase towards God the diminished human race, at the time when, after great diminution, the light which is day begins to receive increase: so that the time of His birth might by its reckoning accord with the divine teaching, which began to multiply men out of the shadow of death unto life.

LIV. — Si ex semine David Christus Filius Dei factus est secundum carnem, hoc est, natus jam Filius Dei est in utroque, quia sanctus natus est; quomodo ergo postquam baptizatus est, dictum ei a Domino Deo est, Tu es filius meus, ego hodie genui te (Psal. II, 7)?

54. If Christ the Son of God was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, that is, being born He is already Son of God in both respects, since He was born holy, how then, after He was baptized, was it said to Him by the Lord God, Thou art My son, today I have begotten Thee (Ps. 2:7)?

Christus Dei Filius ex aeterno est secundum spiritum sanctitatis: juxta carnem vero ex semine David natus est Filius Dei, ut in utroque non factus Dei Filius habeatur, sed natus. Illud autem quod in baptismo audit, mysterii, non sua causa est. Nam hoc omnibus audit qui baptizantur. Ipse autem demonstratur tantummodo, ut ex hoc appareat in homine virtutibus Deus: caeteri vero firmantur, quia ex hoc incipiunt esse filii Dei, cum sanctum accipiunt Spiritum. Quamvis enim sanctum natum sit corpus Domini, non tamen sacramento regenerationis firmatus fuerat homo Christus esse Filius Dei, nisi Spiritum sanctum accepisset, juxta decretum ⟨r⟩enascibilitatis donum. Nam et Judaei filii Dei dicti sunt in devotione, non in sacramento quod nunc operatur, ut accepta remissione peccatorum superveniente sancto Spiritu, dicantur filii Dei. Salvator ergo et natus est secundum carnem Filius Dei, et post in mysterio firmatus. Nec enim poterat quod de sancto Spiritu natum est, non de Deo nasci; sed ut propositum mysterii impleretur, superveniente Spiritu non diminutum est, sed auctum.

Christ the Son of God is from eternity according to the spirit of holiness; but according to the flesh He was born Son of God of the seed of David, so that in both respects He is held not to have been made Son of God, but born. But that which He hears in baptism is for the sake of the mystery, not for His own. For He hears this on behalf of all who are baptized. He Himself, however, is only shown forth, so that from this God might appear in the man by powers; but the rest are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God, when they receive the Holy Spirit. For although the body of the Lord was born holy, yet the man Christ had not been confirmed by the sacrament of regeneration as being Son of God, unless He had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree, the gift of rebirth. For the Jews too were called sons of God in devotion, not in the sacrament which now operates, so that, remission of sins having been received and the Holy Spirit coming upon them, they may be called sons of God. The Saviour therefore was both born Son of God according to the flesh, and afterwards confirmed in the mystery. For that which was born of the Holy Spirit could not fail to be born of God; but so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, by the Spirit coming upon it, it was not diminished, but increased.

Christus Filius Dei secundum spiritum ex aeterno est, juxta carnem autem Dei Filius ex semine David est ex nativitate. Non per baptismum factus, quia de Spiritu sancto natus purificatum corpus habuit. In baptismo autem ideo audit, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, ut ostenderet per mysterium Baptismatis filios Dei fieri. Denique Spiritu descendente et manente in se, audit haec verba; quia ante acceptum Spiritum sanctum non sunt filii Dei. Audit ergo non sibi, sed nobis, ut in illo disceremus quomodo filii Dei esse possemus. Non enim sibi baptizatus est, sed nobis; quomodo alio loco ipse Dominus ait, Non propter me venit haec vox, sed propter vos, ut credatis (Joan. XII, 30): ita et hoc factum est, ut forma nobis fieret.

Christ the Son of God is from eternity according to the spirit, but according to the flesh He is Son of God of the seed of David by birth. He was not made so through baptism, since, born of the Holy Spirit, He had a purified body. But in baptism He hears, Thou art My son, today I have begotten Thee, for this reason: that He might show that through the mystery of Baptism men become sons of God. Accordingly, it is when the Spirit descends and remains upon Him that He hears these words; for before the Holy Spirit has been received they are not sons of God. He hears, therefore, not for Himself but for us, so that in Him we might learn how we could be sons of God. For He was not baptized for Himself, but for us; just as in another place the Lord Himself says, This voice came not for My sake, but for yours, that you may believe (John 12:30): so this too was done, that a pattern might be made for us.

LV. — Quid causae fuit ut illo tempore crucifigi se permitteret Dominus, quo octavo calenda aprilis Pascha acturi erant Judaei?

55. What was the reason that the Lord allowed Himself to be crucified at that time when the Jews were about to keep the Passover on the eighth day before the Kalends of April?

Omnia propriis locis et temporibus egit Salvator. Ut enim omnia se voluntate Patris recte condidisse doceret, tunc voluit passione sua mundum redimere et reformare, quando eum et creaverat; id est in aequinoctio, unde mundus initium coepit, et dies super noctem increscere. In regno itaque agens Romano, nonnisi octavo calendas aprilis pati debuit, quando aequinoctium habent Romani. Tunc enim utique primum haec pars mundi illuminata est, et ex eo dies coepit crementum accipere. Ideoque et passione Salvatoris tunc a tenebris ad lucem perducta est. Nulla itaque vituperatio auctoris poterit videri, quando lapsam creaturam tunc reformavit quando et fecerat. Nec enim reprehendi poterit rei lapsae initium creationis, cum ad id redeat instauratio. Eadem enim die voluit esse renovationis gaudium, quo fuerat et dedicationis.

The Saviour did all things in their proper places and times. For in order to show that He had rightly made all things by the will of the Father, He willed to redeem and reform the world by His passion at the time when He had also created it; that is, at the equinox, whence the world took its beginning, and the day began to grow beyond the night. Living, therefore, in the Roman realm, He had to suffer on no other day than the eighth before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have the equinox. For it was then, assuredly, that this part of the world was first illuminated, and from then the day began to receive increase. And therefore by the passion of the Saviour too it was then led out of darkness into light. Thus no reproach can appear to fall on the Author, since He reformed the fallen creation at the very time at which He had also made it. For the beginning of the creation of the fallen thing cannot be blamed, since its restoration returns to that point. For He willed the joy of the renewal to be on the same day as that of the dedication had also been.

LVI. — Quare in Matthaeo pater Joseph Jacob scribitur, et in Luca Heli, ut aut duos patres

56. Why in Matthew is Joseph's father written as Jacob, and in Luke as Heli, so that He is either described ignorantly as having two fathers

Editors' notes and page, col. 2252

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: et dedicationis› · call in col 2252

In Mss. secundi generis ita concluditur: Ergo mysterium hoc continet ut salus mundo tunc redderetur, quando eum acceperat.

In the manuscripts of the second class it ends thus: Therefore this mystery holds that salvation should be restored to the world at the time when it had received it.

(printed under page 474)

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Christus Filius Dei› · call in col 2252

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. ordine quadragesima quinta.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, forty-fifth in order among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 474)

Page

running head: [QUAESTIONE]S EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2252 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2253

habere imperite descrip⟨t⟩us sit, aut certe qui vere pater ejus sit, nesciatur (Matth. I, 16; Luc. III, 23)?

or else it is not known who His true father is (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23)?

Non est ambiguum patrem Joseph Jacob fuisse. Ordo enim a David per Salomonem tramitem suum tenens, recto cursu pervenit ad Jacob, cujus filius est J⟨o⟩seph: Heli autem filius Mathat, a David per Nathan filium ejusdem David, ordinem tenet, usque ad tempus quo Salvator advenit. Unde singuli Evangelistae a David singulorum fratrum generationum ordinem prosecuti, quasi furcam fecerunt, ut Matthaeus a David per Salomonem descenderet ad Joseph; Lucas vero ab Heli, qui tempore fuit Salvatoris, ascendit per traducem Nathan filii David, et utriusque, id est, Heli et Joseph junxit tribum, ostendens u⟨n⟩ius generis esse utrumque; ut cum Heli sociat Joseph, non discrepare eos in generatione, sed fratres ostendat: ac per hoc n⟨o⟩n solum ipsius Joseph filium esse Salvatorem, sed et Heli. Ipsa enim ratione, qua ipsius Joseph filius dicitur Salvator, ipsa est et Heli filius, et caeterorum omnium, qui de eadem tribu sunt. Hinc est quod dicit Apostolus, Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem (Rom. IX, 5). Divino etenim nutu permotus Lucas est, ut ab Heli per traducem Nathan ascenderet ad David, et per Tharam patrem ejus ascenderet ad Sem filium Noe, et adhuc super diluvium perveniret ad Seth filium Adae, qui redditus est pro Abel: et eadem ratione faceret filium Adae Salvatorem, qua dicebatur filius esse Joseph et Heli. Super Adam autem transcendens, assignaret ante omnem carnem Christum Filium Dei esse. Illud quod quibusdam videtur, quia Heli acceperat uxorem Jacob, quomodo Lex mandavit, ut si quis mortuus fuisset sine filiis, acciperet frater aut propinquus uxorem ejus, et resuscitaret semen fratris sui (Deut. XXV, 5); et ita factum, ut Heli generaret Joseph Jacob, cujus uxorem acceperat, et per hoc jungi generationem, ut non immerito Joseph patrem habere Heli dicatur: hoc nec probabile est, nec ad ullam rem proficit. Illud autem quod supra dictum est, et per generationem jungit duos fratres filios unius, et Christum ostendit Filium Dei esse ante omnem generationem. Evangelista enim cum referret, dicens, Et ipse Jesus erat incipiens fere annorum triginta, filius sicut putabatur Joseph, qui fuit Heli, id est Jesus filius aestimabatur Joseph: et non solum Joseph erat filius, sed et Heli. Non quia Joseph filium dicit Heli, sed eodem genere, quo Joseph vocabatur filius e⟨s⟩se Jesus, ita erat etiam filius Heli, propter quod fratrum filii erant Joseph et Heli, id est Salomonis et Nathan filiorum David, ut per David ascendens ad Abraham et Noe et Seth, et ad ipsum Adam, et super Adam, doceat esse Christum Filium Dei. Cum enim dicit, Qui fuit filius Seth, qui fuit filius Adae, qui fuit Filius Dei; Christum utique ita dicit Adae filium, sicut dicebatur filius Joseph. Ait enim Maria ad eum, Fili, quid fecisti nobis sic? Etenim ego et pater tuus moesti et tristes quaerebamus te (Luc. II, 48). Super Adam au⟨t⟩em junxit Christum Patri Deo, ut qui horum, id est ab Adam usque ad Joseph et Heli filius dicebatur, ante istos omnes Dei verus Filius intelligeretur, ad confusionem Photini, qui Christum nonnisi ex Maria, nec ante fuisse contendit. Quorum enim non erat, filius dicebatur; et Dei, cujus Filius verus erat, negabatur. Si enim, quod improbabile est, et ad nullam rem proficit, Joseph Heli filius dicatur, secundum quod supra diximus, non dixisse videbitur de Christo, quia fuit Filius Dei, sed de Adam. Per ordinem enim singulorum filiorum patres subjiciendo, venit ad Enos, cujus patrem dicit Seth, patrem autem Seth dicit Adam, Adae vero patrem dicit Deum: et nescio quae utilitas sit sic

There is no doubt that Jacob was the father of Joseph. For the line from David through Solomon, keeping to its own path, arrives by a straight course at Jacob, whose son is Joseph; but Heli, the son of Mathat, holds the line from David through Nathan, son of the same David, down to the time when the Saviour came. Hence the several Evangelists, following from David the line of the generations of each of the two brothers, made as it were a fork, so that Matthew descended from David through Solomon to Joseph; but Luke ascends from Heli, who was of the Saviour's time, through the branch of Nathan son of David, and he joined the tribe of both, that is, of Heli and of Joseph, showing that both are of one stock; so that, in associating Joseph with Heli, he shows that they do not differ in generation but are brothers, and by this that the Saviour is the son not only of Joseph himself but also of Heli. For by the very reasoning by which the Saviour is called the son of Joseph himself, by that same He is also the son of Heli, and of all the others who are of the same tribe. Hence it is that the Apostle says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5). For Luke was moved by a divine prompting to ascend from Heli through the branch of Nathan to David, and through Thara his father to ascend to Sem the son of Noe, and further, beyond the flood, to arrive at Seth the son of Adam, who was given back in place of Abel; and by the same reasoning to make the Saviour son of Adam by which He was said to be son of Joseph and of Heli. And going beyond Adam, he would declare that Christ is the Son of God before all flesh. As for what seems so to some, that Heli had taken the wife of Jacob, as the Law commanded, that if anyone had died without sons, his brother or kinsman should take his wife and raise up the seed of his brother (Deut. 25:5), and that thus it came about that Heli begot Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and that by this the generation is joined, so that Joseph is not without reason said to have Heli as father: this is neither probable nor of use for anything. But what was said above both joins by generation two brothers, sons of one man, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before all generation. For when the Evangelist related it, saying, And Jesus Himself was beginning [to be] about thirty years [of age], being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was [the son] of Heli, that is, Jesus was reckoned the son of Joseph: and He was the son not only of Joseph but also of Heli. Not that he calls Joseph the son of Heli, but in the same manner in which Jesus was called the son of Joseph, so He was also the son of Heli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David, so that, ascending through David to Abraham and Noe and Seth, and to Adam himself, and beyond Adam, he might teach that Christ is the Son of God. For when he says, Who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the Son of God, he certainly calls Christ the son of Adam in the same way as He was called the son of Joseph. For Mary says to Him, Son, why have you done so to us? For I and your father were seeking you, grieving and sad (Luke 2:48). But beyond Adam he joined Christ to God the Father, so that He who was called the son of these, that is, from Adam down to Joseph and Heli, might be understood as the true Son of God before all these, to the confounding of Photinus, who maintains that Christ [was] only from Mary and did not exist before. For He was called the son of those whose son He was not; and was denied [to be the Son] of God, whose true Son He was. For if, which is improbable and of use for nothing, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, according to what we said above, he will appear to have said, not of Christ, that He was the Son of God, but of Adam. For by setting down in order the fathers of the several sons, he comes to Enos, whose father he says is Seth, and the father of Seth he says is Adam, while the father of Adam he says is God: and I do not know what use there is in thus

Editors' notes and page, col. 2253

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2253

Mss. secundi generis: ad tempus quo fuit Joseph. Hi enim duo filii, id est Joseph et Heli, duorum fratrum, Salomonis et Nathan, singuli ex singulis fratribus per ordinem generationum suarum pervenerunt ad tempus quo Salvator advenit.

The manuscripts of the second class: up to the time in which Joseph lived. For these two sons, that is Joseph and Heli, of the two brothers Solomon and Nathan, came down, each from one of the brothers, through the order of their generations, to the time at which the Saviour came.

(printed under page 475)

(a) ‹anchor: nec ante fuisse contendit› · call in col 2253

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 475)

Page

running head: 2253 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2254

asseverare. Si autem per ordinem, sicut diximus, singuli patres Christi dicantur, sicut et filius dicebatur Joseph, quia dictum est, Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem; ipso ordine legitur filius esse Seth, et filius Adae. Et super hos ⟨o⟩mnes assignatur Filius Dei, ut ante ipsos dicatur esse, quorum filius nuncupatur.

asserting it. But if, in order, as we have said, the individual fathers are called Christ's [fathers], just as He was also called the son of Joseph, because it has been said, Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh; by the same order He is read to be the son of Seth, and the son of Adam. And above all these He is designated the Son of God, so that He may be said to exist before those whose son He is called.

LVII. — Quid est hoc ut cum in Malachia propheta scriptum sit, Ecce mitto Ang⟨e⟩lum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparet viam tuam ante te; Marcus hoc evangelista in Isaia propheta scriptum asserit (Malach. III, 1; Marc. I, 2)?

57. What does it mean that, although it is written in the prophet Malachi, Behold, I send My angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee; Mark the evangelist asserts that this is written in the prophet Isaiah (Mal. 3:1; Mark 1:2)?

Non potuit latere Marcum, quid scriberet: nec enim expers erat lectionis, qui ab infantia divinis Litteris imbutus, et exercitatus erat in Lege, maxime cum Apostolos sit secutus. Sciens autem omnia ad auctorem referenda dicta, haec ad Isaiam revocavit, qui sensum istum prior intimaverat dicens, Vox clamantis in deserto: Parate viam Domino, rectas facite semitas Dei nostri (Isai. XL, 3). Denique post verba Malachiae statim subjecit Evangelista dicens, Vox clamantis in deserto; ut jungeret verba utriusque prophetae ad unum sensum pertinentia sub prioris prophetae persona.

It could not have escaped Mark what he was writing: for he was not without reading, who from infancy had been steeped in the divine Scriptures and was practised in the Law, especially since he followed the apostles. But knowing that all sayings are to be referred to their author, he traced these back to Isaiah, who had earlier made this sense known, saying, The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight the paths of our God (Isa. 40:3). Accordingly, immediately after the words of Malachi the evangelist added, saying, The voice of one crying in the desert; so that he might join the words of both prophets, which pertain to a single sense, under the person of the earlier prophet.

LVIII. — Qua ratione negat se Joannes Christum scisse ante baptismum, cum venienti ei ad baptismum dicat, Ego a te debeo baptizari, ⟨et t⟩u venis ad me (Joan. I, 31, 33; Matth. III, 14)? quomodo ignorabat eum quem prohibuit, humilians se ei?

58. For what reason does John deny that he knew Christ before the baptism, when he says to Him as He came to baptism, I ought to be baptized by Thee, and Thou comest to me (John 1:31, 33; Matt. 3:14)? How was he ignorant of Him whom he restrained, humbling himself before Him?

Tanta sanctitate praeditus est etiam ab ipsis cunabulis Joannes, ut nec falli nec fallere credatur, nec Dominum suum qui eum in utero per Spiritum sanctum illuminaverat nescire: ac per hoc verum est, quia et descendente in eum Spiritu agnovit eum, et priusquam ad baptismum veniret, non ignoravit eum. Sciebat enim eum, sed an ipse esset, qui donum Dei olim Patribus repromissum ministraturus esset, nesciebat: hoc est, quod tunc se didicisse profitetur, cum vidit in eum Spiritum descendisse. Sic enim se a Deo instructum dicit Joannes, Super quem, ait, videris Spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, ipse est qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto. Hoc etiam Apostolus contestatur: Dico enim, inquit, Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones Patrum (Rom XV, 8). Hoc est in quo nesciebat Dominum Joannes: quamvis enim magnificentiam ejus non ignoraret, hoc tamen latuit eum, quia per ipsum fides Abrahae implenda erat.

John was endowed with such great holiness even from the very cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor to be ignorant of his Lord, who had enlightened him in the womb through the Holy Spirit: and therefore it is true both that he recognized Him when the Spirit descended upon Him, and that before He came to baptism he was not ignorant of Him. For he knew Him, but whether He was the one who was to minister the gift of God promised long ago to the Fathers, he did not know: that is, what he professes he learned then, when he saw the Spirit descend upon Him. For thus John says he was instructed by God: Upon whom, He says, you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. The Apostle also bears witness to this: For I say, he says, that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the Fathers (Rom. 15:8). This is that in which John did not know the Lord: for although he was not ignorant of His magnificence, this nevertheless was hidden from him, that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.

LIX. — Si Baptisma coeleste mysterium est, cur Nicodemo cum de Baptismo dubitanti loquitur Dominus, Si terrestria, inquit, dixi vobis, et non creditis, quomodo si dixero vobis co⟨ele⟩stia credetis (Joan. III, 12)?

59. If Baptism is a heavenly mystery, why does the Lord, speaking to Nicodemus when he was in doubt about Baptism, say, If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things (John 3:12)?

Qui Baptismum putat carna⟨l⟩i ratione consistere, hic non est spiritualis: nec donum coeleste poterit consequi, qui se non per aquam, sed per fidem immutari non credat. Aqua enim cernitur, sed qui non videtur Spiritus operatur, ut fides in eo sit. Quia sicut sordes corporeas aqua, ita Spiritus animam abluit a peccatis; ut quomodo visibilia visibilibus, ita et spiritualibus prosit Spiritus: ac per hoc spiritualis ratio vertitur in Baptismo. Plus enim est ibi quod auditur, quam quod videtur. Cum hinc ergo Nicodemus carnali instructus ratione dubitaret, Salvator ut eum ad fidem attraheret exemplo usus est congruo, ut ad rem invisibilem firmandam visibile daret exemplum, quod solo auditu consistit, non visu, et non negatur: et est tamen terrenum, quia mundi rem operatur. Ait ergo Dominus ad Nicodemum suadendo illi, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et vocem ejus audis, et nescis unde veniat vel quo eat. Sic est omnis qui renascitur ex aqua et Spiritu sancto: ut quomodo vox venientis spiritus, id est, venti, auditur quidem, non autem videtur, sicut dictum est; sic et ratio Baptismi auditur quod dicatur, tamen quomodo per Spiritum

He who thinks that Baptism consists in a carnal principle is not spiritual: nor will he be able to obtain the heavenly gift who does not believe that he is changed not through water but through faith. For the water is seen, but the Spirit, who is not seen, works, so that faith may be in it. For just as water washes away bodily dirt, so the Spirit washes the soul from sins; so that, as visible things benefit visible things, so also the Spirit benefits spiritual things: and therefore a spiritual principle is at work in Baptism. For there is more there that is heard than that is seen. Since, then, Nicodemus, instructed by carnal reasoning, was in doubt on this point, the Saviour, to draw him to faith, used a fitting example, so as to give a visible example for establishing an invisible matter, one which consists in hearing alone, not in sight, and yet is not denied: and yet it is earthly, because it works a thing of the world. So the Lord says to Nicodemus, persuading him, The Spirit breathes where it wills, and you hear its voice, and you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. So is everyone who is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit: so that, just as the sound of the coming spirit, that is, of the wind, is indeed heard but not seen, as has been said; so also the principle of Baptism is heard in what is said, yet how through the Spirit

Editors' notes and page, col. 2254

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2254
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: left-column fragments in the images belong to col. 2253 and are not set; "Ang⟨e⟩lum" damaged letter; "⟨et t⟩u" covered by an ink blot; "co⟨ele⟩stia" gap in the type; "carna⟨l⟩i" letter faint, could read "carnati"; "(Rom XV, 8)" printed without the period after Rom; scripture refs printed with small-cap numerals set as capitals; "Digitized by Google" watermark at foot not set

PL 35:2255

fit non videtur: auditur tamen cum quid futurum est ab eo qui verba insinuat, praedicatur, ut fieri credatur quod auditur, non tamen ratio facti reddatur. Cum autem nec per exemplum Nicodemus duceretur ad fidem, tunc audivit a Salvatore, Si terrestria, inquit, dixi vobis, et non creditis; quomodo si dixero vobis coelestia, credetis? Ista verba terrena dixit, quae ad exemplum protulit: hoc est, si per rationem terrenam, inquit, exempli dati, spiritus, id est, venti, non creditis posse fieri, quia quomodo fiat, non videtur; quomodo fieri poterat, ut si darem coelestia exempla, quae utique nescitis, crederetis? Potest enim homini suaderi quod nescit, per id quod scit; ut puta Deus dicit de Christo, quod Filius ejus sit verus, quod quomodo sit, comprehendi non potest: per id autem quod scimus secundum carnem quomodo sint filii, credimus ideo Deum dixisse, Christus Filius meus e⟨s⟩t verus, ut de semetipso illum esse significaret. Hoc modo et Salvatorem quod nec verbis nec animo explicari pote⟨s⟩t, per id quod sensibile est et auribus auditur, voluit commend⟨a⟩re; hoc est per exemplum spiritus qui est ventus, quem et sensibilitas capit et auris audit, sed unde veniat nescit, factum Spiritus sancti, quod capi non potest, voluit facere credibile. Sed et in Actibus Apostolorum eodem modo legitur: Et factus est, inquit, subito de coelo sonus, tanquam advenientis spiritus validi, et replevit totam domum (Act. II, 2), etc. Ecce aperte exemplo venti Spiritum sanctum insinuat ita de coelo advenisse, et sonuisse, quemadmodum validus ventus super terram. Nam et Jeremias ventum spiritum vocat dicens, Ventus spirat in omni regione. Qui propterea quod in hoc mundo est, et per diversa circumfertur loca, unde veniat, vel quo e⟨a⟩t, nescimus. Spiritus autem sanctus de coelo venit, sicut legimus, ut credentes illuminet. Quomodo ergo quibusdam videtur de Spiritu sancto Salvatorem dixisse, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et vocem ejus audis, sed nescis unde veniat, vel quo eat? cum constet exempli causa locutum hoc Salvatorem. Denique subjecit, Sic est, inquit, omnis qui renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto. Quid tam apertum, quia spiritum ventum significavit? Sed ideo putant non ventum significatum, quia ait, Ubi vult spirat: quasi non omnis creatura, lege sibi posita, remissa sit arbitrio proprio. Et nos enim imus, et facimus quod volumus, agentes sub lege; quare et rationem praestabimus. Aut possibile putatur, et nec stultum videtur ut effectum volens sancti Spiritus insinuare, illum ipsum daret exemplum. Igitur omni genere quaestionem solutam arbitror.

is done is not seen: yet it is heard when something that is to come is proclaimed by him who conveys the words, so that what is heard may be believed to happen, though the reason of the deed is not given. But when Nicodemus was not led to faith even by the example, then he heard from the Saviour: If I have spoken earthly things to you, He says, and you do not believe, how, if I speak heavenly things to you, will you believe? He called those words earthly which He brought forward as an example: that is, if by the earthly reasoning, He says, of the example given, of the spirit, that is, of the wind, you do not believe that it can happen, because how it happens is not seen, how could it be that, if I gave heavenly examples, which you certainly do not know, you would believe? For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know through what he knows; as for instance God says of Christ that He is His true Son, and how this is cannot be comprehended: but through what we know of how there are sons according to the flesh, we believe that God therefore said, Christ is My true Son, so as to signify that He is from Himself. In this way too the Saviour wished to commend what can be explained neither in words nor in the mind through that which is perceptible and is heard by the ears; that is, through the example of the spirit which is the wind, which both the senses grasp and the ear hears, but does not know whence it comes, He wished to make credible the working of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped. And in the Acts of the Apostles too it is read in the same way: And suddenly, it says, there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty spirit coming, and it filled the whole house (Acts 2:2), etc. See, plainly by the example of the wind it conveys that the Holy Spirit came from heaven and sounded just as a mighty wind does upon the earth. For Jeremiah too calls the wind spirit, saying, The wind blows in every region. And because it is in this world and is carried about through various places, we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. But the Holy Spirit comes from heaven, as we read, to enlighten believers. How then does it seem to some that the Saviour said of the Holy Spirit, The spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes? since it is evident that the Saviour said this by way of example. Finally He added, So is, He says, everyone who has been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. What is so plain as that by spirit He signified the wind? But they suppose that the wind is not signified because He says, It blows where it wills: as though every creature, a law having been set for it, were not left to its own choice. For we too go and do what we will, acting under law; wherefore we shall also render an account. Or it is thought possible, and it does not seem foolish, that, wishing to convey the working of the Holy Spirit, He should give that very [Spirit] as the example. Therefore I consider the question resolved in every respect.

Quod dixit, Si terrestria dixi vobis, et non creditis, non pertinet ad Baptismum; quia baptismum nostrum scimus esse spirituale, quamvis per aquam celebretur: sed ratio illic vertitur coelestis. Nec enim aqua purificat, sed invisibiliter et incomprehensibiliter Deus. Pertinet vero ad imitationem dati exempli, id est, ad id quod dixit, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et vocem ejus audis, sed nescis unde veniat, vel quo eat. Per h⟨o⟩c enim exemplum ad fidem Nicodemum voluit informare, ut crederet renasci hominem per aquam et Spiritum, non tamen posse capi quomodo fiat: fit enim spiritualiter. Sic enim spiritus, hoc est venti vocem audis, quae est sonus, sed nescis unde veniat, vel quo eat: sic et eum qui renascitur, quomodo immutetur nescis, tamen quia fit sentis, quia immutationem ipsam sentis. Si enim ventus ubi vult spirat, quanto magis Spiritus qui de Deo est, quem vult sanctificat? Ideo autem dixit, Ubi vult spirat; quia omnis creatura quamvis sub Lege agatur, proprio tamen d⟨i⟩missa est arbitrio. Si quis autem spiritum istum, Spiritum sanctum putat intelligi, non stat: quippe cum exempli causa spiritum istum posuerit, per quem quod dixerat renasci per aquam et Spiritum hominem oportere, et a Nicodemo non credebatur,

As to His saying, If I have spoken earthly things to you, and you do not believe, it does not pertain to Baptism; for we know that our baptism is spiritual, although it is celebrated by means of water: but a heavenly principle is at work there. For it is not water that purifies, but God, invisibly and incomprehensibly. It pertains rather to the imitation of the example given, that is, to what He said, The spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. For by this example He wished to form Nicodemus towards faith, so that he might believe that a man is reborn through water and the Spirit, yet that how it happens cannot be grasped: for it happens spiritually. For just as you hear the voice of the spirit, that is, of the wind, which is a sound, but do not know whence it comes or whither it goes: so too with him who is reborn, you do not know how he is changed, yet you perceive that it happens, because you perceive the change itself. For if the wind blows where it wills, how much more does the Spirit Who is from God sanctify whom He wills? And He said, It blows where it wills, because every creature, although it is governed under the Law, is nevertheless left to its own choice. But if anyone thinks that this spirit is to be understood as the Holy Spirit, it does not stand: since He set down this spirit by way of example, through which what He had said, that a man must be reborn through water and the Spirit, and which was not believed by Nicodemus, He might urge upon him.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2255

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Quod dixit› · call in col 2255

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. decima sexta

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, sixteenth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 476)

Page

running head: 2255 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO T[cut off]
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2256

suad⟨e⟩ret. Nam utique aliud est exemplum, et aliud quod firmatur exemplo. Si ergo in exemplum datus est, non est Spiritus sanctus, mundanus qui dicitur ventus. Volens enim rationem spiritualem suadere non credenti Nicodemo, exemplum spiritus dedit, ut per ipsum ratio et operatio sancti Spiritus crederetur. Spiritus tamen sanctus scimus quia de coelo venit, ut se infundat credentibus, sicut factum legimus inter initia Apostolis, et sonum tunc vocem appellatum. Ita enim dictum est, Et subito factus est de coelo sonus tanquam advenientis spiritus validi. Hunc sonum in subjectis vocem appellat. Exemplo enim spiritus, id est venti, Spiritus sancti opera ostendit, ut dictum Salvatoris maneret. Quid enim aliud est cum dicit, Et factus est de coelo sonus tanquam advenientis spiritus validi? Sic utique dixit Spiritum sanctum descendisse et sonuisse sicut ventus validus. Hunc ergo spiritum ad exemplum dedit. Denique ait, Sic est omnis qui renascitur. Et hic unde veniat nescimus: Spiritus autem sanctus de coelo venit.

For certainly the example is one thing, and that which is confirmed by the example is another. If therefore it was given as an example, the worldly thing which is called wind is not the Holy Spirit. For wishing to urge a spiritual reasoning upon Nicodemus, who did not believe, He gave the example of the spirit, so that through it the reasoning and the working of the Holy Spirit might be believed. Yet the Holy Spirit, we know, comes from heaven to pour Himself into believers, as we read was done to the Apostles at the beginnings, and the sound was then called a voice. For thus it is said, And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a mighty spirit coming. This sound he calls a voice in what follows. For by the example of the spirit, that is, of the wind, He showed the works of the Holy Spirit, so that the saying of the Saviour might stand. For what else is it when he says, And there came from heaven a sound as of a mighty spirit coming? Thus he certainly said that the Holy Spirit came down and sounded like a mighty wind. This spirit, therefore, He gave as an example. Finally He says, So is everyone who is born again. And of this one we do not know whence he comes; but the Holy Spirit comes from heaven.

LX. Si lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem, quomodo Salvator ad sacerdotes mittit offerri munera pro emundatione leprae (Matth. VIII, 4; Marc. I, 44; Luc. V, 14)?

LX. If the law and the Prophets were until John, how does the Saviour send to the priests for gifts to be offered for the cleansing of leprosy (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14)?

Hoc quidem non fuit temporis, sed ad condemnationem factum est Judaeorum: ut cum veritatis culmen meliorati temporis non intelligerent ad lucrum salutis suae factum, inclinaret se veritas ad accusationem eorum. Cum enim velut Legis inimicum haberent Salvatorem, quia misericordiae causa ab onere illos Legis volebat liberare, sicut praedictum erat ab Jeremia propheta: ait enim inter caetera, Et dabo illis testamentum novum, non quale dedi patribus eorum (Jerem. XXXI, 31, 32): tunc Salvator, ne inimicus, sicut putabant, appareret, nova praedicans, eum qui mundatus fuerat a lepra, ad sacerdotes misit offerre munera pro emundatione sua, sicut praeceperat Moyses (Levit. XIV, 2). Et ut ad accusationem eorum hoc proficere testaretur, In testimonium, inquit, illis: ut in judicio haec res contra illos testis esset, qui Salvatorem inimicum Legis dicebant. Hoc secutus est et apostolus Paulus: cum enim praedicaret jam non oportere circumcidi, ipse Timotheum circumcidit propter scandalum Jud⟨ae⟩orum (Act. XVI, 3): maluit enim rem superfluam facere, quam tumultum excitari a falsis fratribus: quod quidem errori profecit Judaeorum. Satis enin eis factum est ad horam, per quod in perpetuum errarent.

This indeed did not belong to the time, but was done for the condemnation of the Jews: so that, since they did not understand that the summit of truth of the bettered time had come about for the gain of their salvation, the truth might bend itself to their accusation. For since they held the Saviour to be, as it were, an enemy of the Law, because out of mercy He wished to free them from the burden of the Law, as had been foretold by Jeremiah the prophet (for he says among other things, And I will give them a new testament, not such as I gave to their fathers (Jer. 31:31–32)), then the Saviour, so as not to appear an enemy, as they supposed, by preaching new things, sent him who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his cleansing, as Moses had commanded (Lev. 14:2). And to testify that this would serve for their accusation, He says, For a testimony to them: so that in the judgement this matter might be a witness against those who said the Saviour was an enemy of the Law. The apostle Paul too followed this: for although he was preaching that there was no longer any need to be circumcised, he himself circumcised Timothy because of the scandal of the Jews (Acts 16:3); for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than that an uproar be stirred up by false brethren; which indeed furthered the error of the Jews. For they were satisfied for the hour, by which they might err forever.

Hoc secutus est apostolus Paulus. Cum enim praedicaret jam non oportere circumcidi quemquam, ipse Timotheum circumcidit, propter scandalum Judaeorum. Maluit enim rem superfluam facere, quam imperitis ex quibus aliqui possent salvari, scandalo e⟨s⟩se. Dominus autem prope similiter, ut Judaeis, quod de illo opinabantur, auferret (dicebant enim hunc inimicum traditionis Judaicae), tunc jussit ut leprosus offerret munera pro emundatione sua, sicut praeceptum erat a Moyse: et subjecit, In testimonium illis; ut haec res te⟨s⟩tis esset contra illos, quia Salvator non erat Legis inimicus. Factum itaque est quod jam cessare debuerat. Sed quia solent superflua jam non nocere, ideo factum est ut prodesset illis utique, qui male opinabantur, ut satis sibi facerent, quia Salvator non erat Legis inimicus.

The apostle Paul followed this. For although he was preaching that there was no longer any need for anyone to be circumcised, he himself circumcised Timothy because of the scandal of the Jews. For he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than be a scandal to the unlearned, some of whom could be saved. And the Lord, in almost the same way, in order to take away from the Jews what they supposed about Him (for they said He was an enemy of the Jewish tradition), then ordered the leper to offer gifts for his cleansing, as had been commanded by Moses; and He added, For a testimony to them, so that this matter might be a witness against them that the Saviour was not an enemy of the Law. So that was done which ought already to have ceased. But because superfluous things are by now wont to do no harm, it was therefore done so that it might certainly profit those who thought ill, so that they might satisfy themselves that the Saviour was not an enemy of the Law.

LXI. Quid est ut Judaeis discipulos accusantibus, eo quod sabbatum violarent, spicas manibus confricantes et comedentes, Salvator exemplum David proferret, quia manducavit panes, quos non licebat manducare nisi solis sacerdotibus (Matth. XII, 1-4)? per quod non videntur excusari, sed simul cum David rei fieri: quippe cum nec sabbatis fecerit hoc David.

LXI. Why is it that, when the Jews accused the disciples of violating the sabbath by rubbing ears of corn in their hands and eating them, the Saviour brought forward the example of David, in that he ate the loaves which it was not lawful to eat except for the priests alone (Matt. 12:1–4)? By this they do not appear to be excused, but rather to become guilty together with David, especially since David did not even do this on the sabbath.

Salvator hypocrisim Judaeorum multis vult exemplis arguere, majora ostendens admissa in Lege, et nullum ausum fuisse accusare: ut non solum semel

The Saviour wishes to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews by many examples, showing that greater things were committed under the Law, and that no one dared to accuse: so that not only once

Editors' notes and page, col. 2256

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Hoc secutus est› · call in col 2256

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. vigesima octava.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, twenty-eighth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 476)

Page

running head: [QUAESTION]ES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 22%o (left edge cut off; column number blurred, presumably 2256)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2257

et iterum sabbatum in Lege violatum monstraret, verum etiam sacerdotalem panem ipso sacerdote concedente praesumptum illicite; et quod majus est, a sublimi auctoritate Legis suae viris. Primus enim Jesus Nave divino praecepto sabbatum non servavit; quo facto muri Jericho ultro ceciderunt (Josue VI, 15-20). Quantum profuit sabbatum non custodisse, sed fidem? Et Machabaei, cum ⟨p⟩rius caesi fuissent, sabbatis dimicaverunt, et de hostibus triumphaverunt (I Machab. II, 38, 41). Et sacerdotes ut dominicis cerimoniis inservirent, in templo sabbatum contemnebant. David autem jam unctus in regem, postquam Dei virtute interfectum armis exspoliavit Allophylum, in itinere positus, necessitatem famis passus, a sacerdote panem accepit (I Reg. XXI, 6), quem non illi licebat manducare: sed excepta necessitate non licebat; licitum autem erat, si necessitas exegisset. Denique sacerdos videns necessitatem, non negavit; et David a Deo electus, sine cunctatione accepit: talis causa est et sabbati, quare et c⟨i⟩rcumcidi in sabbato non prohibetur. Haec enim quae periculosa non sunt, sic servanda mandata sunt, ut non obsit, si ex necessitate fuerint admissa: quia non ad salutem, sed ad reverentiam mandata sunt. Illud autem quod omnino non licet, semper non licet, nec aliqua necessitate mitigatur, ut admissum non obsit. Est enim semper illicitum, quod legibus quia criminosum est, prohibetur. Superiora autem illa, quae diximus aliquando licere, talia sunt, qualia jejunia legitima, quae in necessitate soluta, non faciunt reos, si stomachi fuerit causa aut infirmitas febrium. Haec igitur scientes, dolose Judaei discipulos accusabant, quasi sabbatum violarent, sicut supra dictum est. Salvator autem noluit illis de tempore impletae Legis praejudicare, ne plus ad insaniam prosilirent; sed de praeterito, unde sabbatum vindicandum magis putabant, calumniosos illos ostendit: et non solum in sabbati causa, sed etiam in sacerdotali pane confusi sunt, sicut supra ostensum e⟨s⟩t.

and again to show that the sabbath had been violated within the Law, but also that the priestly bread had been taken unlawfully, with the priest himself granting it; and, what is greater, by men of lofty authority in His Law. For first Jesus Nave did not keep the sabbath, by divine command; and when this was done the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord (Josh. 6:15–20). How much did it profit not to have kept the sabbath, but [to have kept] faith? And the Maccabees, after they had first been slaughtered, fought on the sabbaths and triumphed over their enemies (1 Macc. 2:38, 41). And the priests, in order to serve the Lord's ceremonies, disregarded the sabbath in the temple. David, moreover, already anointed as king, after he had stripped of his arms the Philistine slain by the power of God, being on a journey and suffering the necessity of hunger, received from the priest bread (1 Sam. 21:6) which it was not lawful for him to eat: but apart from necessity it was not lawful; it was, however, lawful if necessity had required it. Then the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse; and David, chosen by God, accepted without hesitation: such is the case of the sabbath too, which is why circumcising on the sabbath is also not forbidden. For those things that are not dangerous were commanded to be kept in such a way that it does no harm if they have been transgressed out of necessity: because they were commanded not for salvation, but for reverence. But that which is not lawful at all is never lawful, nor is it softened by any necessity so that, once committed, it does no harm. For that is always unlawful which is forbidden by the laws because it is criminal. But those former things, which we said are sometimes lawful, are of the same kind as the lawful fasts, which, when broken in necessity, do not make men guilty, if the cause was the stomach or the weakness of fevers. Knowing these things, therefore, the Jews deceitfully accused the disciples, as if they were violating the sabbath, as was said above. But the Saviour did not wish to prejudge for them the matter of the time when the Law was fulfilled, lest they should leap further into madness; but from the past, on the ground of which they thought rather that the sabbath must be vindicated, He showed them to be slanderers: and not only in the case of the sabbath, but also in that of the priestly bread were they confounded, as was shown above.

Noluit Salvator de tempore impleti sabbati praejudicare Judaeis. Aperte enim audire quod verum est, non illos dignos judicavit, utpote infideles: sed de eo illos voluit convincere, quod sibi praesumebant, id est de tempore quo adhuc sabbatum robur suum tenere videbatur, cum accusarent discipulos cur sabbatis spicas vellerent, et confricantes manibus manducarent, et jam sabbati servandi tempus esset impletum. Praetermi⟨s⟩so hoc ostendit illis, etiam tunc quando sabbati adhuc lex manebat, necessitatis causa sabbatum fuisse violatum: quod enim non licebat, fecit David; et quod prohibitum erat fecit Jesus Nave, quando muros Jericho septem diebus armatos jussit circumire; et quod interdictum erat Machabaei gesserunt, sabbatis se defendentes; Et in templo, inquit, sacerdotes sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt. Per haec ergo ostendit, malevolentia magis quam errore accusari discipulos a Judaeis; quando haec omnia scien⟨t⟩es a volentibus sabbatis gesta, et a sanctis quidem, accusabant innocentes. Sic enim mandatum est sabbatum custodiri, ut si necessitas tamen es⟨s⟩et, reus non fieret qui sabbatum violasset. Ideo sabbatis circumcidi non est prohibitum, quia necessitas erat ut fieret. Unde et discipuli esurientes spicas vellebant, quod non licebat secundum praeteritum tempus, sed necessitate famis factum est licitum: sicut et David fecit quod non licebat cum esuriret, et sciens famem hoc excusare. Talis haec causa est, qualis hodie in jejuniis legitimis. Numquid si quis aeger jejunium corruperit, reus constituitur? Non utique, quia non est periculum. Hoc enim aliquando licet, sicut sabbatum apud veteres. Quod enim semper non licet, non habet excusationem necessitatis.

The Saviour did not wish to prejudge for the Jews the matter of the time when the sabbath was fulfilled. For He did not judge them worthy to hear openly what is true, since they were unbelievers: but He wished to convict them on the point which they assumed for themselves, that is, concerning the time in which the sabbath still seemed to hold its force, when they accused the disciples of plucking ears of grain on the sabbaths and eating them, rubbing them in their hands, although the time for keeping the sabbath had already been fulfilled. Passing this over, He showed them that even then, when the law of the sabbath still remained, the sabbath had been violated by reason of necessity: for David did what was not lawful; and Jesus Nave did what was forbidden, when he ordered armed men to go round the walls of Jericho for seven days; and the Maccabees did what was prohibited, defending themselves on the sabbaths; And in the temple, He says, the priests violate the sabbath, and are without guilt. By these things, therefore, He showed that the disciples were accused by the Jews out of malevolence rather than error; since, knowing that all these things had been done willingly on the sabbaths, and indeed by holy men, they accused the innocent. For the sabbath was commanded to be kept in such a way that, if there was nevertheless a necessity, he who had violated the sabbath would not become guilty. Therefore circumcising on the sabbaths is not forbidden, because there was a necessity that it be done. Hence the disciples too, being hungry, plucked ears of grain, which was not lawful according to the past time, but by the necessity of hunger it was made lawful: just as David too did what was not lawful when he was hungry, knowing also that hunger excused this. This case is of the same kind as the lawful fasts today. If someone who is sick has broken a fast, is he judged guilty? Certainly not, because there is no danger. For this is sometimes lawful, as the sabbath was among the men of old. For what is never lawful has no excuse of necessity.

LXII. — Quid est ut occisis filiis Liae, qui erant

LXII. — Why is it that, when the sons of Leah had been killed, who were

Editors' notes and page, col. 2257

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Noluit Salvator› · call in col 2257

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex novo Test. ordine vigesima tertia.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, twenty-third in order among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 477)

Page

running head: 2257 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2258

ex tribu Juda, Rachel filios suos plangere dicatur (Matth. II, 18)?

of the tribe of Judah, Rachel is said to weep for her children (Matt. 2:18)?

Quantum ad historiam pertinet, Rachel filii sunt tribus Benjamin. Porro olim pro maleficiis propriis, operibus scilicet Sodomitarum, et stupro quod in concubinam viri Levitae gesserant, a reliquis tribubus exstincti et erasi sunt (Judic. XIX, XX). Quamobrem consolationem recipere velle negatur, sciens nullam spem eorum qui periisse noscuntur. Filii autem Liae in primaevis annis, in Salvatoris causa occisi sunt. Unde eorum causam planctui non vult adscribi; quia et innocentes occisi sunt, et propter Deum, a quo sine dubio, mercedis gratia, aeter⟨n⟩a vita donati sunt. Quapropter planctum Rachel filiis dicit competere, qui et in praesenti et in futuro erasi sunt. Illi autem carnaliter plancti, spiritualiter consolati sunt. Filii autem Rachel carnaliter conversati, flammis spiritualibus consumentur. Idcirco autem Liae filiis occisis adimpletum planctum Rachelis Evangelista testatur, quia tunc plangere filios suos coepit, quando filios sororis suae in tali causa vidit occisos, ut aeternae vitae haeredes existerent. Cui enim aliquid adversum advenit, ex felicitate alterius, infausta sua miserius luget.

As far as the history is concerned, the sons of Rachel are the tribe of Benjamin. Now formerly, for their own evil deeds, namely the works of the Sodomites and the outrage which they had committed upon the concubine of the Levite man, they were wiped out and erased by the remaining tribes (Judg. 19-20). For this reason she is said to be unwilling to receive consolation, knowing that there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were slain in their earliest years, in the cause of the Saviour. Hence he does not wish their case to be ascribed to lamentation, because they were both slain as innocents and slain for the sake of God, by Whom without doubt, by grace of reward, they were granted eternal life. Therefore he says that lamentation befits the sons of Rachel, who were erased both in the present and in the future. Those others, lamented in the flesh, were consoled in the spirit. But the sons of Rachel, having lived according to the flesh, will be consumed by spiritual flames. And the Evangelist testifies that the lamentation of Rachel was fulfilled when the sons of Leah were slain for this reason: that she began to weep for her own sons at the time when she saw the sons of her sister slain in such a cause that they became heirs of eternal life. For he to whom something adverse has happened mourns his own ill fortune more wretchedly because of the happiness of another.

LXIII. — Qua rat⟨i⟩one Magi chaldaei per stellae apparentiam Christum regem Judaeorum natum intellexerunt, cum stella indice temporalis rex soleat designari (Matth. II, 1, 2)?

LXIII. — By what reasoning did the Chaldean Magi understand through the appearance of a star that Christ, the King of the Jews, had been born, since it is a temporal king who is usually designated by a star as indicator (Matt. 2:1–2)?

Illi Magi chaldaei non malevolentia astrorum cursum, sed rerum curiositate speculabantur. Sicut enim datur intelligi, traditionem Balaam sequebantur: qui cum accersitus esset a Balach ad maledicendum populum Dei, divino nutu benedicere coepit. Ex hujus ergo relatione compertum habebant, futurum Dei providentia ex Jacob qui regnaret. Hinc enim, quod non est occultum, prophetavit dicens, Orietur stella ex Jacob, etc. (Num. XXIII, XXIV). Istam ergo traditionem Magi secuti, videntes stellam extra ordinem mundi, hanc esse intellexerunt quam Balaam futuram indicem regis Judaeorum prophetaverat. Quod quidem factum contra inimicos religionis est. Inde enim testimonium accepit unde solet improbari. Astrologi enim inimici sunt veritatis.

Those Chaldean Magi observed the course of the stars not out of malevolence but out of curiosity about things. For, as we are given to understand, they were following the tradition of Balaam, who, when he had been summoned by Balak to curse the people of God, by the divine will began to bless them. From his account, therefore, they had learned for certain that by the providence of God there would be one from Jacob who would reign. For on this matter, as is not hidden, he prophesied, saying, A star shall rise out of Jacob, etc. (Num. 23-24). Following this tradition, then, the Magi, seeing a star outside the order of the world, understood that this was the one which Balaam had prophesied would be the indicator of the King of the Jews. And this was indeed done against the enemies of religion. For it received testimony from the quarter from which it is usually disapproved. For astrologers are enemies of the truth.

Illi Magi chaldaei non malevolentia, etc. Orietur stella ex Jacob, et exsurget homo de Israel, et confringet duces Moab, et praedabitur omnes filios Seth, et erit Edom haereditas ejus, etc. Haec ergo prophetia est Balaam, non quia fuit propheta, sed Deus causam populi sui egit per illum, non voluntarium sed invitum: sicut prophetasse inveniuntur missi a Saül ad David capiendum, et sicut ipse Saül cum dictum est, Numquid et Saül inter Prophetas (I Reg. XIX, 20 24)? Hinc enim probare voluit Deus quanta sit majestas Dei Judaeorum, qui cum maledicere venerat, convertit, ut bonum illi videretur benedicere populum Dei. Nec enim maledictum ejus poterat timere, cujus cor habebat in potestate. Hunc ergo prophetam hanc intimasse collegis suis datur intelligi, qui cum curiosi sunt circa astra, videntes stellam incognitam, et nimia claritate fulgentem, ita ut solem luce superaret (videbatur enim per diem), conferentes inter se, animadverterunt hanc esse stellam quam futuram dixerat Balaam.

Those Chaldean Magi not out of malevolence, etc. A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up from Israel, and shall shatter the chiefs of Moab, and shall plunder all the sons of Seth, and Edom shall be his inheritance, etc. This prophecy, then, is Balaam's, not because he was a prophet, but because God pleaded the cause of His people through him, not willing but unwilling: just as those sent by Saul to seize David are found to have prophesied, and as Saul himself, when it was said, Is Saul also among the Prophets (1 Sam. 19:20–24)? For by this God wished to prove how great is the majesty of the God of the Jews, Who turned him when he had come to curse, so that it seemed good to him to bless the people of God. For He could not fear the curse of one whose heart He held in His power. We are given to understand, then, that this prophet made this known to his colleagues, who, being curious about the stars, on seeing an unknown star shining with exceeding brightness, so that it surpassed the sun in light (for it was seen by day), conferring among themselves, perceived that this was the star which Balaam had said would come.

LXIV. — Quomodo probatur post tres dies et noctes resurrexisse Salvatorem ex mortuis?

LXIV. — How is it proved that the Saviour rose from the dead after three days and nights?

In hac causa si numerum dierum ac noctium per ordinem requiris, effectum intelligentiae non habebis. Quia et Moyses quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus jejunavit (Exod. XXXIV, 28), et tamen non integer numerus invenitur: quando enim per diem ascendit, et per diem descendit, omnem utique numerum non implevit: sed quia ubi dies est computatur nox, et ubi nox est computatur et dies, ut a parte

In this matter, if you seek the number of days and nights in order, you will not attain understanding. For Moses too fasted forty days and forty nights (Exod. 34:28), and yet the number is not found to be complete: for since he went up by day and came down by day, he certainly did not fill out the whole number; but because where there is a day a night is counted, and where there is a night a day is also counted, so that from a part

Editors' notes and page, col. 2258

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: plangere› · call in col 2258

Mss. secundi generis, plus plangere.

The manuscripts of the second class have plus plangere ("to lament more").

(printed under page 477)

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Hi Magi chaldaei› · call in col 2258

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. trigesima nona.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, thirty-ninth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 477)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2258
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2259

ad totum, quadraginta dies et quadraginta noctes dicuntur. Ita est quod dixit Salvator, Sicut fuit Jonas in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, ita erit Filius hominis in corde terrae (Matth. XII, 40). Et quia tres noctes sunt, tres accipiantur et dies. Est enim nox ne novum aut contra rationem forte videatur, ut cum nox ex die pendeat: nam ante lucem factam, ex qua appellatus est dies, quam vesperum quod sequitur nox insti⟨t⟩utum, minime dubitatur, quod passio Dominica a nocte sumere asseveratur initium, non absurdum e⟨s⟩t. Nam sicut lux, id est dies, imago vitae est; ita nox similitudo mortis est. id est tenebrae: sicut in Scripturis evidenter ostenduntur filii lucis, et e contra tenebrarum. Nec mirum si cum ubique dies nocti, et lumen tenebris, hic solum quae sunt sequentia anterioribus praeponantur; vel quod in tali causa rerum ordo confunditur et mutatur, ut ante signavimus. Nam mortis nox magis, quam dies esse videtur. Ideo etenim a nocte initium sumitur, quia non aliter principi tenebrarum nisi per noctem potuit subintrari, id est non potuit vinci: et ut aliquatenus Dominus lucis, id est aeternae vitae, principi tenebrarum sive mortis subjectus esset ad tempus; quatenus et praeteritos et post futuros a morte liberaret. Nam non esset mors penitus evacuata, nec unquam tenebrarum caligo discussa, si Dominum non vidisset subintrantem. Etenim tanta luce secretum mortis, in quo dominabatur, evanuit, nec penitus vinci potest, nisi qui vel per sua vel in suis capitur. Recte ergo in tali negotio tantummodo nox obtinet principatum, ita ut amitteret potestatem: et ut Judaei non credentes in perpetua nocte remanerent, nec auctor dies tanti sceleris, imo sacrilegii, sed nox fieret, praecedenti nocti contra rerum seriem subditur dies, sicut Deus et Dominus omnium rerum principi nef⟨a⟩riae mortis, ut omnes a mortis laqueis explicaret. Quod si cui adhuc forte videtur esse contrarium, diligenter advertat ne incipiat illud durius aestimare, quod Deus se personam induens servi, non dicam hominis, morti dederit. Quid ergo hic et ordinem quaeris, ubi omnia videas esse contraria? Quae est enim lux quae fuit in tenebris, et tenebrae eam non comprehe⟨n⟩derunt (Joan. I, 5)? Dominus lucis, qui et comprehensus est. Qui enim scit se ad hoc comprehendi ut feriatur, tempus illud in mortem computat. Est et dies sequens qua auditus et crucifixus est. Est et nox quae cadit in sabbatum, est et ipsum sabbatum. Est etiam vesper post sabbatum, hoc est quod Judaeis a Moyse praeceptum est in figura, ut vespere intrarent in sabbatum, in quo Dominus resurrexit: qui complectitur diem dominicum; quia nox non computatur sine die, neque dies sine nocte. Hac ratione, post tres dies et post tres noctes Dominus resurrexit.

to the whole, they are called forty days and forty nights. So it is with what the Saviour said: As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40). And since there are three nights, let three days also be understood. For night is [first], lest it perhaps seem novel or contrary to reason, seeing that night hangs upon day: for, since there is no doubt at all that the light, from which the day was named, was made before the evening which night follows was established, it is not absurd that the Lord's passion is asserted to take its beginning from night. For just as light, that is day, is an image of life, so night, that is darkness, is a likeness of death: just as in the Scriptures the sons of light are plainly shown, and on the other hand those of darkness. Nor is it any wonder if, whereas everywhere day [is put before] night and light before darkness, here alone the things that follow are put before those that precede; or because in such a case the order of things is confounded and changed, as we noted before. For night, rather than day, seems to be death's. For the beginning is taken from night for this reason, that the prince of darkness could not be entered upon except by night, that is, he could not be conquered: and so that the Lord of light, that is of eternal life, might in some measure be subject for a time to the prince of darkness or of death, in order that He might free from death both those who had gone before and those who were to come after. For death would not have been utterly made void, nor would the gloom of darkness ever have been dispelled, had it not seen the Lord entering in. For indeed by so great a light the hidden place of death, in which it held sway, vanished; nor can anyone be utterly conquered unless he is taken either through what is his own or in those who are his own. Rightly, then, in such an affair night alone holds the first place, so that it might lose its power: and so that the Jews, not believing, might remain in perpetual night, and that not day but night might become the author of so great a crime, nay sacrilege, day is placed after the preceding night against the sequence of things, just as God and the Lord of all things [was placed beneath] the prince of wicked death, that He might release all from the snares of death. But if this still perhaps seems contrary to anyone, let him carefully take heed lest he begin to judge that harder, that God, putting on the person of a servant, not to say of a man, gave Himself up to death. Why then do you look for order here too, where you see all things to be contrary? For what is the light which was in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:5)? The Lord of light, Who was also apprehended. For he who knows that he is apprehended for this, that he may be struck down, counts that time towards his death. There is also the following day, on which He was heard and crucified. There is also the night which falls into the sabbath, and there is the sabbath itself. There is also the evening after the sabbath, that is what was commanded to the Jews by Moses in a figure, that they should enter upon the sabbath in the evening, in which the Lord rose again: which includes the Lord's day; since night is not reckoned without day, nor day without night. By this reckoning the Lord rose again after three days and after three nights.

Praescius Salvator omnium quae in se futura erant, haec protestatus est, certus ad hoc se a Judaeis comprehendi ut occideretur, se quoque impietati illorum non repugnaturum, cum posset utique eos illudere: quippe cum propterea jam detentus, aurem servi principis sacerdotum, quam producto gladio absciderat Petrus apostolus, reddidit; ut se ostenderet non infirmitate humiliatum, sed providentia quadam voluntati illorum cessisse ad tempus, ut per hoc regnum inferni destrueret. Improvidus enim diabolus sensibus se Judaeorum immersit, ut eos ad necem Salvatoris incenderet, quasi sibi prodesset, si hic qui viam veritatis ostenderet, tolleretur de vita: nesciens futurum adversum se. Cum enim peccati causa de captivitate hominis triumpharet, inventus ipse reus per id quod Christum innocentem occidit, ut eum qui peccatum nesciebat, inter peccatores teneret; ita factum est, ut etiam illos quos jure in inferis tenebat, amitteret. Igitur horum praescius Salvator, noctem qua comprehensus est, simul computavit. Omnis enim detentus, qui se judicis manus non credit evadere, antequam feriatur, jam se mortuum dicit. Adde huic

The Saviour, foreknowing all things that were to come upon Him, declared these things, being certain that He was to be apprehended by the Jews for this, that He might be killed, and that He would not resist their impiety, although He could certainly have mocked them: inasmuch as, when He had already been seized for this purpose, He restored the ear of the servant of the chief of the priests, which the apostle Peter had cut off with a drawn sword; so that He might show that He had not been humbled through weakness, but had by a certain providence yielded to their will for a time, that through this He might destroy the kingdom of hell. For the improvident devil plunged himself into the minds of the Jews, so as to inflame them to the slaying of the Saviour, as though it would profit him if He Who showed the way of truth were taken out of life: not knowing that it would turn against himself. For while, by reason of sin, he was triumphing over the captivity of man, he himself was found guilty through this, that he killed Christ the innocent, so as to hold among sinners Him Who knew no sin; thus it came about that he lost even those whom he was holding by right in the underworld. Therefore the Saviour, foreknowing these things, reckoned in together the night in which He was apprehended. For everyone who has been seized, and who does not believe that he will escape the hands of the judge, already calls himself dead before he is struck down. Add to this

Editors' notes and page, col. 2259

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Praescius Salvator› · call in col 2259

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. decima octava.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, eighteenth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 478)

Page

running head: 2259 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2260

diem quo passus est, et sequentem noctem. Adde et sabbatum et noctem quae lucescit in diem dominicum cum ipso die dominico, et complevisti mysterium verborum Domini. Novissima enim nocte cum adhuc tenebrae essent, et dies inciperet oriri, inter lucem et tenebras surrexit, ut et nox computetur, et dies, quo possit numerus a Salvatore praedictus integer inveniri.

the day on which He suffered, and the following night. Add also the sabbath and the night which dawns into the Lord's day, together with the Lord's day itself, and you have fulfilled the mystery of the Lord's words. For on the last night, while there was still darkness and the day was beginning to rise, He rose between light and darkness, so that both the night and the day might be counted, whereby the number foretold by the Saviour might be found complete.

LXV. — Si uno ore et ratione Evangelistae locuti sunt; quomodo factum est ut tribus dicentibus, id est Matthaeo, Luca et Joanne, quia sexta hora crucifixus est Dominus, Marcus e diverso tertia hora crucifixum dicat Salvatorem (Matth. XXVII, 45; Luc. XXIII, 44; Joan. XIX, 14; Marc. XV, 25)?

65. — If the Evangelists spoke with one mouth and one reasoning, how did it come about that, while three of them, that is, Matthew, Luke and John, say that the Lord was crucified at the sixth hour, Mark on the contrary says that the Saviour was crucified at the third hour (Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14; Mark 15:25)?

Obscuris vera involvere non est bonum. Nam tres Evangelistae unum sensum habuerunt, Marcus autem rem quae ab illis praetermissa fuerat, voluit intimare, sciens necessariam. Nec enim falli posset qui auctorum exempla secutus, ea quae scripsit magna devotione et industria didicit, et nec sine sancto Spiritu fecit. Quid ergo ex hoc ostendere voluit, debet absolvi. Contuendum itaque est, quia non a Pilato, sed a Judaeis Salvator crucifixus est. Quantum enim ad leg⟨e⟩s Romanas pertinuit, innocentem pronuntiavit Salvatorem. Ait enim Pilatus Judaeis, Ego nullam invenio causam in eo. Et dicentibus illis, Crucifige eum; respondit, Quid enim mali fecit? Denique persistens et volens educere eum de manibus eorum calumniam passus est, dicentibus eis, Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris. Omnis enim qui se regem facit, contradicit Caesari. Sic factum est ut traderet eum judicio illorum (Joan. XIX, 4-13). Sententiam ergo non dedit Pilatus, sed Judaei. Denique praemoniti sunt, inquit, a principibus sacerdotum, ut dicerent, Crucifigatur. Hanc sententiam tertia hora datam vult intelligi in qua assiduis vocibus perdurantes cum intervallo horarum fere trium, quibus itum et reditum est ab Herode, crucifixerunt Salvatorem. Omnis enim qui addicitur morti, ex eo jam mortuus computatur, quo sententiam excipit. Manifestavit igitur Marcus, quia non in judicis sententia Salvator crucifixus est. Difficile est enim innocentem probare eum, qui sententia judicis punitur. Discordare ergo se passus est in verbo, ut doceret tertia hora coeptum esse, quod sexta hora impletum est: non legibus, sed persistente malevolentia Judaeorum.

It is not good to wrap true things in obscurities. For the three Evangelists had one meaning, but Mark wished to make known a matter which had been passed over by them, knowing it to be necessary. For he could not be deceived who, following the examples of the authorities, learned with great devotion and diligence the things that he wrote, and did not do so without the Holy Spirit. What, then, he wished to show by this must be explained. It is to be observed, therefore, that the Saviour was crucified not by Pilate but by the Jews. For as far as concerned the Roman laws, he pronounced the Saviour innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews, I find no cause in Him. And when they said, Crucify Him, he answered, For what evil has He done? Then, persisting and wishing to bring Him out of their hands, he suffered a false accusation, as they said to him, If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. For everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar. Thus it came about that he handed Him over to their judgement (John 19:4–13). Pilate, therefore, did not give the sentence, but the Jews. Then, he says, they had been instructed beforehand by the chief priests to say, Let Him be crucified. He wishes this sentence to be understood as given at the third hour, in which, persisting with unceasing cries, with an interval of almost three hours, during which there was the going to and the return from Herod, they crucified the Saviour. For everyone who is condemned to death is counted as already dead from the moment at which he receives the sentence. Mark therefore made it plain that the Saviour was not crucified by the sentence of a judge. For it is difficult to prove that man innocent who is punished by the sentence of a judge. He therefore allowed himself to disagree in word, in order to teach that what was completed at the sixth hour was begun at the third hour: not by the laws, but by the persisting malevolence of the Jews.

Obscuris vera involvere non est bonum. Nam tres Evangelistas verum dixisse ipsa concordia obtestatur. Marcum autem sensum nescio quem occultum voluisse prodere, res ipsa declarat. Nec enim falli posset, qui auctorum exempla secutus, ea quae scripsit, magna devotione et industria didicit. Quid ergo ex hoc dicto prodere voluit, solerti vigilantia investigandum est. Nec enim otiose a tribus Evangelistis discordare se passus in verbis est. Animadvertamus ne verum dicant, qui sententiam datam tertia hora dixerunt, ac per hoc tertia hora crucifixum Salvatorem, quamvis illud probare non valuerunt. Sensum enim forte sciunt, sed quatenus defendant, ignorant. Ideoque Pilati persona interim sequestrata videamus, unde sententia data in Salvatorem accepit exordium, et tunc apparebit an possit verum videri quod dicimus. Constat itaque principes Judaeorum praemonuisse Judaeos ut Barabbam latronem peterent sibi in die festo dimitti, Jesum vero crucifigere debere. Contra quod Pilatus cum diu resisteret, volens dimittere Salvatorem, frequenter intrans et exiens ad Judaeos, dicebat nullam se in eo causam mortis videre. Illi autem insistentes dicebant, Crucifigatur. Hinc morae ortae sunt, et cum illuditur a militibus, et producitur, et veste purpurea induitur, et fit ei corona de spinis, et adoratur, et conspuitur, et flagellatur, et palmis verberatur, propterea sexta hora in crucem positus est. Ad Pilatum autem adductus est: tunc exivit ad eos Pilatus foras, quoniam ipsi non introierunt praetorium; et

It is not good to wrap true things in obscurities. For the very agreement bears witness that the three Evangelists spoke the truth. But the matter itself declares that Mark wished to disclose some hidden meaning or other. For he could not be deceived who, following the examples of the authorities, learned with great devotion and diligence the things that he wrote. What, then, he wished to disclose by this saying must be investigated with careful vigilance. For it was not idly that he allowed himself to disagree in words with the three Evangelists. Let us consider whether those do not speak the truth who said that the sentence was given at the third hour, and for this reason that the Saviour was crucified at the third hour, although they were not able to prove it. For perhaps they know the meaning, but they do not know how they should defend it. And therefore, setting aside the person of Pilate for the moment, let us see from where the sentence given against the Saviour took its beginning, and then it will appear whether what we say can seem true. It is established, then, that the chief men of the Jews instructed the Jews beforehand to ask that Barabbas the robber be released to them on the feast day, but that Jesus must be crucified. When Pilate resisted this for a long time, wishing to release the Saviour, going in and out frequently to the Jews, he kept saying that he saw in Him no cause of death. But they, insisting, kept saying, Let Him be crucified. Hence delays arose, both when He is mocked by the soldiers, and is brought forth, and is clothed in a purple garment, and a crown of thorns is made for Him, and He is worshipped, and is spat upon, and is scourged, and is struck with the palms of hands; for this reason He was put on the cross at the sixth hour. Now He was brought to Pilate: then Pilate went outside to them, since they themselves did not enter the praetorium; and

Editors' notes and page, col. 2260

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Obscuris vera› · call in col 2260

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test., vigesima prima.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, twenty-first among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 478)

Page

running head: …ES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2260 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2261

allocutus est eos, et audivit falsas accusationes eorum, et mi⟨s⟩it illum ad Herodem, et regressus est, et iterum interrogavit Jesum, et ipse e contra respondit ei, et postea iterum exivit ad Judaeos et collocutus dicebat, nullam causam mortis esse in Salvatore. Interea perventum est ad horam tertiam per has moras. Tunc Judaei volenti Pilato dimittere eum dixerunt, Crucifigatur. Contra quos Pilatus diu resistens, cum non potuisset obtinere, tradidit Jesum sententiae illorum hora fere sexta. Sic enim scriptum est, Tunc tradidit eum voluntatibus illorum. Ideoque dictum est recte sententiam tertia hora datam; quia non a Pilato data est, sed a Judaeis. Pilatus aut⟨e⟩m invitus consensisse videtur: propter invidiam enim maxime dicentium, Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris. Quid ergo Marcus volens purgare hoc, secutus est, videamus. Ostendere voluit Salvatorem non judicis sententia occisum, quia difficile qui judicis sententiam excipit, non juste occisus videtur.

he addressed them, and heard their false accusations, and sent Him to Herod, and returned, and again questioned Jesus, and He in turn answered him, and afterwards he again went out to the Jews and, conferring with them, said that there was no cause of death in the Saviour. Meanwhile, through these delays, the third hour was reached. Then the Jews said to Pilate, who wished to release Him, Let Him be crucified. Pilate, resisting them for a long time, when he could not prevail, handed Jesus over to their sentence at about the sixth hour. For thus it is written, Then he handed Him over to their wills. And therefore it is rightly said that the sentence was given at the third hour; because it was given not by Pilate but by the Jews. Pilate, however, seems to have consented unwillingly: for it was chiefly because of the ill will of those saying, If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Let us see, then, what Mark followed in wishing to clear this up. He wished to show that the Saviour was not slain by the sentence of a judge, because one who receives the sentence of a judge is hardly seen to have been slain unjustly.

LXVI. — Quomodo Marcus evangelista daemonia cognovisse ait et professa esse Jesum, e contra autem Apostolus, principes et potestates hujus saeculi neget cognovisse divinitatem Domini Jesu? Dicit enim inter caetera Marcus, Sciebant eum ipsum esse: Apostolus vero, Quem nemo, inquit, principum hujus saeculi cognovit. Si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent (Marc. I, 34; I Cor. II, 8). Si daemonia sciebant, quomodo principes ignorabant?

LXVI. — How does Mark the evangelist say that the demons knew and confessed Jesus, while on the other hand the Apostle denies that the princes and powers of this world knew the divinity of the Lord Jesus? For Mark says among other things, They knew that He was the very one: but the Apostle, Whom none, he says, of the princes of this world knew. For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty (Mark 1:34; 1 Cor. 2:8). If the demons knew, how were the princes ignorant?

Quibusdam videtur p⟨r⟩inc⟨i⟩pes hujus saeculi, majores Judaeorum significasse, quasi juxta illud quod Petrus apostolus dicit, Scitis enim, inquit, fra⟨t⟩res, quia per ignorantiam gessistis hoc malum, sicut et principes vestri (Act. III, 17). Ergo Judaeorum erant principes, non tamen hujus saeculi principes erant. Unde ait, vestri, non saeculi: quippe cum dixerint regem se habere Caesarem, sub cujus fuerant redacti potestate. Sunt autem isti hi principes, quos alio loco significavit Apostolus dicens: Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus principes et potestates hujus mundi, adversus tenebrarum harum rectores (Ephes. VI, 12). Recte ergo quaeritur. Si enim isti non cognoverunt Jesum, quomodo poterat fieri ut daemonia agnoscerent eum? Sed aliud est quod cognovisse in Christo daemones dicit, et aliud quod hujus saeculi principes negat cognovisse. Nam daemonia sciebant ipsum quidem esse, sed qui per Legem fuerat promissus. Omnia enim signa videbant in eo, quae dixerant futura esse Prophetae; ut quod ex semine David de virgine venturus esset redemptor Israel: mysterium autem divinitatis ejus ignorabant, sicut et principes eorum. Denique quaerit, quamvis captiose, diabolus a Salvatore dicens, Si tu es Filius Dei, etc. (Matth. IV, 3). Videns enim aliquando divinam virtutem, aliquando hominis infirmitatem, ambigens quid verum esset, torquebatur. Concordant ergo Scripturae secundum ea quae revelata sunt. Impossibile est enim discordare unius spiritus viros.

To some it seems that the princes of this world signified the elders of the Jews, as if according to what the apostle Peter says, For you know, brothers, he says, that you did this evil through ignorance, as did also your princes (Acts 3:17). Therefore they were princes of the Jews, yet they were not princes of this world. Hence he says, your, not of the world: since indeed they said that they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been brought. But these princes are those whom the Apostle indicated in another place, saying: Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the princes and powers of this world, against the rulers of these darknesses (Eph. 6:12). Rightly then is it asked: for if these did not know Jesus, how could it come about that the demons recognized Him? But it is one thing that he says the demons knew in Christ, and another that he denies the princes of this world knew. For the demons knew that He was indeed the one, but the one who had been promised through the Law. For they saw in Him all the signs which the Prophets had said were to come; as that from the seed of David the redeemer of Israel would come of a virgin: but the mystery of His divinity they did not know, just as their princes did not. Indeed the devil, though captiously, asks of the Saviour, saying, If Thou art the Son of God, etc. (Matt. 4:3). For seeing at one time divine power, at another the weakness of a man, uncertain what was true, he was tormented. The Scriptures therefore agree according to the things which have been revealed. For it is impossible for men of one spirit to disagree.

Quibusdam videtur principes et potestates hujus saeculi Judaeorum majores et principes dixisse, qui juxta Petri apostoli dicta ignoraverunt quid mali fecerunt. Ait enim, Scio, fratres, quia per ignorantiam gessistis hoc malum, sicut et principes vestri. Judaeorum principes hi fuerunt, non tamen hujus saeculi principes dici potuerunt: quippe cum in potestate redacti fuerant Romanorum, profitentes se non habere regem nisi Caesarem. Hi autem sunt principes isti, quos alio loco significat Apostolus, dicens, Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem, sed adversus hujus mundi principes, et tenebrarum harum rectores. Si ergo hi sunt principes qui nescientes Dominum majestatis Christum esse, crucifixerunt, quomodo a daemonibus potuit sciri? Non illum aliter scierunt daemones, quam sciebant principes hujus saeculi. Sciebant enim ipsum

To some it seems that he called the elders and princes of the Jews the princes and powers of this world, who, according to the words of the apostle Peter, did not know what evil they did. For he says, I know, brothers, that you did this evil through ignorance, as did also your princes. These were princes of the Jews, yet they could not be called princes of this world: since indeed they had been brought under the power of the Romans, professing that they had no king but Caesar. But these princes are those whom the Apostle indicates in another place, saying, Our wrestling is not against flesh, but against the princes of this world and the rulers of these darknesses. If therefore these are the princes who, not knowing that Christ was the Lord of majesty, crucified Him, how could He be known by the demons? The demons knew Him no otherwise than the princes of this world knew Him. For they knew Him

Editors' notes and page, col. 2261

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Quibusdam videtur› · call in col 2261

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quadragesima octava.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, forty-eighth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 479)

Page

running head: 2261 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2262

esse qui promissus erat in Lege per signa prophetiae : non tamen mysterium ejus, quo Filius Dei erat ex aeterno, sciebant, neque sacramentum incarnationis.

that He was the one who had been promised in the Law through the signs of prophecy; yet they did not know His mystery, by which He was the Son of God from eternity, nor the sacrament of the incarnation.

LXVII. — Quid est quod in cruce positus Salvator ait : Pater, ignosce illis ; non enim sciunt quid faciunt (Luc. XXIII, 34) : si enim nesciunt, quid est quod ignoscitur, maxme cum dicat rex Abimelech ad Deum, Numquid gentem ignorantem perdes (Gen. XX, 4) ?

LXVII. — What does it mean that the Saviour, placed on the cross, says: Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34)? For if they do not know, what is it that is forgiven, especially since King Abimelech says to God, Wilt Thou destroy an ignorant nation (Gen. 20:4)?

Non omnis ignorans immunis a poena est : ille enim ignorans potest excusari a poena, qui a quo disceret non invenit. Istis autem hoc ignosci petit, qui habentes a quo discerent, operam non dederunt. Hujusmodi non licet ignorare. Accipient ergo veniam, si convertantur.

Not every ignorant person is immune from punishment: for that ignorant person can be excused from punishment who did not find anyone from whom he might learn. But He asks that this be forgiven to these, who, having someone from whom they might learn, did not take the trouble. People of this kind are not permitted to be ignorant. They will therefore receive pardon, if they are converted.

Non omnis ignorans immunis a poena est. Hic enim qui potuit discere, et non dedit operam, reum se fecit. Erat enim ut disceret, et a quo disceret : sed negligentior luxuria aut malevolentia factus inexcusabilis est a crimine. Unde dicit Salvator, Si non venissem et locutus eis fuissem, peccatum non haberent (Joan. XV, 22). Ille autem qui non suo vitio ignorat, ideo enim ignorat quia non fuit a quo disceret, nec rumore comperit doctrinae opinionem, omni genere immunis a condemnatione est. I⟨d⟩eo his, si convertantur, Dominus veniam postulat a Patre, qui cum praedicaretur veritas, ut eam addiscerent operam non dederunt, sed per ignorantiam auctorem ejus occiderunt. Unde Petrus apostolus in Actibus ait, Convertimini, ut deleantur peccata vestra (Act. III, 19).

Not every ignorant person is immune from punishment. For this one, who was able to learn and did not take the trouble, made himself guilty. For it was possible for him to learn, and there was someone from whom to learn; but, having become more negligent through self-indulgence or ill will, he is inexcusable with respect to the charge. Hence the Saviour says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin (John 15:22). But he who is ignorant not through his own fault (for he is ignorant because there was no one from whom he might learn, nor did he come to know the repute of the teaching by rumour) is in every respect immune from condemnation. Therefore for these, if they are converted, the Lord asks pardon from the Father, who, when the truth was being preached, did not take the trouble to learn it, but through ignorance killed its Author. Hence the apostle Peter says in the Acts, Be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:19).

LXVIII. — Cum utique orandum pro inimicis Dominus docuerit, quid est quod in Apocalypsi contra hos animae occisorum ulcisci se petant, a Deo postulantes vindictam (Matth. V, 44 ; Apoc. VI, 10) ?

LXVIII. — Since the Lord certainly taught that one must pray for enemies, what does it mean that in the Apocalypse the souls of the slain ask to be avenged against these, demanding vengeance from God (Matt. 5:44; Rev. 6:10)?

Sic enim animae occisorum clamant vindicari se postulantes, sicut sanguis Abel clamavit de terra (Gen. IV, 10). Causae ergo sunt quae clamare dicuntur, cum loqui non possint. Sanguis enim effusus quid aliud quam vindicari se postulat, clamans non voce, sed ratione ? Nam et opus opificem laudare dicitur per hoc ipsum quod videntem se oblectat. Non enim tam impatientes sunt sancti, ut urgeant jam fieri quod sciunt tempore pr⟨ae⟩finito futurum, quod nec anticipari potest, nec differri. Sed hoc dicto ostendere voluit, vindicaturum Deum sanguinem sanctorum suorum : ne quia tam patiens nunc videtur, inultum putaretur impium bellum, quod contra sanctos geritur : ut et terrorem incutiens persequentibus Dei servos, et exhortaretur pro se patientes. Revelatur enim anima patientis quando vindicari se audit a potente. Prae se enim spem fert, si mortem suam audiat judici displicere : tunc enim pro certo habet innocentem se esse. Et Deus quidem misericors et patiens est, sed moderate. Exspectat enim ut impii credant, et peccatores se emendent : si quo minus, plectentur, quia Dei longam patientiam contempserunt. Cujus rei exemplum etiam tempore misericordiae praedicatae ostendit, ne non patiens, sed insensibilis, et quem neque dolor alicujus, neque pietas commoveret, videretur. Hinc est unde ait per prophetam, Tacui, numquid semper tacebo (Isai. XLII, 14) ? et Dominus, Numquid non faciet, inquit, Deus vindictam servorum suorum clamantium ad se die ac nocte (Luc. XVIII, 7) ? Sic utique clamant, sicut supra diximus. Si quis ergo christianus ad tempus vindicet, non acerbe, neque cum sanguine, non peccat : melius tamen fecerit, si dimiserit judici Deo.

For the souls of the slain cry out in this way, demanding that they be avenged, just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth (Gen. 4:10). It is therefore the causes that are said to cry out, since they cannot speak. For what else does shed blood do but demand that it be avenged, crying out not with a voice but by reason? For a work too is said to praise its maker by the very fact that it delights the one who sees it. For the saints are not so impatient as to press for what they know will come at a predetermined time to happen now, which can neither be anticipated nor deferred. But by this saying he wished to show that God will avenge the blood of His saints: lest, because He now seems so patient, the impious war that is waged against the saints should be thought to go unpunished; and so that He might both strike terror into those who persecute the servants of God and encourage those who suffer for Him. For the soul of the sufferer is relieved when it hears that it is being avenged by one who is mighty. For it carries hope before it, if it hears that its death displeases the judge: for then it holds for certain that it is innocent. And God indeed is merciful and patient, but in measure. For He waits for the impious to believe and for sinners to amend themselves; if not, they will be punished, because they despised the long patience of God. He showed an example of this even in the time when mercy was preached, lest He should seem not patient but insensible, one whom neither anyone's pain nor pity would move. Hence it is that He says through the prophet, I have kept silent; shall I always keep silent (Isa. 42:14)? and the Lord says, Will not God, He says, execute vengeance for His servants who cry to Him day and night (Luke 18:7)? Thus indeed they cry out, as we said above. If, therefore, a Christian avenges himself for a time, not bitterly, nor with bloodshed, he does not sin; yet he will have done better if he leaves it to God the judge.

Apocalypsis cum futura mala et tribulationes diffidentiae et malae vitae causa Deo vindice testaretur, exemplare etiam poenarum uniuscujusque peccati oculata fide demonstrans, ut nihil impietatis et crudelitatis inultum remanere probaret, animas occisorum

The Apocalypse, since it testified that future evils and tribulations would come, with God as avenger, on account of distrust and an evil life, demonstrating also with eyewitness faith the pattern of punishments for each sin, so as to prove that nothing of impiety and cruelty remains unavenged, the souls of the slain

Editors' notes and page, col. 2262

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2262

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex utroque Test. quarta.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, fourth among the later-published questions on both Testaments.

(printed under page 479)

(b) ‹anchor: (b) Apocalypsis cum› · call in col 2262

Ibid. Quaestio duodecima

Ibid., the twelfth question.

(printed under page 479)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2262
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2263

die ac nocte dicit vindicari se postulare. Quod quidem non est contrarium: quia Deus utique qui hanc legem dedit, vindicare se in diem judicii repromisit, ut hoc praeceptum ad praesens dedisse videatur, quod excusat occisorum animas, si illic jam positi diem ultionis deposcunt. Et tamen, ut verius dicam, causam clamare intelligendum est. Ipsa enim non tacet, sed semper vindictam flagitat: sicut dicit Deus ad Cain, Sanguis fratris tui clamat ad me de terra. Quid est hoc, nisi quia causa facinoris clamat, vindicari desiderans? Si enim dicimus, propter opus, Laudat terra Dominum; cum utique neque vocem habeat, et careat intellectu: sic propter opera mala clamare dicitur sanguis. Nam utique non tam impatientes erant, neque tam imperiti, ut ante diem futurum judicii vindicari se peterent, ne postularent fieri quod sciebant non effici ante tempus definitum. Et Salvator similiter, Non faciet, inquit, Deus vindictam electorum suorum clamantium die ac nocte?

by day and night, says that they demand to be avenged. This indeed is not contrary: for God, Who gave this law, certainly promised that He would avenge on the day of judgement, so that He seems to have given this precept for the present, which excuses the souls of the slain if, already placed there, they demand the day of vengeance. And yet, to speak more truly, it must be understood that it is the cause that cries out. For it is not silent, but always demands vengeance: as God says to Cain, The blood of your brother cries out to Me from the earth. What is this, unless that the cause of the crime cries out, desiring to be avenged? For just as we say, on account of its work, The earth praises the Lord, although it certainly has no voice and lacks understanding: so on account of evil deeds the blood is said to cry out. For indeed they were not so impatient, nor so unlearned, as to ask to be avenged before the future day of judgement, that they should demand that something be done which they knew was not to be brought about before the appointed time. And the Saviour likewise says, Will God not work vengeance for His elect who cry out day and night?

LXIX. — Si jam praedicante Joanne, aut Salvatore, Lex cessavit; quomodo Salvator ait, Non veni solvere Legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere (Matth. V, 17)? Si enim prohibita est, quomodo non soluta est, quae agendi amisit auctoritatem?

LXIX. — If the Law already ceased when John, or the Saviour, was preaching, how does the Saviour say, I have not come to dissolve the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them (Matt. 5:17)? For if it has been prohibited, how has it not been dissolved, since it has lost its authority for action?

Omnia quae de Christo dicta sunt, adimpleta sunt: et ipse Dominus sic adimplevit Legem et Prophetas, cum omnia quaecumque de se scripta sunt, fecit, nec dissolvit aliquid, sed confirmavit. Lex enim et Prophetae usque ad ipsum. Prophetae enim de ipso locuti sunt, ideo ultra illum quae ab his de hoc, id est, de Christo dicta sunt, tendi non possunt; neque post ipsum aliquid hujusmodi Prophetae reperire potuerunt: quia neque habent de quo dicant, et de quo dicebatur jam venit. Omnia etenim suis voluminibus complexi sunt, et incarnationem, et conversationem, et passionem, et resurrectionem, et divinitatis manifestationem, et futurum ejus judicium revelaverunt: ac per hoc cessaverunt Prophetae impleto opere dispensationis. Lex autem duplici modo cessavit; nec quidem tota: nam et id quod cessavit poterit permanere, si servetur conditio. Aliud enim cessavit in sententia, aliud in ipsa Lege. Praedicante Joanne baptismum poenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum, cessavit sententia Legis, quae reos tenebat peccatores; cessaverunt etiam onera Legis, quae ad duritiam cordis judaici fuerant data in escis, neomeniis, sabbatis, et caeteris. Misericordia enim adveniente, cessavit vindicta. Sed onera Legis in perpetuum cessaverunt. Sententia vero his cessat et aboletur, qui permansere in beneficio consecuto. His autem qui redeunt ad hominem veterem, refricatur Legis auctoritas, quia immemores beneficiorum redeunt sub sententiam Legis. Circumcisio vero et sabbatum usque ad illud tempus valuit, quo novae legis praedicaretur mandatum. Sic enim data sunt, ut adveniente lege fidei cessarent. Unde dicit Apostolus, Finis Legis Christus (Rom. X, 4). Nam et Daniel hoc significat, cum et de adventu Domini et temporibus hebdomadum prophetat, quia et chrisma et judicium et sacrificium et ipsa civitas cessatura erant (Dan. IX, 24-27). Spirituali enim adveniente lege, necesse erat cessare carnalia. Tunc enim ex parte corporis serviebatur Deo, nunc ex parte animae; pridem visibiliter, modo invisibiliter; tunc in carne, nunc in animo. Quia Deo utique qui spiritus est, in spiritu serviendum est (Joan. IV, 24). Non ergo soluta Lex est, quia cessavit, sed successum illi est impleto tempore. Nec enim administratio ejus accusatur aut judicium, si peccatoribus indulgentia datur: cum hinc magis recte data et justa probetur, quia quibus dominabatur, peccatores fuisse non negantur, quia justis, inquit, Lex non est posita (I Tim. I, 9). Non ergo quia misericordia praeferenda est, contemnenda putetur justitia; cujus reverentia si non esset, ipsa misericordia fructum non haberet. Nisi enim hanc

All the things that were said of Christ have been fulfilled: and the Lord Himself fulfilled the Law and the Prophets in this way, in that He did all things whatsoever had been written about Himself, and did not dissolve anything, but confirmed it. For the Law and the Prophets were until Him. For the Prophets spoke about Him; therefore the things said by them about this one, that is, about Christ, cannot extend beyond Him; nor were the Prophets able to find anything of this kind after Him: for they neither have anything to speak about, and He about Whom it was spoken has already come. For they embraced everything in their volumes, and revealed His incarnation, and His way of life, and His passion, and His resurrection, and the manifestation of His divinity, and His future judgement: and for this reason the Prophets ceased, the work of the dispensation having been fulfilled. The Law, however, ceased in a twofold manner; and indeed not wholly: for even that which ceased will be able to remain, if the condition is kept. For one thing ceased in the sentence, another in the Law itself. When John was preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the Law, which held sinners guilty, ceased; there ceased also the burdens of the Law, which had been given on account of the hardness of the Jewish heart, in foods, new moons, sabbaths, and the rest. For when mercy came, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the Law ceased for ever. The sentence, however, ceases and is abolished for those who have remained in the benefit they obtained. But for those who return to the old man, the authority of the Law is revived, because, unmindful of the benefits, they return under the sentence of the Law. Circumcision and the sabbath, however, were in force up to that time when the commandment of the new law should be preached. For they were given on these terms, that they should cease when the law of faith came. Hence the Apostle says, Christ is the end of the Law (Rom. 10:4). For Daniel too signifies this, when he prophesies both about the coming of the Lord and about the times of the weeks, that the anointing and the judgement and the sacrifice and the city itself were to cease (Dan. 9:24–27). For when the spiritual law came, it was necessary that the carnal things should cease. For then God was served on the part of the body, now on the part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind. Because God, Who certainly is spirit, must be served in spirit (John 4:24). Therefore the Law was not dissolved because it ceased, but a successor came to it when the time was fulfilled. For neither its administration nor its judgement is accused if indulgence is given to sinners: since from this it is rather proved to have been rightly given and just, because those over whom it held dominion are not denied to have been sinners, since, it says, The Law was not laid down for the just (1 Tim. 1:9). Therefore let not justice be thought contemptible because mercy is to be preferred; for if there were no reverence for justice, mercy itself would have no fruit. For unless they keep this

Editors' notes and page, col. 2263

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2263

Sic codex Colbertinus. At Mss. secundi generis: Si enim cessavit. Editi, prophetia est.

So the Colbert codex. But the manuscripts of the second class have Si enim cessavit ("for if it has ceased"); the printed editions, prophetia est ("it is prophecy").

(printed under page 480)

Page

running head: 2263 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TES[TAMENTO] (cut off at the image edge; column number partly damaged)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2264

servaverint post acceptam misericordiam, nihil illis proderit indulgentia. Nam dixit Lex, Non facies tibi idolum, neque adoraveris quae in coelo sursum sunt, et quae in terra deorsum; et, Non pejerabis; et, Honora patrem et matrem, et, Non occides, Neque fornicaberis, Neque furtum facies, Non dices falsum testimonium, Neque concupisces quidquam proximi tui (Exod. XX, 4-17). Numquid haec cessasse dicenda sunt? Absit. Sine his enim quis poterit vel in hac vita idoneus judicari? Ac per hoc caetera cessaverunt quae supra diximus, neomeniae, sabbata, lex escarum, sacrificia, circumcisio, etc. Hinc est unde dicit Apostolus inter alia, Principes non sunt timori operi bono, sed malo. Vis autem non timere potestatem? Bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa (Rom. XIII, 3). Haec servata bonos faciunt, non tamen perfectos. Unde Salvator, Nisi abundaverit, inquit, justitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum coelorum (Matth. V, 20). Addens enim istis potiora Salvator, non solvit utique Legem, sed adimplevit. Sensus enim Legis ad salutem hominis pertinet, utputa, Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente (Levit. XXIV, 20): ut timens ne pateretur quod alii facere prohibitus est, cohiberet se a nequitia. Salvator autem superiorem in hunc sensum addens justitiam, Ego autem, inquit, dico vobis, non resistere malo; sed si quis te percusserit in dexteram maxillam tuam, praebe illi et sinistram (Matth. V, 39); ut dum vicem non reddit malo, perfectus sit. Reddere enim vicem justitia est, sed non plena; si vero dissimulet ab injuria, plena justitia est et abundans. Retribuere enim, gaudere ad tempus est; remittere autem, in futurum praestat laetitiam. Sic ergo adimplevit Legem Salvator, dum quos illa justitiam docuit, hic justiores effecit, quod illa non potuit. Quamobrem gaudium Legis est, quia discipuli ejus peritiores effecti sunt. Destruxisset plane Legem, si impune peccare docuisset. Porro autem suspendit sententiam, ut hic qui male facit, habeat spatium poenitendi: si quominus, redit in illum sententia cumulata, quia non cognovit ad hoc se remissum ut emendaret se.

after receiving mercy, the indulgence will profit them nothing. For the Law said, You shall not make yourself an idol, nor shall you worship the things that are in heaven above, and the things that are on the earth below; and, You shall not swear falsely; and, Honour father and mother; and, You shall not kill, Nor shall you commit fornication, Nor shall you commit theft, You shall not speak false testimony, Nor shall you covet anything of your neighbour's (Exod. 20:4–17). Are these to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without them who could be judged fit even in this life? And therefore it is the other things which we mentioned above that have ceased: new moons, sabbaths, the law of foods, sacrifices, circumcision, etc. Hence it is that the Apostle says, among other things, Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Do you wish, then, not to fear the power? Do good, and you will have praise from it (Rom. 13:3). These things, when kept, make men good, yet not perfect. Hence the Saviour says, Unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). For the Saviour, adding to these things better ones, certainly did not dissolve the Law, but fulfilled it. For the sense of the Law pertains to man's salvation, for example, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth (Lev. 24:20): so that, fearing to suffer what he is forbidden to do to another, a man might restrain himself from wickedness. But the Saviour, adding to this sense a higher justice, says, But I say to you, not to resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him also the left (Matt. 5:39); so that, while he does not return evil for evil, he may be perfect. For to repay in turn is justice, but not full justice; but if he overlooks the injury, it is justice full and abounding. For to retaliate is to rejoice for a time; but to forgive yields gladness in the future. So, then, the Saviour fulfilled the Law, in that those whom it taught justice He made more just, which it could not do. Wherefore it is the joy of the Law that its disciples have been made more skilled. He would plainly have destroyed the Law if He had taught men to sin with impunity. Moreover, He suspended the sentence, so that he who does evil may have room for repentance: if otherwise, the sentence returns upon him heaped up, because he did not recognize that he had been let off for this purpose, that he might amend himself.

Prophetarum dicta de Salvatoris adventu, impleta sunt cum venit; quando enim quod praedictum est, factum est, impletum videtur: Lex autem, quam ad tempus datam diximus, cum tempore, quod transgredi prohibita est; quia quod impletur, cessat. Auctoritatem enim amisisset, et destructa videretur, si non juxta praedictum tempus cessasset. Nam si alicui in potestate constituto successor datur, numquid destructus dicetur? Destructa plane esset Lex si tempore quo viguit, accusaretur. Et non dixit, implesse se Legem aut Prophetas; sed, adimplere. Adimplere autem non aliud significat quam plene addere. Quid est autem addere Prophetis, nisi culturam Dei sub Trinitatis nomine ordinare? Quamvis enim Prophetae in Dei nomine docuerunt et corripuerunt populum; hoc tamen mysterium in abscondito erat. Legem autem hoc est adimplesse, manentibus praeteritis nova addere, utputa, Audistis, inquit, quia dictum est antiquis, Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Ego autem dico vobis, non resistere malo; sed si quis percusserit te in maxillam tuam dexteram, praebe illi et sinistram. Hoc fuit adimplere. Non enim destruxit illam, sed potiora addidit, non ut peccare videretur qui vindicat, sed ut melior sit qui non retribuit. Nec aliud ergo voluit, quam quod Lex in sensu habet, sed voluntatem ejus perficit. Ut enim Lex hominem justitiam doceret, et per hanc salvum faceret, mandavit ut si quis oculum tolleret alicui, oculum amitteret: et ut hoc timore territi homines non facerent quod sibi fieri nolebant, et per hoc salutem haberent. Sed quoniam fragile genus est hominum, et ad peccandum proclive, ideo incurrit ut patiatur quod sibi fieri non vult. Immutatis ergo Salvator verbis docuit quod saluti prodesset,

The sayings of the Prophets concerning the Saviour's coming were fulfilled when He came; for when what was foretold has come to pass, it is seen to be fulfilled: but the Law, which we said was given for a time, [ended] with the time, in that it was forbidden to pass beyond it; because what is fulfilled ceases. For it would have lost its authority, and would seem destroyed, if it had not ceased according to the time foretold. For if a successor is given to someone set in power, will he be said to be destroyed? The Law would plainly be destroyed if it were accused in the time in which it flourished. And He did not say that He had fulfilled the Law or the Prophets, but "to fulfil". But to fulfil signifies nothing other than to add fully. What, moreover, is it to add to the Prophets, but to order the worship of God under the name of the Trinity? For although the Prophets taught and rebuked the people in the name of God, yet this mystery was hidden. But this is to have fulfilled the Law: while the former things remain, to add new things, for example, You have heard, He says, that it was said to the ancients, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But I say to you, not to resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him also the left. This was to fulfil. For He did not destroy it, but added better things, not so that he who avenges should seem to sin, but so that he who does not retaliate may be better. Nor, then, did He will anything other than what the Law holds in its sense, but He perfects its intention. For in order that the Law might teach man justice, and save him through it, it commanded that if anyone took away another's eye, he should lose an eye: so that men, terrified by this fear, might not do what they did not wish done to themselves, and through this might have salvation. But since the race of men is frail and prone to sin, it therefore comes about that a man suffers what he does not wish done to himself. So the Saviour, with the words changed, taught what would profit salvation,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2264

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Prophetarum dicta› · call in col 2264

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. decima tertia.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, thirteenth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 480)

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2264 (last digits damaged in print)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2265

ut sensum Legis adimpleret, ut quia timore Legis salvi esse nequiverunt, per patientiam victi emendarentur, sese corrigentes. Hoc praeceptum datum est, ut non insolentes viverent patientia bonorum, dum non illis retribuunt condigna; ut si voluerint corrigi, boni ex hoc profectum habeant, illi vero geminam poenam. Non ergo justitia destructa est, quam videmus etiam per Apostolos operatam: quia et Petrus apostolus in Anania et Saphira hanc servavit (Act. V, 1-10). Et Vas electionis non repudiavit, sed usus est, dum et Elymam magum resistentem viae Domini, excaecavit (Id. XIII, 8-11). Est etiam aliud quo impleta Lex est. Dicit enim Dominus, Audistis quia dictum est, Diliges proximum tibi, et odio habebis inimicum tibi; haec justitia est: Dominus autem, Ego autem, inquit, dico vobis, Diligite inimicos vestros (Matth. V, 43, 44). Addit utique, quod est adimplevit, quia non destruxit vetera, sed ut perfectos faceret, potiora mandavit. Inimicos enim, hoc est malos, quia retributione, quae justitia dictante fit, emendare et corrigere non potuit, per amorem illos et obsequium salvos fieri voluit, quod et Lex in sensibus habebat. Lex enim sic voluit inimicitiam tollere, ut per retributionem territi homines desinerent esse inimici: et quoniam audacia sua homines timorem Legis et naturae spreverunt, crescentes in malum; per humilitatem Salvator inimicitiam voluit vinci, ut vel sic homines flecterentur ad bonum, dum viderent non sibi reddi inimicitiam; permanentes autem gravius tractandos fore, quia nec humilitate ejus, cujus vicissitudinem experiri debuerant, victi sunt. Non ergo justitia in vindicta oblitterata est, sed suspensa ad utrumque; quia cessavit circa eum qui sese cognovit: si quominus, plecteret contumacem.

so that He might fulfil the sense of the Law, so that, since they could not be saved by fear of the Law, they might be amended, overcome by patience, correcting themselves. This precept was given so that they should not live insolently on the patience of the good, while these do not repay them what they deserve; so that, if they are willing to be corrected, the good may have profit from this, but those others a twofold punishment. Justice, therefore, has not been destroyed, which we see exercised even through the Apostles: for the apostle Peter too preserved it in the case of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1–10). And the Vessel of election did not repudiate it, but made use of it, when he also blinded Elymas the magician, who was resisting the way of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). There is also another thing in which the Law was fulfilled. For the Lord says, You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour, and you shall hold your enemy in hatred; this is justice: but the Lord, But I, He says, say to you, Love your enemies (Matt. 5:43–44). He adds, certainly, which is to say He fulfilled, because He did not destroy the old things, but, so as to make [men] perfect, commanded better things. For enemies, that is, the wicked, since He could not amend and correct them by retribution, which comes about at the dictate of justice, He willed to be saved through love and compliance, which the Law too held in its meaning. For the Law willed to remove enmity in this way, that men, terrified by retribution, should cease to be enemies: and since men in their audacity spurned the fear of the Law and of nature, growing in evil, the Saviour willed enmity to be overcome by humility, so that even thus men might be bent towards the good, when they saw that enmity was not returned to them; but that those who persist would be dealt with more severely, because they were not overcome even by His humility, which they ought to have experienced in return. Justice in vengeance, therefore, has not been blotted out, but held suspended towards either outcome; for it has ceased in regard to him who has recognized himself: if otherwise, it would punish the contumacious.

LXX. — Dominus certe inimicos nos diabolo fieri praecepit: quid ergo est ut in Evangelio dicat, Esto consentiens adversario tuo cito (Ibid. V, 25)? Quis est hominis adversarius, nisi diabolus?

LXX. — The Lord certainly commanded us to become enemies to the devil: what then does it mean that He says in the Gospel, Be in agreement with your adversary quickly (Matt. 5:25)? Who is man's adversary, if not the devil?

Nulli dubium est diabolum esse hominis inimicum, maxime fidelis. Vehementiora enim tela sua contra Dei servos exacuit. Sicut ergo iste bonorum inimicus est, ita et lex malis adversa est. Quis enim contemnenti se non adversetur? Dominus ergo peccatorem alloquitur, ut consentiat mandatis quae illum inobedientem condemnant, ut subjiciat se voluntati eorum, et fiat ex inimico amicus. Quia et contemptor legis inimicus est ejus: voluntati enim ejus resistit. Ideoque hortatur Dominus peccatorem, ut bene agendo reconciliet sibi legem, ne in die judicii accuset eum apud judicem, et condemnatus poenas det spretae legis: Omni etenim, inquit, qui male vult agere, disciplina Dominica inimica videtur: cui nisi consenserit, mittetur in gehennam, diabolo, qui vere inimicus humani generis est, praeparatam.

It is doubtful to no one that the devil is the enemy of man, especially of the faithful man. For he sharpens his more violent weapons against the servants of God. Just as he, then, is the enemy of the good, so too the law is adverse to the wicked. For who would not oppose one who despises him? The Lord, therefore, addresses the sinner, that he should agree with the commandments which condemn him as disobedient, that he should subject himself to their will, and from an enemy become a friend. For the despiser of the law is also its enemy: for he resists its will. And therefore the Lord exhorts the sinner to reconcile the law to himself by acting well, lest on the day of judgement it accuse him before the judge, and, condemned, he pay the penalty of the law he spurned: For to everyone, He says, who wishes to act wickedly, the Lord's discipline seems hostile: and unless he agrees with it, he will be sent into Gehenna, prepared for the devil, who is truly the enemy of the human race.

LXXI. — Jacob appellatus est Homo videns Deum, et Moyses vidit Deum facie ad faciem; necnon et Isaias, Vidi, ait, Deum sabaoth oculis meis: contra autem Joannes evangelista, Deum, inquit, nemo vidit unquam (Gen. XXXII, 28; Exod. XXXIII, 11; Isai. VI, 5; I Joan. IV, 12); hoc, quantum videtur, contrarium est.

LXXI. — Jacob was called Man seeing God, and Moses saw God face to face; and also Isaiah, I saw, he says, God of hosts with my eyes: but on the contrary John the evangelist, God, he says, no one has ever seen (Gen. 32:28; Exod. 33:11; Isa. 6:5; 1 John 4:12); this, so far as it appears, is contradictory.

Quantum ad fidem veri pertinet, Deum omnino nemo vidit unquam, neque Patrem, neque Filium. Quod enim visus dicitur, ad intelligentiam refertur; visus est enim velut in imagine. Veluti nos cum imperatores nesciamus, videmus eos in figura, non in veritate: ita et Deus visus est, ut intelligeretur Deus esse qui apparebat, per rationem, non per substantiam; quia in natura sua Deus videri non potest. Et ut verius propositae quaestionis secreta pandamus, sensum Evangelistae explicare nitamur. Joannes enim occultum aliquid prodere voluit, quod scivit ad salutarem doctrinam pertinere: idcirco, Deum, inquit, nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Animadvertamus sensum Evangelistae:

As far as pertains to faith in the truth, no one has ever seen God at all, neither the Father nor the Son. For the fact that He is said to have been seen refers to understanding; for He was seen as if in an image. Just as we, though we do not know the emperors, see them in a likeness, not in reality: so God too was seen, so that it might be understood that He who appeared was God, by way of reason, not by way of substance; for in His own nature God cannot be seen. And so that we may lay open more truly the secrets of the question proposed, let us strive to unfold the sense of the Evangelist. For John wished to bring forth something hidden, which he knew to pertain to saving doctrine: therefore, God, he says, no one has ever seen, except the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Let us observe the sense of the Evangelist:

Editors' notes and page, col. 2265

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: LXX› · call in col 2265

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 481)

Page

running head: 2265 APPENDIX. (rest of the head cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2266

ut enim verum esse, quia nemo vidit Deum unquam, ostenderet, Filium hoc enarrasse docet: quem falli utique impossibile est, quia in sinu Patris est. Sinus autem Patris quid est, nisi affectus in charitate veri Patris per naturae unitatem in Filium? Quamobrem nemo vidit Deum, nisi unicus Filius: hoc Joannes apostolus Filium Dei audivit dicentem inter alia, Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam, nisi qui est a Deo, hic vidit Patrem. Ut ergo ad condemnationem proficeret Judaeorum, qui Christum Dei Filium audire nolebant vel credere, ostendit Evangelista hunc esse Christum qui Patribus apparuisset in Deum: illum autem qui Pater est, nunquam videri nisi a Filio. Quando enim Deum Patrem negat visum, et Deum apparuisse Patribus profitetur, manifestare se vult Dei Filius, quia ipse semper in Deum visus a Patribus est. Unde inter caetera dicit Judaeis de Patre, Neque vocem ejus audistis aliquando, neque figuram ejus vidistis (Joan. V, 37). Ecce non est contrarium, et visum et invisum esse Deum.

for in order to show that it is true that no one has ever seen God, he teaches that the Son has declared this: Who cannot possibly be deceived, since He is in the bosom of the Father. And what is the bosom of the Father, if not the affection, in love, of the true Father towards the Son through unity of nature? Therefore no one has seen God except the only Son: the apostle John heard the Son of God saying this, among other things, Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He Who is from God; He has seen the Father. So then, so that it might serve for the condemnation of the Jews, who were unwilling to hear or believe Christ the Son of God, the Evangelist shows that this is the Christ Who had appeared to the fathers as God, but that He Who is the Father is never seen except by the Son. For when he denies that God the Father has been seen, and yet professes that God appeared to the fathers, the Son of God wishes to make Himself manifest, namely that it was He Himself Who was always seen by the fathers as God. Hence, among other things, He says to the Jews concerning the Father, You have never heard His voice, nor have you seen His form (John 5:37). See, it is not contradictory that God is both seen and unseen.

LXXII. — Quando legitur in Apocalypsi Joannis, Vade, inquit et accipe librum de manu angeli, et devora illum, et amaricabit ventrem tuum, sed in ore tuo erit dulcis sicut mel (Apoc. X, 8, 9): quis iste liber est, qui amarum facit ventrem cum sit dulcis?

LXXII. — When one reads in the Apocalypse of John, Go, he says, and take the book from the hand of the angel, and devour it, and it will make your belly bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey (Rev. 10:8–9): what is this book, which makes the belly bitter although it is sweet?

Omnia divina volumina amara sunt, sed perfidis atque carnalibus. Idololatris enim insuave est, cum audiunt unum Deum praedicari in Christo. Et Photinus simul pertimescit horrore correptus. Erubescit etiam Sabellius audiens Patrem esse qui Filius dici non possit, quia ab ipso sunt omnia; Filium autem idcirco Filium appellari, quia non utique Pater ipse est, sed de Patre, nec a quo, sed per quem sunt omnia. Confutatur et Arius, cum legit Christum verum esse Filium Dei; sine dubio enim verus dici non posset, nisi proprie esset de Deo. Convincitur et Marcion, addiscens quia Verbum caro factum est, qui putat Christo carnem negandam. Arguitur etiam improbus Manichaeus, videns scriptum ab Evangelista, quia Salvator non solum praesentia sui nuptiarum vota decoravit, verum etiam poculis honestavit (Joan. II, 1-11), qui nuptiarum aditus intercludit et promiscue convenire hortatur. Haec continentur in libro, quem accepit Apostolus devorandum. Hic liber Evangelium est quod κατὰ Joannem intitulatur, quod non solum male sentientibus amarum est, verum etiam indisciplinatis, qui nolunt corripi, ut in pejus proficiant. Ista revelatio eo tempore facta est, quo apostolus Joannes in insula erat Pathmos, relegatus a Domitiano imperatore, fidei causa. Tunc fuit in Spiritu, ut posset videre coelestia, et dum haec ei ostenduntur, quae futura sunt causa impietatis et stupri et caeterorum, datus est illi liber qui dulcis quidem erat in ore, sed amarum faceret ventrem: ut ex his qui videntur unius corpus esse hominis, istis dulcis esset; qui propter quod integrae professionis sunt, in ore significati sunt: hoc enim dulce in ore est, quod unum est: illis autem qui haeretica pravitate carnaliter vivunt vel sentiunt, propter quod in ventre significati sunt, amarus. Accusabit enim eos in die judicii Dei. Post revelationem ergo Evangelium jussus est scribere, propter haec quae supra diximus. Et Ezechieli prophetae similiter dictum est, ut acciperet librum qui esset dulcis in ore ejus, quando perfidiam populi missus est increpare (Ezech. III, 1).

All the divine volumes are bitter, but to the faithless and the carnal. For to idolaters it is unpleasant when they hear that one God is preached in Christ. And Photinus too is terrified, seized with horror. Sabellius also blushes, hearing that the Father is He Who cannot be called the Son, because from Him are all things; whereas the Son is called Son for this reason, that He is not indeed the Father Himself, but from the Father, and not He from Whom, but He through Whom all things are. Arius too is refuted, when he reads that Christ is the true Son of God; for without doubt He could not be called true unless He were properly from God. Marcion too is convicted, learning that the Word was made flesh, he who thinks that flesh must be denied to Christ. The wicked Manichaean is also rebuked, seeing it written by the Evangelist that the Saviour not only adorned the vows of a marriage with His presence, but also honoured them with cups (John 2:1–11), he who shuts off the approaches to marriage and urges promiscuous coming together. These things are contained in the book which the Apostle received to be devoured. This book is the Gospel which is entitled according to John, which is bitter not only to those who think wrongly, but also to the undisciplined, who are unwilling to be corrected, so that they advance into worse. This revelation was made at the time when the apostle John was on the island of Patmos, banished by the emperor Domitian for the sake of the faith. Then he was in the Spirit, so that he might be able to see heavenly things, and while these were being shown to him, which are to be the cause of impiety and debauchery and the rest, a book was given to him which was indeed sweet in the mouth, but would make the belly bitter: so that, of those who are seen to be the body of one man, it would be sweet to these, who, because they are of an entire profession, were signified by the mouth, for that is sweet in the mouth which is one; but to those who live or think carnally in heretical depravity, because they were signified by the belly, bitter. For it will accuse them on the day of the judgement of God. After the revelation, therefore, he was ordered to write the Gospel, on account of these things which we have said above. And to the prophet Ezekiel likewise it was said that he should receive a book which would be sweet in his mouth, when he was sent to rebuke the faithlessness of the people (Ezek. 3:1).

Frequenter, qui compendium quaerit, solet errare. Quid est ut non omnia ad causam dicta proponas, sed aliqua reprimas, ut obscurior fiat sensus? Nam dictum est Joanni, Vade, et accipe librum, qui est in manu angeli, et devora illum; et erit in ore tuo dulcis tanquam mel, sed amaricabit ventrem tuum. Et ait, Oportet, inquit, te prophetare iterum populis et

Often one who seeks brevity is apt to go wrong. Why is it that you do not set out everything that was said bearing on the matter, but hold some things back, so that the sense becomes more obscure? For it was said to John, Go, and take the book which is in the hand of the angel, and devour it; and it will be sweet in your mouth as honey, but it will make your belly bitter. And he says, You must, he says, prophesy again to peoples and

Editors' notes and page, col. 2266

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2266

Abest, in Deum, a Mss. secundi generis.

In Deum ("into God") is absent from the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 481)

(2) ‹anchor: esse hominis› · call in col 2266

Ms. Colbert., corporis esse hominibus.

The Colbert manuscript has corporis esse hominibus.

(printed under page 481)

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Frequenter, qui compendium› · call in col 2266

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter p[ost] vulgatas ex Novo Test. sexagesima quinta.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, sixty-fifth among the later-published questions on the New Testament. (The word "post" is damaged on the page.)

(printed under page 481)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2266
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2267

gentibus multis. Quantum ergo ad veri pertinet rationem, post exsilium Evangelium scripsisse probatur. In exsilio enim positus in insula Pathmos, in quam fuerat a Domitiano imperatore relegatus, vidit revelationem, sicut dicit, in die dominico: post, sicut dixi, scripsit Evangelium, quod haereticis amarum est, quos in ventre significavit. Sunt enim carnales, quia male intelligunt Christum. In ore autem tuo, quod dicit, erit dulcis tanquam mel: quasi omnium Christianorum unum facit corpus, ut s⟨i⟩nguli membra sint alter alterius: ita ut in ore, quod utique capitis pars est, honorabiliores et fideliore⟨s⟩ significet, quibus veritas quae de Christo est, dulcis est; in ventre haereticos significat, quia carnales sunt. Veritas enim quae Christum verum Deum loquitur, his amara est. Totum enim Evangelium Joannis contra haereticos est. Contra Phot⟨i⟩num enim, qui Christum ante Mariam esse negat, probat de coelis descendisse Salvatorem. Contra Arium autem, ostendit Christum initium non habere: quia in initio erat Deus Christus Filius Dei apud Deum Patrem, et quia nihil sine illo factum est, ipsum non posse dici facturam. Si enim factura erat, factum esset aliquid sine illo: sed quia nihil sine illo erat, semper fuit. Sabellium autem qui unionem accipit Patrem et Filium, ut unus singularis duobus nominibus nuncupetur, sic confutat ut dicat, Si me diligeretis, gauderetis utique, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est (Joan. XIV, 28): ubi manifestavit duorum personas, quando Filius Patrem majorem appellat. Nec enim singularis ipse sibi major est. Necnon convincit et Marcionem qui carnem Christi denegat. Dixit enim, Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Id. I, 14) Hoc sensu etiam Manichaeum arguit, qui Christum in carne venisse nescit, et nuptiarum aditus intercludit, ignarus Salvatorem nuptiarum convivium remunerasse. Similimodo et prophetae Ezechieli dictum est ab angelo ut acciperet volumen (Ezech. III, 1), et devoraret illud, et dulce esset in ore ejus, ventrem autem ejus repleret. Hoc dictum est prophetae, cum missus est arguere populum perfidum et indisciplinatum, qui similiter in ventre significati sunt, quia erant carnales. Ex his sunt quos Scriptura in Isaia propheta, licet mali sint, fratres appellat. Dicit enim: Vos qui timetis Deum, dicite illis qui vos oderunt, nec audierunt praecepta mea, Fratres nostri estis (Isai, LXVI, 5, sec. LXX).

many nations. So far, then, as concerns the account of the truth, he is shown to have written the Gospel after his exile. For while placed in exile on the island of Pathmos, to which he had been banished by the emperor Domitian, he saw the revelation, as he says, on the Lord's day: afterwards, as I have said, he wrote the Gospel, which is bitter to the heretics, whom he signified by the belly. For they are carnal, because they understand Christ wrongly. As for what he says, But in your mouth it will be sweet as honey: it is as though he makes of all Christians one body, so that individually they are members one of another: so that by the mouth, which is certainly part of the head, he signifies the more honourable and more faithful, to whom the truth which concerns Christ is sweet; by the belly he signifies the heretics, because they are carnal. For the truth which proclaims Christ as true God is bitter to them. For the whole Gospel of John is against the heretics. For against Photinus, who denies that Christ existed before Mary, he proves that the Saviour descended from heaven. Against Arius, moreover, he shows that Christ has no beginning: since in the beginning Christ, God, the Son of God, was with God the Father, and since nothing was made without Him, He Himself cannot be called a thing made. For if He were a thing made, something would have been made without Him: but since nothing was without Him, He always was. Sabellius, moreover, who takes the Father and the Son as a union, so that one single being is called by two names, he refutes thus, by saying, If you loved Me, you would certainly rejoice, because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I (John 14:28): where He made plain the persons of two, when the Son calls the Father greater. For one single being is not greater than himself. He also convicts Marcion, who denies the flesh of Christ. For he said, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (ibid. 1:14). In this sense he also refutes Manichaeus, who does not know that Christ came in the flesh, and shuts off the entrance to marriage, unaware that the Saviour honoured a wedding feast with a gift. In like manner it was also said to the prophet Ezekiel by the angel that he should take the scroll (Ezek. 3:1), and devour it, and it would be sweet in his mouth, but would fill his belly. This was said to the prophet when he was sent to rebuke a faithless and undisciplined people, who likewise were signified by the belly, because they were carnal. Of these are those whom Scripture, in the prophet Isaiah, calls brothers, although they are wicked. For it says: You who fear God, say to those who hated you and did not hear My precepts, You are our brothers (Isa. 66:5, according to the Septuagint).

LXXIII. — Quid est quod Simeon dicit ad Mariam matrem Domini inter caetera, Hic vositus est in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum in Israel: et tuam, inquit, ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes (Luc. II, 34, 35)?

LXXIII. — What is it that Simeon says to Mary, the mother of the Lord, among other things, This One is set for the fall and for the rising of many in Israel: and, he says, a sword will pierce through your own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed (Luke 2:34–35)?

Simeon vir sanctus, et divinis oraculis commendatus, per Spiritum sanctum locutus quid futurum esset hominibus ex causa Christi, ut ruina his es⟨s⟩et, qui cum sibi viderentur stare per observantiam et peritiam Legis, diffidentia tamen operum Christi caderent, dissoluti a promissione Patrum: illis autem qui nullius prope dignitatis essent in Lege, credentibus vero in Christum, resurrectio in Israel. [Ut digni Deo fierent qui prius indigni et inutiles erant, et reprobarentur qui aliquid esse putabantur.] Hoc est quod alio loco dicit Dominus, In judicium ego veni in hunc mundum, ut qui non vident, videant; et qui vident, caeci fiant (Joan. IX, 39) Denique non Legis doctores, non Pharisaei, non Scribae secuti sunt Christum; sed piscatores, hommes imperiti et rusticani. Hinc est unde dicit Dominus: Pater, gratias ago tibi, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis (Matth. XI, 25). Quod autem adjecit, dicens, Et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes; hoc utique significavit, quia etiam Maria, per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis Salvatoris, in morte Domini dubitaret; ita tamen, ut

Simeon, a holy man and commended by divine oracles, spoke through the Holy Spirit of what would befall men on account of Christ: that He would be a fall to those who, although they seemed to themselves to stand through their observance and knowledge of the Law, would nevertheless fall through distrust of the works of Christ, released from the promise of the Fathers; but to those who were of almost no standing in the Law, but who believed in Christ, He would be a rising in Israel. [So that those who were formerly unworthy and useless might become worthy of God, and those who were thought to be something might be rejected.] This is what the Lord says in another place, For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind (John 9:39). Accordingly, not the doctors of the Law, not the Pharisees, not the scribes followed Christ, but fishermen, unlearned and rustic men. Hence it is that the Lord says: Father, I give Thee thanks, because Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones (Matt. 11:25). But as for what he added, saying, And a sword will pierce through your own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed; by this he certainly signified that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Saviour's incarnation was accomplished, would doubt at the death of the Lord; yet in such a way that

Editors' notes and page, col. 2267

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: esse putabantur› · call in col 2267

Haec desunt in Mss. secundi generis.

These words are missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 482)

Page

running head: 2267 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO T (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprints kept as printed: "vositus" (for positus) in the LXXIII lemma; "hommes" (for homines) in "hommes imperiti"

PL 35:2268

resurrectionis honore et virtute Domini firmaretur. Omnes enim stupore quodam in morte Domini dubitarunt. Non tamen in dubitatione permanserunt. Sic enim animam pertransit gladius, si dubitatio non permaneat in cogitatione, sed pellatur superveniente reformante se pristina virtute. [Quis enim non ambigeret videns eum, qui se Filium Dei dicebat sic humiliatum, ut usque ad mortem descenderet? Et quia, ut dixi, omnis ambiguitas in resurrectione Domini recessura erat, pertransire dixit gladium, non supercadere, aut contingere transeuntem membrum aliquod. Ut sicut gladius missus pertransiens juxta hominem, timorem facit, et tamen non percutit, ita et dubitatio moestitiam faceret, non tamen occideret: quia non sedit in anima, sed pertransiit, quasi per umbram contingens corda discipulorum. Denique Cleophas et alius discipulus Emmaus euntes, in via tristes, dixerunt inter caetera ipsi Domino, nescientes quia Dominus est, Nos putabamus, quia ipse erat qui incipiebat liberare Israel (Luc. XXIV, 21). Dubitaverunt, sed, statim agnito Domino, transivit dubitatio.] Sicut dictum est et de Joseph, quia ferrum pertransivit animam ejus (Psal. CIV, 18). In carcere enim innocens diu positus, de Dei judicio circa se quod dubitaverit, non est mirum: sed quia plus de Deo sperabat, non permansit in ambiguitate. In eo enim quis judicatur, in quo propensior est. Apocalypsis Joannis hoc sancit. Dicit enim, Dubiis et infidelibus pars erit in stagno ignis et sulphuris (Apoc. XXI, 8). Ideo qui non permanet in dubitatione, eripitur a morte: hoc est mortem evadere; quia dubitare de Deo, vel de Christo, mors est. Ac per hoc qui desinit dubitare, evadit mortem.

she might be strengthened by the honour and power of the Lord's resurrection. For all doubted at the Lord's death with a certain stupor. Yet they did not remain in doubt. For in this way the sword passes through the soul, if doubt does not remain in the thought, but is driven out as the former strength, restoring itself, comes upon it. [For who would not be uncertain, seeing Him Who called Himself the Son of God so humbled that He went down even to death? And because, as I said, all uncertainty was going to depart at the Lord's resurrection, he said that the sword would pass through, not fall upon it, nor touch some limb as it passed. So that, just as a sword that is thrown, passing close by a man, causes fear and yet does not strike, so too doubt would cause sorrow, yet would not kill: because it did not settle in the soul, but passed through, touching the hearts of the disciples as if through a shadow. Indeed Cleophas and another disciple, going to Emmaus, sad on the way, said among other things to the Lord Himself, not knowing that it is the Lord, We were supposing that it was He Who was beginning to free Israel (Luke 24:21). They doubted, but, as soon as the Lord was recognized, the doubt passed away.] Just as it is said also of Joseph, that the iron passed through his soul (Ps. 104:18). For when he had been placed in prison for a long time though innocent, it is no wonder that he doubted concerning God's judgement about himself: but because he hoped more from God, he did not remain in uncertainty. For a man is judged in that towards which he is more inclined. The Apocalypse of John establishes this. For it says, For the doubtful and the unbelieving their portion will be in the pool of fire and sulphur (Rev. 21:8). Therefore he who does not remain in doubt is snatched from death: that is, to escape death; because to doubt about God, or about Christ, is death. And for this reason he who ceases to doubt escapes death.

LXXIV. — Quid sibi vult ut Isaias propheta dicat de Christo, Qui peccatum non fecit: contra autem Apostolus, Eum qui peccatum, inquit, nesciebat, pro nobis peccatum fecit (Isai. LIII, 9; II Cor. V, 21).

LXXIV. — What does it mean that the prophet Isaiah says of Christ, Who did not make sin: but the Apostle on the contrary, Him Who did not know sin, he says, He made sin for us (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)?

Quantum ad sensum pertinet, quaestiones diversae sunt, sed verba similia: ex parte quidem similia, ex parte vero discrepantia. Fecit enim, et non fecit, contrarium est; nesciebat, et non fecit simile est. Propheta ergo ex persona Christi locutus est, quia peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus est in ore ejus; Apostolus vero loquitur de persona Dei Patris, qui eum, id est Christum qui peccatum nesciebat, pro nobis peccatum fecit. Quod duplici modo intelligendum est. Primum enim fecit illum peccatum, dum incarnari illum voluit, ut quem sors non tangebat, de peccatrice carne corpus acciperet, per quod dicitur factus peccatum. Deinde dum offert eum pro peccatis, fecit illum peccatum. Hostia enim in Lege pro peccatis oblata, peccatum nuncupabatur. Non ergo Christus peccatum fecit, sicut dicit propheta; sed a Patre ipse peccatum factus est, sicut ostensum est. Offerre autem Christum pro nobis quid est, nisi dare potestatem volentibus eum occidere? Quod idcirco concessum est, quia profuturum erat ut esset causa descendendi ad inferos, ut spoliaret tartarum animabus. Superabundans enim et inauditum peccatum est, occidisse eum qui non solum nullo genere peccaverat, sed et multis vitam donaverat. Hoc peccato reus factus diabolus, contradicendi audaciam perdidit. Nam simile aliud ad Galatas in Epistola legitur: inter caetera enim, Factus, inquit, pro nobis maledictum (Galat. III, 13). A quo factus, nisi a Patre? Judicio enim Dei crux Christi maledictum est Judaeorum: peccatum enim illorum exclamat mors Salvatoris. Crucifigi ergo se permisit, ut passio ejus proficeret nobis, ut hinc cum signo ejus exeuntes, a secunda morte minime teneremur. Metuit enim mors etiam servos ejus a quo victa est.

As far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different, but the words similar: similar in part, but in part disagreeing. For "He made" and "He did not make" are contrary; "He did not know" and "He did not make" are similar. The prophet, then, spoke in the person of Christ, that He did not make sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; but the Apostle speaks of the person of God the Father, Who made Him, that is Christ, Who did not know sin, sin for us. This is to be understood in a twofold way. For first He made Him sin when He willed Him to become incarnate, so that He Whom the lot did not touch might receive a body from sinful flesh, by reason of which He is said to have been made sin. Then, when He offers Him for sins, He made Him sin. For the victim offered for sins under the Law was called sin. Christ, then, did not make sin, as the prophet says; but He was made sin by the Father, as has been shown. But what is it to offer Christ for us, if not to give power to those who wished to kill Him? This was granted for this reason, that it was going to be beneficial that it should be the cause of His descending to the underworld, so that He might despoil Tartarus of souls. For it is a superabundant and unheard-of sin to have killed Him Who not only had sinned in no kind, but had even bestowed life on many. Made guilty by this sin, the devil lost the boldness to speak against Him. For another similar thing is read in the Epistle to the Galatians: for among other things, He was made, it says, a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). By whom made, if not by the Father? For by the judgement of God the cross of Christ is the curse of the Jews: for the death of the Saviour cries out their sin. He therefore allowed Himself to be crucified, so that His passion might benefit us, so that, going out from here with His sign, we might by no means be held by the second death. For death fears even the servants of Him by Whom it was conquered.

Quantum ad propositum pertinet, non solum verba discrepant, sed et personae diversae sunt. Fecit

As far as the matter proposed is concerned, not only do the words disagree, but the persons too are different. For "He made"

Editors' notes and page, col. 2268

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Emmaus euntes› · call in col 2268

Ms. Colbert., Cleophas et Amaus euntes.

The Colbert manuscript has Cleophas et Amaus euntes ("Cleophas and Amaus, going").

(printed under page 482)

(2) ‹anchor: transivit dubitatio› · call in col 2268

Haec desunt in Mss. secundi generis.

These words are missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 482)

(a) ‹anchor: eripitur a morte› · call in col 2268

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 482)

(b) ‹anchor: (b) Quantum ad propositum› · call in col 2268

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quadragesima.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, fortieth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 482)

Page

running head: ES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2268 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2269

enim, et non fecit, contrarium est. Sed quia non ab hoc factum intelligitur, qui fecisse negatus est, contrarium dici non potest. Prophetae enim dictum ad personam pertinet Christi, Apostoli vero ad personam Patris. Deus enim Pater reconciliavit sibi mundum per Christum; et ita factum est, ut eum, id est, Christum, faceret peccatum. Hoc est enim fecisse eum peccatum, dare illum in utero virginali, ut nasceretur homo, ex parte carnis factus peccatum, quia caro peccati est, hic utique quem sors et conditio non tangebat hominem procreare. Ad hoc igitur natus est, ut hostia pro peccatoribus offerretur. Peccatum ergo factus dicitur, quia secundum Legem hostia quae pro peccatis offerebatur, peccatum nuncupabatur. Similis locus est alius Apostoli ad Galatas dicentis de Salvatore, Factus pro nobis maledictum: ipse sensus est, Factus est pro nobis peccatum sive maledictum nostra causa a Deo Patre qui permisit illum a Judaeis occidi, ut incredulitatis suae causa abdicarentur a nobis in locum illorum inductis; sicut dicit Salvator, Tolletur a vobis regnum Dei, et dabitur genti facienti fructum ejus (Matth. XXI, 43). Nam omne quod permittit Deus, facere dicitur: quia si non permittat, non fit. Unde dicit Dominus ad Pilatum, Non haberes potestatem in me, nisi data esset tibi desuper (Joan. XIX, 11). Non ergo immittens, sed permittens dare dicitur potestatem, ut dum mala mens voluntatis suae accipit potestatem, sit rea: sicut Judaei qui occidentes Salvatorem, fecerunt illum maledictum suum, Dei judicio. Crux enim Salvatoris maledictum est Judaeorum. Non enim sicut hostia quae pro peccatis offerebatur, abluebat offerentem; sed contra oblatus Salvator macula et peccatum fit offerentium: justificatio autem illorum qui dissentiunt, ut gentibus benedictio Abrahae fieret in Christo Jesu. Oblatio enim Judaeorum profecit Gentibus non diffidentibus a fide Jesu Christi.

and "He did not make" is a contradiction. But since He is not understood to have been made [sin] by the one who is denied to have committed [it], it cannot be called a contradiction. For the saying of the prophet pertains to the person of Christ, but that of the Apostle to the person of the Father. For God the Father reconciled the world to Himself through Christ; and so it came about that He made Him, that is, Christ, sin. For this is what it is to have made Him sin: to place Him in a virginal womb, that He might be born a man, made sin with respect to the flesh, because the flesh is of sin, He, that is, Whom the lot and condition of begetting a man did not touch. For this, then, He was born, that He might be offered as a victim for sinners. He is therefore said to have been made sin because, according to the Law, the victim that was offered for sins was called sin. Similar is another passage of the Apostle to the Galatians, who says of the Saviour, Made a curse for us: the sense is the same, He was made sin or a curse for us, for our sake, by God the Father, Who permitted Him to be killed by the Jews, so that on account of their unbelief they might be cast off, we having been brought in in their place; as the Saviour says, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation that brings forth its fruit (Matt. 21:43). For everything that God permits He is said to do, since if He does not permit it, it does not happen. Hence the Lord says to Pilate, You would not have power over Me, unless it had been given to you from above (John 19:11). So He is said to give power not by sending it in but by permitting it, so that when an evil mind receives the power of its own will, it may be guilty: just as the Jews, who in killing the Saviour made Him their own curse, by the judgement of God. For the cross of the Saviour is the curse of the Jews. For it is not as with the victim that was offered for sins, which washed the one offering it; but on the contrary the Saviour, once offered, becomes the stain and the sin of those who offered Him, but the justification of those who dissent from them, so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. For the offering made by the Jews profited the Gentiles, who did not lose confidence in the faith of Jesus Christ.

LXXV. — Cur Salvator pro se tantum et Petro didrachmam solvit, non etiam pro caeteris Apostolis (Matth. XVII, 26)? Quippe cum omnes eum, relictis facultatibus omnibus, subsecuti sint, pro omnibus solvere debuisse videtur.

75. — Why did the Saviour pay the didrachma only for Himself and Peter, and not also for the other Apostles (Matt. 17:26)? Since indeed all of them had followed Him, having left all their possessions, it seems that He ought to have paid for all.

Didrachma, capitum exactio intelligitur, non praediorum, [quod nunc pannosum aurum appellatur, quia et pauperes exiguntur: ] nec enim Salvator aliquid possidebat in mundo, cum sit dominus mundi. Mortuus enim alienis impendiis sepelitur: et nos a quibus mundus extraneus est, facultates augere cupimus, ut morientes mundum a nobis invasum, non tantum voce, sed et litteris contestemur, ut pro⟨f⟩essione nostra ab eo, cujus mundus e⟨s⟩t, condemnemur. Hinc Dominus, Qui non, inquit, reliquerit omnia, et secutus me fuerit, non potes⟨t⟩ meus esse discipulus (Luc. XIV, 26). [Quicumque ergo sic habet facultates suas, ut spem in illis non habeat, paratus autem sit pro fide illas abjicere, viam ambulat qua itur ad Christum Dominum nostrum.] Didrachma ergo ab his exigenda erat, qui aliquid negotii gerebant, aut artibus operam dabant. Salvator autem, quia nihil horum curabat, neque discipuli ejus, exigendus utique non erat: sed quia inimicus diabolus semper in insidiis erat, occasionem quaerens si posset inclinare Salvatorem; exactorum didrachmae animos occupavit, ut ejus facerent voluntatem; ut accedentes ad Petrum, qui primus inter Apostolos erat, solvi debere ab eorum magistro dicerent didrachmam, qui ab his oneribus liberi erant. Nihil enim agebant in mundo quod esset mundi: ut quia non erat unde solveret, aut his scandalo esset, aut certe humilitate suffragii quaereret a quo solveretur. Tunc Dominus ut improvidum diabolum adversus semetipsum semper machinari ostenderet, ad mare ire Petrum apostolum jubet, et capti piscis os aperire, et illic invenire nummum exactioni debitum:

The didrachma is understood as a levy on heads, not on estates, [which is now called "ragged gold", because even the poor are made to pay it:] for the Saviour possessed nothing in the world, though He is Lord of the world. For He died and was buried at another's expense: and we, to whom the world is foreign, desire to increase our possessions, so that, when dying, we testify not only by word but also in writing that the world has been seized by us, so that by our own profession we are condemned by Him Whose the world is. Hence the Lord says, Whoever has not left all things and followed Me cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26). [Whoever, then, so holds his possessions that he does not place his hope in them, but is ready to cast them away for the faith, walks the way by which one goes to Christ our Lord.] The didrachma, then, was to be exacted from those who carried on some business or applied themselves to trades. But the Saviour, since He cared for none of these things, nor did His disciples, was certainly not liable to the levy: but because the enemy, the devil, was always lying in wait, seeking an occasion to see whether he could bend the Saviour, he took hold of the minds of the collectors of the didrachma, so that they might do his will; so that, approaching Peter, who was first among the Apostles, they said that the didrachma ought to be paid by their master, though they were free of these burdens. For they did nothing in the world that was of the world: so that, since He had nothing with which to pay, He would either be a scandal to them, or at least, in the humility of seeking help, would ask someone to pay for Him. Then the Lord, to show that the improvident devil was always scheming against Him, commands the apostle Peter to go to the sea, and to open the mouth of the fish he had caught, and there to find the coin owed for the levy:

Editors' notes and page, col. 2269

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: et pauperes exiguntur› · call in col 2269

Absunt haec a Ms. Colbertino.

These words are absent from the Colbert manuscript.

(printed under page 483)

(2) ‹anchor: Dominum nostrum› · call in col 2269

Haec absunt a Mss. secundi generis.

These words are absent from the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 483)

(3) ‹anchor: apostolum jubet› · call in col 2269

Mss. secundi generis addunt, quasi cui curam domus delegaverat.

The manuscripts of the second class add: as being the one to whom he had delegated the care of the household.

(printed under page 483)

Page

running head: 2269 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2270

quo soluto, non solum scandalum non esset exactoribus, neque inclinaretur requisito auxilio ad solvendum; verum etiam signum virtutis maximae demonstraret, per quod captos a diabolo ad se traheret, ut argumento et astutia sua diabolus torqueretur. Dicunt ergo exactores didrachmae ad Petrum apostolum, Magister vester non solvit didrachmam, etc. Quo dicto, magistrum ut pro omnibus discipulis solveret, convenerunt. Salvator autem cum pro se et Petro dari jubet, pro omnibus exsolvisse videtur: quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causa magisterii, ita et post Salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur. Ipsum enim constituit esse caput eorum, ut pastor esset gregis dominici. Nam inter caetera dicit discipulis: Vigilate, et orate, ne intretis in tentationem (Matth. XXVI, 41). Et Petro dicit: Ecce satanas expostulavit, ut vos ventilet sicut triticum: ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua: et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos (Luc. XXII, 31, 32). Quid ambigitur? Pro Petro rogabat, et pro Jacobo et Joanne non rogabat, ut caeteros taceam? Manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri: rogans enim pro Petro, pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur. Semper enim in praeposito populus aut corripitur, aut laudatur. Quia et alio loco dicit: Ego pro his rogo quos mihi dedisti, Pater; et volo ut ubi ego sum, et ipsi sint mecum (Joan. XVII, 9, 24).

and when this was paid, not only would there be no scandal to the collectors, nor would He be brought low by seeking help in order to pay; but He would also display a sign of very great power, by which He would draw to Himself those captured by the devil, so that the devil would be tormented by his own argument and cunning. So the collectors of the didrachma say to the apostle Peter, Your master does not pay the didrachma, etc. Having said this, they approached the master, that He should pay for all the disciples. But the Saviour, when He orders that it be given for Himself and for Peter, is seen to have paid for all: because just as all were in the Saviour by reason of His mastership, so also after the Saviour all are contained in Peter. For He appointed him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord's flock. For among other things He says to the disciples: Watch, and pray, that you may not enter into temptation (Matt. 26:41). And to Peter He says: Behold, Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when at length you have turned back, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31–32). What is in doubt? Was He praying for Peter, and not praying for James and John, to say nothing of the rest? It is clear that all are contained in Peter: for in praying for Peter, He is recognized to have prayed for all. For it is always in the one set over them that a people is either rebuked or praised. For in another place too He says: I pray for these whom Thou hast given Me, Father; and I will that where I am, they too may be with Me (John 17:9, 24).

LXXVI. — Joannes in Evangelio, Lex, ait, per Moysen data est, Gratia et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est (Id. I, 17): ergo Gratia et veritas ante non fuit. Quomodo ergo Lex a Deo data dicitur, in qua veritas non fuit?

LXXVI. — John in the Gospel says, The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ (John 1:17): therefore grace and truth did not exist before. How then is the Law said to have been given by God, if there was no truth in it?

Non sic passim praetereundum est, sed considerandum est quid sit, Lex per Moysen data est. Per Moysen enim Lex data manifesta habet praecepta; sed scripsit et historiam, quae et ipsa Lex appellatur. Et videamus, quid in praeceptis ejus non erit verum: forte quod dicit, Non occides, Non fornicaberis, Non furtum facies (Exod. XX, 13-15)? talia sunt et caetera. Nam historia ejus, quia ante adventum Christi veritas non erat, hoc manifestum est. Etenim quae sub velamine erant, quid significarent, incertum erat. Cum autem per Christum manifestaretur, cujus persona sit quae dicit in Genesi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et ad similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26), et quis est qui fecit; et quis fuerit qui in rubo a Patriarchis visus fuit (Exod. III, 2); et qui in petra operatus sit, quae dedit aquas in deserto (Id. XVII, 6); quia Petra, inquit, erat Christus (I Cor. X, 4): sic fuit veritas per Christum, quando ea quae latebant, aut in dubium veniebant, quid significarent a Christo ostensum est. Nam inter caetera Dominus ait, De me scripsit Moyses (Joan. V, 46). Hoc prius latuit; error enim erat. Putabatur enim Deus Pater, qui erat Filius; et qui aestimabatur angelus, cognitus est esse Dei Filius. Et promissio facta fuerat Abrahae, quae quamdiu non reddebatur, in ambiguo erat; cum autem veniente Christo reddita est, facta est veritas: quando et quod promissum est redditum est, et coepit sciri quod erat promissum. Promittentis enim fides tunc vera probatur, cum exsolvit promissum.

This is not to be passed over so carelessly, but we must consider what is meant by, The Law was given through Moses. For the Law given through Moses has plain precepts; but he also wrote history, which itself too is called the Law. And let us see what in its precepts will not be true: perhaps what it says, You shall not kill, You shall not commit fornication, You shall not commit theft (Exod. 20:13–15)? The rest are of the same kind. But as for its history, that before the coming of Christ it was not truth, this is clear. For the things that were under a veil, what they signified was uncertain. But when it was made manifest through Christ whose person it is that speaks in Genesis, Let us make man to our image and to our likeness (Gen. 1:26), and who it is that made [him]; and who it was that was seen by the Patriarchs in the bush (Exod. 3:2); and who worked in the rock which gave waters in the desert (Exod. 17:6), since, it says, the Rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4): thus truth came about through Christ, when the things that lay hidden, or came into doubt, were shown by Christ as to what they signified. For among other things the Lord says, Moses wrote of Me (John 5:46). This was hidden before; for there was error. For He was thought to be God the Father, Who was the Son; and He Who was reckoned an angel was recognized to be the Son of God. And the promise had been made to Abraham, which, so long as it was not fulfilled, was in doubt; but when it was fulfilled at the coming of Christ, truth came about: when both what was promised was fulfilled, and what had been promised began to be known. For the good faith of one who promises is proved true at the moment when he discharges the promise.

Videndum est quid sit, Lex per Moysen data est. Per Moysen autem Lex data, manifesta habet praecepta, et quid illic non erit verum? Non occides, Non fornicaberis? talia et caetera sunt. Sed scripsit et historiam in qua usque ad adventum Salvatoris, quae esset veritas, manifestata non erat. Cum ergo per Christum manifestatur, cujus persona dicat, Faciamus, et quae sit quae faciat; et quis fuerit qui in rubo, aut Patriarchis visus sit; et qui in petram, cum aquam ipse produxit, operatus sit, quia Petra, inquit, erat Christus: fit ergo veritas per Christum, dum ea quae in dubium veniebant, quid significent intelliguntur. Itaque Lex per Moysen data reos constituit peccatores:

We must see what is meant by, The Law was given through Moses. Now the Law given through Moses has plain precepts, and what there will not be true? You shall not kill, You shall not commit fornication? The rest too are of the same kind. But he also wrote history, in which, until the coming of the Saviour, what the truth was had not been made manifest. When therefore it is made manifest through Christ whose person it is that says, Let us make, and whose it is that makes; and who it was that was seen in the bush, or by the Patriarchs; and who worked upon the rock, when He Himself brought forth water, since, it says, the Rock was Christ: truth therefore comes about through Christ, when the things that came into doubt are understood as to what they signify. Thus the Law given through Moses established sinners as guilty:

Editors' notes and page, col. 2270

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2270

Mss. secundi generis: Ipsum enim, post se reliquit pastorem, ut pastor esset gregis dominici.

The manuscripts of the second class: For him he left after himself as shepherd, that he might be shepherd of the Lord's flock.

(printed under page 483)

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Videndum est› · call in col 2270

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. trigesima.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, thirtieth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 483)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2270
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2271

Gratia autem promissa in Lege adveniens, donatis peccatis peccatores morte privavit. Ordo ergo fuit primum Legem dare, postea vero misericordiam, quae tuac fit Gratia, dum donat peccata. Ante enim promissio erat, quae postea fit Gratia. Veniet enim, inquit, ex Sion qui eripiat et avertat impietatem ab Jacob (Isai. LIX, 20, sec. LXX). Haec promissio per Christum, facta est Gratia, dum donat gratis peccata. Quomodo autem donaret peccata, si non prius Legem daret, per quam reis factis veniam largiretur? Nam non daret nisi quod sibi debebatur. Deberi autem non poterat, nisi Lex praecederet.

But Grace, promised in the Law, arriving, has deprived sinners of death by forgiving their sins. The order therefore was first to give the Law, but afterwards mercy, which then becomes Grace when it forgives sins. For beforehand it was a promise, which afterwards becomes Grace. For He will come, it says, out of Sion, who will rescue and turn away impiety from Jacob (Isa. 59:20, according to the Septuagint). This promise was made Grace through Christ, when He forgives sins freely. But how would He forgive sins, if He did not first give the Law, through which He might grant pardon to those made guilty? For He would give only what was owed to Him. But it could not be owed unless the Law went before.

LXXVII. — Quid est quod inter caetera dicit Marcus Evangelista de Christo, Intrans in domum voluit neminem scire, et non potuit latere (Marc. VII, 24)? si ergo voluit et non potuit, infirmata voluntas ejus videtur.

77. What is it that, among other things, Mark the Evangelist says of Christ, Entering into a house He wished no one to know, and He could not be hidden (Mark 7:24)? If, then, He wished and could not, His will seems to have been weakened.

Impossibile prorsus est ut Salvatoris voluntas non impleatur; nec potest velle quod scit fieri non debere: idcirco quod factum est, hoc voluisse dicendus est. Nam voluntas ejus nunquam extra naturam ejus est. Sicut ergo natura ejus in reprehensionem non cadit, ita nec voluntas. Nam quod proponitur, factum legitur in finibus Tyri: tunc intravit in domum, et neminem voluit scire. Nunc requiritur quomodo vel quare neminem voluit scire. Animadvertendum est enim, quia istud in finibus gestum est Gentilium, quibus adhuc tempus praedicandi non erat. Denique mittens discipulos suos praecepit, dicens, In viam Gentium ne abieritis, et in civitates Samaritanorum ne introieritis; sed ite potius ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel (Matth. X, 5, 6). Idcirco noluit se prodi, quod esset in domo; requiri autem se non noluit, sed libenter accepit. Quamvis enim tempus non esset praedicandi Gentilibus, ultro tamen venientes ad fidem non suscipere, invidiae erat. Sic factum est, ut dum Salvator a discipulis proditus non esset, ab aliis tamen qui eum ingredientem domum viderant, proditus sit: et coepit sciri quod esset in domo, ut intrarent ad illum qui vellent consequi beneficia. A suis ergo noluit praedicari, quod esset in domo. Requiri enim se voluit; et ita factum est. Non enim latuit ab aliis dem⟨o⟩nstratus quod esset in domo. Denique mulier Chananaea audiens de illo, intravit ad eum deprecans ut expelleret daemonium a filia ejus: quae nisi prius subjecisset se Deo Judaeorum, beneficium consecuta non esset. Impleta ergo voluntas Salvatoris est secundum quae explanavimus: ea enim quae compendio brevitatis studens Evangelista complexus est, discutientes, invenimus quod latebat.

It is altogether impossible that the Saviour's will should not be fulfilled; nor can He will what He knows ought not to be done: therefore what was done, this He must be said to have willed. For His will is never outside His nature. As, then, His nature does not fall under reproach, so neither does His will. For what is put forward is read to have been done in the territory of Tyre: then He entered into a house and wished no one to know. Now it is asked how or why He wished no one to know. For it must be noticed that this was done in the territory of the Gentiles, to whom it was not yet the time for preaching. Accordingly, sending His disciples, He commanded them, saying, Do not go off into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the cities of the Samaritans; but go rather to the sheep which have perished of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5–6). For this reason He did not wish it to be disclosed that He was in the house; but He did not refuse to be sought out, rather He accepted it gladly. For although it was not the time for preaching to the Gentiles, yet not to receive those coming of their own accord to the faith would have been a matter of ill will. Thus it came about that, while the Saviour was not disclosed by the disciples, yet He was disclosed by others who had seen Him entering the house: and it began to be known that He was in the house, so that those who wished to obtain benefits might come in to Him. He did not wish, then, that it be proclaimed by His own that He was in the house. For He wished to be sought out; and so it came about. For, pointed out by others, it was not hidden that He was in the house. Accordingly a Canaanite woman, hearing of Him, came in to Him begging that He would drive out the demon from her daughter: and unless she had first subjected herself to the God of the Jews, she would not have obtained the benefit. The will of the Saviour, then, was fulfilled according to what we have explained: for, examining those things which the Evangelist, intent on the conciseness of brevity, comprised, we have found what lay hidden.

Hoc quod per compendium propositum est, ut plus sensum posset occulere, in finibus factum legitur Tyri: quia cum Salvator pervenisset in fines Tyri, intravit in domum. Et quia non adhuc Gentibus praedicare oportebat, jussit neminem alicui nuntiare adventum suum: hoc est, neminem voluit scire: et subauditur, a suis noluit nuntiari alicui quia erat in domo. Requiri autem se noluit, quia tempus offerendi Gentibus gratiam non erat. Denique veniens mulier, comperto ab aliis qui viderant illum intrasse in domum, orabat expelli daemonium a filia sua. Salvator autem sciens non esse tempus dandi ultro gratiam Gentibus, ait, Sine, nati prius saturentur. Non enim licet accipere panem filiorum, et mittere canibus. Tunc mulier consensit Salvatoris verbis, et accepit beneficium quod volebat. Consentiendo enim junxit se Deo Judaeorum. Hac ergo causa noluit per suos sciri quod esset in domo: et ita factum est ut voluit.

This, which was put forward in summary so that it might hide the sense the more, is read to have been done in the territory of Tyre: because when the Saviour had come into the territory of Tyre, He entered into a house. And because it was not yet fitting to preach to the Gentiles, He ordered that no one should announce His arrival to anyone: that is, He wished no one to know: and it is understood that He did not wish it to be announced by His own to anyone that He was in the house. But He did not wish to be sought out, because it was not the time for offering grace to the Gentiles. Accordingly the woman, coming, having learned from others who had seen Him enter into the house, begged that the demon be driven out from her daughter. But the Saviour, knowing that it was not the time for giving grace to the Gentiles of His own accord, said, Let be, let the children first be filled. For it is not lawful to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. Then the woman assented to the Saviour's words, and received the benefit which she wished. For by assenting she joined herself to the God of the Jews. For this reason, then, He did not wish it to be known through His own that He was in the house: and it came about as He wished.

LXXVIII. — Legitur in Evangelio Joannis, quod cum negasset se Salvator ascendere ad diem festum, ascendit (Joan. VII, 8, 14): hoc inconstantis esse videtur.

78. It is read in the Gospel of John that, when the Saviour had denied that He was going up to the feast day, He went up (John 7:8, 14): this seems to be the act of an inconstant man.

Semper breviata propositione sensum occultas. Nam

You always hide the sense by a shortened statement. For

Editors' notes and page, col. 2271

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Hoc quod per compendium› · call in col 2271

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. vigesima quinta.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, twenty-fifth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 484)

(b) ‹anchor: LXXVIII› · call in col 2271

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 484)

Page

running head: 2271 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO T[...] (cut off at the image's right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2272

hoc quod in quaestionem vocas tunc factum est, quando in Galilaea positus propter tumultum Judaeorum, fratribus suis adhuc non credentibus sibi, compellebatur ascendere in Judaeam, quia futurus erat dies festus Judaeorum, ut seditionem pateretur. Ipse autem respondit eis, dicens: Vos ascendite ad diem festum istum, quia mundus vos non odit: me autem odit, quia arguo opera ejus. Ego non ascendo ad diem festum hunc, quia tempus meum nondum impletum est. Tunc fratres ejus ascenderunt ad diem festum, ipse vero mansit in Galilaea. Post autem et ipse ascendit ad diem festum. Quid videtur contrarium, quando non tunc ascendit quando negavit, sed ascendit postea; et ascendit non quasi ad diem festum, sed quasi ad litem? Illi enim omnes laeti ascenderunt, quasi ad perfruendas delicias diei festi⟨.⟩ Certum est ergo, quia non ascendit ad diem festum. Salvatori autem ille fuit dies festus, quo passione sua redemit mundum. Denique dicit: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo (Joan. XIII, 31). Hic dies festus ejus est, in quo vicit mortem.

this which you call into question took place at the time when, being in Galilee on account of the tumult of the Jews, while His brothers did not yet believe in Him, He was being pressed to go up into Judaea, because the feast day of the Jews was coming, so that He might suffer an uprising. But He answered them, saying: You go up to this feast day, because the world does not hate you; but it hates Me, because I reprove its works. I do not go up to this feast day, because My time is not yet fulfilled. Then His brothers went up to the feast day, but He remained in Galilee. But afterwards He too went up to the feast day. What seems contradictory, when He did not go up at the time when He said no, but went up afterwards; and went up not as if to a feast day, but as if to a contest? For they all went up joyful, as if to enjoy the delights of the feast day. It is certain, therefore, that He did not go up to the feast day. But for the Saviour that was the feast day on which by His passion He redeemed the world. Finally He says: Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him (John 13:31). This is His feast day, on which He conquered death.

LXXIX. — Si proprio arbitrio vivimus, quare Salvator dixit, Nemo venit ad me, nisi Pater qui misit me, traxerit eum (Id. VI, 44): et consentiens his Apostolus, Neque volentis, inquit, neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei est: et, Cujus vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat (Rom. IX, 16, 18)? Quomodo voluntatis arbitrium liberum est, quando alterius nutu aut ad bonum ducitur, aut ad malum?

79. — If we live by our own choice, why did the Saviour say, No one comes to Me, unless the Father Who sent Me has drawn him (John 6:44): and the Apostle, agreeing with these words, It is not, he says, of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy: and, On whom He wills He has mercy, and whom He wills He hardens (Rom. 9:16, 18)? How is the choice of the will free, when it is led at the nod of another either to good or to evil?

Aliter causa se habet quam proposita est. Non enim hic quaestionis hujus sensus est quem obtendis. Nam nullo genere ex his liberi arbitrii poterit causa turbari: quia si penitus sensum dictorum advertas, scies hinc magis arbitrii liberi firmari sententiam. Haec enim contra malevolos Judaeos prolata sunt. Cum enim dolo simulationis ortae ex invidia, Joseph patrem proprium et filios ejus fratres assererent Salvatoris, ne Dei esse Filius crederetur, tunc Salvator ait, Nemo venit ad me, nisi Pater qui misit me, attraxerit eum. Quomodo autem Pater attrahebat ad Filium, nisi per opera quae faciebat per illum? Sic enim dicit, Pater manens in me, ipse operatur (Joan. XIV, 10): ut opera haec attraherent ad fidem Christi. Virtutes enim quas faciebat Salvator, ipsae suadebant Deum esse Patrem Christi: ut qui alium patrem habere illum diceret, non attraheretur a Deo ad Christum. Ideo ergo Deus operabatur per Christum, ut verbis ejus fides commodaretur, quibus dicebat se Filium Dei. Haec est attractio, non violentiae, sed testimonium Dei in Christo, cui qui credidit, attractus dicitur ab eo ad Christum. Nemo enim Salvatori credit, nisi qui Patrem illius proprium dicit Deum. Nam Apostolus non ut arbitrium pulsaret, haec fatus est quae in quaestionem redegisti; sed ut judicium Dei retractari prohiberet, haec dixit, justum praedicans Deum: scit enim cujus debeat misereri. Cordis enim inspector providet postulantis mentem, an mereatur accipere. Denique dicit per prophetam, Plebs haec labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum longe est a me (Isai. XXIX, 13). Nam simulatoris animum justum est ut obduret⟨.⟩ Qui enim non per errorem, verum vocat falsum, sed per malevolentiam, ut intelligens bonum, fingat se nescire quod bonum est, ut convertat illud in malum; hoc utique debet illi praestari, ut vere non intelligat bonum, ne salvetur, quod non vult. Nec enim justum est, ut invitus salvetur, qui non per ignorantiam salutem spernit, sed per malitiam vel invidiam. His igitur confirmatur magis liberum arbitrium quam destruitur, ut unicuique pro voto suo respondeatur.

The case stands otherwise than it has been put. For the sense of this question here is not the one you allege. For in no way can the cause of free choice be disturbed by these words: because if you attend closely to the sense of what was said, you will know that from this the view of free choice is rather strengthened. For these things were uttered against the malevolent Jews. For when, with the deceit of a pretence born of envy, they asserted that Joseph was the Saviour's own father and his sons His brothers, so that He might not be believed to be the Son of God, then the Saviour said, No one comes to Me, unless the Father Who sent Me has drawn him. But how did the Father draw to the Son, except through the works which He was doing through Him? For thus He says, The Father abiding in Me, He does the works (John 14:10): so that these works might draw to faith in Christ. For the mighty works which the Saviour was doing themselves persuaded that God is the Father of Christ: so that whoever said that He had another father was not drawn by God to Christ. Therefore God worked through Christ for this reason, that credence might be given to His words, in which He said that He was the Son of God. This is a drawing, not of violence, but the testimony of God in Christ, and whoever has believed it is said to be drawn by Him to Christ. For no one believes the Saviour except one who says that God is His own Father. For the Apostle did not say these things which you have brought into question in order to strike at choice; but he said these things to forbid the judgement of God from being called into question, proclaiming God just: for He knows on whom He ought to have mercy. For the Searcher of the heart foresees the mind of the one who asks, whether he deserves to receive. Finally He says through the prophet, This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me (Isa. 29:13). For it is just that He should harden the mind of the pretender. For whoever, not through error, but through malevolence calls the true false, so that, understanding the good, he pretends not to know what is good, in order to turn it into evil; this certainly ought to be granted to him, that he truly not understand the good, so that he may not be saved, which he does not want. For neither is it just that one should be saved against his will who spurns salvation not through ignorance but through malice or envy. By these things, therefore, free choice is confirmed rather than destroyed, so that each one is answered according to his own wish.

Nullo genere ex his liberi arbitrii causa poterit turbari. Si enim dicta ad causam referas qua dicta sunt, scies hinc magis arbitrii liberi firmari sententiam.

In no way can the cause of free choice be disturbed by these words. For if you refer the sayings to the occasion on which they were said, you will know that from this the view of free choice is rather strengthened.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2272

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2272

Pelagianizare videtur auctor hujus sequentisque quaestionis.

The author of this question and the next seems to lean towards Pelagianism.

(printed under page 484)

(b) ‹anchor: (b) Nullo genere› · call in col 2272

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. trigesima secunda.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, thirty-second among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 484)

Page

running head: S EX NOVO T⟨E⟩STAMENTO. 227⟨?⟩ (last digit of the column number damaged)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word sententiam. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2273

PL 35:2273

Cum enim Judaei studio malevolentiae suae de Salvatore dicerent, Nonne hic est filius Joseph, cujus nos novimus patrem? Quomodo ergô hic dicit, Quia de coelo descendi? Ad hoc respondit Jesus: Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi Pater qui misit me, attraxerit eum. Nunc videndum est quomodo trahit Pater. Ipsius Salvatoris verbum sumatur; dicit enim, Opera quae facio, Pater facit. Credite quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me. Si ergo in Filio Pater operatur, opera autem sunt quae invitant ad fidem; recte dixit, quia nemo venit ad me, nisi quem Pater traxerit. Trahit autem, cum opera⟨t⟩ur per Filium. Nam qui sibi vult credi, quomodo tollit liberi arbitrii voluntatem? Et qui incredulum arguit, qua ratione trahit invitum? Ad Judaeos utique hoc protulit, qui alium patrem illius, quam qui est, dicebant. Nemo enim Salvatori credit, nisi qui Patrem illius dicit Deum. Apostolus quoque non ut arbitrium pulsaret, haec fatus est quae nunc proposita sunt; sed ut ostenderet Dei esse justum judicium, qui f⟨a⟩lli non potest in danda aut non danda misericordia. Est enim qui postulat, et non meretur accipere; alius vero petit, et meretur accipere. Hic enim non solis verbis, sed operibus obsecrat; ille sola lingua; hic et corde contribulato; talis enim ⟨p⟩otest imp⟨e⟩trare. Denique quid dictum in Lege est? Pl⟨e⟩bs haec labiis me honorat, cor autem illorum longe est a me. Si ergo duo petant, unus autem ex his accipiat, debet sciri hunc sic postulasse ut dignus esset accipere: quia Deus qui justus est, non dat nisi cui dandum scit. Vides ergo non arbitrium negatum, sed firmatum. Nam si una mente, una operatione duos audieris postulasse, et unum ex his exauditum, alterum despectum; recte et arbitrium non esse, et Deum acceptorem personarum putares.

For when the Jews, out of the zeal of their malevolence, said of the Saviour, Is this not the son of Joseph, whose father we know? How then does He say, I came down from heaven? To this Jesus answered: No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me has drawn him. Now it must be seen how the Father draws. Let the word of the Saviour Himself be taken; for He says, The works that I do, the Father does. Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. If therefore the Father works in the Son, and the works are what invite to faith, He rightly said that no one comes to Me unless the Father has drawn him. And He draws when He works through the Son. For He Who wishes to be believed, how does He take away the will of free choice? And He Who reproves the unbeliever, by what reasoning does He draw the unwilling? He certainly uttered this to the Jews, who said that His father was another than He Who is. For no one believes the Saviour except one who says that God is His Father. The Apostle too spoke these words which are now set forth, not in order to strike at choice, but to show that the judgement of God is just, Who cannot be deceived in granting or not granting mercy. For there is one who asks and does not deserve to receive; but another asks and deserves to receive. For this one entreats not with words alone but with works; that one with the tongue alone; this one also with a contrite heart; for such a one can obtain. Finally, what is said in the Law? This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. If therefore two ask, but one of them receives, it ought to be known that this one asked in such a way as to be worthy to receive: for God, Who is just, gives only to one to whom He knows it should be given. You see therefore that choice is not denied but confirmed. For if you heard that two had asked with one mind and one manner of acting, and that one of them was heard and the other disregarded, you would rightly think both that there is no choice and that God is a respecter of persons.

LXXX. — Certe aut filius Dei quisque est aut diaboli: semper ergo filius est; sed aliqu⟨a⟩ndo Dei, aliquando vero diaboli: quid ergo nascimur requirendum est.

LXXX. — Certainly each person is either a son of God or a son of the devil: he is therefore always a son; but sometimes of God, and sometimes of the devil: it must therefore be inquired what we are born.

Dominus cum filii Israel saepe delinquerent educti de Aegypto, iratus sententiam dedit, dicens, nullum illorum intraturum in terram promissionis excepto Caleb et Josue filio Nave, qui prius Auses dicebatur. Eos autem qui nati fuerant in deserto, ipsos dixit intraturos, eo quod nescirent bonum aut malum. Nescire autem bonum aut malum, simplicitas quaedam est naturalis, quae neque ad malum erudita est. Haec est ignorantia sine malitia. Sine sensu enim nascimur: sed natura nostra hoc bonum habet, quod capax est ediscere veritatem. Filius autem diaboli est, qui natus malis rebus imbuitur, ut his studeat quae inimica sunt Creatori, multos asserens deos, et his immolandum quasi mundi rectoribus. Hic si resipiscat, et juxta naturam suam sentiat, ad Creatorem se conferens, filius Dei erit. Ac per hoc neque filii Dei sunt qui nascuntur, neque filii diaboli. Quid enim dicit Salvator Judaeis? Vos de patre diabolo estis, et concupiscentias patris vestri vultis facere (Joan. VIII, 44). Vides ergo operibus et professione filios creari diaboli: hos autem esse filios Dei, qui confitentes proprium esse Deum Patrem Christi, recte versantur. Sic enim Deus instituit genus nostrum, ut sine sensu nascamur, possibilitatem tamen habeamus discendi, sive bona, sive mala; ut ipsi nobis aut mala acquiramus, aut bona: ut laetemur in nobis, cum recte agentes remuneramur; aut ipsi nobis imputemus, si prava sequentes condemnemur.

The Lord, when the sons of Israel, having been led out of Egypt, often transgressed, in anger gave sentence, saying that none of them would enter the land of promise except Caleb and Joshua the son of Nun, who was formerly called Auses. But those who had been born in the desert, these He said would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Now not to know good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has not been schooled towards evil. This is ignorance without malice. For we are born without understanding: but our nature has this good, that it is capable of learning the truth. But he is a son of the devil who, after being born, is steeped in evil things, so that he devotes himself to things that are hostile to the Creator, asserting many gods, and that sacrifice must be offered to them as rulers of the world. If he comes to his senses and thinks in accordance with his nature, betaking himself to the Creator, he will be a son of God. And hence those who are born are neither sons of God nor sons of the devil. For what does the Saviour say to the Jews? You are of your father the devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father (John 8:44). You see therefore that sons of the devil are made by works and profession: but that those are sons of God who, confessing that God is the very Father of Christ, conduct themselves rightly. For God so established our race that we are born without understanding, yet have the possibility of learning either good things or bad; so that we ourselves acquire for ourselves either bad things or good: so that we may rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded; or may impute it to ourselves if, following crooked ways, we are condemned.

Dominus, cum filii Israel saepe delinquerent educti de Aegypto, iratus, nullum illorum in terram promissionis intrare permisit, excepto Caleb et Jesu Nave. Filios autem eorum qui nati fuerant in deserto, ipsos dixit intraturos, eo quod nescirent bonum aut malum. Nescire autem bonum vel malum, simplicitas quaedam est naturalis, quae neque ad bonum neque ad malum erudita est: hoc est, ignorantia sine malitia. Sine sensu enim nascimur, sed nostra natura capax est ediscere veritatem. Filius autem diaboli est, qui

The Lord, when the sons of Israel, having been led out of Egypt, often transgressed, in anger permitted none of them to enter the land of promise, except Caleb and Jesus the son of Nun. But the sons of those who had been born in the desert, these He said would enter, because they did not know good or evil. Now not to know good or evil is a certain natural simplicity, which has been schooled neither towards good nor towards evil: that is, ignorance without malice. For we are born without understanding, but our nature is capable of learning the truth. But he is a son of the devil who

Editors' notes and page, col. 2273

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Dominus, cum filii› · call in col 2273

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quadragesima prima.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, forty-first among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 485)

Page

running head: 2273 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2274

natus malis rebus imbutus, iis studet quae adversus Creatorem sunt, dicens multos esse deos, et iis sacrificandum quasi mundi rectoribus. Hic si resipiscat, ad naturalem regressus justitiam, recipiens fidem Chri⟨s⟩ti, erit fil⟨i⟩us Dei: ac per hoc neque filii Dei sunt qui nascuntur, neque diaboli. Quid enim dicit Salvator Judaeis? Vos de patre diabolo nati estis, et concupiscentias patris vestri vultis facere. Vides ergo operibus et professione filios diaboli procreari. Sic enim Deus instituit genus nostrum ut sine sensu nati, possimus tamen erudiri ad utrumque, ut sive ad bonum, sive ad malum ipsi nobis quodammodo simus auctores: ut laetemur in nobis, cum recte agentes remuneramur; aut nobis imputemus si prava sequentes poenis subjiciamur: ideo judicio nostro nos dimisit, ut neque queramur de malis, neque frustra, sicut et Dei filios per fidem fieri, de nobis gaudeamus si coronemur. Deus conditor et auctor substantiae nostrae voluit aliquid nos proprium nostrum habere, ut non indigne gloriemur de fide, quam habemus in Deo. Qui enim potestatis suae non est, quidquid habuerit, alienum est; ut nec gloriari possit de bonis, nec reus constitui de malis.

born and steeped in evil things, devotes himself to those things that are against the Creator, saying that there are many gods, and that one must sacrifice to them as though to the rulers of the world. If this man comes to his senses, having returned to natural justice, receiving the faith of Christ, he will be a son of God: and therefore those who are born are neither sons of God nor of the devil. For what does the Saviour say to the Jews? You are born of your father the devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. You see, therefore, that sons of the devil are produced by works and by profession. For God so established our race that, though born without understanding, we may nevertheless be trained towards either, so that, whether towards good or towards evil, we are in some way ourselves our own authors: so that we may rejoice in ourselves when, acting rightly, we are rewarded; or impute it to ourselves if, following crooked ways, we are subjected to punishments: therefore He has left us to our own judgement, so that we may neither complain about evils, nor rejoice over ourselves without cause if we are crowned, just as [we rejoice] that sons of God are made through faith. God, the founder and author of our substance, willed that we should have something properly our own, so that we might not unworthily glory in the faith which we have in God. For whoever is not in his own power, whatever he has is another's; so that he can neither glory in good things, nor be made guilty for evil things.

LXXXI. — Apostolus ait, Nos natura Judaei (Galat. II, 15): de Judaeis ergo nasci Judaeos ostendit: non de proselytis dico, quos constat fieri Judaeos. Denique qui in eremo nati sunt, non sunt circumcisi, et tamen Judaei erant. Non ergo circumcisio Judaeum facit; sed nativitas sub Dei Creatoris devotione progenita. Si ergo de Judaeis Judaei nascuntur, quare non etiam de Christianis Christiani? nam et de Paganis Pagani nascuntur.

LXXXI. — The Apostle says, We [are] Jews by nature (Gal. 2:15): he shows, therefore, that Jews are born of Jews: I do not speak of proselytes, who, as is agreed, are made Jews. Further, those who were born in the desert were not circumcised, and yet they were Jews. It is not, therefore, circumcision that makes a Jew, but a birth begotten under devotion to God the Creator. If, then, Jews are born of Jews, why are not Christians also born of Christians? for Pagans too are born of Pagans.

Non omne quod nascitur, hoc est unde nascitur. Nam et aurum de terra nascitur, et non tamen terra est; et gemmae et alia multa: et de ligno esca nascitur, et de ovo pullus. De Paganis autem ut Pagani nascantur haec facit causa: quia enim omnis paganus in ignorantia est, et qui nascitur ex eo sine sensu est, ambo ignorantes sunt. Sed hoc interest inter utrumque, quia qui generat, sine dubio blasphemus est, ac per hoc filius diaboli est: natus autem infans nescit blasphemare, sicut nescit benedicere; paganus tamen est, quia sine sensu est. De Judaeo autem idcirco Judaeus nascitur, quia sub Creatoris devotione generatur. Sicut dixit Adam de Cain, Procreavi hominem per Deum (Gen. IV, 1). Sicut enim Pagani indevoti Creatori, daemoniis gratias agunt in omnibus quae agunt; ita et Judaei Deo Creatori supplices, laudant eum in omni actu suo, in eo despiciendi quia non cognoscunt Christum, per quem sunt omnia. Hoc etiam modo de Judaeo Judaeus nascitur. Non enim sicut quibusdam videtur, quia circumcisio facit Judaeum. Circumcisio enim signum Judaismi est, non Judaismus: quia non Abrahae circumcisio justitia est, sed signum justitiae, ut nati ex Abraham signum haberent, per quod probarentur filii esse Abrahae: quippe cum ex Juda Machabaeo hoc nomine sint appellati, ut non solum ex Juda, sed et caeteri ex omnibus filiis Jacob, Judaei vocarentur, propterea quod Judas dux fuerit eis. Ideoque nati Judaei signum accipiunt, ut qui sunt intelligantur. De Christ⟨i⟩ano autem ideo non nascitur Christianus, quia ipse qui generat, non natus, sed factus est Christianus. Quamobrem et iste qui nascitur, fieri oportet, ut sit. Nec enim per substa⟨n⟩tiam nascitur, sed per fidem quae jam natis accedit. Ignorantia enim cum carne nascitur, fides autem postea spirituali ratione inseritur. Sed dicitur e contra, Si factus utique est qui generat, hoc jam debet generare quod ipse est, ut accepta dignitas traducem faceret. Nam senatores generant senatores. Sed senatorum dignitas non habet apud Deum meritum. Neque ipsa natura, hoc est substantia consequitur beneficium, sed in sola fama et sermone dignitas vertitur. Ac per hoc currit quidem sermo per traducem carnis, sed nihil aliud praestat, quam opinionem dignitatis: sicut et hi qui consules sunt, aut statuis honestantur, gaudent in vano. Christiani autem cum fiunt, ipsi naturae accedit dignitas, ut essentia

Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold too is born from the earth, and yet it is not earth; and gems and many other things likewise: and food is born from wood, and a chick from an egg. But this is the cause that makes Pagans be born of Pagans: since every pagan is in ignorance, and he who is born of him is without understanding, both are ignorant. But there is this difference between the two, that he who begets is without doubt a blasphemer, and therefore a son of the devil: but the infant that is born does not know how to blaspheme, just as it does not know how to bless; yet it is a pagan, because it is without understanding. But a Jew is born of a Jew for this reason, that he is begotten under devotion to the Creator. As Adam said of Cain, I have begotten a man through God (Gen. 4:1). For just as Pagans, undevoted to the Creator, give thanks to demons in all that they do, so also the Jews, suppliant to God the Creator, praise Him in their every act, being to be despised in this, that they do not acknowledge Christ, through Whom all things are. In this way too a Jew is born of a Jew. For it is not, as it seems to some, that circumcision makes a Jew. For circumcision is the sign of Judaism, not Judaism: since the circumcision of Abraham is not justice, but the sign of justice, so that those born of Abraham might have a sign by which they might be proved to be sons of Abraham: seeing that they were called by this name from Judas Maccabaeus, so that not only those from Judah, but also the rest from all the sons of Jacob, were called Jews, because Judas had been their leader. And therefore those born Jews receive the sign, so that it may be understood who they are. But a Christian is not born of a Christian for this reason, that he himself who begets was not born but made a Christian. Wherefore he too who is born must be made, in order that he may be [one]. For he is not born [a Christian] through substance, but through faith, which comes to those already born. For ignorance is born with the flesh, but faith is implanted afterwards by a spiritual principle. But it is said to the contrary: If he who begets has certainly been made, he ought now to beget what he himself is, so that the dignity received might be handed down by propagation. For senators beget senators. But the dignity of senators has no merit with God. Nor does nature itself, that is, the substance, obtain any benefit, but the dignity consists in reputation and speech alone. And therefore the title does indeed run down through the propagation of the flesh, but it furnishes nothing other than the appearance of dignity: just as those also who are consuls, or are honoured with statues, rejoice in vain. But when men become Christians, dignity comes to nature itself, so that the essence

Editors' notes and page, col. 2274

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2274
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2275

ipsa hominis aeternum habeat incorruptibilitatis beneficium ut non opinio sola, sed et res sit in effectu apud Deum. Tale est ut istud, si quis disertus pauper in laude sit et egeat pane, aut reliquis necessariis. Haec enim vera laus est, si sic illi proficiat quaesita dignitas, ut nullius egeat; dum hoc naturae ejus praestatur, ut per se ipsa vivat, et bene vivat nullo requisito suffragio: hoc est, vere divitem fieri et gloriosum.

the very [substance] of man may have the eternal benefit of incorruptibility, so that it is not opinion alone but also a reality in effect before God. It is like this: if some eloquent poor man is held in praise and yet lacks bread or the other necessities. For this is true praise, if the dignity he has sought so profits him that he lacks nothing, while this is granted to his nature, that it lives by itself and lives well with no support required: that is, truly to become rich and glorious.

Non omne quod nascitur, hoc est quod unde nascitur. Nam et aurum, etc. Paganus tamen est, quia sine sensu est, neque suum habens meritum, neque alterius. De Judaeo autem idcirco Judaeus nascitur, etc. Sed dicitur e contra, Si factus utique est qui generat, hoc debet generare quod ipse est, ut jam accepta dignitas traducem faciat: sicut et in Judaeis, quia Abraham de pagano, Dei cultor factus est, et ex eo origo Judaeorum; sicut et facti senatores, jam senatores generant. Sed senatorum dignitas non apud Deum meritum habet, neque ipsa natura, id est substantia consequitur beneficium; sed in sola fama et sermone dignitas vertitur; ac per hoc currit sermo per traducem carnis, nihil aliud praestans, quam opinionem mundanae dignitatis. Quare autem de Judaeo Judaeus nascitur, jam dictum est: Christianus autem cum boni dignitas naturae ipsi accedit, ut substantia hominis qua constat beneficium consequatur, ut non opinio sola, sed et res sit in effectu apud Deum. Denique accepta remissione peccatorum, purificatur totus homo, ita ut et filius a Deo adoptetur. Quamobrem omnes natos renasci oportet, quia misericordia Dei singulis donat gratiam. Nec enim alter alteri potest re⟨m⟩issionem accipere. Anima enim quae nascitur in corpore, vel cum corpore, subdita morti inventae ab Adam, nisi signum acceperit evictae mortis, tartarum inferni non evadit. Unusquisque enim sibi accepit beneficium, non et ei qui nondum est. Si enim factus Christianus immortalis jam esset, recte natus de illo hoc esset quod et genitor. Nam qui fiunt Christiani, signum accipiunt, ne a morte secunda teneantur: non tamen mortem praesentem, quam Adam invenit, evadunt. Infantes autem propterea baptizantur, cum sint innocentes, ut anima rudis nata in corpore, signum habeat mortis evictae, ne possit ab ea teneri. Hoc signum Abraham non habuit: neque Prophetae, quia tempus illos non invenit; reservatum est autem Filio Dei, qui veniens vinceret mortem, et hanc gratiam credentibus largiretur. Hinc est unde Dominus ait Judaeis, Abraham pater vester cupivit ut videret diem meum; et vidit, et gavisus est (Joan. VIII, 56). Sciens enim Abraham Christum ad liberationem humani generis repromissum, semper enim necesse erat ortum ejus in inferis positos exspectare; quem ubi in spiritu natum esse vidit, gavisus est, certus quod in brevi de inferno ereptus induceretur in coelos. Quomodo ergo de Christianis nasci deberent Christiani, quando qui non crediderit, aut non fuerit baptizatus, non erit Christianus?

Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold too, etc. Yet it is pagan, because it is without sense, having neither merit of its own nor that of another. But a Jew is born of a Jew for this reason, etc. But it is said on the contrary: If he who begets has indeed been made [something], he ought to beget what he himself is, so that the dignity once received produces a transmission: as also among the Jews, since Abraham, from being a pagan, was made a worshipper of God, and from him is the origin of the Jews; as also men made senators beget senators. But the dignity of senators has no merit before God, nor does the nature itself, that is, the substance, obtain a benefit; rather the dignity consists in reputation and speech alone; and for this reason the name runs on through the transmission of the flesh, bestowing nothing other than the opinion of worldly dignity. Why a Jew is born of a Jew has already been said; but with the Christian, since the dignity of the good accrues to his very nature, so that the substance of the man of which he consists obtains the benefit, it is not opinion alone but also a reality in effect before God. In short, once remission of sins has been received, the whole man is purified, so that he is even adopted by God as a son. Therefore all who are born must be born again, because the mercy of God gives grace to each individually. For one person cannot receive remission for another. For the soul which is born in the body, or with the body, being subject to the death brought about by Adam, does not escape the Tartarus of hell unless it has received the sign of death overcome. For each one has received the benefit for himself, not also for one who does not yet exist. For if a man made a Christian were already immortal, one born of him would rightly be what his begetter also is. For those who become Christians receive the sign so that they may not be held by the second death; yet they do not escape the present death which Adam brought about. Infants, moreover, are baptized for this reason, though they are innocent: that the untried soul born in the body may have the sign of death overcome, so that it cannot be held by it. Abraham did not have this sign, nor did the Prophets, because the time did not find them; it was reserved for the Son of God, Who by coming would conquer death and bestow this grace on believers. Hence it is that the Lord says to the Jews, Abraham your father desired to see My day; and he saw it, and rejoiced (John 8:56). For Abraham, knowing that Christ had been promised for the liberation of the human race (for those placed in the underworld had always of necessity to await His birth), when he saw in the spirit that He had been born, rejoiced, certain that in a short while he would be snatched from hell and led into the heavens. How then should Christians be born of Christians, when whoever has not believed or has not been baptized will not be a Christian?

LXXXII. — Paganos elementis esse subjectos nulli dubium est: quid est ergo quod Apostolus dicit, Eramus et nos sub elementis hujus mundi servientes? (Galat. IV, 3). Si itaque et Judaei elementis erant servientes, quid differebant a Paganis?

LXXXII. — That pagans are subject to the elements is doubtful to no one: what then is it that the Apostle says, We too were serving under the elements of this world? (Gal. 4:3). If, then, the Jews too were serving the elements, how did they differ from the pagans?

Manifestum est adjectione, aut diminutione, sive immutatione unius syllabae sensum perverti. Idcirco Paganos elementa colere omnibus cognitum est; Judaeos autem non elementis, sed sub elementis Deo servisse, propter neomenias, et sabbata, et circumcisionem, et caetera talia; haec enim carnalia sunt. Quidquid enim visibile est, carnale est, et de elementis est. Sed quia ex praecepto Dei erat, Deo serviebatur; ut ex visibilibus ad invisibilia veniretur, et ex hac causa profectus fieret ad majora capienda, ut in his meditati digni fierent promissis spiritualibus. Ex ea igitur parte, quam supra dixi, sub elementis serviebant

It is plain that the sense is perverted by the addition, the removal, or the alteration of a single syllable. Thus it is known to all that the pagans worship the elements; but that the Jews served God, not the elements, though under the elements, on account of new moons and sabbaths and circumcision and other such things; for these are carnal. For whatever is visible is carnal and is of the elements. But because it was by the command of God, God was being served, so that one might come from things visible to things invisible, and for this reason progress might be made towards grasping greater things, so that, having been trained in these, they might become worthy of the spiritual promises. In that respect, then, which I mentioned above, the Jews served under the elements

Editors' notes and page, col. 2275

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2275

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quinquagesima sexta.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, fifty-sixth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 486)

Page

running head: 2275 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word serviebant was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2276

PL 35:2276

Judaei; ex alia parte legem habebant spiritualem, quae et peccare prohibet, et exhortatur ad dilectionem Domini Dei, qui venturus eis fuera⟨t⟩ promissus ad remittenda peccata.

on the other hand they had a spiritual law, which both forbids sinning and exhorts to the love of the Lord God, Who had been promised to them as One coming to forgive sins.

Pagani non sub elementis serviunt, sed ipsis elementis. Colunt enim astra, solem, lunam et sidera; haec in firmamento: in inferioribus autem terram, aquam: in mari vero Neptunum: in inferis autem Plutonem: aperte creaturam mundanam colunt, praeterito Creatore. Nam Judaei hoc modo sub elementis, Deo tamen serviebant, qui haec ipsa mandata dederat. Observant enim neomenias, sabbata, pecorum sacrificia. Initio mensis septimi tuba canere, quinto decimo autem die mensis septimi medullas palmarum et ramos ligni spissos, et ramos salicis circumferre, et in casis septem diebus habitare. Haec ergo observantes, recte sub elementis dicuntur servisse: haec enim ex elementis sunt. Christiani autem non sub elementis, sed supra elementa Deo serviunt, ad Jerusalem coelestem properantes, in spiritu Deum adorant, non in visibilibus et mundanis, sed in animo Dei culturam habentes, invisibili invisibiliter servientes, sicut dicit Dominus in Evangelio, Veniet hora, in qua veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et veritate (Joan. IV, 23). Haec ergo veritas est, spiritu Deo servire, animo magis quam corpore: ut quia Deus spiritus est, spiritualiter excolatur. Ex hac parte Judaeos sub elementis subjectos dicit fuisse, qua supra memoravi: ex alia autem parte, Legis spiritualem fuisse rationem, qua et peccare prohibuit, et diligendum ex omni corde Dominum mandavit, et spem habere in Christo. Sed Apostolis praedicantibus haec, magis defendebant quae carnaliter data fuerant. Haec Apostolus memorat ut obfuscet Judaeos, qui obtrectantes Legis spiritualis, visibilibus erant subjecti: et ut haec vere, ad comparationem legis fidei, infirma ostenderet, etiam interposita persona hoc denotat, qui utique eorum aemulus fuerat vehementer. Cognito autem Christo, haec contemni aestimavit, quia multum differt Gratia Dei per Christum a Lege factorum.

The pagans serve not under the elements, but the elements themselves. For they worship the stars, the sun, the moon and the constellations; these in the firmament; in the lower regions, however, the earth and the water; in the sea, Neptune; in the underworld, Pluto: openly they worship the created world, passing over the Creator. For the Jews in this way were under the elements, yet they served God, Who had given these very commandments. For they observe new moons, sabbaths, sacrifices of cattle; at the beginning of the seventh month to sound the trumpet, and on the fifteenth day of the seventh month to carry about the pith of palms and thick branches of trees, and branches of willow, and to dwell in huts for seven days. Observing these things, therefore, they are rightly said to have served under the elements: for these things are from the elements. Christians, however, serve God not under the elements but above the elements; hastening to the heavenly Jerusalem, they worship God in spirit, not in visible and worldly things, but holding the worship of God in the mind, serving the Invisible invisibly, as the Lord says in the Gospel, The hour will come in which the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23). This, therefore, is the truth: to serve God in spirit, with the mind rather than the body, so that, since God is spirit, He may be worshipped spiritually. In this respect, which I mentioned above, he says that the Jews were subjected under the elements; in another respect, however, that the reason of the Law was spiritual, by which it both forbade sinning, and commanded that the Lord be loved with the whole heart, and that hope be had in Christ. But when the Apostles preached these things, they defended all the more the things that had been given carnally. These things the Apostle mentions in order to cast the Jews into the shade, who, disparaging the spiritual Law, were subject to visible things: and in order to show that these things are truly weak in comparison with the law of faith, he also signifies this by bringing in [his own] person, who had certainly been a vehement zealot for them. But once Christ was known, he judged that these things should be despised, because the Grace of God through Christ differs greatly from the Law of works.

LXXXIII. — Si per Christum salus, et vera et perfecta cognitio; cur non ante venit, ut et anteriores nostri qui in ignorantia fuerunt, addiscerent veritatem? Denique post adventum Christi multi salvati sunt, magis quam prius. Unde et si ante venisset, multo plures salvati fuissent. Si ergo ita est, reprehensibile videtur.

83. — If salvation, and true and perfect knowledge, is through Christ, why did He not come earlier, so that our forebears too, who were in ignorance, might learn the truth? Indeed, after the coming of Christ many have been saved, more than before. Hence, if He had come earlier, many more would have been saved. If, therefore, it is so, it seems blameworthy.

Nulli misericordiam facienti calumniam fieri oportet. In potestate enim dantis est, quando vel quantum velit misereri. Exhortandus est enim hujusmodi et precibus provocandus, non contentione a bono opere revocandus. Forte non contradiceretur, si pro hac misericordia vicis illi aliqua redderetur. An quis medicum arguet qui medicamenta sua et officium suum gratis impendet? aut accusabitur tarditas ejus ab eis, a quibus non est requisitus? Haec quidem diximus secundum rationem, sed Salvatoris bonitas ista non curat propter imbecillitatem humanam: suam enim sequitur naturam ad faciendam misericordiam. Idcirco tunc venit quando debuit venire, voluntatis suae rationem secutus, non meritorum nostrorum. Nam si merita perpendas, venire non debuit. Venit ergo quando et subveniri debere scivit, et gratum futurum beneficium. Si autem ei cui necessitas imminet ante subveniatur, erit quidem gratum; non tamen valde poterit scire quid sibi praestitum est: si autem in ipsa necessitate posito auxilium feras, sciet quale beneficium consecutus sit. De tribulatione enim ereptus, majores gratias referet: quomodo si esurienti offeras panem; si autem offeras cum non esurit, non utique tam gratum erit. Idcirco recte factum est, ut non ante veniret Dominus. Primum enim dimisit genus hominum uti voluntate sua, non sine testimonio sui, quia ex ipsa mundi fabrica per annua munera, quae elementorum ministerio humanis usibus exhiberi decrevit,

To no one who shows mercy ought a false charge to be made. For it is in the power of the giver when or how much he wishes to show mercy. For such a one is to be exhorted and urged on with prayers, not called back from a good work by contention. Perhaps there would be no objection if some return were made to him for this mercy. Or will anyone find fault with a physician who spends his medicines and his service free of charge? Or will his slowness be accused by those by whom he was not sought? These things indeed we have said according to reason, but the goodness of the Saviour does not care about these things, on account of human weakness: for it follows its own nature in showing mercy. Therefore He came at the time when He ought to come, following the reason of His own will, not of our merits. For if you weigh merits, He ought not to have come. He came, therefore, when He knew both that help ought to be brought and that the benefit would be welcome. For if one whom need threatens is helped beforehand, it will indeed be welcome; yet he will not be able to know very well what has been bestowed on him: but if you bring help to one placed in the very need, he will know what kind of benefit he has obtained. For, snatched from tribulation, he will return greater thanks: just as if you offer bread to one who is hungry; but if you offer it when he is not hungry, it will certainly not be so welcome. Therefore it was rightly done that the Lord did not come earlier. For first He let the human race use its own will, not without testimony of Himself, because from the very fabric of the world, through the yearly gifts which He decreed should be bestowed for human uses by the ministry of the elements, He

Editors' notes and page, col. 2276

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2276

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quinquagesima nona.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, fifty-ninth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 486)

Page

running head: S EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2276 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2277

intelligi et timeri divinitatem suam voluit. Quippe cum etiam ex traduce primi hominis, deinde Enoch et Noe notitia ejus esset in terris. Sed cum langnore quodam humani generis obsolescere coepisset cognitio Dei inter homines, et mores immutarentur, eligere dignatus est Abraham, in quo forma es⟨s⟩et renovatae notitiae Dei et morum. Et cum adhuc reverentia segnior esset, postea per Moysen Legem litteris dedit, quae neque obsolesceret, et magis metum incuteret. Major enim timor est, ubi auctoritas manifesta est. Et quia acceptam Legem gentes spreverunt, non se subjicientes ei, neque ii qui acceperunt servaverunt eam; motus Dominus misericordia, misit Filium suum, qui se pro illis offerens, mortem destruens, data omnibus remissione peccatorum, Deo Patri illos justificatos offerret. Non enim posset descendi ad inferos, nisi per mortem. Nec ordo e⟨n⟩im nec ratio poscebat, eum qui mortuus non fuisset, intrare januas tartari. Nonne si quis vult in terra sua barbaros decipere, immutat se in habitu illorum, ut putetur unus ex his, et sic explorat quomodo illos subvertat? Ita factum est et de diabolo: quoniam malo more hominem subverterat, ut in morte non remaneret, inventum est remedium, quomodo quos male tenebat amitteret, et subintraretur ei: et quem putabat se velut hominem occidisse, reperiret illum apud inferos Deum. Quo facto, reus inventus omnes quos tenebat amisit, et de caetero aperta est ad coelum via. Ecce quantum profuit adventus Salvatoris, ut scientes homines de quo periculo liberati sunt, sine cessatione gratias illi referant. Sed forte e contra dicatur: Si multi ante Legem et post Legem peccatis pressi totos se carni dederunt, et digni fuerunt in tartaro remanere, sine dubio fuerunt qui devotione et Creatoris reverentia vitam suam naturae lege frenarunt: numquid non etiam hi detenti sunt apud inferos, exuti hac vita? Si autem ante venisset post mortem Adae, liberato Adam qui prior peccaverat, caeteris ad coelum aperiret viam, ut qui bene vixerant, agnito Creatore defuncti reciperentur in coelum. Dam⟨n⟩um ergo est, quia non ante venit Christus? Damnum esse manifestum est, sed quaere justum an injustum sit. Solent enim damna justa esse, de quibus queri non liceat. Numquid fur deprehensus et juxta legem in quadruplum condemnatus, ausus est queri? Ac per h⟨o⟩c damnum quod genus hominum passum est, juste factum est, unde et permissum est. Quare et Salvator inter ipsa primordia venire non debuit. Cum enim diabolus superbiret, homo factus a Deo positus est illi inimicus, ut auxilio Dei munitus, quia impar erat, resisteret ei accepto mandato. Diabolus au⟨t⟩em solita subtilitate simulavit se ignorare quid praeceptum esset a Deo, et invenit Evam instabilem: postea autem promittens illi, quod si interdictum contigissent, praestaret illis divinitatem; circumvenit eos. Tunc diabolus superato homi⟨n⟩e triumphavit: hic victus genus suum subjecit peccato. Quamobrem injustum erat victori violenter auferre spolia, quia Deus quod facit juste facit. Praeterea cum acerbe peccaverit homo assentiens ei, contra mandatum Creatoris, fieri se Deum; idololatriam admisit, per quod in Deum peccavit: ideoque non illi statim debuit subveniri; quippe cum nec poenituerit, nec grata ei fuisset misericordia, si non scivis⟨s⟩et quid mereretur. Quanquam enim omnia possit Deus, illnd facit quod convenit rationi, ut irreprehensibilis perseveret.

willed that His divinity be understood and feared. For indeed even by transmission from the first man, and then through Enoch and Noah, knowledge of Him was on earth. But when, through a certain languor of the human race, the knowledge of God among men had begun to grow obsolete, and morals were changing, He deigned to choose Abraham, in whom there might be a pattern of renewed knowledge of God and of morals. And since reverence was still rather sluggish, He afterwards gave the Law in writing through Moses, which would not grow obsolete, and would strike greater fear. For fear is greater where authority is manifest. And because the gentiles spurned the Law they had received, not subjecting themselves to it, and those who had received it did not keep it either, the Lord, moved by mercy, sent His Son, Who, offering Himself for them, destroying death, granting to all remission of sins, would offer them justified to God the Father. For one could not descend to the underworld except through death. For neither order nor reason demanded that one who had not died should enter the gates of Tartarus. Does not a man who wishes to deceive barbarians in their own land change himself into their dress, so that he may be thought one of them, and thus discover how he may overthrow them? So it was done also with regard to the devil: since by an evil device he had overthrown man, so that he might not remain in death, a remedy was found by which he might lose those whom he held wrongfully, and might be come upon by stealth: and the one whom he thought he had killed as a man, he would find in the underworld to be God. When this was done, found guilty, he lost all whom he held, and for the rest the way to heaven was opened. See how much the coming of the Saviour has profited, so that men, knowing from what peril they have been freed, may give thanks to Him without ceasing. But perhaps it may be said to the contrary: If many before the Law and after the Law, weighed down by sins, gave themselves wholly to the flesh and deserved to remain in Tartarus, without doubt there were those who by devotion and reverence for the Creator bridled their life by the law of nature: were not these too detained in the underworld, when stripped of this life? But if He had come earlier, after the death of Adam, then, Adam who had sinned first being freed, He would open the way to heaven for the rest, so that those who had lived well, having acknowledged the Creator, would on their death be received into heaven. Is it then a loss that Christ did not come earlier? That it is a loss is manifest, but ask whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just, about which one may not complain. Does a thief caught and condemned according to the law to fourfold restitution dare to complain? And so this loss which the human race suffered was done justly, whence also it was permitted. Therefore the Saviour ought not to have come in the very beginnings. For when the devil was proud, man, made by God, was set as his enemy, so that, fortified by the help of God, since he was unequal, he might resist him, having received a commandment. But the devil with his accustomed subtlety pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unstable: then, promising her that if they touched what was forbidden he would grant them divinity, he got round them. Then the devil, man being overcome, triumphed: and man, conquered, subjected his race to sin. Therefore it was unjust to take the spoils from the victor by force, because God does justly what He does. Moreover, since man sinned grievously in assenting to him, against the commandment of the Creator, that he should become God, he committed idolatry, by which he sinned against God: and therefore he ought not to have been helped at once; since he had neither repented, nor would mercy have been welcome to him, if he had not known what he deserved. For although God can do all things, He does what accords with reason, so that He may remain irreproachable.

Si ei cui necessitas imminet, ante subveniatur, erit quidem gratus, non valde tamen poterit scire quid sibi praestitum est. Si autem in ipsa neces⟨s⟩itate posito auxilium feras, sciet quale beneficium consecutus est. De tribulatione enim ereptus plus gratias agit; quomodo si esurienti offeras panem: si autem offeras non esurienti, quae erit gratia? Idcirco recte

If one on whom necessity presses is helped beforehand, he will indeed be grateful, yet he will not be well able to know what has been bestowed on him. But if you bring help to one placed in the very necessity, he will know what kind of benefit he has obtained. For one rescued from tribulation gives more thanks; as if you offer bread to one who is hungry: but if you offer it to one not hungry, what gratitude will there be? Therefore rightly

Editors' notes and page, col. 2277

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: exuti› · call in col 2277

Ms. Colbert., expuncti.

The Colbert manuscript has expuncti.

(printed under page 487)

(a) ‹anchor: (a) Si ei cui› · call in col 2277

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quinquagesima octava.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, fifty-eighth among the later-published questions on the New Testament.

(printed under page 487)

Page

running head: 2277 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2278

factum est, ut non ante veniret Dominus. Primum enim dimisit genus humanum uti voluntate sua, non sine testimonio sui: quia ex ipsa fabrica mundi per annua munera, quae elementorum ministerio humanis usibus exhiberi decrevit, cognosci et timeri divinitatem suam voluit. Postea vero cum obsolesceret notitia Dei in terris, et mores immutarentur, dignatus est visitare genus hominum, ut data Lege, vel reformata (erat enim in natura, sed negligi coeperat), et notitiam sui et Legis auctoritatem restauraret; ut recognito Deo, et revocata Lege timere inciperent: certi quia qui Legem dedit, judicaturus esset actus humanos. Et quia accepta Lege a peccatis se cohibere nequiverunt, cum possent, diu etiam per Prophetas admoniti: motus Deus misericordia misit Filium suum, qui se pro illis offerens, et mortem destruens, data illis remissione peccatorum, Deo Patri illos justificatos offerret: ut scientes de quo periculo sunt erepti, sine cessatione Deo gratias agant; ut etiam si usus exegerit sanguinem pro illo fundentes, nec sic se illi vicem reddere profiteantur. Quam gratum ergo et pretiosum beneficium existimant, quod nec morte compensari putant? Sed forte contra dicatur: Si multi ante Legem, et post Legem peccatis pressi totos se carni dederunt; sine dubio fuerunt aliqui, qui creatori Deo devoti a vitiis se infraenarent. Age, numquid hi expuncti a vita non in infernum descenderunt? Si autem ante, post mortem Adae, Christus venisset; liberato Adam, qui peccato proprio tenebatur, a morte, caeteris ad coelum iter fecerit credentibus, ut quia hic bene vixerant, grati Creatori et restauratori defuncti reciperentur in coelum. Damnum ergo est, quia non ante venit Christus. Damnum esse manifestum est. Sed quaere an justum an injustum sit. Solent enim damna justa esse. Numquid fur reprehensus, cum in quadruplum juxta legem damnatur, non damnum patitur? Sed justum est, ac per hoc justum quod hominum genus passum est, juste provenit, ideo et permissum est. Quare et Salvator inter ipsa primordia venire non debuit. Cum enim diabolus superbiret, et homo a Deo factus positus est illi inimicus, ut auxiliis Dei munitus, quia impar erat viribus, resisteret illi accepto mandato unius Dei imaginem in terris ad errorem auferendum, per id quod unus ab uno factus, ex quo caeteri, demonstraret. Diabolus autem solita subtilitate simulavit se ignorare quid praeceptum fuisset a Deo, et invenit Evam instabilem, post autem promittens illis, quod si interdictum degustassent, futuri essent dii; circumvenit eos. Sic diabolus devicto homine triumphavit, hic victus genus suum vendidit peccato. Non ergo justum erat victori statim auferre violenter spolia: quia quod facit Deus, juste facit. Praeterea cum acerbe peccaverit homo; assentiens enim fieri se Deum, idololatriam admisit, hoc est in Deum peccavit: ideoque non illi statim debuit subveniri, qui nec poenituit. Post autem justis multa mala intulit satanas: Job, Joseph, Jeremiae, Isaiae, Zachariae, et caeteris Prophetis, et justis. Idcirco commissus est Christus a Deo Patre suo qui illum vinceret, et se manifestaret, regnum ejus auferens ratione, non potestate; quanquam omnia possit Deus: sed illud facit quod congruit rationi, ut irreprehensibilis perseveret.

it came about that the Lord did not come earlier. For first He left the human race to use its own will, not without witness to Himself: because from the very fabric of the world, through the yearly gifts which He decreed should be furnished for human uses by the service of the elements, He willed His divinity to be known and feared. But afterwards, when the knowledge of God was fading on earth and morals were being changed, He deigned to visit the race of men, so that by the Law being given, or rather reformed (for it existed in nature, but had begun to be neglected), He might restore both the knowledge of Himself and the authority of the Law; so that, God having been recognized again and the Law recalled, they might begin to fear, certain that He who gave the Law would judge human acts. And because, having received the Law, they were unable to restrain themselves from sins, though they could have done so, even when long admonished through the Prophets, God, moved by mercy, sent His Son, Who, offering Himself for them and destroying death, having granted them remission of sins, might present them justified to God the Father: so that, knowing from what peril they have been rescued, they might give thanks to God without ceasing; so that even if need should require them to shed their blood for Him, they would not even so profess that they were making Him a return. How welcome and precious a benefit, then, do they reckon it, which they think cannot be repaid even by death? But perhaps it may be said in objection: If many before the Law and after the Law, weighed down by sins, gave themselves wholly to the flesh, without doubt there were some who, devoted to God the creator, bridled themselves from vices. Come now, did not these, when struck off from life, descend into hell? But if Christ had come earlier, after the death of Adam, then, Adam, who was held by his own sin, having been freed from death, He would have made a way to heaven for the rest who believed, so that, because they had lived well here, they might upon their death be received into heaven, grateful to the Creator and restorer. It is a loss, then, that Christ did not come earlier. That it is a loss is plain. But ask whether it is just or unjust. For losses are often just. Does not a thief who is caught, when he is condemned to pay fourfold according to the law, suffer loss? But it is just, and accordingly what the human race suffered is just; it came about justly, and therefore it was also permitted. Wherefore the Saviour also ought not to have come at the very beginnings. For when the devil was proud, and man, made by God, was set up as his enemy, so that, fortified by the help of God, since he was unequal in strength, he might resist him, having received the command to display on earth the image of the one God, for the removal of error, through the fact that he, one made by One, was the one from whom the rest came. But the devil with his customary subtlety pretended not to know what had been commanded by God, and found Eve unstable, and afterwards, promising them that if they tasted what was forbidden they would be gods, he got round them. Thus the devil triumphed over vanquished man; this man, vanquished, sold his race to sin. It was not just, therefore, to take the spoils from the victor by force at once: because what God does, He does justly. Moreover, since man sinned grievously (for by assenting to being made God he committed idolatry, that is, he sinned against God), therefore he who did not even repent ought not to have been helped at once. Afterwards, moreover, Satan inflicted many evils on the just: on Job, Joseph, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, and the other Prophets and the just. Therefore Christ was commissioned by God His Father to conquer him and to manifest Himself, taking away his kingdom by reason, not by power; although God can do all things: but He does that which accords with reason, so that He may remain irreproachable.

LXXXIV. — Quare lunae cursum in ratione Paschae custodientes, Paganos reprehendimus, quia dies lunares et motum custodiunt?

LXXXIV. — Why, while keeping the course of the moon in the reckoning of Easter, do we reproach the pagans because they keep lunar days and motion?

Absit a Christianis ut Sidera venerari dicantur, quibus indulta est spirituali⟨s⟩ cultura, ut despicientes quae videntur, iis quae invisibilia et super coelestia sunt, copulentur; et haec omnia transcendant futuri cum Angelis Dei. Nam et siderum cultores aut cum ipsis erunt, aut infra ipsa. Quomodo enim fieri potest, ut aliquis super haec sit quae colit? Pagani itaque non computum lunae observant; sed lunam ipsam velut deam venerantur. Et effectus curriculorum ejus apprehendisse se arbitrantes, quid certis diebus agendum, quidve cavendum sit, decernunt, imperio ejus quasi vitam et conversatio⟨n⟩em suam ordine quodam

Far be it from Christians that they should be said to venerate the stars, to whom a spiritual worship has been granted, so that, despising the things that are seen, they may be joined to those which are invisible and above the heavens; and that, being destined to be with the Angels of God, they may transcend all these things. For the worshippers of the stars too will be either with them or beneath them. For how can it be that someone is above these things which he worships? The pagans, then, do not observe the reckoning of the moon; but they venerate the moon itself as a goddess. And, thinking that they have grasped the effects of its courses, they determine what is to be done on certain days, or what is to be avoided, as if subjecting their life and conduct in a certain order to its command

Editors' notes and page, col. 2278

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "Sidera" appears printed with a capital S but the letter is damaged, UNSURE; "spirituali⟨s⟩" final s lost to damaged type; "conversatio⟨n⟩em" n damaged; "Et effectus" first word looks like "Ei" through damaged type, set as Et; left-column text in the images belongs to col. 2277 and is not set; column ends mid-sentence at "quodam"

PL 35:2279

subjicientes : quos, quia extra Dei ordinationem haec ausi sunt usurpare, falli frequenter deprehendimus. Haec enim luminaria in signa temporum Deus constituit. Unde et nos numerum lunae custodimus, non illam ipsam excolimus; ut a quarta decima luna, quae nobis secundum Legem prima est, rationem Paschae observemus. Omnia enim plena Deus instituit : ideoque a quarta decima usque ad vigesimam primam, his septem diebus Pascha nobis celebrare concessum est, ut de his septem aliqui dies a parasceve usque ad resurrectionem Domini concludantur : ut neque tertia decima in passione sit, neque quarta decima in resurrectione, aut quinta decima; ne ante primam secundum nos lunam, passio Christi sit, neque resurrectio ejus non primo die quo coeptus mundus est. Omnia enim mundi tempora unius hebdomadae curriculis numerantur; quia his Deus mundi membra et ornamenta composuit. Sex enim diebus mundum aptavit, et septima cessavit, quam sabbatum appellavit. His enim septem diebus totius mundi ratio et numerus continetur. Semper enim in se redeuntes multiplicant numerum temporum. Post sabbatum enim a primo die repetit semper usque ad diem septimum, id est sabbatum : ut resurrectio Domini primo die inchoati mundi facta discatur; qui dies dominicus dicitur. Ipsum enim fecit Dominus unum cum vespere, et in septenarium numerum evolutus incipit iterum, ut sit post hebdomadam primus. Quod ita decretum ab initio est propter sacramentum incarnationis Domini, et passionis, et resurrectionis. In corpore enim Domini totus prope mundus resurrexit, et instauratus est. Absolutum est, non nos lunam colere; sed numerum, qui per lunae cursum institutus est, custodire. Diabolus autem, qui est satanas, ut fallaciae suae auctoritatem aliquam possit adhibere, et mendacia sua commentitia veritate colorare, primo mense quo sacramenta dominica scit celebranda, quia non mediocris potentiae est, Paganis quae observarent instituit mysteria, ut animas eorum duabus ex causis in errore detineret : ut quia praevenit veritatem fallacia, melius quiddam fallacia videretur, quasi antiquitate praejudicans veritati. Et quia in primo mense, in quo aequinoctium habent Romani, sicut et nos, ea ipsa observatio ab his custoditur; ita ut etiam per sanguinem dicant expiationem fieri, sicut et nos per crucem : hac versutia Paganos detinet in errore, ut putent veritatem nostram imitationem potius videri quam veritatem, quasi per aemulationem superstitione quadam inventam. Nec enim verum potest, inquiunt, aestimari quod postea est inventum. Sed quia apud nos pro certo veritas est, et ab initio haec est, virtutum atque prodigiorum signa perhibent testimonium, ut, teste virtute, diaboli improbitas innotescat. Quoniam enim sola est quae facile suadeat, haec contra versutiam et praeventum diaboli posita est, ut simulationem ejus revelet. Nemo enim etiam inimicorum negare audeat illic esse veritatem, ubi virtus apparet.

and these, because they have dared to usurp these things outside God's ordinance, we find to be frequently deceived. For God established these lights as signs of the seasons. Hence we too keep the number of the moon, but do not worship the moon itself; so that from the fourteenth moon, which according to the Law is the first for us, we may observe the reckoning of Pascha. For God established all things full: and therefore from the fourteenth up to the twenty-first, on these seven days, it has been granted to us to celebrate Pascha, so that out of these seven some days from the Preparation up to the resurrection of the Lord may be enclosed: so that neither the thirteenth may fall on the passion, nor the fourteenth on the resurrection, or the fifteenth; lest the passion of Christ be before the first moon according to our reckoning, or His resurrection not be on the first day on which the world was begun. For all the times of the world are numbered in the cycles of one week; because by these days God composed the members and ornaments of the world. For in six days He fitted out the world, and on the seventh He rested, which He called the sabbath. For in these seven days the reckoning and number of the whole world is contained. For, always returning upon themselves, they multiply the number of the times. For after the sabbath it repeats from the first day always up to the seventh day, that is, the sabbath: so that the resurrection of the Lord may be learned to have taken place on the first day of the world's beginning; which day is called the Lord's day. For the Lord made it one with the evening, and having run through the sevenfold number it begins again, so that it is the first after the week. This was so decreed from the beginning on account of the mystery of the incarnation of the Lord, and of the passion, and of the resurrection. For in the body of the Lord nearly the whole world rose again, and was restored. It is settled that we do not worship the moon, but keep the number which was established through the course of the moon. But the devil, who is Satan, in order that he might bring some authority to his deceit, and colour his fabricated lies with truth, in the first month, in which he knows the Lord's mysteries are to be celebrated, since he is of no mean power, instituted for the pagans mysteries which they were to observe, so as to hold their souls in error for two reasons: that, because the falsehood anticipated the truth, the falsehood might seem something better, as if prejudging the truth by its antiquity. And because in the first month, in which the Romans have the equinox, as we also do, that very observance is kept by them, so that they even say that expiation is made through blood, as we too say through the cross: by this cunning he holds the pagans in error, so that they think our truth seems an imitation rather than the truth, as if invented out of rivalry through some superstition. For what was invented afterwards, they say, cannot be reckoned true. But because with us the truth is certain, and it is from the beginning, signs of mighty works and wonders bear witness, so that, with power as witness, the wickedness of the devil may become known. For since it is power alone that easily persuades, it has been set against the cunning and the anticipation of the devil, to reveal his pretence. For no one, even among enemies, would dare to deny that the truth is there where power appears.

LXXXV. — Quid est ut cum constet a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis decem et septem esse generationes; evangelista quatuordecim dicat (Matth. I, 17), praetermissis Ochozia, qui post Joram est filium Josaphat, et Joas filio Ochoziae, et Amasia filio Joas?

85. What does it mean that, although it is established that from David up to the deportation to Babylon there are seventeen generations, the evangelist says fourteen (Matt. 1:17), passing over Ochozias, who comes after Joram the son of Josaphat, and Joas the son of Ochozias, and Amasias the son of Joas?

Nihil Evangelistam quam sensum Legis secutum credibile videri debet. Ideoque non immerito hi ab Evangelista sublati sunt de numero caeterorum. Sic enim horum continuavit impietas, ut malignum eorum nullum intervallum haberet. A Joram autem coeptum malignum sic perambulavit usque ad Oziam filium Amasiae, ut nullius lateris esset suffragium, quo ex parte merito patris aliquis horum remaneret in numero regum. Nam Joram maligne agens merito Josaphat praemissus in numero est; et Ozias merito

It ought to seem credible that the Evangelist followed nothing other than the sense of the Law. And therefore not undeservedly were these removed by the Evangelist from the number of the rest. For their impiety so continued that their wickedness had no interval. And the wickedness begun from Joram ran its course in such a way up to Ozias the son of Amasias that there was support from no side by which any of these might remain in the number of the kings partly by the merit of a father. For Joram, though acting wickedly, is placed before them in the number by the merit of Josaphat; and Ozias by the merit of

Editors' notes and page, col. 2279

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: sicut et nos› · call in col 2279

Loquitur perinde ac si alibi quam Romae scribat: non ergo idem ipse est auctor quaestionis cxv apud Romam scriptae.

He speaks as though he were writing somewhere other than Rome; so he is not the same author as that of Question 115, which was written at Rome.

(printed under page 488)

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE[...] (cut off at the image's right edge), with column number 2279
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2280

Joathan reservatus in numero est. Illorum autem trium continuata malignitas in Deum est. Salomon quoque merito patris remissus in regno est; et Roboam filius Salomonis maligne agens merito Asa relictus est in numero regum. Illi autem tres in medio malorum conclusi sunt maligne agentes, ideo erasi sunt. Pejus enim a perditione generis exemplum est, quando se jugiter malignitas pandit. Et ut proprie dicam, propterea quod ex traduce eorum non est Joseph, praetermissi sunt. Ab Abraham enim horum generationem secutus est Evangelista, ex quibus originem trahit Joseph, cui desponsata est Maria, quae genuit Christum.

Jotham was kept in the number. But the wickedness of those three against God is continuous. Solomon too was spared in the kingdom by the merit of his father; and Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, though acting wickedly, was left in the number of the kings by the merit of Asa. But those three, shut in among wicked men and themselves acting wickedly, were therefore erased. For it is a worse example, from the ruin of a lineage, when wickedness continually displays itself. And, to speak properly, they were passed over because Joseph is not from their stock. For the Evangelist followed the generation of those from Abraham from whom Joseph draws his origin, to whom Mary was betrothed, who bore Christ.

LXXXVI. — Quid est quod probet Mariam matrem Domini ex tribu et semine esse David?

86. What is there that proves that Mary the mother of the Lord is of the tribe and seed of David?

Idonei testis proferemus sermonem. Dicit enim Angelus ad Mariam inter caetera : Et dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David patris sui, et regnabit in domo Jacob in aeternum, et regni ejus non erit finis (Luc. I, 32, 33). Quomodo diceretur ab idoneo teste pater ejus David, si non esset mater ejus Maria ex semine David?

We shall bring forward the word of a competent witness. For the Angel says to Mary, among other things: And the Lord God will give Him the seat of David His father, and He will reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:32–33). How would David be called His father by a competent witness, if His mother Mary were not of the seed of David?

LXXXVII. — Si unus est Deus, cur in tribus spes salutis est, et non in duobus aut quator, aut certe in ipso uno? et quare non est ab initio Trinitas praedicata?

87. If God is one, why is the hope of salvation in three, and not in two or four, or indeed in the One Himself? And why was the Trinity not preached from the beginning?

Nihil pene novum effectum est : sic enim Trinitas praedicatur, ut unus Deus credatur. Non ergo additum est aliquid, sed sacramentum Dei unius revelatum. Inter ipsa autem primordia manifestari non oportuit; quia prius praedicandum, et postea id quod praedicatum est, revelandum : ut scias Patrem esse, a quo cuncta sunt; Filium vero dici, per quem sunt omnia; Spiritum autem sanctum appellari, per quem omnia, quae a Patre quidem, sed per Filium sunt, regenerantur ad fidem Dei unius. Hi ergo tres sunt quidem, sed una divinitas. Ratio igitur facit ut tres sint, non plures aut infra. Omnis enim numerus usque ad novem pervenit, quia tres dum invicem in se sunt, faciunt numero novem; quia in uno tres sunt, et tres sunt unum. Qui enim videt unum, videt tres, dum nihil differt ⟨a⟩lter ab altero. Tres ergo unum, et ter tres unum. Haec enim in nono numero perfectio est, quantum ad numerum pertinet, quia de uno sunt omnia. Addito enim uno ex quo vel in quo tres qui numerantur novem, fiunt decem vel viginti. Semper tamen usque ad novem venitur, et unus additur, quia novem unum sunt, ut plena perfectio sit unitatis.

Almost nothing new has been brought about: for the Trinity is preached in such a way that one God is believed. So nothing has been added, but the mystery of the one God has been revealed. But in the very first beginnings it was not fitting that it be made manifest; for first it had to be preached, and afterwards what had been preached had to be revealed: so that you may know that the Father is He from Whom all things are; that the Son is called He through Whom all things are; and that the Holy Spirit is named He through Whom all things, which are indeed from the Father but through the Son, are regenerated to the faith of the one God. These, then, are indeed three, but one divinity. Reason therefore brings it about that they are three, not more or fewer. For every number goes up as far as nine, because the three, while they are in one another mutually, make in number nine; because the three are in one, and the three are one. For he who sees one sees three, since the one differs in nothing from the other. Three, then, are one, and three times three are one. For this is the perfection in the number nine, as far as pertains to number, because all things are from one. For when one is added, from which or in which are the three that are counted as nine, they become ten or twenty. Yet one always comes up as far as nine, and one is added, because nine are one, so that there may be the full perfection of unity.

Unus quidem est Deus, sed non singularis est. Habet ex aeternis in mysterio alterum qui sit cum altero. Et quoniam Deus pater in se habet alterum cum altero, sicut dixi, dignum fuit unum prius praedicare, non manifestato mysterio quod erat in ipso : quoniam caput Filii Pater est, et caput Spiritus sancti Filius, quia de ipso accepit : et sicut Pater misit Filium, ita et Filius misit Spiritum sanctum. Postquam autem cognitus est Deus ex quo sunt omnia, tunc scientibus se manifestavit Filium suum, quem ex aeterno habuit apud se. Manifestatus autem Filius ostendit Patrem esse qui prius unus Deus praedicabatur esse. Quo cognito palam fecit esse etiam Spiritum sanctum, qui tertius sit a Patre, secundus autem a Christo secundum numeri ordinationem; juxta substantiam autem non esse et non differre alterum ab altero : et hoc ex aeternis fuisse in mysterio Dei, qui in Trinitate est adorandus. In eodem enim honore vult recipi, quod ex ipso est, in quo recipitur ipse a quo est. Dignum enim est, quia in ipso fuerunt et omnia per Filium facta, et per Spiritum sanctum illuminata, ut in Trinitate salus praedicetur, servato ordine personarum, unius divinitatis indiscreta adoretur potestas. Ut ergo tres sint non

God is indeed one, but He is not solitary. From eternity He has in mystery another who is with the other. And since God the Father has in Himself another with the other, as I have said, it was fitting first to preach one, the mystery which was in Him not being made manifest: since the Father is the head of the Son, and the Son the head of the Holy Spirit, because He received from Him; and just as the Father sent the Son, so also the Son sent the Holy Spirit. But after God, from Whom all things are, had been known, then He manifested to those who knew Him His Son, Whom He had with Him from eternity. And the Son, once manifested, showed that He Who before was preached to be one God is the Father. When this was known, He made it plain that the Holy Spirit also exists, Who is third from the Father but second from Christ according to the ordering of number; but according to substance that the one is not and does not differ from the other: and that this was from eternity in the mystery of God, Who is to be adored in the Trinity. For He wills that what is from Him be received in the same honour in which He Himself, from Whom it is, is received. For it is fitting, since in Him all things both were made through the Son and were enlightened through the Holy Spirit, that salvation be preached in the Trinity, and that, the order of the persons being preserved, the undivided power of the one divinity be adored. So then, that they are three not

Editors' notes and page, col. 2280

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2280

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 488)

(b) ‹anchor: (b) Unus quidem est Deus› · call in col 2280

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Vetere Test. nona.

The same question, from the manuscripts of the second class, ninth among the later-published questions on the Old Testament.

(printed under page 488)

Page

running head: ES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2280 (left edge cut off; presumably QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TESTAMENTO)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2281

plus aut infra, ratio facit: quia omnis numerus usque ad tres pervenit. Tres enim quia invicem in se sunt, undique Trinitas annuntiatur, quia in uno tres sunt, et tres unum sunt. Unum qui videt, videt tres, dum nihil differt alterum ab altero. Tres ergo unum, et unum tres. Haec est Trinitas undique perfecta. Et haec est Trinitatis intelligentia, quae tunc perfecta est, si unum dicantur.

more or below, reason brings about: because every number reaches as far as three. For because the three are mutually in one another, the Trinity is proclaimed on every side, because in one there are three, and the three are one. He who sees one sees three, since the one does not differ at all from the other. Therefore the three are one, and the one three. This is the Trinity perfect on every side. And this is the understanding of the Trinity, which is perfect only then, if they are called one.

LXXXVIII. — Si major gratia, et manifestior intelligentia in Novo est quam in Vetere Testamento; quare Isaias propheta sedentem in throno majestatis vidit Dominum sabaoth, qui est Christus, juxta interpretationem Joannis evangelistae? dixit enim inter caetera, Haec locutus est Isaias, quando vidit majestatem ejus, et locutus est de eo (Isai. VI, 1; Joan. XII, 41). In Novo autem Stephanus primus martyr stantem se vidisse dicit Jesum a dextris Dei (Act. VII, 55). Quid est istud ut hic subjectus videatur post triumphos, et illic quasi Dominus antequam vinceret?

LXXXVIII. — If grace is greater and understanding more manifest in the New Testament than in the Old, why did Isaiah the prophet see the Lord Sabaoth, Who is Christ according to the interpretation of John the evangelist, seated on the throne of majesty? For among other things he said, These things Isaiah said, when he saw His majesty, and he spoke of Him (Isa. 6:1; John 12:41). But in the New, Stephen the first martyr says that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). What is this, that here He appears as one subject after His triumphs, and there as Lord before He had conquered?

Prout causa fecit ita et Dominus se ostendit. Prophetae enim visus est quasi rex corripiens plebem: et hoc se ostendit quod erat, hoc est, sedentem. In pace enim erat causa divinitatis ejus. Stephano autem ut stans appareret, fecit calumnia Judaeorum. In Stephano autem Salvatoris causa vim patiebatur. Ideo sedente judice Deo, stans apparuit, quasi qui causam diceret: et quia bona causa ejus est, ad dexteram judicis erat. Omnis qui causam dicit, stet necesse est.

As the case required, so too the Lord showed Himself. For to the prophet He appeared as a king rebuking the people: and He showed Himself to be what He was, that is, seated. For the cause of His divinity was at peace. But that He should appear to Stephen as standing was brought about by the calumny of the Jews. And in Stephen the Saviour's cause was suffering violence. Therefore, with God sitting as judge, He appeared standing, as one pleading a case: and because His cause is good, He was at the right hand of the judge. Everyone who pleads a case must stand.

LXXXIX. — Salvator inter caetera dicit de Spiritu sancto, quod Veniens, inquit, ille arguet mundum de peccato, et de justitia, et de judicio. De peccato quidem, quia non crediderunt in me; de justitia vero, quia eo ad Patrem, et jam non videbitis me; de judicio autem, quia princeps hujus mundi judicatus est (Joan. XVI, 8). Causam quidem videtur dixisse arguendi mundi, sed indiget explanatione.

LXXXIX. — The Saviour, among other things, says of the Holy Spirit that When He comes, He says, He will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement. Of sin indeed, because they have not believed in Me; of justice, because I go to the Father, and you will no longer see Me; of judgement, because the prince of this world has been judged (John 16:8). He seems indeed to have stated the reason for convicting the world, but it needs explanation.

Cum Salvatori non crederent Judaei, neque mundanae potestates; quia non solum hominibus se manifestari voluit, sed et principibus et potestatibus in coelestibus, sicut docet Apostolus in Epistola ad Ephesios (Ephes. III, 10); post passionem suam vera se locutum Spiritum sanctum probaturum ostendit. Et hoc est arguere mundum, ostendere illi vera esse quae credere noluit. Credere enim noluit a Deo venisse Salvatorem. Salvator autem servata justitia non trepidavit reverti ad eum qui se miserat: et per id quod regressus est, probavit se inde venisse. Quia nemo, inquit, ascendit ad Deum, nisi qui descendit a Deo (Joan. III, 13). Videntes ergo potestates ascendere eum, confusae sunt, videntes verum esse quod velut falsum spreverant. Itaque ista justitia arguit eos, qua justum probatum est, quia regressus est unde venerat. Sic autem arguit eos de peccato, quia non solum credere ei noluerunt, sed et occiderunt eum. De judicio vero sic eos corripuit, dum ostendit principem mundi reum factum et comprehensum ab eo, cujus fidei non communicarunt. Videntes enim animas de inferis ire in coelos, cognoverunt adjudicatum esse principem hujus mundi, ut reus factus in causa Salvatoris, quae tenebat, jure amitteret. Haec quidem ascendente Salvatore visa sunt; sed superveniente in discipulos Spiritu sancto, palam aperteque manifesta sunt. Vera enim correptio tunc fuit, quando post passionem resurrectionemque ad testimonium Salvatoris publice a perfidis videbantur resurgentes mortui, claudi currentes, leprosi mundati, paralytici confirmati, caeci aspicere, surdi audire, muti eloqui, daemoniaci purgari, infirmi recuperata sanitate gratias agere. Hoc modo Spiritus sanctus arguit mundum; quia in nomine Salvatoris, qui reprobatus est a mundo, omnium curationum virtutes operatus est.

Since neither the Jews nor the worldly powers believed the Saviour (for He willed to be made manifest not only to men but also to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, as the Apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:10)), He showed that after His passion the Holy Spirit would prove that He had spoken the truth. And this is to convict the world: to show it that the things it would not believe are true. For it would not believe that the Saviour had come from God. But the Saviour, with justice preserved, did not fear to return to Him Who had sent Him: and by the fact that He went back, He proved that He had come from there. For no one, He says, ascends to God, except him who descended from God (John 3:13). So the powers, seeing Him ascend, were confounded, seeing that what they had spurned as false was true. And so this justice convicts them, by which it was proved just, because He returned whence He had come. And He convicts them of sin in this way, because not only did they refuse to believe Him, but they also killed Him. Of judgement, moreover, He rebuked them thus, when He showed the prince of the world made guilty and seized by Him in Whose faith they had not shared. For seeing souls go from the underworld into the heavens, they recognized that the prince of this world had been condemned, so that, having been made guilty in the Saviour's case, he should rightly lose what he was holding. These things indeed were seen when the Saviour ascended; but when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were made openly and plainly manifest. For the true rebuke came then, when after the passion and resurrection, as testimony to the Saviour, the faithless publicly saw the dead rising, the lame running, lepers cleansed, paralytics made strong, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the mute speaking, demoniacs cleansed, the sick giving thanks with their health recovered. In this way the Holy Spirit convicted the world; because in the name of the Saviour, Who was rejected by the world, He worked the powers of all cures.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2281

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2281

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 489)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2282

XC. — Si diabolus ipse est satanas, quid est ut inter caetera dicat ad Judaeos Salvator, Vos de patre diabolo estis, et concupiscentias patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida fuit ab initio, et in veritate non stetit; quia veritas non est in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex suis propriis loquitur; quia mendax est sicut et pater ejus (Joan. VIII, 44)?

XC. If the devil himself is Satan, what does it mean that among other things the Saviour says to the Jews: You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him: when he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own things; because he is a liar, just as his father also is (John 8:44)?

Diabolus non speciale nomen est, sed commune cum caeteris. In quocumque enim opera diaboli fuerint inventa, sine dubio diabolus appellandus est. Operis enim nomen est, non naturae. Itaque hoc in loco patrem Judaeorum Cain significat, cujus imitatores volentes esse Judaei, Salvatorem peremerunt. Hinc dicit eum, quia se parricidio maculavit, et reum fecit mortis, in veritate non stetisse. Ab ipso enim forma data est fratricidii. Istum ipsum dicit, cum loquitur mendacium, de suis propriis loqui, ut ostenderet unumquemque nonnisi propria voluntate peccare. Sed quia imitator diaboli est, adjecit, Quia mendax est, sicut et pater ejus. Hic enim ut primum hominem morte condemnaret, simulavit se nescisse quid praeceptum fuisset ei a Deo. Sic et Cain interrogatus finxit se nescire, ubi esset frater suus Abel, quem occiderat (Gen. IV, 9). Hoc ergo in loco diabolum Cain esse dixit; patrem autem ejus diabolum, cujus opera secutus est. Diaboli enim filius, diabolus est. Sed diabolus ille qui est satanas, patrem in malitia sua nullum habet. Ipse enim sibi in malo auctor est. Prior enim ipse peccavit, ac per hoc quicumque imitati illum fuerint, filii ejus dicentur, et ille pater eorum. Etenim nos in fide patrem Abraham habemus, quia prior ipse credidit Deo: ac per hoc nomine ejus censemur. Fideles enim dicimur sicut et ille.

"Devil" is not a special name, but one held in common with others. For in whomever the works of the devil have been found, he is without doubt to be called a devil. For it is the name of a work, not of a nature. Therefore in this place He signifies Cain as the father of the Jews, whose imitators the Jews, wishing to be such, killed the Saviour. Hence He says that he did not stand in the truth, because he stained himself with parricide and made himself guilty of death. For by him the pattern of fratricide was given. It is this very one whom He says speaks from his own things when he speaks a lie, in order to show that each one sins only by his own will. But because he is an imitator of the devil, He added: Because he is a liar, just as his father also is. For he [the devil], in order to condemn the first man to death, pretended not to know what had been commanded him by God. So also Cain, when questioned, feigned not to know where his brother Abel was, whom he had killed (Gen. 4:9). In this place, therefore, He said that Cain is a devil, but that his father is the devil, whose works he followed. For the son of the devil is a devil. But that devil who is Satan has no father in his malice. For he is the author of himself in evil. For he sinned first, and for this reason whoever have imitated him will be called his sons, and he their father. For indeed we have Abraham as father in faith, because he first believed God: and for this reason we are reckoned by his name. For we are called faithful, as he also was.

XCI. — Quaerendum quomodo contradicendum sit argumentis Photini dicentis, Christum ante Mariam non esse.

XCI. It is to be asked how one should contradict the arguments of Photinus, who says that Christ did not exist before Mary.

A Joanne prius quaeramus Baptista, quem ipse Salvator testem suum esse professus est. Ait enim inter caetera de Domino, Qui de sursum venit, super omnes est: qui autem de terra est, de terra loquitur. Qui vero de coelo venit, quod vidit et audivit, testificatur: et testimonium ejus nemo accipit (Joan. III, 31, 32). Ecce Joannes omnes secum pariter ad comparationem Domini terrestres appellat: quia illum de coelis testatur venisse, caeteros vero omnes de terra esse, hoc est, de inferioribus. Et ipse Dominus inter caetera eadem loquitur, dicens: Non enim descendi de coelo ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus, qui misit me, Patris (Id. VI, 38). Et iterum Dominus inter alia hoc sensu loquitur dicens: Et non dico vobis, quia ego rogabo Patrem. Ipse enim Pater diligit vos, quia vos me diligitis et creditis quia a Deo exivi. Exivi enim a Patre, et veni in hunc mundum: iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad Patrem. Tunc videntes discipuli manifeste illum esse locutum, dicunt ei: Ecce nunc palam loqueris, et proverbium nullum dicis. Nunc scimus quoniam scis omnia, et non opus tibi est ut quis te interroget: in hoc credimus, quoniam a Deo existi (Id. XVI, 26-30). Haec interpretatione non indigent. Quippe cum ista summa sit religionis nostrae, ut Christum ante carnem in coelis cum Deo fuisse credamus, ut Filium apud Patrem. Nam si propter justam conversationem et coelestem doctrinam de coelo et a Deo se dixit exiisse, et venisse in mundum, eadem debuerant dicere de se omnes Prophetae et Apostoli. Et quia dixit, Iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad Patrem; hoc forte dicatur significasse, quia doctrina quae venerat a Deo, relicto mundo ad Deum est regressa? Aliud enim quod dicant non habent. Si enim de coelo venisse, et a Deo exiisse, et venisse in hunc mundum, ad virtutis et doctrinae pertinet causam, non ad Salvatoris personam, cum dicit, Iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad Patrem; illo utique redit unde venerat: sed videmus post abscessum Domini, et virtutem fuisse in mundo et doctrinam. Vides ergo non de virtute dictu⟨m⟩ esse

Let us first ask John the Baptist, whom the Saviour Himself declared to be His witness. For he says, among other things, concerning the Lord: He Who comes from above is above all: but he who is from the earth speaks from the earth. But He Who comes from heaven testifies to what He has seen and heard: and no one receives His testimony (John 3:31–32). See, John calls all, himself together with them, earthly in comparison with the Lord: because he testifies that He came from the heavens, but that all the others are from the earth, that is, from the lower things. And the Lord Himself, among other things, says the same, saying: For I did not come down from heaven to do My own will, but the will of Him Who sent Me, the Father (John 6:38). And again the Lord, among other things, speaks in this sense, saying: And I do not say to you that I will ask the Father. For the Father Himself loves you, because you love Me and believe that I came forth from God. For I came forth from the Father and came into this world: again I leave the world and go to the Father. Then the disciples, seeing that He had spoken plainly, say to Him: See, now Thou speakest openly, and speakest no proverb. Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and Thou hast no need that anyone should question Thee: by this we believe that Thou camest forth from God (John 16:26–30). These words need no interpretation. Since indeed this is the sum of our religion, that we believe that Christ was in the heavens with God before the flesh, as the Son with the Father. For if it was on account of His just manner of life and heavenly doctrine that He said He had come forth from heaven and from God and had come into the world, all the Prophets and Apostles ought to have said the same things of themselves. And because He said, Again I leave the world and go to the Father, shall it perhaps be said to have signified that the doctrine which had come from God, having left the world, returned to God? For they have nothing else to say. For if having come from heaven, and having come forth from God, and having come into this world pertains to the cause of power and doctrine, not to the person of the Saviour, then when He says, Again I leave the world and go to the Father, it surely returns to the place from which it had come: but we see that after the departure of the Lord both power and doctrine were in the world. You see, therefore, that it was not said by the Lord of power

Editors' notes and page, col. 2282

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2282 (column number blurred in the scan)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "commune" (para 2) blurred, could read "communo"; ink blot over "est" after "appellandus", legible; final "dictu⟨m⟩" damaged type; printer's signature "(Soixante-douze.)" at page foot not set; column ends mid-sentence

PL 35:2283

a Domino et doctrina, sed specialiter de se Dominum locutum. Quod si virtutis quae in Christo operata est, dicis esse verba; haec ipsa virtus Deum Patrem suum appellat. Ecce incurris quod times: quia si virtus Dei Filius Dei est, ipsa utique virtus Dei est, de qua dicit Apostolus, Christum Dei Virtutem et Dei sapientiam (I Cor. I, 24): haec exivit a Deo, et iterum ad eum regressa est. Itaque haec ipsa Virtus quae Christus est, in Spiritu Dei daemonia se testatur ejicere (Matth. XII, 28); qui Spiritus per Apostolos opera⟨tu⟩s est, ut scias Spiritum sanctum per quem Dominus operatus est, post abscessum Domini hic in mundo per Apostolos operatum: ut plenius appareat Dominum de sua persona locutum, quia relicto mundo regressus est ad Deum. Aut si putas virtutem hanc non esse Christum, duae erunt virtutes et duo filii Dei: et ubi est illud quod legitur, Unigenitus Filius Dei, qui est in sinu Patris (Joan. I, 18)? et iterum, Sic enim, inquit, dilexit Deus mundum hunc, ut Filium suum unicum daret pro eo (Id. III, 16)? Animadvertis jam virtutem Dei, quae corporaliter operata est in mundo, ipsam unam esse quae et Dei Virtus dicatur et Filius. Et videamus quid crediderint, aut cui, Apostoli audientes a Domino, Ecce iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad Patrem: responderunt enim, Ecce nunc palam loqueris, et proverbium nullum dicis. Nunc scimus quia nosti omnia, et non opus est tibi ut quis te interroget: in hoc credimus, quoniam a Deo existi. Nunc videamus si de virtutibus ambigerent discipuli, utrum a Deo exissent, cum vidissent Lazarum jam fetidum quarta die resuscitatum (Id. XI, 44), caeco a nativitate oculos reformatos (Id. IX, 7), tactu fimbriae mulierem a profluvio liberatam (Matth. IX, 20-22), aquae naturam mutatam in vinum (Joan. II, 9). At de persona Domini nemo plane dubitavit, vel de virtutibus: quippe cum dicerent illum alii esse Eliam, alii Jeremiam, aut unum ex Prophetis (Matth. XVI, 14). Nam cum lapidare vellent illum Judaei, respondit eis Jesus: Multa opera bona ostendi vobis a Patre meo; propter quod eorum opus lapidatis me? Dixerunt ei Judaei: Nos de bono opere non te lapidamus, sed propter blasphemiam; et quia cum sis homo, facis te Deum (Joan. X, 31-33). Si ergo Judaei quod Dei opera essent non ambigebant, Apostoli ambigebant? Quoniam ergo omnis dubitatio de Salvatoris persona erat (res enim inaudita, et quae in sensum humanum non rueret, stuporem hominibus faciebat, cum audiebant dicentem illum se a Deo exiisse, et proprium sibi patrem esse Deum); idcirco discipuli satis sibi esse factum confitentes manifestatione verborum Domini, dixerunt ad eum: Nunc scimus quoniam nosti omnia, et non est opus ut quis te interroget: in hoc credimus, quoniam a Deo existi. Si enim non vere a Deo exivit, fides Apostolorum exinanitur: sed non potest, quia a Salvatore probata est. Respondit enim eis, Modo creditis; id est, tanta signa videntes non credebatis. Itaque probatum est Apostolis Christum a Deo exiisse et venisse, ut per hanc exitionem Filium istum Dei credere non esset ambiguum. Si enim nemo vidit Deum nisi qui est a Deo hic vidit Deum (Id. VI, 46), et si nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius (Matth. XI, 27); hoc est vere apud Deum Patrem fuisse, et ab eo exisse, et venisse. Nemo enim alius poterat a Deo exire, nisi hic qui in principio erat apud Deum (Joan. I, 1); quia et nec quisquam alius sciebat, aut viderat Deum. Ideo non incredibile nobis est, verum Filium hunc Dei credere. Sicut dicit Joannes in Epistola prima, Et simus, inquit, in vero Filio ejus Jesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna (I Joan. V, 20): et Apostolus, Qui proprio, inquit, Filio non pepercit (Rom. VIII, 32): et Evangelista, Quia proprium, ait, sibi patrem dicebat Deum (Joan. V, 18). Si verus ergo Filius Dei est Christus, quomodo homo tantum est? verus enim Filius non diceretur, nisi proprie ab eo esset genitus. Aut dicat Photinus, quare verus Filius Dei creditur, si non est verus? Aut quid opus erat hunc credere Filium Dei, si unus esset de caeteris

and teaching, but that the Lord spoke specifically about Himself. But if you say that they are the words of the power which worked in Christ, this very power calls God its Father. See, you run into what you fear: for if the power of God is the Son of God, it is surely the very power of God of which the Apostle speaks, Christ the Power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24): this came forth from God, and returned to Him again. And so this very Power which is Christ testifies that it casts out demons in the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28); which Spirit worked through the Apostles, so that you may know that the Holy Spirit, through Whom the Lord worked, worked here in the world through the Apostles after the Lord's departure: so that it may appear more fully that the Lord spoke of His own person, since, having left the world, He returned to God. Or if you think that this power is not Christ, there will be two powers and two sons of God: and where is that which is read, The only-begotten Son of God, Who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18)? and again, For God, He says, so loved this world that He gave His only Son for it (John 3:16)? You now observe that the power of God, which worked bodily in the world, is itself the one which is called both the Power of God and the Son. And let us see what the Apostles believed, or whom they believed, when they heard from the Lord, Behold, again I leave the world and go to the Father: for they answered, Behold, now Thou speakest openly, and Thou speakest no proverb. Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and there is no need for Thee that anyone should question Thee: by this we believe that Thou camest forth from God. Let us now see whether the disciples were in doubt about the mighty works, whether they had come from God, when they had seen Lazarus, already stinking, raised on the fourth day (John 11:44), the eyes of a man blind from birth restored (John 9:7), a woman freed from a flow of blood by the touch of the fringe (Matt. 9:20–22), the nature of water changed into wine (John 2:9). But no one at all doubted about the person of the Lord, or about the mighty works: since some said that He was Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets (Matt. 16:14). For when the Jews wished to stone Him, Jesus answered them: Many good works have I shown you from My Father; for which of these works do you stone Me? The Jews said to Him: We do not stone Thee for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because, though Thou art a man, Thou makest Thyself God (John 10:31–33). If then the Jews did not doubt that they were works of God, did the Apostles doubt it? Since, then, all the doubt concerned the person of the Saviour (for it was a thing unheard of, and one which did not fall within human understanding, and it caused men astonishment when they heard Him saying that He had come forth from God, and that God was His own Father); therefore the disciples, confessing that they had been satisfied by the plainness of the Lord's words, said to Him: Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and there is no need that anyone should question Thee: by this we believe that Thou camest forth from God. For if He did not truly come forth from God, the faith of the Apostles is made void: but it cannot be, since it was approved by the Saviour. For He answered them, Now you believe; that is, seeing such great signs you did not believe. And so it was proved to the Apostles that Christ came forth from God and came, so that through this coming forth it should not be doubtful to believe that this one is the Son of God. For if no one has seen God except He Who is from God, this One has seen God (John 6:46), and if no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt. 11:27); this is truly to have been with God the Father, and to have come forth from Him, and to have come. For no other could come forth from God except this One Who in the beginning was with God (John 1:1); since also no one else knew or had seen God. Therefore it is not incredible to us to believe that this is the true Son of God. As John says in his first Epistle, And let us be, he says, in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20): and the Apostle, Who did not spare His own Son, he says (Rom. 8:32): and the Evangelist, Because He said, he says, that God was His own Father (John 5:18). If then Christ is the true Son of God, how is He only a man? for He would not be called the true Son unless He had been begotten properly from Him. Or let Photinus say why He is believed to be the true Son of God, if He is not true? Or what need was there to believe this One to be the Son of God, if He were one of the rest

Editors' notes and page, col. 2283

Page

running head: 2283 QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TE[STAMENTO] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2284

sanctis, qui filii Dei digni sunt appellari? Aut numquid aliqua indignitas in hoc est, per quam Filius Dei sicut caeteri sunt, credi non posset: et idcirco dicitur, ut hic de quo incredulum videtur, credatur Filius esse Dei? Si enim potior caeteris est, quid opus est ut dicatur, Crede Christum Filium Dei esse, si unus esset de caeteris; nisi quia, ut aliter de hoc credatur, praecipitur, quam de caeteris? Ut quia multi sunt qui filii Dei sanctitatis causa appellantur, hic solus verus Filius Dei credatur, unde et unicus dicitur. Nam quis sanctorum ausus fuerit Filium Dei se dicere, non dicam et unicum, nisi Salvator conscius nativitatis suae a Deo profectae? Quomodo autem pateretur se adorari, si nesciret se de Deo, cum scriptum sit, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies (Deut. VI, 13)? Quippe cum Joannem angelus corripuerit, eo quod adorare se vellet, dicens ei, Ne feceris, quia conservus tuus sum: Deum adora (Apoc. XIX, 10, et XXII, 9). Et cum soli Deo serviendum Scriptura testetur; Apostolus tamen, Qui servit, inquit, Christo, placet Deo (Rom. XIV, 18). Quare? Quia unum sunt Deus et Christus, Pater et Filius. Apostolus se Christi servum fatetur, et dicit Corinthiis, Nolite fieri servi hominum (I Cor. VII, 23). Et ad Galatas, Paulus apostolus, non ab hominibus, neque per hominem; sed per Jesum Christum, et Deum Patrem, qui suscitavit eum a mortuis (Galat. I, 1): ostendit aperte Christum Deum esse et hominem, ut apostolatum suum non ab homine esse, sed a Christo, juxta quod Deus est, et a Patre Deo esse demonstraret. Denique in subjectis ait: Neque enim ego ab homine accepi illud, neque didici; sed per revelationem Jesu Christi (Ibid., I, 12). Quid tam apertum? Dei enim doctrinam non per hominem dicit se esse assecutum, sed ab ipso Deo edoctum. Nam nos Dei doctrinam per homines accipimus: Vas autem electionis nihil se probat ab Apostolis assecutum, hoc est, ab hominibus. Nam si, quia Dei doctrina est, ideo non per hominem discitur, quam laudem suam testatur Apostolus, si sic didicit sicut caeteri Apostoli? Utquid dicit, Neque ego ab homine accepi illud, neque edoctus sum; sed per revelationem Jesu Christi? Quis ambigat hoc loco Christum Deum significatum? Sed quid mirum, cum inter caetera dicat ad Romanos, Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus, benedictus in saecula (Rom. IX, 5)? Quid est, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem? Non enim hoc diceret, nisi esset et secundum Deum; ut secundum carnem ex patribus, secundum divinitatem vero ex Deo Christus sit super omnia Deus. Sed forte ad Patris personam pertinere dicatur? Sed hoc loco nulla est paterni nominis mentio. Ideoque si de Christo dictum negatur, persona cui competat detur. Quare autem Christo non competat, cujus nomini coelestia, terrestria et inferna genu flectunt (Philipp. II, 10)? hoc est, super omnia esse Deum. Praeter haec enim alia nulla sunt. Dicat nunc Photinus, si haec homini genu flectunt: aut si Deus potentias illas coelestes et sanctos Angelos ut hominem adorent, decrevit. Sed absit, quia Deus nihil stultum decrevit; maxime cum non liceat, nisi Deum adorari; quanto magis in coelis? Rex enim adoratur in terris quasi vicarius Dei. Christus autem post vicariam impletam dispensationem adoratur in coelis et in terra. Legimus namque, quia Verbum caro factum est (Joan. I, 14): hoc est, ministro Spiritu sancto incarnatum esse ex Maria hoc Verbum, in principio apud Deum fuisse, et Deum esse, hoc quoque Filium Dei appellari. Quomodo ergo non ante Mariam est quod in principio erat, et Deus erat? Etiamsi obcaecatus Deum hoc esse negas, Verbum tamen non negas: neque ignoras hoc Verbum Filium Dei appellari, et hoc apud Deum fuisse in principio. Qua ergo ratione post Mariam dicis esse, quod in principio legis fuisse? In Apocalypsi enim legimus de Christo, Et nomen ejus est, Verbum Dei (Apoc. XIX, 13). Quod verbum multas habet interpretationes.

saints, who are worthy to be called sons of God? Or is there some unworthiness in this, on account of which it could not be believed that He is Son of God as the others are; and is it for that reason said, so that this one, concerning whom it seems incredible, may be believed to be the Son of God? For if He is superior to the others, what need is there for it to be said, Believe that Christ is the Son of God, if He were one of the others; unless because it is commanded that something different be believed of Him than of the others? So that, since there are many who are called sons of God by reason of holiness, He alone may be believed to be the true Son of God, whence He is also called only-begotten. For which of the saints would have dared to call himself Son of God, not to say also only-begotten, except the Saviour, conscious of His birth proceeding from God? And how would He allow Himself to be worshipped, if He did not know Himself to be from God, since it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone you shall serve (Deut. 6:13)? For the angel rebuked John because he wished to worship him, saying to him, Do not do it, for I am your fellow servant: worship God (Rev. 19:10, and 22:9). And though Scripture testifies that God alone is to be served, yet the Apostle says, He who serves Christ pleases God (Rom. 14:18). Why? Because God and Christ, Father and Son, are one. The Apostle confesses himself the servant of Christ, and says to the Corinthians, Do not become servants of men (1 Cor. 7:23). And to the Galatians, Paul an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead (Gal. 1:1): he shows openly that Christ is God and man, so as to demonstrate that his apostleship is not from man, but from Christ, according as He is God, and from God the Father. Then in what follows he says: For neither did I receive it from man, nor did I learn it; but through the revelation of Jesus Christ (ibid. 1:12). What could be so plain? For he says that he obtained the teaching of God not through man, but was taught by God Himself. For we receive the teaching of God through men; but the Vessel of election shows that he obtained nothing from the Apostles, that is, from men. For if, because it is God's teaching, it is therefore not learned through man, what praise of his own does the Apostle attest, if he learned in the same way as the other Apostles? Why does he say, Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but through the revelation of Jesus Christ? Who would doubt that in this place Christ is signified as God? But what wonder, since among other things he says to the Romans, Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all, blessed for ever (Rom. 9:5)? What does and from whom is Christ according to the flesh mean? For he would not say this unless He were also according to God; so that according to the flesh [He is] from the fathers, but according to the divinity Christ, being from God, is God over all. But perhaps it may be said to pertain to the person of the Father? But in this place there is no mention of the Father's name. And therefore if it is denied that it is said of Christ, let a person be produced to whom it would apply. But why would it not apply to Christ, at Whose name things heavenly, earthly and infernal bend the knee (Phil. 2:10)? that is, that He is God over all. For besides these there are no others. Let Photinus say now whether these bend the knee to a man: or whether God decreed that those heavenly powers and holy Angels should worship Him as a man. But far be it, for God decreed nothing foolish; especially since it is not lawful for any but God to be worshipped; how much more in the heavens? For a king is worshipped on earth as the vicar of God. But Christ, after the vicarious dispensation was fulfilled, is worshipped in heaven and on earth. For we read that The Word was made flesh (John 1:14): that is, that this Word was made incarnate of Mary through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, was in the beginning with God, and was God, and that this same is called the Son of God. How then is that not before Mary which was in the beginning, and was God? Even if, blinded, you deny that this is God, yet you do not deny that it is the Word: nor are you unaware that this Word is called the Son of God, and that it was with God in the beginning. By what reasoning, then, do you say that that exists after Mary which you read was in the beginning? For in the Apocalypse we read of Christ, And His name is, the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). Which word has many interpretations.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2284

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2284

Ms. Colbert., verum.

The Colbert manuscript has verum.

(printed under page 490)

Page

running head: S EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2284 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word interpretationes. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2285

PL 35:2285

Nam nihil de Deo est quod non Deus dicatur; sed propter auctoritatem unius Dei, quod de ipso natum est, Verbum appellavit: ut hac ratione ducti, qua scimus verba nostra nonnisi ex nobis esse, Christum de Deo esse crederemus. Nec aliter quidem oportuit dici ut de ipso, et non extra eum crederetur. Nam simili modo et Virtus et Sapientia Dei vocatur, ut eadem ratione de ipso intelligatur. Si enim dixisset Deus et Deus; non illum de se esse significaverat, sed duos fecerat deos, quod unitati adversum est. Haec ratio in divinis Libris est, ut significatus Deus Christus, modum non excedat Dei unius. Quam autem illud tuum stultum est, Photine, quo sic distinguis in capite Evangelii Joannis, ne Verbum Deus dicatur? Sic enim legis: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc in principio erat apud Deum. Quid sibi vult haec distinctio? quem indicat sensum? quam significat pietatis rationem, nisi solam adversus Dei Filium inimicitiam? Quae enim significatio est pronuntiantis, Et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat? Haec ergo legis nostrae sapientia est, ut doceat quia est Deus? Quae lingua est, quae gens, quae terra, quae secta, quae neget Deum esse? Et ut quid insinuet dicit, Et Verbum erat apud Deum: aut verbum hoc quid vult intelligi, nisi rationem ejus ostendat? Non enim propter Deum Evangelium scribitur, de quo nemo dubitat, sed propter Verbum de quo quaestiones fiunt. Mysterium enim Dei est, quod ideo creditur, quia non est omnibus manifestum. Ideoque Scriptura contendit docere quid sit Verbum, dicens: Et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Istud et rationi convenit, et pronuntiatio integra est. Ostendit enim quia Verbum hoc, quod in principio apud Deum erat, et Deus erat, in sacramento mysterii aeterni Dei quod ignotum erat a saeculis et generationibus, Deus Verbum apud Deum Patrem fuisse credatur. Et quia carnalibus in dubium venit, qui volunt Scripturam pro sensus sui loqui capacitate, fides posita est, quae sensum Scripturae secuta praemium mereatur. Salomoni cum sapientiam a Deo postulasset, responsum a Domino est: Ecce dedi tibi, inquit, cor sapiens et prudens, quale non fuit ante te, et post te non exsurget vir similis tibi (III Reg. III, 12). Quid dicemus? Verum est quod promisit Deus? Imo verum est. Nemo ergo hominum similis erit Salomoni. Et quid videbitur de Christo, qui inter caetera, Regina, inquit, Austri, venit ab ultimis terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis: et ecce plus Salomone hic (Matth. XII, 42)? Nunc elige qui credas, Photine, Deo an Christo, Patri an Filio? Si Patri credis, arguis Filium; si Filio credis, accusas Patrem. Si enim homo tantum est Christus, frustra se praeposuit Salomoni contra promissum Dei; si autem intelligitur esse et Deus, digne se anteposuit Salomoni, et promissum incontaminatum est Dei, quia non exsurrexit homo similis Salomoni. Christus enim idcirco se potiorem ostendit, quia Deus est. O dementiam Photini, qui Christum ante Mariam fateri non vult, quem voce sua audit testantem quod ante Abraham sit! Cum enim de tempore agerent cum eo Judaei dicentes, Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti? respondit eis, Amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret ego sum (Joan. VIII, 57, 58). Non dixit, melior sum: sed ad interrogata respondit, quia ante erat quam putabant Judaei. Maledictum plane Legis Photinus evadere non potest, quia spem suam habet in Christo, quem tantum hominem dicit, cum legat, Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine (Jerem. XVII, 5). Apostolus autem sciens Christum Deum, ideo et in p⟨r⟩aesenti et in futuro spem esse in eo ait, Si in hac tantum vita, inquit, sperantes sumus in Christo, miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus (I Cor. XV, 19). Non ergo homo tantum est, in quo spem habere docemur; quia vana spes in homine est. Haec diximus pauca de multis: sufficeret enim, si bonae mentis esset. Photino hoc solum quod postremum posuimus.

For there is nothing from God that is not called God; but on account of the authority of the one God, that which was born of Him He called the Word: so that, led by this reasoning, by which we know that our words are only from ourselves, we should believe that Christ is from God. Nor indeed was it fitting that He be spoken of otherwise, so that He might be believed to be from Him and not outside Him. For in like manner He is also called the Power and the Wisdom of God, so that by the same reasoning He may be understood to be from Him. For if He had said God and God, He would not have signified that He was from Himself, but would have made two gods, which is contrary to unity. This is the reasoning in the divine Books, that Christ, signified as God, does not exceed the measure of the one God. But how foolish is that [reading] of yours, Photinus, by which you so divide [the text] at the head of the Gospel of John, that the Word may not be called God? For thus you read: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God. What does this division mean? What sense does it indicate? What principle of piety does it signify, except only enmity against the Son of God? For what meaning is there in one pronouncing, And the Word was with God, and God was? Is this then the wisdom of our Law, that it should teach that God is? What tongue is there, what nation, what land, what sect, that would deny that God exists? And what does it say in order to suggest, And the Word was with God: or what does this word wish to be understood, unless it shows its rationale? For the Gospel is not written on account of God, about Whom no one doubts, but on account of the Word, about Whom questions arise. For it is the mystery of God, which is believed for this reason, that it is not manifest to all. And therefore Scripture strives to teach what the Word is, saying: And the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God. This both agrees with reason, and the pronouncement is complete. For it shows that this Word, which in the beginning was with God, and was God, in the sacrament of the mystery of the eternal God which was unknown from ages and generations, is to be believed to have been God the Word with God the Father. And because it came into doubt for the carnal, who want Scripture to speak according to the capacity of their own understanding, faith has been set forth, which, having followed the sense of Scripture, may merit a reward. When Solomon had asked wisdom of God, the answer from the Lord was: Behold, He says, I have given you a wise and prudent heart, such as there has not been before you, and after you there shall not arise a man like you (1 Kgs. 3:12). What shall we say? Is what God promised true? Indeed it is true. Therefore no one among men will be like Solomon. And what will be thought of Christ, Who among other things says, The queen of the south came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and behold, more than Solomon is here (Matt. 12:42)? Now choose whom you believe, Photinus, God or Christ, the Father or the Son? If you believe the Father, you convict the Son; if you believe the Son, you accuse the Father. For if Christ is only a man, in vain did He set Himself before Solomon against the promise of God; but if He is understood to be God as well, He rightly placed Himself before Solomon, and the promise of God is undefiled, since no man arose like Solomon. For Christ showed Himself the greater for this reason, that He is God. O the madness of Photinus, who will not confess Christ before Mary, Whom he hears testifying with His own voice that He is before Abraham! For when the Jews were disputing with Him about time, saying, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? He answered them, Amen I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am (John 8:57–58). He did not say, I am better: but He answered what was asked, that He existed earlier than the Jews supposed. Photinus plainly cannot escape the curse of the Law, since he has his hope in Christ, Whom he calls only a man, while he reads, Cursed is the man who has hope in man (Jer. 17:5). But the Apostle, knowing Christ to be God, therefore says that there is hope in Him both in the present and in the future: If in this life only, he says, we are hoping in Christ, we are more miserable than all men (1 Cor. 15:19). He in Whom we are taught to have hope is therefore not only a man; for vain is hope in man. These few things out of many we have said: for this alone which we have placed last would suffice for Photinus, if he were of sound mind.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2285

Page

running head: 2285 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "pretationes", the tail of "inter-pretationes" broken from the foot of col 2284; the word stands whole at the end of col 2284 and the tail is not repeated here; "p⟨r⟩aesenti" has damaged type at the r; the adjacent right-hand column (XCII. ..., 2286) is cut off in the images and not set; no editors' matter in this column.

PL 35:2286

XCII. — Quomodo intelligitur quod dicit Salvator, Pacem meam do vobis; pacem meam relinquo vobis: non sicut hic mundus dat, ego do vobis (Joan. XIV, 27).?

XCII. — How is what the Saviour says to be understood: My peace I give to you; My peace I leave to you: not as this world gives do I give to you (John 14:27)?

Qui pacem suscipit Salvatoris, inimicitiam contrahet mundi. Nisi enim discordaverit a diabolo, pacem non habebit cum Christo. Nemo enim potest duobus dominis servire (Matth. VI, 24). Hic ergo a mundo discordat, qui legem Dei fideliter servat. Christi pace munitus, omnium adversariorum comprimit tela. Quis enim audeat adversus eum quem scit regis amicum? Aliter tamen mundus pacem dat, quam se Salvator dare promisit. Mundus enim aut metu dat pacem, aut prece. Salvator vero cum sit fortissimus omnium, nullum utique metuens, non rogatus dat pacem. Salvatoris ergo haec pax est, quae idcirco datur, ut munimentum sit contra hostes. Pax quidem uno nomine appellatur, sed longo intervallo discernitur, Dei et mundi. Haec enim fragilis est, illa fortis; haec carnea, illa spiritualis; haec terrena, illa coelestis; haec de necessitate est, illa de voluntate. Christus enim nullius egens pacem offert invalidis et inermibus, Dominus servis, bonus malis, Deus hominibus. Recte ergo ait, Non sicut hic mundus dat, ego do vobis: hoc enim dicens, intelligi voluit clementiam bonae voluntatis suae. Cum enim omnis idcirco det pacem ut proficiat sibi; hic, id est Salvator, ad hoc dat, ut prosit non sibi, sed eis quibus dat. Aliter ergo mundus dat pacem, quam dedit Salvator. Et mundi pax non docet bonam vitam, non suadet ad patientiam, non provocat ad justitiam, non hortatur ad misericordiam, non promittit aeternam vitam. Quicumque enim acceperit pacem Christi, alienus erit a vitiis hujus mundi, quae militant adversus animam.

Whoever receives the peace of the Saviour will incur the enmity of the world. For unless he has broken with the devil, he will not have peace with Christ. For no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). He therefore is at odds with the world who faithfully keeps the law of God. Fortified by the peace of Christ, he beats down the weapons of all adversaries. For who would dare [to move] against one whom he knows to be the king's friend? Yet the world gives peace otherwise than the Saviour promised that He would give it. For the world gives peace either out of fear or upon entreaty. But the Saviour, since He is the strongest of all, fearing no one at all, gives peace without being asked. This, then, is the Saviour's peace, which is given for this reason, that it may be a bulwark against enemies. Peace indeed is called by a single name, but the peace of God and that of the world are separated by a long interval. For the latter is fragile, the former strong; the latter fleshly, the former spiritual; the latter earthly, the former heavenly; the latter is of necessity, the former of free will. For Christ, needing no one, offers peace to the weak and unarmed, the Lord to servants, the good to the wicked, God to men. Rightly therefore He says, Not as this world gives do I give to you: for in saying this He wished the clemency of His good will to be understood. For whereas everyone gives peace for this reason, that it may profit himself, this One, that is, the Saviour, gives it to this end, that it may benefit not Himself but those to whom He gives it. The world therefore gives peace otherwise than the Saviour gave it. And the peace of the world does not teach a good life, does not urge to patience, does not summon to justice, does not exhort to mercy, does not promise eternal life. For whoever has received the peace of Christ will be a stranger to the vices of this world, which war against the soul.

XCIII. — Quaerendum an Spiritum sanctum habuerint Apostoli tempore illo quo fuerunt in terra cum Domino: quia inter multa dicit Evangelista, Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Jesus nondum fuerat honorificatus (Joan. VII, 39); et alio in loco, Si diligitis me, ait, praecepta mea servate, et ego rogabo Patrem, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis, ut vobiscum sit in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis, quem mundus non potest accipere; quia non videt nec cognoscit eum: vos videtis eum et cognoscitis; quia apud vos manet, et vobiscum est (Id. XIV, 15-17). Quid est hoc? Negat datum Spiritum ante passionem: rogaturum autem se promittit Patrem, ut mittat eum. Item subjecit, quia cum ipsis erat, et manebat apud eos. Post resurrectionem autem legitur insufflasse et dixisse eis, Accipite Spiritum sanctum (Id. XX, 22). In Pentecoste autem descendisse legitur Spiritus sanctus in Apostolos (Act. II, 1-4). Tantas video in hac causa perturbationes, ut quid tenendum sit nesciam.

XCIII. — It must be asked whether the Apostles had the Holy Spirit at that time when they were on earth with the Lord: since among many things the Evangelist says, The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been honoured (John 7:39); and in another place, If you love Me, He says, keep My commandments, and I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive; because it neither sees nor knows Him: you see Him and know Him; because He abides with you, and is with you (John 14:15–17). What is this? He denies that the Spirit was given before the passion, but He promises that He will ask the Father to send Him. Likewise He added that He was with them and abode among them. After the resurrection, however, He is read to have breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). At Pentecost, however, the Holy Spirit is read to have descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:1–4). I see such confusions in this matter that I do not know what is to be held.

In his omnibus quae proposita sunt, non una est causa. Breviter enim singularum causarum significatae sunt formae; quia unus quidem est Spiritus, sed dona habet multa. Cum ergo legitur Spiritus sanctus, intelligi debet et ejus officium, in quo sit significatus. Nam quia et cum eis erat, et venturus erat, non est falsum: sed si non istud ad personam trahas, sed ad naturam. Alterum enim se venturum a Patre promisit Christus; ut quia indifferens est eorum divinitas, in praesentia Christi non putetur absens Spiritus sanctus, et in adventu et in apparentia Spiritus sancti praesens aestimetur et Christus. Ideo cum venturum eum promittit, dicit, Vos videbitis eum, quia apud vos manebit, et vobiscum erit: ut securi essent Apostoli, quia post ascensionem Domini non minorem aut degenerem ad tuitionem habituri essent pastorem aut regem. Nam non est dubium non datum esse credentibus Spiritum, nisi sicut Evangelista testatur, postquam devicta morte resurgens clarificatus est Dominus. Ipsius enim triumphantis Domini verba sunt et dicentis, Quia Joannes quidem baptizavit aqua, vos autem baptizabimini Spiritu sancto, quem accepturi estis non post multos hos dies (Act. I, 5): hoc,

In all these things that have been put forward, there is not one single cause. For briefly, the forms of the individual causes have been indicated; because the Spirit indeed is one, but He has many gifts. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit is read of, His office also, in which He is signified, ought to be understood. For that He was both with them and was to come is not false, provided you refer this not to the person but to the nature. For Christ promised that another than Himself would come from the Father; so that, since their divinity is undifferentiated, the Holy Spirit might not be thought absent in the presence of Christ, and in the coming and appearing of the Holy Spirit Christ too might be reckoned present. Therefore, when He promises that He will come, He says, You will see Him, because He will abide with you, and will be with you: so that the Apostles might be assured that after the ascension of the Lord they would have for their protection a shepherd or king neither lesser nor degenerate. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers except, as the Evangelist testifies, after the Lord, rising with death overcome, was glorified. For these are the words of the triumphant Lord Himself, saying, For John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you are to receive not many days after these (Acts 1:5): this,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2286

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2286
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: title of XCII ends "(Joan. XIV, 27).?" with both full stop and question mark as printed, set as printed; column number in head printed blurred (looks like 22S6), read as 2286; left-hand column fragments visible in the images belong to col. 2285 and are not set; column ends mid-sentence at "hoc,"

PL 35:2287

tempore quo ascendere ad Patrem disposuit, interfatus videtur. Illud autem quod insufflasse in discipulos Dominus legitur post dies paucos resurrectionis suae, et dixisse, Accipite Spiritum sanctum, ecclesiastica potestas collata intelligitur esse. Quia enim omnia in traditione dominica per Spiritum sanctum aguntur, idcirco cum regula eis et forma traditur hujus disciplinae, dicitur eis, Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Et quia vere ad jus ecclesiasticum pertinet, statim subjecit dicens, Cujus tenu⟨e⟩ritis peccata, tenebuntur; et cujus remiseritis, remittentur ei (Joan. XX, 23). Inspiratio ergo haec, gratia quaedam est quae per traditionem infunditur ordinatis, per quam commendatiores habeantur. Unde Apostolus dicit ad Timotheum, Noli, inquit, negligere gratiam quae est in te, quae data est tibi per impositionem manuum presbyterii (I Tim. IV, 14). Semel ergo fieri oportuit, ut de caetero traditio ista non sine dono Spiritus sancti esse crederetur. Sicut enim in Salvatore forma data est visibiliter, ut post Baptismum Spiritus sanctus credentibus de caetero invisibiliter dari non ambigeretur: ita et in supra dicta causa forma data est in principio, ut ex eo traditioni ecclesiasticae Spiritus sanctus infusus credatur. Ut autem Apostoli praesente Domino virtutes facerent, potestas data est, sicut et prius Prophetis. Trium ergo officiorum formae doni Spiritus sancti in Apostolis sunt ostensae. Quarum prima haec est, quae ad jus ecclesiasticum pertinet in regenerandis vel caeteris officiis. Secunda, quae in Pentecoste data est, quae est generalis. Non solum enim in Apostolos, verum etiam in omnes decidit Spiritus sanctus credentes. Tertia forma est, quae solis Apostolis concessa est in signis ac virtutibus faciendis, usque dum fidei semina jacerentur ad crementum. Semina enim fidei sunt virtutes per Apostolos factae. Ipsi enim antistites positi sunt hujusmodi veritatis, qui per signa et prodigia non irrationabilem esse fidem nostram testarentur. Nulla enim probatio major est veritatis quam virtus. Haec est enim quae omnem terrenam philosophiam accusat, quia semper solis verbis studuit, non habens testimonium virtutis, quae stabile esse quod verbis astructum erat, demonstraret. Igitur Spiritus sanctus generaliter semel datur omnibus credentibus, per quem filii Dei esse probentur, dum manet in eis. In signis vero et prodigiis faciendis, non manet in homine, sed vocatus advenit, aut suggerit necessaria, et recedit. Similiter et in traditione vel ordinatione deforis gratiam praestat, tuitionem etiam deferens devotis fidei.

at the time when He had arranged to ascend to the Father, He seems to have spoken in the interval. But that the Lord is read to have breathed upon the disciples a few days after His resurrection, and to have said, Receive the Holy Spirit, is understood to be ecclesiastical power conferred. For since all things in the Lord's handing-on are done through the Holy Spirit, for that reason, when the rule and form of this discipline is handed on to them, it is said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. And because it truly pertains to ecclesiastical law, He immediately added, saying, Whose sins you retain, they will be retained; and whose you forgive, they will be forgiven him (John 20:23). This inspiration, therefore, is a certain grace which is poured into the ordained through the handing-on, by which they may be held in higher esteem. Hence the Apostle says to Timothy, Do not, he says, neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you through the laying on of hands of the presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14). It had to be done once, therefore, so that thereafter this handing-on might be believed not to be without the gift of the Holy Spirit. For just as in the Saviour a form was given visibly, so that thereafter it might not be doubted that after Baptism the Holy Spirit is given invisibly to believers, so also in the matter mentioned above a form was given at the beginning, so that from then on the Holy Spirit may be believed to be poured into the ecclesiastical handing-on. And so that the Apostles might work miracles while the Lord was present, power was given, just as also earlier to the Prophets. Therefore the forms of three offices of the gift of the Holy Spirit were shown in the Apostles. The first of these is this, which pertains to ecclesiastical law in regenerating or in the other offices. The second, which was given at Pentecost, which is general. For the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the Apostles, but also upon all believers. The third form is that which was granted to the Apostles alone in working signs and miracles, until the seeds of faith should be sown for growth. For the miracles done through the Apostles are the seeds of faith. For they themselves were set as overseers of this sort of truth, to testify through signs and wonders that our faith is not irrational. For there is no greater proof of truth than power. For it is this that accuses all earthly philosophy, because it has always devoted itself to words alone, not having the testimony of power to demonstrate that what had been built up by words was firm. Therefore the Holy Spirit is given generally once to all believers, through Whom they are proved to be sons of God, while He remains in them. But in working signs and wonders He does not remain in a man, but, when called, He comes, or suggests what is needful, and withdraws. Likewise also in the handing-on or ordination He supplies grace from without, bringing also protection to those devoted to the faith.

In his omnibus quae proposita sunt, non una est causa. Breviter enim, etc. Nam non est dubium credentibus non datum esse Spiritum, nisi postquam devicta morte clarificatus est Dominus. Ante ascensum enim Dominus formam discipulis dedit, quomodo accipere deberent baptizati Spiritum sanctum, quod nunc ab episcopis custoditur. Trium ergo officiorum formae doni Spiritus sancti in Apostolos datae sunt. Prima est quae generalis est, quae in Pentecoste data est; non solum enim in Apostolos, verum etiam in omnes cecidit Spiritus sanctus credentes, ut loquerentur magnalia Dei linguis diversis unius gentis homines. Secunda forma specialis est. Non enim pertinet ad omnes credentes, sed ad episcopos tantum, ut baptizatis per manus impositionem dent Spiritum sanctum: quae inter episcopos potest dici generalis. Tertia forma est, quae solis Apostolis e⟨s⟩t concessa, in signis ac miraculis faciendis ad fidei incrementum. Semina enim sunt fidei virtutes per Apostolos factae. Itaque per ordinem officiorum Spiritus sanctus Apostolis datus est, ut primum decideret in eos, sicut et in caeteros credentes, in Pentecoste. Deinde quasi primi sacerdotes, ut episcopi manus imponentes credentibus darent Spiritum sanctum. Nam prodigia ut fierent per Apostolos, temporis gratia est, non personarum

In all these things that have been set forth, the cause is not one. For briefly, etc. For there is no doubt that the Spirit was not given to believers until the Lord, death having been conquered, was glorified. For before the ascension the Lord gave the disciples a form, how the baptized ought to receive the Holy Spirit, which is now kept by the bishops. Therefore the forms of three offices of the gift of the Holy Spirit were given to the Apostles. The first is that which is general, which was given at Pentecost; for the Holy Spirit fell not only upon the Apostles, but also upon all believers, so that men of one nation spoke the great works of God in diverse tongues. The second form is special. For it does not pertain to all believers, but to bishops only, that they may give the Holy Spirit to the baptized through the laying on of hands: which among bishops can be called general. The third form is that which was granted to the Apostles alone, in working signs and miracles for the increase of faith. For the miracles done through the Apostles are the seeds of faith. Thus the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles according to the order of the offices, so that first He fell upon them, as also upon the other believers, at Pentecost. Then, as the first priests, that as bishops, laying hands on believers, they might give the Holy Spirit. For that wonders should be done through the Apostles is a grace of the time, not of persons

Editors' notes and page, col. 2287

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: In his omnibus› · call in col 2287

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quadragesima secunda.

The same question from manuscripts of the second class, the forty-second among those [questions] on the New Testament placed after the printed ones.

(printed under page 492)

Page

running head: 2287 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2288

: sed beatificati sunt, quia eos tempus invenit, quo Dominus donum suum effudit super terram, ut potestatem acciperent ad exemplum credentium, per Spiritum sanctum faciendarum virtutum. Ut autem praesente Domino missi daemonia pellerent et virtutes caeteras facerent, Apostolis potestas data est, ut sine invocatione nominis imperarent daemoniis, aut caeteris aegrorum passionibus, et salutis prosequeretur effectus. Hac scilicet rationis potestate, qua usi sunt prophetae, Elias et Elisaeus, in virtutibus faciendis. Denique dicit Salvator discipulis suis, Amen, amen dico vobis; si quid petieritis a Patre in nomine meo, dabit vobis : usquemodo non petistis quidquam in nomine meo; petite, et accipietis (Joan. XVI, 23, 24). Quoniam ergo sine invocatione nominis fecerunt virtutes Apostoli, sicut supra memoravi, non tamen omnino sine nominis potestate. Per id enim quod ab ipso missi erant, qui daemonibus et passionibus terrori erat, ipso metu fugabantur d⟨ae⟩monia, et infirmitates curabantur. Itaque nomen Domini tacite operabatur. Denique apostolus Petrus dicit Judaeis inter caetera. In nomine Jesu Christi Nazareni, quem vos abnegastis et crucifixistis, hic astat sanus coram vobis (Act. III, 16) : nec quidem aliud nomen datum est sub coelo, in quo oporteat salvos fieri.

But they were blessed, because the time found them in which the Lord poured out His gift upon the earth, so that they might receive, as an example for believers, the power of working miracles through the Holy Spirit. But so that, while the Lord was present, those who were sent might drive out demons and do the other mighty works, power was given to the Apostles to command demons, or the other sufferings of the sick, without invocation of the name, and the effect of health would follow. That is, by the power of the same principle which the prophets Elijah and Elisha used in working miracles. Finally the Saviour says to His disciples, Amen, amen I say to you; if you ask anything of the Father in My name, He will give it to you: until now you have not asked anything in My name; ask, and you will receive (John 16:23–24). So although the Apostles worked miracles without invocation of the name, as I mentioned above, yet it was not altogether without the power of the name. For by the fact that they had been sent by Him Who was a terror to demons and sufferings, the demons were put to flight by that very fear, and infirmities were cured. Thus the name of the Lord was silently at work. Finally the apostle Peter says to the Jews, among other things: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you denied and crucified, this man stands here sound before you (Acts 3:16): nor indeed is any other name given under heaven in which we must be saved.

XCIV. — Quaerendum est, si Judas Scariotes proditor Domini, ante passionem Salvatoris laqueo vitam finivit.

XCIV. — It is to be asked whether Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the Lord, ended his life with a noose before the passion of the Saviour.

Tradito Salvatore, et illucescente parasceve, omnes principes sacerdotum et Scribae et seniores convenerunt in domum Caiphae pontificis, quo perducendum sciebant esse Jesum, ut audirent eum. Hoc Matthaeus et Marcus evangelistae testantur, et nullum ex his ante perfectum impium opus a domo praesidis abscessisse, quippe cum omnis instantia eorum et devotio ad agendum Pascha mors esset Salvatoris. Occupatis ergo eis ad necem Domini a mane usque ad horam nonam, quo modo Judas eis retulisse pretium sanguinis, quod acceperat, ante crucem Domini probatur, et dixisse illis in templo, Peccavi, quod tradiderim sanguinem justum (Matth. XXVII, 1-5)? cum constet utique omnes principes et seniores ante passionem Domini non fuisse in templo. Quippe cum etiam in cruce posito insultarent ei (Ibid., 41). Non enim inde potest probari, quia ante passionem relatum est, cum sint multa, quae cum ante facta probentur, novissima ordinantur : et iterum, quando locus admittit, ut quod post factum est, anteponatur. Nam manifestum utique est quinquagesimum psalmum anteriorem esse quam tertium. Sic ergo aliquando evenit, ut anticipentur quae posteriora sunt. Unde et Maria cum post resurrectionem fratris sui Lazari, ante sex dies Paschae in coena unguento pedes Domini unxisse probetur, propter significationem ejus anticipatum est ab evangelista, dicente inter caetera, Maria autem erat, inquit, quae unxit Dominum unguento (Joan. XI, 2). Hoc refert antequam Lazarus moreretur : quod nisi postea factum inveniremus, nesciremus quo tempore factum esset. Sed ne forte post nonam horam factum sit, ut videns impius et crudelissimus Judas occisum Salvatorem, et ob hoc velum templi scissum, terram tremuisse, saxa fissa, elementa conterrita, ipso metu correptus doluerit, non nescius justum se tradidisse, in cujus passione sic indignatus sit judex Deus. Sed et post horam nonam occupati erant, sicut aestimo, seniores et principes sacerdotum. Vespere enim eadem die Pascha acturi erant; sabbato autem nummos portare non licebat secundum Legem : ac per hoc improbabile est apud me, quo die, imo quo tempore laqueo vitam finierit Judas Scariotes.

When the Saviour had been betrayed, and the day of preparation was dawning, all the chief priests and the scribes and the elders gathered in the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where they knew Jesus was to be brought, in order to hear Him. This Matthew and Mark the evangelists attest, and also that none of them departed from the governor's house before the impious work was accomplished, since all their urgency and zeal for keeping the Pasch was the death of the Saviour. Since, then, they were occupied with putting the Lord to death from morning until the ninth hour, how is Judas shown to have brought back to them, before the Lord's cross, the price of blood which he had received, and to have said to them in the temple, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed just blood (Matt. 27:1–5)? For it is certainly established that all the chief priests and elders were not in the temple before the passion of the Lord, since indeed they mocked Him even when He had been set on the cross (ibid. 41). For it cannot be proved from the fact that it is related before the passion, since there are many things which, though shown to have been done earlier, are placed last; and again, when the passage allows, what was done afterwards is placed before. For it is certainly evident that the fiftieth psalm is earlier than the third. Thus, then, it sometimes happens that things which are later are anticipated. Hence also, although Mary is shown to have anointed the Lord's feet with ointment at a supper six days before the Pasch, after the raising of her brother Lazarus, on account of its significance it was anticipated by the evangelist, who says among other things, Now Mary was, he says, she who anointed the Lord with ointment (John 11:2). This he reports before Lazarus died: and unless we found that it was done afterwards, we would not know at what time it had been done. But perhaps it happened after the ninth hour, so that the impious and most cruel Judas, seeing the Saviour slain, and on this account the veil of the temple torn, the earth having quaked, the rocks split, the elements terrified, was seized by that very fear and grieved, not unaware that he had betrayed a just man, at Whose passion God the Judge was so indignant. But even after the ninth hour the elders and chief priests were occupied, as I reckon. For in the evening of that same day they were to keep the Pasch; and on the sabbath it was not permitted to carry money according to the Law: and for this reason it cannot be proved, in my view, on what day, nay at what time, Judas Iscariot ended his life with a noose.

XCV. — Unde orta sit observatio Pentecostes, vel qua ratione?

XCV. — Whence the observance of Pentecost arose, or for what reason?

Non est ambiguum cuncta religionis nostrae veteri

It is not doubtful that all things of our religion are strengthened by the old

Editors' notes and page, col. 2288

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: religionis nostrae veteri› · call in col 2288

Vero, juxta Er. Lugd. Ven. Lov. M.

"Vero" [for "veteri"], according to Erasmus, the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions. M[auri, the Maurist editors].

(printed under page 492)

(a) ‹anchor: XCIV (heading of the question)› · call in col 2288

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 492)

Page

running head: S EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2288 (cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2289

testimonio roborari, et Legis veteris praerogativa signari. Omnia enim praeterita Legis veteris, in figura fidei nostrae futurae gesta et designata noscuntur, ut verum nos tenere non ambigeremus, quando ea quae nunc et audimus et credimus, ante saecula praedestinata videmus, non solum vocibus, verum etiam signorum virtutibus commendata. Sed nunc illud est, si eodem modo ut designata sunt, a nobis intelligantur, ut dies Pentecostes, unde et qua ratione tractus sit congrue dignoscamus. Scripturae enim dominicae sensus suos sollicitis et devotis aperiunt, negligentibus claudunt. Nec enim par erat, ut res quae meritis ac dignis reservatae sunt, passim ab omnibus viderentur. Pentecostes ergo, qui quinquagesimus a Pascha computatur dies, hanc habet rationem, ut sicut post hebdomadam dominicus dies primus est, in quo adimpletum est Paschae mysterium in redemptionem salutis humanae; quia semper post curricula dierum septem, ad primum reverti necesse est, ut ostendatur aetatem mundi septenario numero consummari, et ad requiem pervenire : ita et post hebdomadas septem, primus dies est Pentecostes. Denique nunquam alio die quam die dominico Pentecostes est, ut totum quod ad salutem humanam proficit, dominico die et inchoatum et adimpletum noscatur. Dominico enim die factus est mundus, et post lapsum rursus dominico die reformatus; cujus reformationis figura data est primum in circumcisione, in qua futurae fidei signum fuit. Post hebdomadam enim, qui octavus est, primus est in mysterio. Haec est enim dies, quam fecit Dominus. Unum eum diem fecit, ex quo caeteri curricula sortirentur. Ac per hoc ipso die resurrexit quem fecit, et secundum numerum supra dictae rationis, ipso die et in monte Sina Legem dedit per famulum suum Moysen : ut sicut agnus figura passionis Domini fuit in sacramento Paschae; ita et legislatio, evangelicae praedicationis : quia eodem die, id est Pentecoste, Lex data est, quo et Spiritus sanctus decidit in discipulos, ut auctoritatem caperent, ac scirent evangelicum jus praedicare. Quod factum duplici testimonio confirmatur, quia et praedestinatum ostenditur, et manifesta Spiritus sancti infusione divinum et supercoeleste probatur ad legi nostrae testimonium perhibendum. Cum enim incognitis sibi imperiti diversis linguis magnalia Dei loquuntur, divinitus se inspiratos ostendunt. Filiis ergo Israel tertio die mensis tertii data est Lex per Moysen, sicut in libro Exodi continetur (Exod. XIX, 16), qui dies a quarta decima mensis primi, quo die factum est Pascha in Aegypto (Id. XII, 18), quinquagesimus est, hoc est Pentecoste. Unde factum est, ut ad legem fidei praedicandam in Pentecoste Spiritus sanctus descenderet in Apostolos (Act. II, 1-4), ut gesta veterum, futurorum imagines haberentur, ad securitatem fidei nostrae : quia falsum videri non potest quod ab initio praedicatum est. Ideo remissionis et reformationis tempus in quinquagesimo psalmo describitur, ut eadem providentia quinquagesimi diei, quae et primi est, sciretur. Hinc factum est ut et manna primo die, qui est dominicus, e coelo daretur populo Judaeorum, quod ita esse sex dierum continuatio probat, quibus collegerunt, et septimo die, id est sabbato quieverunt (Exod. XVI, 22, 23). Manna autem typus est escae spiritualis, quae resurrectione Domini veritas facta est in Eucharistiae mysterio. Omnia itaque gesta sunt, ut ad causam primae resurrectionis incolumia revertantur, et non glorietur satanas, sed hebescat, qui hominem falsa spe dejecit, ne in hoc maneret quod factum est per Christum Dominum. Nunc superest ut probemus, si ita intelligenda sunt quae diximus, ut supra memoravimus. Mensis primus quo Pascha quarta decima die celebratum est in Aegypto, haec dies quarta feria fuit. Unde et Lex quarta feria data est. Quod hinc datur intelligi, quia quinto decimo die mensis secundi profectionis filiorum

testimony, and are sealed by the prerogative of the Old Law. For all the past things of the Old Law are known to have been done and designated as a figure of our future faith, so that we should not doubt that we hold the truth, when we see that the things which we now both hear and believe were predestined before the ages, commended not only by words but also by the powers of signs. But now the point is whether they are understood by us in the same way as they were designated, so that we may fittingly discern the day of Pentecost, whence and by what reasoning it is derived. For the Lord's Scriptures open their meanings to the careful and devout, and close them to the negligent. For it was not fitting that things which are reserved for the deserving and worthy should be seen indiscriminately by all. Pentecost, then, which is reckoned the fiftieth day from the Pasch, has this reasoning: that just as after a week the Lord's day is the first, on which the mystery of the Pasch was fulfilled for the redemption of human salvation (since always after the course of seven days it is necessary to return to the first, so that it may be shown that the age of the world is completed in the number seven and comes to rest), so also after seven weeks the first day is Pentecost. Finally, Pentecost is never on any other day than the Lord's day, so that everything which advances human salvation may be known to have been both begun and completed on the Lord's day. For on the Lord's day the world was made, and after the fall it was again reformed on the Lord's day; and a figure of this reformation was first given in circumcision, in which there was a sign of the faith to come. For [the day] after a week, which is the eighth, is the first in mystery. For this is the day which the Lord has made. He made that one day, from which the others should obtain their courses. And therefore on the very day which He made He rose again, and according to the number of the reasoning stated above, on that same day He also gave the Law on Mount Sinai through His servant Moses: so that just as the lamb was a figure of the Lord's passion in the sacrament of the Pasch, so also the giving of the Law [was a figure] of the gospel preaching: because on the same day, that is, Pentecost, on which the Law was given, the Holy Spirit also fell upon the disciples, so that they might receive authority and know how to preach the law of the gospel. This fact is confirmed by a twofold testimony, because it is both shown to have been predestined, and by the manifest outpouring of the Holy Spirit it is proved to be divine and supercelestial, for bearing witness to our law. For when unlearned men speak the great works of God in diverse tongues unknown to them, they show that they are divinely inspired. To the sons of Israel, therefore, the Law was given through Moses on the third day of the third month, as is contained in the book of Exodus (Exod. 19:16), which day is the fiftieth from the fourteenth of the first month, the day on which the Pasch was held in Egypt (ibid. 12:18), that is, Pentecost. Hence it came about that for the preaching of the law of faith the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4), so that the deeds of the ancients might be held as images of things to come, for the security of our faith: because what was preached from the beginning cannot seem false. Therefore the time of remission and reformation is described in the fiftieth psalm, so that by the same providence [the meaning] of the fiftieth day, which is also the first, might be known. Hence it came about also that the manna was given from heaven to the people of the Jews on the first day, which is the Lord's day; and that this is so is proved by the continuation of six days on which they gathered, and on the seventh day, that is, the sabbath, they rested (Exod. 16:22–23). Now the manna is a type of spiritual food, which by the resurrection of the Lord became truth in the mystery of the Eucharist. All things therefore were done so that they might return unharmed to the cause of the first resurrection, and that Satan might not glory but grow dull, he who cast man down by false hope, lest what was done through Christ the Lord should remain in this [state]. Now it remains for us to prove whether the things we have said are to be understood thus, as we recorded above. In the first month, in which the Pasch was celebrated in Egypt on the fourteenth day, this day was the fourth weekday. Hence the Law too was given on the fourth weekday. This is given to be understood from the fact that on the fifteenth day of the second month of the departure of the sons

Editors' notes and page, col. 2289

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: per Christum Dominum› · call in col 2289

Reliquum deest in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 493)

Page

running head: 2289 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word filiorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2290

PL 35:2290

Israel sabbatum videtur fuisse: ⟨i⟩dcirco non in die grex illis missus est coturnicum, sed vespere. Mane autem manna pluit de coelo (Exod. XVI, 13, 14), id est die dominico, qui primus post hebdomadam in repetitione invenitur. Denique sex diebus continuis manna collegerunt, septimo autem die, qui est sabbatum, quieverunt. Ab hoc ergo die usque ad tertii mensis diem tertium quo Lex data est, quaere, et invenies quartam feriam fuisse quando Lex data est. Sunt enim a quinto decimo die mensis secundi, quando sabbatum fuit, usque ad tertii mensis tertium diem quo Lex data est, dies decem et novem. Tene ergo hos decem et novem, et redi super quintum decimum diem secundi mensis, quo sabbatum fuit, qui a primo computatur quartus decimus; et perveni usque ad diem primum secundi mensis, et habebis alios quatuordecim; quos superjunge ad decem et novem supra memoratos, et invenies primum diem mensis secundi sabbatum fuisse. Superadde adhuc ad caput primi mensis dies septem et decem, quia primi mensis tredecim dies retrahendi sunt, qui ante Pascha fuerunt: quarta decima enim die primi mensis Pascha factum est. Retractis ergo tredecim, et additis septem et decem, invenies quarta decima mensis primi quartam feriam fuisse. Et ne legendi fastidium patiaris, aut quaestionis singula membra curiose inspicere, do compendium, ut et de numero dierum quot a Pascha usque ad datam Legem sunt, certus sis, et ab ipso facilius discas, quota feria factum est Pascha. Tertio die post secundum mensem Lex data est. Sunt ergo menses duo et dies tres. Retrahe ergo de his tredecim dies qui ante Pascha fuerunt, et reliqui erunt dies quinquaginta. Quoniam autem quarta feria data est Lex, hinc facile videtur. Manna prima feria datum est, quia continuis sex diebus collegerunt, quae prima feria sexto decimo die fuit mensis secundi. Ab hac itaque prima feria usque ad octavum decimum diem, quo Lex data est, quartam feriam invenies. A feria vero quarta, sive ante sive retro computes in quinquagesimum diem, quarta feria est: idcirco quia quarta feria Pascha egerunt in Aegypto Judaei, et quarta feria Legem acceperunt: quinta autem feria profecti sunt de Aegypto. Igitur dedicatio Legis est Pentecoste.

of Israel the sabbath seems to have been: for this reason the flock of quails was not sent to them in the day, but in the evening. But in the morning manna rained from heaven (Exod. 16:13–14), that is, on the Lord's day, which is found to be the first in the repetition after the week. Then for six continuous days they gathered manna, but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, they rested. From this day, therefore, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, enquire, and you will find that it was the fourth day of the week when the Law was given. For from the fifteenth day of the second month, when it was the sabbath, up to the third day of the third month, on which the Law was given, there are nineteen days. Hold, then, these nineteen, and go back over the fifteenth day of the second month, on which it was the sabbath, which counted from the first is the fourteenth; and come right down to the first day of the second month, and you will have another fourteen; join these on to the nineteen mentioned above, and you will find that the first day of the second month was a sabbath. Add further to the head of the first month seventeen days, because thirteen days of the first month are to be subtracted, which were before the Pasch: for the Pasch was made on the fourteenth day of the first month. So, the thirteen having been subtracted and the seventeen added, you will find that the fourteenth of the first month was the fourth day of the week. And lest you suffer weariness in reading, or [in having] to examine each member of the question carefully, I give a short way, so that you may both be certain about the number of days there are from the Pasch up to the giving of the Law, and may learn more easily from it on which day of the week the Pasch was made. The Law was given on the third day after the second month. There are, therefore, two months and three days. Subtract, then, from these the thirteen days which were before the Pasch, and fifty days will remain. But that the Law was given on the fourth day of the week is easily seen from this. The manna was given on the first day of the week, because they gathered it for six continuous days, and this first day of the week was the sixteenth day of the second month. From this first day of the week, then, up to the eighteenth day, on which the Law was given, you will find the fourth day of the week. And from the fourth day of the week, whether you count forwards or backwards to the fiftieth day, it is the fourth day of the week: for this reason, that the Jews kept the Pasch in Egypt on the fourth day of the week, and received the Law on the fourth day of the week; but on the fifth day of the week they set out from Egypt. Therefore the dedication of the Law is Pentecost.

XCVI. — Quaerendum si Pascha transitus interpretetur, sicut Graecis videtur.

XCVI. — It is to be asked whether Pasch is interpreted as 'passing over', as it seems to the Greeks.

Apostolus falli non potuit, qui ait, Pasoha nostrum immolatus est Christus (I Cor. V, 7). Quod non suum utique, sed Legis est verbum, dicente Moyse, Et erit cum dicent vobis filii vestri, Quae est deservitio haec? Et dicetis, Immolatio haec Pascha Domini est (Exod. XII, 26, 27). Quid amplius est necessarium ad testimonium? Lex loquitur; Apostolus probat: hoc superest, ut contradictor abjiciatur ut pervicax. Manifestum est enim transitum post Pascha fuisse. De sanguine enim immolati agni super postes ostii et super limen posuerunt, ut transiens nocte angelus non percuteret domum, in qua signum sanguinis esset. Sanguis igitur salutem praestitit, non transitus: quia ut transitus non noceret, obstitit sanguis.

The Apostle could not be mistaken, who says, Christ, our Pasch, has been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). And this is certainly not his own word, but the Law's, since Moses says, And it shall be, when your sons say to you, What is this service? And you shall say, This is the sacrifice of the Pasch of the Lord (Exod. 12:26–27). What more is needed for testimony? The Law speaks; the Apostle approves: it remains that the gainsayer be cast aside as obstinate. For it is plain that the passing over came after the Pasch. For they put some of the blood of the sacrificed lamb upon the posts of the door and upon the threshold, so that the angel passing by in the night might not strike the house in which the sign of the blood was. It was the blood, therefore, that afforded salvation, not the passing over: for the blood stood in the way, so that the passing over should do no harm.

XCVII. — Qua ratione responderi possit Arii impietati simpliciter ex Lege?

XCVII. — By what reasoning can one reply to the impiety of Arius simply from the Law?

Si rationi fides commodetur, ipsa nominum ratio Patris et Filii ostendet unitatem. Si quaeris, quomodo? Non enim verus Dei Filius diceretur, nisi exstitisset de substantia Dei Patris. Nec enim pateretur veritas et justitia Dei verum dicere Filium, si de ipso non esset. Non est enim verus Dei Filius, si de ipso non est. Sed Scriptura dicit, Verus est: ergo de ipso est. Qui enim negat de Deo natum Christum, Scripturae calumniam facit, quae ideo illum dicit verum Dei Filium, ut significet de Deo hunc natum. Si enim non est de Deo, et verus Filius Dei dicitur, fallax est Scriptura. Quod si Scriptura non fallit; qui Christum non fatetur exstitisse de Deo, et Scripturam evacuat, et Christum negat verum Filium Dei. Non enim voluntas verum Filium facit, sed nativitas. Sed potentiae,

If faith is accommodated to reason, the very reasoning of the names Father and Son will show their unity. If you ask, how? He would not be called the true Son of God unless He had come into being from the substance of God the Father. For the truth and justice of God would not allow Him to call Him a true Son if He were not from Him. For He is not the true Son of God if He is not from Him. But Scripture says, He is true: therefore He is from Him. For whoever denies that Christ was born of God slanders Scripture, which calls Him the true Son of God precisely in order to signify that He was born of God. For if He is not of God, and is called the true Son of God, Scripture is deceitful. But if Scripture does not deceive, then whoever does not acknowledge that Christ came into being from God both makes Scripture void and denies that Christ is the true Son of God. For it is not will that makes a true son, but birth. But

Editors' notes and page, col. 2290

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2290
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with "rum", the rest of "filio-|rum" broken from col. 2289; first letter of "idcirco" (line 1) barely visible, set ⟨i⟩; page number in head printed indistinctly (reads 229б), taken as 2290; column ends mid-word "poten-" (presumably potentia/potentiae, not set beyond what is printed)
other: the word potentiae, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2291

PL 35:2291

inquiunt, Dei hoc subest, ut falsa faciat vera. Imo potentia Dei haec est, unde et omni laude dignus est, quia verum apud illum verum est, et falsum falsum est. Nam istud mendacis est, ut falsum dicat verum; quod Deo non competit. Nam omnia quidem potest Deus, sed non facit nisi quod conveniat veritati ejus ac justitiae. Manifestum igitur est idcirco verum dici Filium Dei Christum, ut proprius, id est, de substantia ejus natus intelligatur. Unde inquit Apostolus: Qui proprio Filio suo non pepercit (Rom. VIII, 32); et in alia Epistola: Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se parem Deo (Philipp. II, 6). Si ergo non rapinam arbitratus est, dicens se parem Deo, verum se Filium Dei demonstravit. Deo enim par esse non poterat, nisi esset de ipso. Pares enim hi sunt, qui aut ambo veri sunt, aut ambo falsi. Nec enim parilitatem recipit coeptum et aeternum, aut unitatem. Unum enim se esse dicendo Christus cum Patre, parem se Deo facit. Non solum enim, inquit, solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo (Joan. V, 18), hoc est, parem. Nonne manifestum est aequalitatem hanc de proprietate nativitatis descendere? Proprium enim se, id est verum dicens Dei Filium, aequalem se faciebat Deo. Hinc est unde dicit, Qui videt me, videt et Patrem meum (Id. XIV, 9). Per illud enim quod consubstantivi sunt, qui unum videt, ambos videt. Sicut enim habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso (Id. V, 26); hoc est, aequalem sibi genuit Filium Pater; et omnia quae Patris sunt, Filii sunt; et quae sunt Filii, Patris sunt (Id. XVII, 10): et nemo potest quidquam rapere de manu Patris, neque de manu Filii (Id. X, 29). Et subjecit, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Ibid. 30); et, Verba quae, inquit, loquor vobis, a meipso non loquor: Pater autem manens in me, ipse loquitur; et opera quae facio, ipse facit. Credite mihi, quod ego in Patre, et Pater in me est; alioquin vel propter opera ipsa credite (Id. XIV, 10-12). Quia enim generatio a semetipso non est, sed ab eo qui genuit, idcirco quidquid facit, factum dicit Patris: ut per haec omnia illud firmetur, quia ideo verus dicitur Filius Dei Christus, ut de ipso natus credatur, ne et substantia ejus extra unius Dei naturam existimaretur. Humilitas ergo ejus maxima exaltatio est. Cum enim videtur se subjicere dicens, Verba quae loquor vobis, a meipso non loquor: Pater enim manens in me, ipse loquitur; et opera quae ego facio, ipse facit: probat se originem a Deo habere, et Virtutem ejus se esse ostendit, dum non quod est, a semetipso esse dicit, sed ab ipso. Per hoc enim commendatur Christus, non inclinatur. Qui enim a se loquitur, verus Filius non est. Vides ergo quia Ariani inde male intelligunt Christum, unde bene intelligendus est; et inde illum improbant et falsum dicunt, unde verus Dei esse Filius approbatur: nam clarificandum se a Patre postulat, et clarificare se Patrem quem petit, promittit; et ubi se humiliare videtur, exaltat. Pater enim cum testimonium dat Filio suo, laudem suam testatur; Filius vero cum praedicat Patrem, gloriam suam manifestat. Magnificentia enim et nobilitas Patris, generositas est veri Filii. Ideo quidquid Patris dicitur esse, est et Filii sine dubio; et quod Filii dicitur esse, est et Patris. Nam qui Spiritus dicitur Dei, idem Spiritus dicitur et Christi. Ecclesia dicitur Dei, dicitur et Christi. Adoratur Deus, adoratur et Christus. Servitur Deo, servitur et Christo. Sancti dicuntur sacerdotes Dei, dicuntur et sacerdotes Christi. Templum civitatis sanctae dicitur Dei, similiter et Christi. Lumine Dei illustrari dicitur civitas sancta, eodem modo et Christi. Sedes Dei est, nec non et Christi. Judex Deus est, est et Christus: quia Isaias propheta in throno majestatis Christum videt sedentem Dominum sabaoth (Isai. VI,

the power of God, they say, underlies this: that He should make false things true. Rather, this is the power of God, for which He is also worthy of all praise, that with Him the true is true and the false is false. For this belongs to a liar, to call the false true; which does not befit God. For God indeed can do all things, but He does nothing except what accords with His truth and justice. It is manifest, therefore, that Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason, that He may be understood as His own, that is, born of His substance. Whence the Apostle says: Who did not spare His own Son (Rom. 8:32); and in another Epistle: Who, when He was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God (Phil. 2:6). If, then, He did not consider it robbery, saying that He was equal to God, He showed Himself the true Son of God. For He could not be equal to God unless He were from Him. For those are equals who are either both true or both false. For what has a beginning and what is eternal do not admit of parity, or of unity. For by saying that He is one with the Father, Christ makes Himself equal to God. For not only, it says, was He breaking the sabbath, but He was also calling God His Father, making Himself equal to God (John 5:18), that is, on a par. Is it not manifest that this equality descends from the property of His birth? For by calling Himself the own, that is the true, Son of God, He was making Himself equal to God. Hence it is that He says: He who sees Me sees also My Father (John 14:9). For by the fact that they are consubstantial, he who sees one sees both. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has also given to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26); that is, the Father begot the Son equal to Himself; and all things that are the Father's are the Son's, and those that are the Son's are the Father's (John 17:10): and no one can snatch anything from the hand of the Father, nor from the hand of the Son (John 10:29). And He added: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); and: The words, He says, that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself; but the Father abiding in Me, He speaks; and the works that I do, He does. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe at least on account of the works themselves (John 14:10–12). For since His generation is not from Himself, but from Him who begot Him, therefore whatever He does He calls the doing of the Father: so that by all these things this may be confirmed, that Christ is called the true Son of God precisely so that He may be believed to be born of Him, lest His substance too should be reckoned outside the nature of the one God. His humility, therefore, is His greatest exaltation. For when He seems to subject Himself, saying: The words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself; for the Father abiding in Me, He speaks; and the works that I do, He does: He proves that He has His origin from God, and shows that He is His Power, while He says that what He is He is not from Himself, but from Him. For by this Christ is commended, not lowered. For one who speaks of himself is not a true son. You see, then, that the Arians misunderstand Christ from the very point from which He is to be rightly understood; and they reject Him and call Him false on the very ground on which He is proved to be the true Son of God: for He asks to be glorified by the Father, and promises to glorify the Father whom He asks; and where He seems to humble Himself, He exalts Himself. For when the Father gives testimony to His Son, He bears witness to His own praise; and the Son, when He proclaims the Father, manifests His own glory. For the magnificence and nobility of the Father is the noble birth of the true Son. Therefore whatever is said to be the Father's is without doubt also the Son's; and what is said to be the Son's is also the Father's. For the Spirit who is called God's, the same Spirit is called also Christ's. The Church is called God's; it is called also Christ's. God is worshipped; Christ too is worshipped. God is served; Christ too is served. The saints are called priests of God; they are called also priests of Christ. The temple of the holy city is called God's, and likewise Christ's. The holy city is said to be illumined by the light of God, and in the same way by that of Christ. The throne is God's, and also Christ's. God is Judge, and Christ is too: for the prophet Isaiah sees Christ sitting on the throne of majesty as the Lord of hosts (Isa. 6,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2291

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2291

In Mss. secundi generis interponuntur hoc loco ea quae habes post istam quaestionem.

In the manuscripts of the second class, the matter you find after this question is inserted at this point.

(printed under page 494)

(2) ‹anchor: similiter et Christi› · call in col 2291

Ms. Colbert., Deus, similiter et Christus.

The Colbert manuscript: "God, and likewise Christ."

(printed under page 494)

(a) ‹anchor: natus credatur› · call in col 2291

Reliqua desunt in Mss. secundi generis.

The rest is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 494)

Page

running head: 2291 QUÆSTIONES EX NOVO TE (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2292

1), quod Ariani non negant. De Deo Patre legitur, quod Rex regum sit et Dominus dominorum (I Tim. VI, 15), eadem et de Christo Filio Dei vero (Apoc. XVII, 14; XIX, 16). Sic ubique divinitate exaequantur Pater et Filius, ut unius Dei modum non egrediatur numerus personarum. Inter Patrem autem et Filium nihil interest, nisi hoc solum, quia Pater ingenitus est, Filius vero genitus: id est, Pater a nullo est, Filius autem de Patre; quod quidem sublime est in Filio. Hinc enim addiscitur nobilitatis ejus aeternitas, et quia verus Filius est veri Patris. Unde est enim illud quod legitur in Genesi dicente Deo, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26)? Itaque si imago eorum et similitudo una est, quomodo non unum sunt et natura? In spiritualibus enim ubi utique non sunt figurae, simile non erit aliquid nisi per substantiam, ut ubi duorum imago una est, quomodo non eorum una erit substantia? Idcirco enim imaginem eorum et similitudinem unam esse legimus, ut eorum unum nihil differre ab altero crederemus, hoc est, verum Dei Filium esse Christum, quia non est dispar a generante nativitas. Denique Judaei intelligentes, quia proprium sibi Patrem dicebat Deum, dicunt ad Pilatum, Nos Legem habemus, et secundum Legem debet mori, quia Filium Dei se fecit (Joan. XIX, 7). Judaei intellexerunt, et Christiani se dicunt non intelligere? qui non credebant, intelligebant; et qui se dicunt credere, faciunt ne intelligant? Vel hoc saltem admitterent, quod propheta Isaias, ut Christum non a semetipso quidem, sed de Deo Deum esse significaret, inter caetera ait: Post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur; quoniam in te est Deus, et non est Deus praeter te. Tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus; Deus Israel salvator (Isai. XLV, 14, 15). Quantum ad bonam mentem pertinet, haec manifesta sunt. His enim et Pater in Filio esse probatur; et Filius Deus ejusdem substantiae cujus Pater est, significatur. In quo enim Deus est, et praeter ipsum Deus non est, et ipse Deus est; quid aliud poterit esse dici, quam hoc quod est Pater Deus, et nec differre in aliquo? Hoc est enim duos esse unum. In ipso enim Deus est, quia quamvis Deus sit, non tamen ex se Deus est. Est enim a Patre, quia Filius est. Praeter ipsum autem non est Deus, quia unicus Patris Filius est. Ipse autem est Deus, quia una atque eadem substantia Dei et Christi est. Nihil igitur ambiguitatis relinquitur, ut Patris et Filii una esse credatur substantia. Verus enim Filius et veri Patris est. Tale enim etiam illud Jeremiae prophetae est: dicit enim inter alia: Hic Deus noster, et non aestimabitur alter ad eum. Hic adinvenit omnem viam scientiae; et dedit eam Jacob puero suo, et Israel dilecto sibi. Post haec in terris visus est, et inter homines versatus est (Baruch III, 36-38). Numquid de degenere potest dici, ad quem alius non potest aestimari; aut alius Deus quam Pater est, poterit dici, ut Deo proficiat ad injuriam Patris? Si enim aestimari ad eum alter Deus non potest, et absque Deo Patre est; videte an debeat dici id quod sequitur: periculosum est enim. Major enim Patre dicetur. Putantes enim se Deo Patri deferre, si ab eo Filium segregent, derogant ei; ut quem minorem volunt facere, impia obcaecati mente, praeponant eum illi cujus auctoritati inclinandum hunc putant. Scriptura autem ut nihil Filium a Patre differre doceret (differret autem si non esset verus), alium nullum dicit aestimandum ad eum; quia nulla alia substantia poterit similis reperiri substantiae Dei, quae est et Christi. Aliter siquidem Christum de Deo esse docere non poterat, quam ut nullum diceret alium aestimandum ad eum. Sciens enim Deo Patri nullo modo dici posse subjectum Filium ejus, ut hinc parem esse ostenderet, Non aestimabitur, inquit, alter ad eum: quia Patri Deo, quoniam Deus est, aequalis est; verus enim ejus Filius est. Igitur propheta ait, Hic est Deus noster; hoc est, Deus Israel. Si hic est, ipse est Deus unus. De isto enim dicit Scriptura, Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est (Deut. VI, 4): et certe non est hic Pater, sed

1), which the Arians do not deny. Of God the Father it is read that He is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), and the same also of Christ, the true Son of God (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Thus everywhere the Father and the Son are made equal in divinity, so that the number of the persons does not go beyond the measure of one God. Between the Father and the Son, however, there is no difference, except this alone, that the Father is unbegotten, while the Son is begotten: that is, the Father is from no one, but the Son is from the Father; which indeed is something sublime in the Son. For from this is learned the eternity of His nobility, and that He is the true Son of a true Father. For whence comes that which is read in Genesis, where God says, Let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26)? So if their image and likeness is one, how are they not one in nature also? For in spiritual things, where there are certainly no shapes, nothing will be like anything except through substance, so that where the image of two is one, how will their substance not be one? For this reason we read that their image and likeness is one, so that we should believe that the one of them differs in nothing from the other, that is, that Christ is the true Son of God, because the one born is not unequal to the one begetting. Finally the Jews, understanding that He was calling God His own Father, say to Pilate, We have a Law, and according to the Law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7). The Jews understood, and do Christians say that they do not understand? Those who did not believe understood; and do those who say that they believe act so as not to understand? Let them at least admit this, that the prophet Isaiah, in order to signify that Christ is not indeed from Himself, but God from God, says among other things: After Thee they shall follow, bound with chains, and they shall adore Thee, and in Thee they shall make supplication; since in Thee is God, and there is no God besides Thee. For Thou art God, and we did not know it; the God of Israel, the Saviour (Isa. 45:14–15). As far as concerns a sound mind, these things are plain. For by these words both the Father is shown to be in the Son, and the Son is signified to be God of the same substance as that of which the Father is. For He in Whom God is, and besides Whom there is no God, and Who is Himself God, what else could He be said to be than that which the Father is, God, and to differ in nothing? For this is for two to be one. For God is in Him, because although He is God, He is nevertheless not God from Himself. For He is from the Father, because He is the Son. But besides Him there is no God, because He is the only Son of the Father. And He Himself is God, because the substance of God and of Christ is one and the same. Therefore nothing of ambiguity remains, so that one substance of the Father and of the Son is to be believed. For the true Son is also of the true Father. Of this kind too is that saying of the prophet Jeremiah: for he says among other things: This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned in comparison with Him. He found out every way of knowledge; and He gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. After these things He was seen on earth, and He dwelt among men (Bar. 3:36–38). Can it be said of a degenerate one that no other can be reckoned in comparison with him; or can He be called another God than the Father is, so that it should profit God to the injury of the Father? For if no other God can be reckoned in comparison with Him, and He is apart from God the Father, see whether what follows ought to be said: for it is dangerous. For He will be called greater than the Father. For thinking that they defer to God the Father if they separate the Son from Him, they detract from Him; so that, blinded in impious mind, they set Him Whom they wish to make lesser above Him to whose authority they think He must bow. But Scripture, in order to teach that the Son differs in nothing from the Father (and He would differ if He were not true), says that no other is to be reckoned in comparison with Him; because no other substance could be found like the substance of God, which is also that of Christ. For indeed it could not teach otherwise that Christ is from God than by saying that no other is to be reckoned in comparison with Him. For knowing that His Son could in no way be said to be subject to God the Father, in order to show from this that He is equal, it says, No other shall be reckoned in comparison with Him: because He is equal to God the Father, since He is God; for He is His true Son. Therefore the prophet says, This is our God; that is, the God of Israel. If He is this, He Himself is the one God. For of Him Scripture says, Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one God (Deut. 6:4): and certainly this is not the Father, but

Editors' notes and page, col. 2292

Page

running head: S EX NOVO TESTAMENTO. 2292 (title cut off at left edge; column number printed blurred, read as 2292)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2293

est Filius ejus. Vides ergo non praejudicare uni Deo personam Filii, si et ipse unus Deus dicatur : quippe cum hoc Scriptura testetur. Unde hoc, nisi quia unum sunt Pater et Filius, quia non personis significatur unitas, sed natura : aut non substantia duo sunt, sed unum; nec duo divinitate, sed unus Deus : ut sive loquatur Pater sive loquatur Filius, unus Deus locutus dicatur? Nam si ipse Dominus inter caetera de mare et femina, Jam non sunt, inquit, duo, sed una caro (Marc. X, 8); quanto magis Pater et Filius non duo dii sunt, sed una substantia? Ut autem duo dicantur Pater et Filius, causa est nativitatis: ne autem iterum duo dii ⟨s⟩int, causa est unitas divinitatis. Qua tamen hebetudine Christum creatum, id est factum praedicant, cum legatur nihil Deum sine Christo fecisse (Joan. I, 3)? Si ergo sine illo nihil factum est, non erit ipse factura. Si enim factura est, factum est aliquid sine ipso. Sed absit; quia nihil sine illo. Natus enim de Deo non esse coepit, sed semper exstitit. Nativitas enim nihil est aliud quam exitio : exitio autem manifestatio est. Itaque non factus, sed editus est. Ut enim Christus de essentia Dei exiisse vel processisse significaretur, exitio ejus nativitas appellata est : ut quia non dispar est a genitore nativitas, consubstantivus esse Deo Christus non ambigeretur; et mens illa quae ait, Erat quando non erat, damnaretur. Quia non potest aliquando non fuisse, qui ut apud Deum semper fuisse significaretur, de Deo legitur processisse. Nemo enim de Deo processit ubi non fuit. Solent quippe Ariani sic interpretari de Filio Dei dicentes, Ideo ve⟨r⟩us Dei Filius Christus dicitur, quia sic illum fecit ut verus sit. Quasi sit aliquid falsum quod faciat Deus. Et illa omnia quae supra diximus de unitate Patris et Filii, quid erunt, cum sic roborata sint et firmata? Si hic aliter sentiendum putatur, multa poterunt divinis solidata oraculis unius convelli degeneris testimonio? Amputandum est tamen, ne sibi vel de eo ipso blandiatur iniquitas. Igitur sic, inquit, illum fecit ut verus sit, ut voluntas cesserit pro nativitate, et factura pro generatione. Tantum enim dandum est, inquiunt, potentiae Dei, ut possit facere quae non sunt, tanquam quae sunt. Quoniam ergo hac astutiae calliditate nituntur contra Filium Dei, ex iis ipsis de quibus praesumunt, quia in reliquis sunt convicti, respondendum est eis, ut in tota summa convicti appareant. Propositio enim haec quantum ad sensum pertinet, nullius momenti est : quantum autem ad verba, caliginem facit ne cito appareat. Sic est enin ac si Aegyptius positus in obscuro; quia causa mala bono sensu defendi non potest. Ad impietatem ergo defendendam sacrilegis verbis utuntur. Si itaque haec est potentia Dei, ut verum faceret Christum esse Filium sibi, cum de se ipso non esset natus; ergo talem illum fecit qualis ipse est, ut hoc praestiterit factura, quod datura erat generatio. Si ergo nihil interesse dicitis inter Deum et Christum, poterit forte dubitari, quia non hoc malitiose a vobis asseritur, ut quod in voce dicitur, hoc sit et in sensu : ut quia verus dicitur Filius, verus sentiatur, per id quod unius substantiae est cum Patre, licet non per generationem, sed per facturam : quia totum potest Deus, sicut dicitis, ut factum sic sit quasi infectum. Si autem rationis lineam ⟨s⟩equentes, non posse dicitis, quod initio continetur, aequale es⟨s⟩e et consubstantivum cum eo quod aeternum est, revelatis dolum malitiae vestrae : quia ut sensum verbi eluda⟨t⟩is, falsa voce Christum verum esse Filium Dei dicitis, negantes ei quia aequalis est Deo Patri. Non enim verus est si inaequalis. Numquid poterit verus dici Filius, si non verus dicatur et Pater? Si enim verus est Filius, erit verus et Pater : quam veritatem aequalitas probat. Quod si dispares sunt, neuter eorum verus est. Sed quoniam Scripturarum testimonium irritum fieri non potest, quo Christus verus Dei Filius approbatur, de Deo Patre natus credendus est : quia ut veritas haec firmaretur, et par Deo et aequalis legitur. At tu qui potentiam Dei inaestimabilem praedicas,

is His Son. You see, therefore, that the person of the Son does not prejudice the one God, if He too is called one God: since indeed Scripture testifies to this. Whence is this, unless because the Father and the Son are one, because unity is signified not by persons but by nature: or they are not two in substance, but one; nor two in divinity, but one God: so that whether the Father speaks or the Son speaks, one God is said to have spoken? For if the Lord Himself, among other things, says of male and female, Now they are not two, but one flesh (Mark 10:8); how much more are the Father and the Son not two gods, but one substance? Now that Father and Son are called two, the cause is the birth; but that they should not, on the other hand, be two gods, the cause is the unity of the divinity. With what dullness, then, do they proclaim Christ created, that is, made, when it is read that God made nothing without Christ (John 1:3)? If therefore nothing was made without Him, He Himself will not be a thing made. For if He is a thing made, something was made without Him. But far be it; for nothing [was made] without Him. For, being born of God, He did not begin to be, but always existed. For birth is nothing other than a going forth: and a going forth is a manifestation. Therefore He was not made, but brought forth. For in order that Christ might be signified to have gone out or proceeded from the essence of God, His going forth was called birth: so that, since birth is not unlike the begetter, it might not be doubted that Christ is consubstantial with God; and that mind which says, There was when He was not, might be condemned. For He cannot at some time not have been Who, that He might be signified always to have been with God, is read to have proceeded from God. For no one proceeded from God where he was not. For the Arians are accustomed to interpret thus concerning the Son of God, saying, Christ is called the true Son of God for this reason, because He made Him so that He should be true. As if there were anything false that God makes. And all those things which we said above concerning the unity of the Father and the Son, what will they be, when they have been so strengthened and confirmed? If it is thought that one must judge otherwise here, will many things made solid by divine oracles be able to be overthrown by the testimony of one degenerate man? Yet it must be cut away, lest iniquity flatter itself even about this very point. So, he says, He made Him so that He should be true, so that will gave way to birth, and making to generation. For so much, they say, must be granted to the power of God, that He can make things which are not as though they were things which are. Since therefore they strive against the Son of God with this craftiness of cunning, they must be answered out of those very things on which they presume, because in the rest they have been convicted, so that they may appear convicted in the whole sum. For this proposition, as far as the sense is concerned, is of no weight: but as far as the words are concerned, it makes a darkness, so that it may not quickly appear. For it is just as if an Egyptian were placed in the dark; because a bad cause cannot be defended with good sense. To defend impiety, therefore, they use sacrilegious words. If therefore this is the power of God, that He should make Christ truly to be a Son to Himself, although He had not been born of Himself; then He made Him such as He Himself is, so that the making furnished this, which generation would have given. If therefore you say that there is no difference between God and Christ, it could perhaps be doubted, because this is not maliciously asserted by you, so that what is said in the word is also in the sense: so that, because He is called a true Son, He is understood to be true through this, that He is of one substance with the Father, though not through generation but through making: because God can do all things, as you say, so that a thing made should be as if unmade. But if, following the line of reason, you say that what is contained by a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with that which is eternal, you reveal the deceit of your malice: because, in order to elude the sense of the word, you say with a false voice that Christ is the true Son of God, denying to Him that He is equal to God the Father. For He is not true if unequal. Can the Son be called true, if the Father is not also called true? For if the Son is true, the Father too will be true: which truth equality proves. But if they are unequal, neither of them is true. But since the testimony of the Scriptures, by which Christ is shown to be the true Son of God, cannot be made void, He must be believed to have been born of God the Father: because, in order that this truth might be confirmed, He is read to be both on a par with God and equal to Him. But you who proclaim the inestimable power of God

Editors' notes and page, col. 2293

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: poterit forte dubitari› · call in col 2293

Ms. Colbert., putari.

The Colbert manuscript: "putari" ["be thought"].

(printed under page 495)

Page

running head: 2293 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word praedicas, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2294

PL 35:2294

ais, Deus generare non potest, quia simplex natura est: per quod etiam ipsi Deo Patri contumeliam facis. Mendacem enim istum dicis, ut Filium quem ille suum et verum asserit, deneges; et tuam hypocrisim delegas, quia falso potentem Deum praedicas. Si enim potentiam Dei in id quod verum ex falso factum asseris, praedicas, ut quod verum est illudas, quanto magis hoc amplecti deberes, si bonae mentis esses, per quod verum quod dicitur, verum probatur, et testimonium quod Deus Pater de Filio suo dedit, verum firmaretur? Nam Dominus ait, Apud Deum autem, inquit, omnia possibilia (Matth. XIX, 26): ut quidquid hominibus impossibile videtur, Deo possibile sit. Nam si ratio carnis respicitur, nec Virgo peperit, nec Jonas in ventre ceti vixit (Jonae II, 1), nec mortui resurgent, nec Deus Filium genuit, quia simplex natura non potest generare, quia nihil sine commixtione generatur in hoc mundo. Haec omnia aut simul credenda sunt, aut simul refellenda. Si enim ratio mundi tenenda est, in his omnibus debet auctoritatem habere. Quod si aliqua ratio spiritualium est, carnalis dicendus est, qui mundi ratione infectus, negat aliter quid fieri quam novit. Aliud iterum assolent sua tergiversatione proponere. Aiunt enim, Utrum voluntate Pater genuit Filium, an non? ut cum audiunt, utique quod voluntate, statim ut inimici Dei Filii respondeant, Ergo voluntas ante Filium est; ut ex hoc non aeternus appareat, cum non utique per nativitatem initium acceperit, sed exstiterit. Et tamen si hoc putant, non solum ante Filium erit voluntas, sed et ante Patrem; quia causa generationis Pater et Filius est. Infidelitas carnales sensus sequitur in omnibus. Sic enim inducit causam Dei quasi hominis, ut ante deliberaverit et excogitaverit ut generaret, quasi infirmitati subjectus; cum in Deo neque generatio sine voluntate fuerit, neque voluntas sine generatione. Ipsa enim voluntas, generatio est. Nam utique commune dictum est, Fecit Deus, fecit homo: sed aliter facit Deus, aliter facit homo: ita et in caeteris causis. Sic enim de Deo dicendum est, ut dignum est ei. Solent etiam ipsi de Deo Patre aliam facere quaestionem, dicentes, Accessit illi ut generaret, aut ejus naturae est, ut semper generet? Quod ideo afferunt, ut et Deum mendacem asserant, qui se Christum generasse testatur, et Christum non verum, sed adoptivum faciant. Si enim generavit, inquiunt, semper debet generare; ut quia non semper generat, nec Christum genuisse credatur: quasi mundum negetur fecisse, quia alios non facit. Quae irreverentia, quae indisciplinatio est, legem Deo ponere, ut si genuit, aut multos genuerit, aut unum generare non potuerit? nec ipsi Domino credentes, qui se unicum Dei Filium protestatus est.

say, God cannot beget, because He is a simple nature: whereby you also do insult to God the Father Himself. For you call Him a liar, in that you deny the Son whom He asserts to be His own and true; and you expose your own hypocrisy, since you falsely proclaim God as powerful. For if you proclaim the power of God in that which you assert was made true out of false, so as to mock what is true, how much more ought you, if you were of sound mind, to embrace this, by which what is said to be true is proved true, and the testimony which God the Father gave concerning His Son would be confirmed as true? For the Lord says, But with God, He says, all things are possible (Matt. 19:26): so that whatever seems impossible to men is possible to God. For if the reasoning of the flesh is regarded, neither did the Virgin give birth, nor did Jonah live in the belly of the whale (Jon. 2:1), nor will the dead rise again, nor did God beget a Son, because a simple nature cannot beget, since nothing in this world is begotten without mingling. All these things must either be believed together or refuted together. For if the reasoning of the world is to be held, it must have authority in all these things. But if there is some reasoning of spiritual things, he must be called carnal who, tainted by the reasoning of the world, denies that anything can come about otherwise than he knows. Again they are accustomed, with their evasiveness, to put forward another thing. For they say, Did the Father beget the Son by will, or not? so that when they hear, Certainly by will, at once, as enemies of the Son of God, they reply, Therefore the will is before the Son; so that from this He may appear not eternal, since He did not indeed receive a beginning through birth, but came into being. And yet if they think this, the will will be not only before the Son but also before the Father; because the cause of the begetting is the Father and the Son. Unbelief follows the carnal senses in all things. For it thus brings in the case of God as though of a man, as if He had first deliberated and devised that He should beget, as though subject to weakness; whereas in God there was neither begetting without will nor will without begetting. For the will itself is begetting. For indeed it is said in common terms, God made, a man made: but God makes in one way, a man makes in another: so also in other matters. For thus must one speak of God, as is worthy of Him. They are also wont to raise another question about God the Father, saying, Did it come upon Him to beget, or is it of His nature that He should always beget? Which they bring forward for this reason, that they may both assert God to be a liar, Who testifies that He has begotten Christ, and make Christ not true but adoptive. For if He begot, they say, He ought always to beget; so that, since He does not always beget, He may not be believed to have begotten Christ either: as though He should be denied to have made the world because He does not make others. What irreverence, what lack of discipline it is, to lay down a law for God, that if He begot, either He must have begotten many, or He could not have begotten one? not believing even the Lord Himself, Who declared Himself the only Son of God.

Post haec quae supra ostensa sunt aequalia Patri et Filio, videamus an in his concordant quae de Spiritu sancto scripta sunt, ut Trinitas quam in salutari professione retinemus, non recipiat discrepantiam naturae, quomodo non habet fidei diversitatem. Quanquam enim salus sine aliquo ex his non sit, una eorum videtur tamen potestas, quae in se credentibus dat salutem. Quoniam ad testimonium Filii verba Patris protulimus; nunc ad testimonium Spiritus sancti, verbis utamur Filii, quibus non differre a se Spiritum sanctum protestatur: ut cum Filio Pater, et Filius Spiritui sancto testis est, unius esse naturae Trinitas intelligatur. Dicit ergo inter caetera Dominus: Rogabo Patrem, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis, ut vobiscum sit in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis (Joan. XIV, 16, 17). Cum alium Paracletum mittendum dicit, se utique Paracletum probat. Nam et legitur in Epistola Joannis; dicit enim: Habemus advocatum apud Patrem Jesum Christum, qui exorat pro peccatis nostris (I Joan. II, 1). Et iterum dicit Dominus, Ego sum veritas (Joan. XIV, 6). Ecce aperta unitas Spiritus sancti et Filii Dei. Quae enim de se loquitur Filius, eadem loquitur et de Spiritu sancto. Nunc subjicienda sunt, quae in hujusmodi sensum ordinat Scriptura. Legitur

After these things which have been shown above to be equal for the Father and the Son, let us see whether the things written about the Holy Spirit agree with them, so that the Trinity which we hold in the saving profession may not admit a difference of nature, just as it has no diversity of faith. For although there is no salvation without any one of these, yet their power seems to be one, which gives salvation to those who believe in it. Since we have brought forward the words of the Father as testimony to the Son, now as testimony to the Holy Spirit let us use the words of the Son, by which He declares that the Holy Spirit does not differ from Himself: so that, as the Father is witness to the Son, and the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity may be understood to be of one nature. The Lord therefore says among other things: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16–17). When He says that another Paraclete is to be sent, He certainly shows that He Himself is a Paraclete. For it is also read in the Epistle of John; for he says: We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, Who pleads for our sins (1 John 2:1). And again the Lord says, I am the truth (John 14:6). Behold the open unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. For the very things which the Son speaks of Himself, He speaks also of the Holy Spirit. Now must be added the things which Scripture sets in order towards this sense. It is read

Editors' notes and page, col. 2294

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Quod ideo afferunt› · call in col 2294

Juxta Er. Lugd. Ven. Lov., asserunt. M.

According to Erasmus, the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions, "asserunt" ["assert"]. M[aurists].

(printed under page 495)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2294 (column number partly blurred in the image, read as 2294)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2295

In Isaia, quod Dominum sabaoth viderit in throno majestatis sedentem (Isai. VI, 1), quem Joannes evangelista Christum esse intellexit, dicens inter alia, Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit majestatem ejus, et locutus est de eo (Joan. XII, 41). Hunc Apostolus sanctum dicit esse Spiritum. Ait enim in novissima parte Actuum Apostolorum, Bene locutus est Spiritus sanctus ad patres vestros dicens, Aure audietis, et non intelligetis, etc., (Act. XXVIII, 25, 26). Haec verba a Domino sabaoth dicta sunt. Hic est unus Deus, qui sive Pater intelligatur, sive Filius, sive Spiritus sanctus, non est contrarium: quia una eorum divinitas et una potestas est. Nam si in unius praefecti praetorio programmate, etiam caeteri praefecti jubere dicuntur, propter auctoritatem unius potestatis; quanto magis in unius Dei imperio, si locutus unus e tribus fuerit, non incongrue dicentur tres locuti? Est enim eorum natura et voluntas una. Solent iterum praejudicare Spiritui sancto, quod ideo degener intelligatur, quia in ordine tertius ponitur; cum tanta simplicitas sit in Scripturis divinis, ut aliquando invenias tertium primum positum. Ut enim causa se tulerit, sic et ponuntur. Nullius enim injuria est, quia una eorum divinitas est. Denique legimus in Isaia dicente Domino, Ego sum primus, et ego in aeternum: et manus mea fundavit terram, et dextera mea solidavit coelum. Et in subjectis, Ego locutus sum, ego vocavi, ego adduxi eum, et prosperum iter ejus feci. Accedite ad me, et audite haec: Non in occulto ab initio locutus sum: cum fierent, illic eram, et nunc Dominus misit me et Spiritus ejus (Isai. XLVIII, 12, 13, 15, 16). Quem vis esse qui fundavit terram? Ipse enim dicit se missum esse. Namquid Patrem? Absit. Filius ergo est qui se missum dicit a Deo et Spiritu sancto. Ecce paria sunt inter Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Sicut enim a Patre et Filio missus legitur Spiritus sanctus; ita et a Deo et Spiritu sancto missus est Christus. Hoc enim solius Patris peculiare est, ne missus dicatur. Accipe dicta Apostoli, qui alio ordine complectitur Trinitatem: dicit enim inter caetera in Epistola ad Thessalonicenses secunda, Dominus dirigat corda vestra in charitate Dei et in patientia Christi (II Thess. III, 5). Quem putas dicit Dominum, nisi Spiritum sanctum? Et quid mirum? cum quem in throno majestatis sedentem Isaias viderit, hic ipsum dicat Spiritum sanctum Dominum sabaoth, sicut supra ostendimus. Et Joannes apostolus Deum intelligi in Spiritu sancto significat, inter caetera dicens, In hoc cognovimus quia Deus in nobis manet, de Spiritu sancto quem dedit nobis (I Joan. IV, 13). Si ergo per Spiritum suum ipse in nobis manet, non ambigitur de Deo esse Spiritum sanctum. Et nec dubium est, quia quod de Deo est, Deus est. Hinc est unde Apostolus dicit, Nemo scit quae sunt in Deo, nisi Spiritus Dei (I Cor. II, 11). Quomodo potest scire quae in Deo sunt, nisi sit ejusdem divinitatis? Inferior enim natura non potest scire quid sit in potiore: quanto magis creatura quid in Conditore suo esset, scire non poterat? Et ad Corinthios in Epistola prima, praeterito ordine qui in traditione fidei est, a Spiritu sancto incipit gratiarum et mysteriorum memorare operationes: et subjungit Dominum Jesum; et tertium ponit Deum, quem et in Spiritu sancto et in Domino dicit operari (Id. XII, 4-6): sicut ait et Dominus, Pater man⟨e⟩ns in me, ipse operatur (Joan. XIV, 10). Per id enim quod de Deo patre est et Spiritus sanctus et Christus, operatio eorum opus est Dei. Denique Spiritum sanctum idem dicit et Dominum, et Dominum idem dicit et Deum, propter unitatem naturae. Cum ergo hoc loco idem Deum qui est et Dominus, dicat operari omnia in omnibus, inferius sic concludit dicens, Omnia autem haec operatur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens unicuique prout vult (I Cor. XII, 11). Quid tam apertum, tres unius esse operationis? quia operante uno, operari dicuntur tres; quare, nisi quia unius sunt divinitatis? Nam non est ambiguum donum gratiarum proprie Spiritum sanctum operari. Sed ut Deum et Dominum et Spiritum sanctum unum esse propter naturae indifferentiam doceret,

in Isaiah, that he saw the Lord of hosts sitting on the throne of majesty (Isa. 6:1), Whom John the evangelist understood to be Christ, saying among other things, These things Isaiah said, when he saw His majesty, and he spoke of Him (John 12:41). This One the Apostle says is the Holy Spirit. For he says in the last part of the Acts of the Apostles, Well did the Holy Spirit speak to your fathers, saying, With the ear you will hear, and you will not understand, etc. (Acts 28:25–26). These words were spoken by the Lord of hosts. This is the one God, and whether He be understood as the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction, because their divinity is one and their power is one. For if in the edict of one praetorian prefect the other prefects too are said to give command, on account of the authority of the one power, how much more in the command of the one God, if one of the three has spoken, will the three not unfittingly be said to have spoken? For their nature and will are one. Again, they are wont to prejudge the Holy Spirit, that He is therefore to be understood as of lesser stock, because He is placed third in order; whereas there is such simplicity in the divine Scriptures that sometimes you find the third placed first. For as the occasion has brought it, so also are They placed. For it is an injury to none, because Their divinity is one. Finally we read in Isaiah, the Lord saying, I am the first, and I am for ever: and My hand founded the earth, and My right hand made firm the heaven. And in what follows, I have spoken, I have called, I have brought him, and I have made his journey prosperous. Draw near to Me, and hear these things: Not in secret have I spoken from the beginning: when they were being made, I was there, and now the Lord has sent Me and His Spirit (Isa. 48:12–13, 15–16). Whom do you take to be the One Who founded the earth? For He Himself says that He has been sent. Is it the Father? Far from it. It is the Son, therefore, Who says that He has been sent by God and the Holy Spirit. See, 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 another order: for he says among other things in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, May the Lord direct your hearts in the charity of God and in the patience of Christ (2 Thess. 3:5). Whom do you think he calls Lord, if not the Holy Spirit? And what wonder? since the One Whom Isaiah saw sitting on the throne of majesty, this man calls that very One the Holy Spirit, the Lord of hosts, as we showed above. And John the apostle indicates that God is understood in the Holy Spirit, saying among other things, In this we have known that God abides in us, by the Holy Spirit Whom He has given us (1 John 4:13). If, therefore, He Himself abides in us through His Spirit, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is from God. And neither is it doubtful that what is from God is God. Hence it is that the Apostle says, No one knows the things that are in God, except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). How can He know the things that are in God, unless He is of the same divinity? For an inferior nature cannot know what is in a higher one: how much more could a creature not know what was in its Maker? And to the Corinthians in the first Epistle, passing over the order that is in the tradition of the faith, he begins from the Holy Spirit to recount the workings of graces and mysteries: and he adds the Lord Jesus; and third he places God, Whom he says works both in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord (1 Cor. 12:4–6): as the Lord too says, The Father abiding in Me, He works (John 14:10). For by the fact that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are from God the Father, their working is the work of God. Finally, he calls the Holy Spirit likewise Lord, and the Lord likewise God, on account of the unity of nature. When, therefore, in this place he says that the same God, Who is also Lord, works all things in all, further below he concludes thus, saying, But all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11). What is so plain as that the three are of one working? because when One works, the three are said to work; why, unless because They are of one divinity? For it is not doubtful that the gift of graces is properly the working of the Holy Spirit. But in order to teach that God and Lord and Holy Spirit are one on account of the non-difference of nature

Editors' notes and page, col. 2295

Page

running head: 2295 QUAESTIONES EX NOVO TESTAM[ENTO] (cut off at right edge of image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence ("In Isaia", capital I as printed) and ends mid-word "doce-" (doce-re) at the column break; "mancns" read as manens with damaged e, set man⟨e⟩ns; "(A·t." read as Act. with damaged c; "suat" read as sunt (damaged type); Isai. XLVIII reference printed "12, 13. 15, 16", set with commas; coelum printed with œ; no margin letters visible in the images; neighbouring column and page-foot notes not set
other: the word doceret, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2296

PL 35:2296

opus Spiritus sancti trium esse opus ostendit. Et ut manifestaret quia solius, quantum ad personam pertinet, Spiritus sancti opus est, Haec autem omnia, inquit, operatur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens unicuique prout vult. Ideo prout vult, quia voluntas ejus, voluntas est Dei. Non enim dicit, prout vult Deus, sed prout vult Spiritus. Creatura enim cogit se, ut Dei faciat voluntatem; Spiritus autem sanctus naturaliter hoc vult. Ut autem aperte luceat quia omnia Spiritus sanctus operatur, dicit Dominus inter caetera, Si enim ego in digito Dei ejicio daemonia, etc., (Luc. XI, 20). Digitum Dei appellat Spiritum sanctum, ut probet illum de Deo esse. Denique Judaeos qui eum in Beelzebub principe daemoniorum ejicere daemonia dicebant, in Spiritum sanctum blasphemasse testatus est. Moyses quoque quia per Spiritum sanctum signa faciebat, confitentur magi dicentes, Digitus Dei est hic (Exod. VIII, 19). Nam in Actibus Apostolorum legimus, Deservientibus autem eis et jejunantibus Domino, dixit Spiritus sanctus, Segregate mihi Barnabam et Saulum ad opus, ad quod vocavi eos (Act. XIII, 2). Ecce servitur Domino, et hoc Spiritus sanctus sibi vindicat. Unde manifeste apparet hunc esse Dominum sicut et Deum Patrem. Et Saulum Christus de coelo vocavit, et misit praedicare (Id. IX, 4): et hoc simili modo sibi vindicat Spiritus sanctus, dicendo, ad opus ad quod vocavi eos: nam nemo ignorat episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos episcopos. Hoc Apostolus Spiritui sancto deputat, cum dicit: Attendite vobis et omni gregi, in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere Ecclesiam Domini Jesu (Id. XX, 28). Et inter caetera dicit Petrus ad Ananiam: Anania, cur replevit satanas cor tuum, ut mentireris Spiritui sancto? Et infra, Non es enim, inquit, hominibus, sed Deo mentitus (Id. V, 3, 4). Apertum est Spiritum sanctum dictum Deum, cui mentitus Ananias, Deo mentitus dicitur. Quod si Spiritum sanctum minime voluisset Deum intelligere, dixisset, Non es mentitus hominibus, sed Spiritui sancto; ut neque Deum hunc, neque hominem significaret. Et quid mirum? Apostolus enim aliquando templum Dei hominem appellat (II Cor. VI, 16), aliquando vero templum Spiritus sancti (I Cor. VI, 19), propterea quia unum sunt natura. Si enim Deus minime intelligeretur Spiritus sanctus, qua audacia diceret infra, Templum Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos (Id. III, 17)? Quoniam unus Deus in omnibus Scripturis praedicatur; mysterium autem ejus in Trinitate adoratur. Idcirco sic ait Scriptura, ut sub unius Dei professione, ea quae de ipso sunt, id est, Filius et Spiritus sanctus ejus, in eodem honore intelligantur, in quo ipse Deus est. Quia ideo sacramentum revelatum est Dei, ut gloria ejus in Trinitate significaretur. Quamobrem non plena auctoritate Deus vocatur quod de Deo est, ne alterum absque eo qui unus est, facere credatur. Sed intellectum dat, ut credamus ea ratione in Trinitate creaturae salutem consistere, quia una est eorum divinitas. Neque enim possent simul jungi et in ordine poni Creator et creaturae, Dominus et servi, aeternitas et quae sub initio sunt: quippe cum sine uno eorum salus nulli sit. Ad injuriam enim vocatur omne quod Deus est, sive Filius, sive Spiritus sanctus, si extra unius Dei honorem deputetur et gloriam. Scripturae igitur ostendunt Christum Deum, ostendunt Spiritum sanctum Deum, ut videntes sciant quid sit, quid ostenditur. Tale est si quis gemmam ostendat, non clamans quia gemma est, numquid quia ille non clamat, non erit gemma quae videtur? Ita et Scripturae ostendunt per ea quae supra tractata sunt quid credere debeamus, intra unius Dei fidem sensum nostrum concludentes, mysterio Trinitatis.

showed that the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the three. And to make plain that, as far as concerns the person, it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, he says: But all these things one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one as He wills. Therefore "as He wills", because His will is the will of God. For he does not say, "as God wills", but "as the Spirit wills". For a creature compels itself to do the will of God; but the Holy Spirit wills this by nature. And so that it may shine out openly that the Holy Spirit works all things, the Lord says among other things: For if I by the finger of God cast out demons, etc. (Luke 11:20). He calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God, to prove that He is from God. Moreover He declared that the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by Beelzebub the prince of demons, had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Moses too, because he worked signs through the Holy Spirit, the magicians acknowledge, saying: This is the finger of God (Exod. 8:19). For in the Acts of the Apostles we read: And as they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:2). See, the Lord is served, and the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself. Whence it plainly appears that He is Lord, just as God the Father is. And Christ called Saul from heaven and sent him to preach (Acts 9:4); and in like manner the Holy Spirit claims this for Himself, saying: for the work to which I have called them; for no one is unaware that the Saviour instituted bishops for the Churches. For before He ascended into heaven, laying His hand on the Apostles He ordained them bishops. This the Apostle ascribes to the Holy Spirit, when he says: Take heed 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 (Acts 20:28). And among other things Peter says to Ananias: Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit? And below: For you have not lied, he says, to men, but to God (Acts 5:3–4). It is plain that the Holy Spirit is called God, since Ananias, who lied to Him, 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 as to signify Him as neither God nor man. And what wonder? For the Apostle sometimes calls a man the temple of God (2 Cor. 6:16), but sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), because they are one in nature. For if the Holy Spirit were not understood to be God, with what boldness would he say below: The temple of God is holy, which you are (1 Cor. 3:17)? Since one God is proclaimed in all the Scriptures, but His mystery is adored in the Trinity. Therefore Scripture speaks thus, so that under the profession of one God, the things which are from Him, that is, His Son and Holy Spirit, may be understood to be in the same honour in which God Himself is. For the sacrament of God was revealed for this reason, that His glory might be signified in the Trinity. Wherefore that which is from God is not called God with full authority, lest it be believed to make another apart from Him Who is one. But it gives understanding, that we may believe that the salvation of the creature consists in the Trinity for this reason, that their divinity is one. For Creator and creatures, Lord and servants, eternity and the things which are under a beginning could not be joined together and placed in one order, since without any one of them there is salvation for no one. For everything that is God, whether the Son or the Holy Spirit, is called to injury if it is reckoned outside the honour and glory of the one God. The Scriptures therefore show Christ as God, they show the Holy Spirit as God, so that those who see may know what it is, what is shown. It is as if someone shows a gem without proclaiming that it is a gem: because he does not proclaim it, will what is seen not be a gem? So too the Scriptures, through the things treated above, show what we ought to believe, enclosing our understanding within faith in the one God, by the mystery of the Trinity.

Si rationi fides accommodetur, etc., Manifestum

If faith be accommodated to reason, etc. It is manifest

Editors' notes and page, col. 2296

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quid ostenditur› · call in col 2296

Er. Ven. Lov., ut videntes sciant quid sic ostenditur. M.

Erasmus, the Venice and Louvain editions: "so that those who see may know what is thus shown." M[aurists].

(printed under page 496)

(a) ‹anchor: Si rationi fides› · call in col 2296

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quadragesima tertia.

The same question from manuscripts of the second class, the forty-third among those [questions] on the New Testament placed after the printed ones.

(printed under page 496)

Page

running head: …NOVO TESTAMENTO. APPENDIX. 2296 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2297

igitur est idcirco verum dici Filium Dei Christum, ut proprius, id est de substantia ejus natus intelligatur. Unde et Apostolus, Qui proprio, inquit, Filio suo non pepercit. Nam Patrem et Filium unius esse substantiae, ipsa nominum ratio docet. Ut enim mysterium, quod ratio humana propter suam infirmitatem non capit, possit sciri, nomina sacris rebus aptata sunt congrue, ut per haec veritas Patris et Filii possit aliquatenus intelligi. Nihil enim sic Christum Dominum de Deo esse Deum facit adverti, quam nomen hoc quod dicitur Filius Dei. Et quia malignitas etiam ipsis nominibus perfidiam suam infert, ut aliter quam ratio ipsa se habet nominis ipsius, causam interpretetur, addidit, verus Filius: ut obstrueret os pravum, et mente perversum. Denique nemo in haeresim ruit, nisi a nominum ratione discedens: simplices vero permanentes in ratione nominum, catholicae fidei adhaeserunt. Ipsa enim simplicitas non aliter hoc advertit imperturbata, quam traditum est. Accedente autem tergiversatione, dum re bene et simpliciter posita commovent quaestiones, non contenti credere quod sonant verba, indignum putantes si non sibi addant aut demant, de traditione praecipitantur. Sollicitos enim se faciunt, ne Deus aliter debeat credi, quam tradidit. Ratio autem nominum Patris et Filii inducit ad veritatem unitatis eorum. Nec enim potest discrepare ab altero, quorum imago una sacris Scripturis refertur, quod etiam ipse Filius firmat, cum dicit, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem. Si ergo unum ex iis qui videt, ambos videt, sine dubio Pater et Filius unam habent imaginem; quae non esset una nisi consubstantivi essent Pater et Filius: quod quidem non est ambiguum circa notitiam humanam. De vero enim Filio quid aliud poterit judicari, quam ut unitas eorum ipsa nominum proprietate nascentis et generantis firmetur? Quis enim aliud generet quam ipse est? Si enim Filius tantum diceretur, et non adjiceretur ad intellectum quia verus est, testante illud apostolo Joanne, qui ait, Sumus in vero filio Jesu Christo, qui est verus Deus, et vita aeterna; et apostolo Paulo similiter praedicante: Qui proprio, inquit, filio suo non pepercit: posset de nudo nomine Filii dubitari. Nam cum addat verum hunc esse Filium Dei; qui ab hac

it is therefore for this reason that Christ is said to be the true Son of God, so that He may be understood as His own, that is, born of His substance. Hence also the Apostle says, Who did not spare His own Son [Rom. 8:32]. For that the Father and the Son are of one substance, the very meaning of the names teaches. For in order that the mystery, which human reason on account of its weakness does not grasp, might be known, names have been fittingly adapted to sacred things, so that through them the truth of the Father and the Son might to some extent be understood. For nothing makes it so clearly noticed that Christ the Lord is God from God as this name by which He is called the Son of God. And because malice brings its faithlessness even to the names themselves, so as to interpret the reason of that very name otherwise than the reason itself holds, he added, the true Son: in order to stop the depraved mouth, perverted also in mind. In short, no one falls into heresy except by departing from the meaning of the names; but the simple, remaining in the meaning of the names, have held fast to the Catholic faith. For simplicity itself, undisturbed, perceives this in no other way than it has been handed down. But when evasiveness comes in, while they stir up questions about a matter well and simply laid down, not content to believe what the words say, thinking it unworthy of them unless they add or take away something, they are cast headlong from the tradition. For they make themselves anxious lest God ought to be believed otherwise than He has handed down. But the meaning of the names Father and Son leads to the truth of Their unity. For one cannot differ from the other when a single image of both is reported in the sacred Scriptures, which the Son Himself also confirms when He says, He who sees Me sees the Father also [John 14:9]. If therefore he who sees one of them sees both, without doubt the Father and the Son have one image; which would not be one unless the Father and the Son were consubstantial: which indeed is not doubtful as regards human knowledge. For concerning the true Son, what else could be judged than that Their unity is confirmed by the very propriety of the names of the one born and the one begetting? For who would beget something other than what he himself is? For if He were called only Son, and it were not added for the understanding that He is true, as the apostle John testifies, who says, We are in the true Son, Jesus Christ, Who is true God and eternal life [1 John 5:20]; and as the apostle Paul likewise proclaims: Who did not spare, he says, His own Son: one might have doubts about the bare name of Son. For since he adds that this is the true Son of God; he who from this

QUAESTIONES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM.

QUESTIONS FROM BOTH TESTAMENTS, MIXED TOGETHER.

DE EVANGELIO JOANNIS.

On the Gospel of John.

XCVIII. — Audistis quae contestetur sacrosanctum Evangelium, dicente Domino ad Judaeos, Vos de patre diabolo nati estis, et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ⟨a⟩b initio, et in veritate non stetit, quia veritas non est in illo. Cum loquitur mendacium, ex suis propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, sicut et pater ejus (Joan. VIII, 44). Nemo fidelium dubitet diabolum apostasiae suae auctorem non habere. Ipse enim totius erroris est princeps: qui videns a Deo factum se non mediocris potentiae, ausus est praesumere divinitatem; ut quia caeteros vidit inferiores, seipsum praeferret ut deum. Denique nomina quibus

XCVIII. — You have heard what the most holy Gospel testifies, when the Lord says to the Jews, You are born of your father the devil, and you will to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, as is his father also (John 8:44). Let none of the faithful doubt that the devil has no author of his apostasy. For he himself is the prince of all error: who, seeing that he had been made by God of no mean power, dared to presume to divinity; so that, because he saw the others to be inferior, he might set himself above them as a god. Finally the names by which

Editors' notes and page, col. 2297

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot (on the heading DE EVANGELIO JOANNIS)› · call in col 2297

Ita Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones sic habent: Quomodo in Evangelio Joannis diabolus dicatur habere patrem.

So the manuscripts and the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however, read thus: "How in the Gospel of John the devil is said to have a father."

(printed under page 497)

(b) ‹anchor: XCVIII› · call in col 2297

In Mss. secundi generis non exstat haec jam secunda tractatio ejusdemmet argumenti, de quo supra est quaestio nonagesima.

In the manuscripts of the second class this second treatment of the very same subject, on which there is the ninetieth question above, does not survive.

(printed under page 497)

Editors' prose

(pointer - the full-width section title QUAESTIONES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM, a title the editors call unsuitable and keep from the earlier editions (note (a) in n2298), is set in layer 1 in c2297 above DE EVANGELIO JOANNIS)

Page

running head: 2297 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQUE MI[...] (cut off at the image edge; column number printed blurred, as 22)7)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2298

voce et sensu recedunt, ipsi sibi proprie inimici sunt. Confingunt enim sibi, et persuasione quadam opinionis perversae aliud debere credi asserunt, quam ratio fidei continet, quasi plus dent Deo quam ipse de se voluit credi. Si enim adjectum non fuisset, vero, posset dubitari. Diceretur enim similis esse Patri, propter hoc quod ait, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem: ut sicut lac et gypsum, quantum ad colorem pertinet, simile est: quantum ad naturam, longe dissimile: sic et id quod dictum est, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem, possit videri. Sed quia veri Filii Dei verba sunt, non debet aliud ad intellectum admitti, quam ut ideo hoc videatur dixisse, quia unum sunt natura Pater et Filius, hoc est in nullo discrepare alterum ab altero. Nam si Salvator de viro et muliere, propterea quod una amborum substantia est, ait, Jam enim non sunt duo. sed una caro: quanto magis Pater et Filius non sunt duo dicendi juxta substantiam; ne aut scissa vel divisa, aut certe dispar ac dissimilis eorum substantia dignoscatur? Denique Paulus apostolus unitatem substantiae eorum firmans dicit, Qui non rapinam arbitratus est esse se parem Deo. Parilitas ergo haec unde erit, nisi de unitate substantiae? Hinc ambo unius sunt imaginis. Sic ergo ut Apostolus ait, Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se parem Deo, verum se Dei Filium demonstravit. Deo enim par esse non poterat, nisi esset de ipso. Pares enim ii sunt qui aut ambo veri sunt, aut ambo falsi. Nec enim parilitatem recipit, coeptum et aeternum, aut unitatem. Unum enim se esse dicendo Christus cum Patre, parem se Deo fecit. Non solum enim, inquit, solveba⟨t⟩ sabbatum, sed et Patrem proprium Deum sibi dicebat, aequalem se faciens Deo, hoc est Patri. Nonne manifestum est aequalitatem hanc de proprietate nativitatis descendere? Proprium enim se, id est verum dicens Dei Filium, aequalem se faciebat Deo: hoc est unde dicit, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem: per id quod consubstantivi sunt, qui unum videt, ambos videt. Sicut enim habet Pater vitam in semetipso, ita et dedit Filio habere vitam: hoc est, aequalem, etc.,

depart in word and sense are properly their own enemies. For they make things up for themselves, and by a certain persuasion of perverse opinion they assert that something other must be believed than what the rule of faith contains, as though they gave more to God than He Himself willed to be believed about Himself. For if "true" had not been added, there could have been doubt. For He would be said to be like the Father, on account of what He says, He who sees Me sees also the Father: so that, just as milk and gypsum are alike as far as colour is concerned, but as far as nature is concerned are far unlike, so also what was said, He who sees Me sees also the Father, might seem [to be meant]. But because these are the words of the true Son of God, nothing else ought to be admitted to the understanding than that He is seen to have said this because the Father and the Son are one by nature, that is, the one differs from the other in nothing. For if the Saviour says of man and woman, because the substance of both is one, For now they are not two, but one flesh: how much more must the Father and the Son not be called two according to substance, lest their substance be recognized as either cut or divided, or at any rate unequal and unlike? Then Paul the apostle, confirming the unity of their substance, says, Who did not think it robbery to be equal to God. Whence then will this equality come, if not from the unity of substance? Hence both are of one image. So therefore, as the Apostle says, He did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but showed Himself the Son of God. For He could not be equal to God unless He were from Him. For those are equals who are either both true or both false. For what has had a beginning and what is eternal do not admit equality, or unity. For by saying that He is one with the Father, Christ made Himself equal to God. For not only, it says, was He breaking the sabbath, but He also called God His own Father, making Himself equal to God, that is, to the Father. Is it not manifest that this equality comes down from the property of birth? For by calling Himself the proper, that is the true, Son of God, He made Himself equal to God: this is why He says, He who sees Me sees also the Father: because they are consubstantial, whoever sees one sees both. For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given the Son to have life: that is, equal, etc.

appellatur diabolus et satanas, ab actu ejus composita sunt, non ex natura. Omne enim malum opere probatur, ut non substantia in crimine sit, sed voluntas concepta ex causis. Dum enim se vidit potiorem caeteris, inflatus est ad exercendam dominationem. Quomodo ergo patrem habere dicitur, qui auctor sceleris ejus habeatur? Aut unde probatur ab initio homicida fuisse? Sed Scriptura illum qui ejus fuerit imitator, nomine ejus appellat; ut quia ab opere nomen accepit, omnis qui malum opus fecerit, non immerito diabolus nominetur. Salvator ergo hoc loco Cain diabolum appellavit, quia operum ejus aemulus, dum invidit fratri, homicidium perpetravit, exemplum relinquens crudelitatis parricidii. Sicut et diabolus dum invidit homini facto ad imaginem Dei, malignitatem operis sui cumulavit, typum praebens erroris. Hinc itaque exstitit etiam mendax Cain, dicente sibi Deo, Ubi est Abel frater tuus? Qui patris sui imbutus malitia, in mendacium prorumpens, Nescio, inquit (Gen. IV, 9); ut cui vitam extorserat, ubi esset nescire se simularet; sic furore caecatus, ut Deo sic responderet quasi homini, quem putaret se posse celare. Igitur hujusmodi imitatores facti Judaei, etiam ipsum Dominum occiderunt, Cain potius fratricidam patrem volentes habere

is called devil and Satan, are formed from his action, not from nature. For every evil is proved by deed, so that it is not the substance that is in the crime, but the will conceived from causes. For when he saw himself more powerful than the rest, he was puffed up to exercise dominion. How then is he said to have a father, who is held to be the author of his crime? Or whence is it proved that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls by his name the one who has been his imitator; so that, since he received his name from his work, everyone who has done an evil work is not undeservedly named devil. The Saviour therefore in this place called Cain the devil, because, as an emulator of his works, when he envied his brother, he committed murder, leaving an example of the cruelty of parricide. Just as the devil too, when he envied the man made to the image of God, heaped up the malignity of his work, offering a type of error. Hence therefore Cain also proved a liar, when God said to him, Where is Abel your brother? He, imbued with the malice of his father, bursting out into a lie, says, I do not know (Gen. 4:9); so that he pretended not to know where he was whose life he had wrested from him; so blinded by fury that he answered God as though a man, from whom he thought he could hide. Therefore the Jews, having become imitators of this kind, killed even the Lord Himself, wishing rather to have Cain the fratricide as father

Editors' notes and page, col. 2298

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: aequalem, etc.› · call in col 2298

Consequuntur perpauca uti in Mss. primi generis, scilicet usque ad verba, natus credatur. Reliqua deinceps in Mss. secundi generis desunt.

A very few words follow, as in the manuscripts of the first class, namely up to the words "natus credatur" ["be believed to be born"]. All the rest from there on is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 497)

(a) ‹anchor: EX UTROQUE MIXTIM (title)› · call in col 2298

Titulus ineptus, ut ex qq. CI, CII, CXIV, CXV, etc., patet, nec a nobis repertus in Mss. qui partitionem hic nullam habent. Sed ex editis hactenus receptum est, ut citetur haec tertia pars Quaestionum sub illo titulo: quapropter nihil hic mutandum curavimus, in opere praesertim non magni momenti.

An unsuitable title, as is plain from questions 101, 102, 114, 115 and others, and not found by us in the manuscripts, which have no division here. But it has been accepted from the printed editions until now that this third part of the Questions is cited under that title; for that reason we have taken care to change nothing here, especially in a work of no great importance.

(printed under page 497)

Page

running head: UTROQUE MIXTIM. APPENDIX. 2298
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word habere was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2299
other: misprint kept as printed: "duo. sed" (full stop for comma, in Jam enim non sunt duo. sed una caro)

PL 35:2299

quam Deum, ut totius sanguinis effusi rei fierent. Auctorem enim vitae perimentes, totius sceleris principes exstiterunt, ita ut huic malo etiam filios suos obligarent dicentes, Sanguis ejus super nos et super filios nostros (Matth. XXVII, 25). Ut enim Pilato suaderent, nihil mali esse quod petebant, in filios suos retorqueri dixerunt, si esset injustum: quia ut furori suo satisfacerent, nec filiis quidem suis parcere voluerunt. Nam quia diabolus non natura malus est, hinc facilius dicitur, quia poena non promitteretur ei qui non fecerat quod nescierat. Iniquum est enim punire eum qui non facit aliud, quam quod suae est naturae. Et magis istud malum est, si hoc exigas ab aliquo, quod scias illum non posse. Quamobrem juste plectendus est, quem cum constet scire ac facere posse bonum, agit malum. Hoc etiam ex verbis Salvatoris poterit adverti: ait enim, sicut supra memoratum est, Pater vester homicida fuit ab initio, et in veritate non stetit. Igitur si per naturam mendax est, quomodo dicitur in veritate non stetisse? Hic enim in veritate non stat, qui in veritate non permanet. Constat ergo diabolum in veritate fuisse, sed non perseverasse. Denique legimus in propheta sic dicentem Dominum, Si stetissent, inquit, in substantia mea (Jerem. XXIII, 22), id est in lege mea. Et Apostolus ad Galatas, State, inquit, et nolite iterum servitutis jugo cohiberi (Galat. V, 1). Quid tam apertum? Hic enim mandat ut de caetero permaneant in mandatis ejus. Quod si diabolus servasset, steterat in substantia et in lege Dei. Fundamentum est enim lex servantibus eam. Quomodo ergo quibusdam videtur, diabolum aut malum a Deo factum, aut propriam habere originem, id est ex nullo ortum, quod utrumque Deo videtur contrarium? Qui enim ad hoc illum dicit factum ut esset malus, imperfectae putat Deum esse bonitatis; quia perfecte bonus non facit malum. Qui vero originis ejus Deum auctorem esse non credit, ejus dominium Deo abnegat. Per hoc enim, cum omnia Dei sint, aliquid esse arbitratur quod minime ad Deum pertineat: quos oportet poenas perpeti, cum viderint cuncta a Deo judicari per Christum.

than God, so that they became guilty of all the blood that was shed. For in killing the Author of life they stood forth as the chief agents of the whole crime, so that they even bound their own sons to this evil, saying, His blood be upon us and upon our sons (Matt. 27:25). For to persuade Pilate that there was nothing evil in what they were asking, they said that it would be turned back upon their sons if it were unjust: for in order to satisfy their fury, they were not willing to spare even their own sons. For since the devil is not evil by nature, hence it is the more readily said, because punishment would not be threatened against one who had not done what he had not known. For it is unjust to punish one who does nothing other than what belongs to his nature. And this is the greater evil, if you demand from someone what you know he cannot do. Therefore he is justly to be punished who, though it is established that he knows the good and is able to do it, does evil. This too can be noticed from the words of the Saviour: for He says, as was recorded above, Your father was a murderer from the beginning, and he did not stand in the truth. If, then, he is a liar by nature, how is he said not to have stood 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. Then too we read in the prophet that the Lord speaks thus, If they had stood, He says, in My substance (Jer. 23:22), that is, in My law. And the Apostle to the Galatians, Stand, he says, and do not be held again by the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1). What is so plain? For here he commands that for the rest they should remain in His commandments. And if the devil had kept them, he would have stood in the substance and in the law of God. For the law is a foundation to those who keep it. How then does it seem to some that the devil was either made evil by God, or has an origin of his own, that is, arose from nothing, when each of the two seems contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made for this, that he should be evil, thinks God to be of imperfect goodness; for one who is perfectly good does not make evil. But whoever does not believe God to be the author of his origin denies God dominion over him. For by this, though all things are God's, he supposes there to be something which in no way belongs to God: such people must suffer punishments, when they see all things judged by God through Christ.

XCIX. — Quid sit illud Apostoli, Tentatio vos non apprehendat, nisi humana (I Cor. X, 13)?

99. — What is the meaning of that saying of the Apostle, Let no temptation seize you, except a human one (1 Cor. 10:13)?

Non sine providentia, ut arbitror, magister Gentium Apostolus noster, tentatio ut nos apprehendat exoptat, sed ut humana duntaxat; quia divina tentatio perniciem parit. Hac enim Judaei apprehensi a serpentibus perierunt. Agentes enim sub Dei lege, de providentia ejus dubitabant: ac per hoc ne divina nos, sed humana tentatio apprehendat, hortatur. Hic enim tentari a Deo dicitur, qui sub nomine ejus agens, ab idolis sperat salutem; quia non habet Deum probatum. Omne enim quod probatum non est, tentatur; et quod tentatur, in dubium venit. Ac per hoc divina tentatio mortalis est, humana vero tentatio salutaris est: quia sicut de Deo dubitare perniciosum est, ita de homine desperare propter Dei legem saluberrimum est. Quamobrem providenter Apostolus, Tentatio, inquit, vos non apprehendat nisi humana: ut propter Dei legem ab hominibus tentati, fortes inveniamur, dubitantibus de nobis hominibus carnalibus, Deo autem probati simus: quia qui probati Deo non sunt, tentantur ut emendentur. Duplex ergo tentatio est: aliquando enim quasi fideles, aliquando quasi diffidentes tentamur; ut fidelium tentatio humana sit. Propter fidem enim ab hominibus tribulamur: tentant enim nos si possint abducere a fide. Propter diffidentiam autem tentantur, ut angustiati poenitentes redeant in viam; sicut factum est etiam Judaeis. Cum enim diffiderent de providentia Dei, tentati sunt a serpentibus, ut dolore correpti emendarentur. Deus enim sic tentat, ut corrigat hujusmodi homines. Est et alia tentatio, qua tentatus est Abraham, et Job, necnon et Tobias famuli Dei: ut Abraham per tribulationem oblati unici et dilectissimi filii (Gen. XXII), uberiorem fructum justitiae haberet ad aeternam gloriam: Job autem amissione totius substantiae

Not without forethought, as I judge, does our Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, wish that temptation may seize us, but only a human one; because divine temptation brings forth destruction. For seized by this the Jews perished by serpents. For living under the law of God, they doubted His providence: and for this reason he exhorts that not a divine but a human temptation may seize us. For he is said to be tempted by God who, acting under His name, hopes for salvation from idols; because he does not hold God as proven. For everything that is not proven is tested; and what is tested comes into doubt. And for this reason divine temptation is deadly, but human temptation is salutary: for just as to doubt about God is ruinous, so to despair of man on account of the law of God is most wholesome. Therefore the Apostle says with forethought, Let no temptation seize you except a human one: so that, tempted by men on account of the law of God, we may be found strong, and while carnal men doubt about us, we may be proven to God: for those who are not proven to God are tempted that they may be amended. Twofold, then, is temptation: for sometimes we are tempted as faithful, sometimes as distrustful; so that the temptation of the faithful is human. For on account of faith we are afflicted by men: for they tempt us to see if they can draw us away from the faith. But on account of distrust men are tempted, so that, being distressed, they may repent and return to the way; as also happened to the Jews. For when they distrusted the providence of God, they were tempted by serpents, so that, seized by pain, they might be amended. For God tempts in this way, to correct men of this kind. There is also another temptation, by which Abraham was tempted, and Job, and also Tobias, servants of God: so that Abraham, through the affliction of offering his only and most beloved son (Gen. 22), might have a richer fruit of righteousness unto eternal glory: but Job by the loss of all his substance

Editors' notes and page, col. 2299

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: fortes inveniamur› · call in col 2299

Ms. Colbert., forte si inveniamur.

The Colbert manuscript: "if perhaps we are found."

(printed under page 498)

Page

running head: 2299 QUAESTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word substantiae was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2300

PL 35:2300

augmentaretur divitiis locupletatus in coelis et in terra (Job I, II; XLII, 12, 13). Tobias vero caecitatem luminum passus sic provectior exstitit, ut ad praesens gloriosus fieret receptis oculis, et in futurum servaretur ei claritas perpetua (Tob. II, 11; XI, 15). Quia ad hoc probantur justi, ut proficiant. Ideoque in tentatione robusto animo esse debemus, scientes non ad diminutionem nostram hoc proficere, sed augmentum, si modo aequo animo toleremus per Christum.

was increased, enriched with riches in heaven and on earth (Job 1–2; 42:12–13). Tobias, moreover, having suffered blindness of his eyes, came out so much the more advanced that in the present he was made glorious by the recovery of his eyes, and for the future an everlasting splendour was kept for him (Tob. 2:11; 11:15). For the just are tested to this end, that they may make progress. And therefore we ought to be of steadfast mind in temptation, knowing that this serves not to our diminishment but to our increase, if only we bear it with an even mind through Christ.

Omnis quaestio ut dilucidari possit, ad originem revocanda est. Apostolus autem cum de Judaeorum perfidia quereretur, et quoniam Deum in solitudine tentaverunt; unde dicit, Neque tentemus Christum, sicut quidam tentaverunt (I Cor. X, 9): dum ergo haec memoraret, et quid propter ista mala passi sunt, ad terrorem incu⟨t⟩iendum exponeret, ut ipso nos exemplo malitiae vel tentationis quae in Domino fit revocaret (divina namque tentatio est, si sub lege Dei agens, ex alia parte aut ab idolis auxilium petat, diffidens de Deo), ideo hoc Apostolus cavendum monet. Ut autem humana tentatio nos teneat, exhortatur: quia humana tentatio est, in Dei causa desperare de homine, et promptum esse in fide Dei. Tentatio enim haec diffidentia intelligitur, ut de promissis Dei non diffidant. De humanis, quia in omni errore seductionis humana tentatio est, quae infesta mundanis rationibus Dei legi obsistit, desperans de promissis ejus. Habes ergo manifestatum quae sit in Deum tentatio, et quae est humana tentatio, quam fastidire non debemus, si fidei Dei participes sumus.

Every question, if it is to be made clear, must be traced back to its origin. Now the Apostle, when he was complaining of the faithlessness of the Jews, and that they tempted God in the wilderness, whence he says, Neither let us tempt Christ, as some tempted (1 Cor. 10:9): while, then, he was recalling these things, and was setting forth, to strike terror, what they suffered on account of these evils, so that by their very example he might call us back from the malice or temptation which is committed against the Lord (for it is divine temptation if someone, living under the law of God, on the other side seeks help from idols, distrusting God), for that reason the Apostle warns that this must be guarded against. But he exhorts that human temptation should hold us: for human temptation is, in the cause of God, to despair of man, and to be ready in the faith of God. For this temptation is understood as distrust, so that they should not distrust the promises of God. Of human things, because in every error of seduction there is human temptation, which, hostile by worldly reasonings, opposes the law of God, despairing of His promises. You have it made plain, then, what temptation against God is, and what human temptation is, which we ought not to disdain, if we are partakers of the faith of God.

DE EVANGELIO MATTHAEI.

On the Gospel of Matthew.

C. — Audistis, fratres charissimi, quae contestetur Evangelium dicente Domino: Confiteor tibi, Domine coeli et terrae, qui abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. Ita, Pater, quoniam sic fuit placitum ante te (Matth. XI, 25, 26). Igitur si dictorum sensum inspiciamus, videbimus ea quae ad exhortationem credentium a Domino dicta sunt, eorum qui propterea quod mundanam sapientiam spernunt, parvuli videntur sapientibus mundi, qui nullo testimonio commendati sapientes volunt dici. Idcirco indignum visum est Deo his ostendere veritatem: humilibus autem qui nihil de se praesumentes divinae se voluntati inclinant, aequitate cogente salutaria revelanda sunt. Hic enim prudens Deo est et salutis suae memor, qui scientiae suae anteponit Dei legem, quam utique videt non verborum strepitu fulciri, sed rerum virtutibus. Et sine dubio hic stultus et vanus est, qui huic rei se commendat, quae nulla munitur praerogativa signorum. Unde non litteratis saeculi regnum Deus promisit, sed fidelibus; neque scrutatoribus siderum aeternitatem pollicetur, sed recte agentibus; nec dialecticis, qui fraude et minutis quibusdam ratiunculis verum excludere nituntur, gloriam dat; sed bonae voluntatis hominibus, qui accurati magis vita sunt quam sermone. Istos enim reprobat Deus, qui oratione clari sermonis magis uti volunt quam bonis actibus. Nam et gloriam Dei in se vult convertere, qui rem Dei verbis exornare se putat. Res enim ipsae per se placere debent, ut non sermo, sed sensus laudetur. Si enim sensus auctor est litterae, et verba propter res significandas inventa sunt; cur non magis res ipsae puro sensu promendae sunt, ut felicius mentem incitent ad salutem? Ideoque piscatores elegit Dominus noster Apostolos, homines simplices et sine litteris, qui sine aliqua versutia fidem servando et bene vivendo, Dei in se ostenderent veritatem. Unde et apostolus Paulus, Et ego veniens, inquit, ad vos, fratres, non veni in sublimitate sermonis aut sapientiae (I Cor. II, 1). Et inter caetera, Quia non,

C. — You have heard, dearest brethren, what the Gospel attests, the Lord saying: I confess to Thee, Lord of heaven and earth, Who hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Even so, Father, for so it was well-pleasing before Thee (Matt. 11:25–26). If, then, we look into the sense of these sayings, we shall see that the things spoken by the Lord for the exhortation of believers concern those who, because they spurn worldly wisdom, seem little ones to the wise of the world, who, commended by no testimony, wish to be called wise. For that reason it seemed unfitting to God to show the truth to these; but to the humble, who, presuming nothing of themselves, bow themselves to the divine will, the things of salvation must, as equity demands, be revealed. For he is prudent towards God and mindful of his salvation who places the law of God before his own knowledge, seeing that it is upheld not by the clamour of words but by the powers of deeds. And without doubt he is foolish and vain who commends himself to a thing that is fortified by no privilege of signs. Hence God has promised the kingdom not to the lettered men of the world but to the faithful; nor does He pledge eternity to the searchers of the stars but to those who act rightly; nor does He give glory to the dialecticians, who strive by fraud and certain petty little reasonings to shut out the truth, but to men of good will, who are careful in life rather than in speech. For God rejects those who wish to make use of the eloquence of brilliant speech rather than of good deeds. For he who thinks to adorn the matter of God with words wishes also to turn the glory of God upon himself. For things themselves ought to please through themselves, 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 not the things themselves rather be brought forth in plain sense, so that they may more happily stir the mind towards salvation? And therefore our Lord chose fishermen as Apostles, simple men and without letters, who, without any cunning, by keeping the faith and by living well, might show the truth of God in themselves. Hence also the apostle Paul says, And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1). And among other things,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2300

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: humana tentatio est› · call in col 2300

Ms. Germ., traditio est.

The Saint-Germain manuscript: "traditio est" ["it is a tradition"].

(printed under page 498)

(2) ‹anchor: DE EVANGELIO MATTHAEI (heading)› · call in col 2300

Ita Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones: Quomodo in Evangelio Matthaei dictum sit: Confiteor tibi, Pater, Domine coeli, etc.

So the manuscripts and the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however: "How it is said in the Gospel of Matthew: I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven, etc."

(printed under page 498)

(3) ‹anchor: ut felicius› · call in col 2300

Ms. Colbert., facilius.

The Colbert manuscript: "facilius" ["more easily"].

(printed under page 498)

(a) ‹anchor: Omnis quaestio› · call in col 2300

Quaestio eadem ex Mss. secundi generis, inter post vulgatas ex Novo Test. quinquagesima secunda.

The same question from manuscripts of the second class, the fifty-second among those [questions] on the New Testament placed after the printed ones.

(printed under page 498)

(b) ‹anchor: C› · call in col 2300

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 498)

Page

running head: …ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2300 (cut off at left edge of image; column number blurred)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2301

ait, in sermone est regnum Dei, sed in virtute (I Cor. IV, 20) : ut quia verba contradictioni obnoxia sunt, Dei legi virtus testis existeret, cui omnis cedit sermonum sublimitas. Itaque haec idcirco praemissa sunt, fratres charissimi, ut consuleretur simplicioribus, ne forte indignos se putarent gratia Dei, quia minime sunt litteris forensibus eruditi, cum magis ad laudem proficiat simplicitas eorum : quoniam quod prudentes mundi non vident superbia litterarum, hi credunt, non verbis sed consilio prudentes. Sciunt enim in bonis operibus requiescere Deum, et fidem quaerere, nou cultum sermonem. Legunt enim dicentem Dominum, In quo requiescam, nisi in humili et mansueto et tremente verba mea (Isai. LXVI, 2)? Quamobrem ut digni efficiamur ad promissa praemia, ea quae a Domino jubentur, facere debemus, securi quia hos diligit Dominus, qui verba ejus custodiunt. Sic enim dicit discipulis suis, Si diligitis me, praecepta mea servate (Joan. XIV, 15) : ut in his Domino servientes regni ejus haeredes esse possimus per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Because the kingdom of God, he says, is not in speech, but in power (1 Cor. 4:20): so that, since words are liable to contradiction, power might stand as witness to the law of God, to which all loftiness of speech gives way. Therefore these things have been set out beforehand, dearest brothers, in order to provide for the simpler, lest perhaps they should think themselves unworthy of the grace of God because they are not at all learned in forensic letters, whereas their simplicity rather advances them towards praise: for what the wise of the world do not see through the pride of letters, these believe, wise not in words but in counsel. For they know that God rests in good works, and that He seeks faith, not polished speech. For they read the Lord saying, On whom shall I rest, if not on the humble and meek and one trembling at My words? (Isa. 66:2) Wherefore, that we may be made worthy of the promised rewards, we ought to do the things that are commanded by the Lord, secure that the Lord loves those who keep His words. For thus He says to His disciples, If you love Me, keep My commandments (John 14:15): so that, serving the Lord in these things, we may be heirs of His kingdom through Jesus Christ our Lord.

DE JACTANTIA ROMANORUM LEVITARUM.

On the boasting of the Roman Levites.

CI. — Dum jussis charitatis parere volumus, in vituperationem forte cademus, qui de re quae nulli aliquando in dubium venit, scribimus; quia cum amicitiam offendere nolumus, studium quod ad aliquam rem occultam revelandam proficere debuit, intricamus : quamvis propter nimiam stultitiam cujusdam hoc asseverantis, quod in subjectis pandemus, istud nobis injunxerit charitas memorata, ne cum nemo diu ad hoc responderet, in pejus proficeret, et diu in vano exercitatus emendari non possit. Hoc enim charitatis studium est, quae non quaerit quae sua sunt. Quidam igitur qui nomen habet Falcidii, duce stultitia, et civitatis Romanae jactantia, levitas sacerdotibus, et diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit : non dicam praeferre, quia stultius est, et forte incredibile videatur, et nos non emendatores, sed calumniatores habeamur. Qua igitur lege quave consuetudine, quonam exemplo hoc aggredi audeat, nullum scire arbitror, ut istos quibus consessus in Ecclesia datus est minime, iis coaequet qui propter quod antistites Dei sunt, in domo Dei et in honore Christi cum dignitate considunt : quae audacia est presbyteris ministros ipsorum pares facere? Quae temeritatis praesumptio, sacerdotibus bajulos tabernaculi et omnium vasorum ejus et lignorum concisores et portitores aquae conferre? Hoc enim officium fuit levitarum. Tale est, si praefectis officiales, dominis servi aequentur. Hoc enim scriptum est dicente Domino ad Moysen, Accipe tribum Levi de medio filiorum Israel, et statue illos ante Aaron sacerdotem, et deservient ei (Num. VIII, 13). Quid hoc exemplo apertius, quod etiam nunc in Ecclesia custoditur? Quanquam Romanae Ecclesiae diaconi modico inverecundiores videantur, sedendi tamen dignitatem in Ecclesia non praesumunt. Ut autem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant, multitudo facit clericorum. Nam utique et altare portarent et vasa ejus, et aquam in manus funderent sacerdoti, sicut videmus per omnes Ecclesias, et sicut constitutum est a Domino per Moysen. Aut numquid meliores Elisaeo sunt, qui aquam fundebat in manus Eliae (IV Reg. III, 11)? Sic autem diaconos adversus presbyteros defendit, quasi ex presbyteris diaconi, et non ex diaconis presbyteri ordinentur. Sed quia Romanae Ecclesiae ministri sunt, idcirco honorabiliores putantur quam apud caeteras Ecclesias, propter magnificentiam urbis Romae, quae caput esse videtur omnium civitatum. Si itaque sic est, hoc debent et sacerdotibus

CI. — While we wish to obey the commands of charity, we shall perhaps fall into reproach, we who write about a matter that has never come into doubt for anyone; because, while we do not wish to offend friendship, we entangle the effort which ought to have served to reveal some hidden matter: although, on account of the excessive foolishness of a certain person asserting this, which we shall set out in what follows, the charity mentioned has enjoined this upon us, lest, if no one answered it for a long time, he should advance to the worse and, having long been exercised in vanity, could not be corrected. For this is the zeal of charity, which seeks not the things that are its own. A certain man, then, who has the name Falcidius, with folly as his guide and the boastfulness of the city of Rome, strives to make Levites equal to priests, and deacons to presbyters: I will not say to set them above, because that is more foolish, and might perhaps seem incredible, and we should be held not correctors but slanderers. By what law, then, or what custom, by what example he dares to attempt this, I think no one knows: that he should make those to whom a seat in the Church has by no means been given equal to those who, because they are prelates of God, sit with dignity in the house of God and in the honour of Christ. What audacity is it to make their own ministers equal to presbyters? What presumption of rashness, to compare with priests the bearers of the tabernacle and of all its vessels, and the cutters of wood and carriers of water? For this was the office of the Levites. It is as if attendants were made equal to prefects, servants to masters. For this is written, the Lord saying to Moses, Take the tribe of Levi from the midst of the sons of Israel, and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him (Num. 8:13). What is plainer than this example, which is kept even now in the Church? Although the deacons of the Roman Church appear somewhat too shameless, yet they do not presume to the dignity of sitting in the Church. That they do not, however, perform all the ministries of service in turn is due to the multitude of clerics. For otherwise they would carry both the altar and its vessels, and pour water on the hands of the priest, as we see throughout all the Churches, and as was established by the Lord through Moses. Or are they perhaps better than Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah (2 Kgs. 3:11)? Yet he defends deacons against presbyters as if deacons were ordained from presbyters, and not presbyters from deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman Church, they are therefore thought more honourable than among the other Churches, on account of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which seems to be the head of all cities. If, then, it is so, they ought this also

Editors' notes and page, col. 2301

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot (on the question's heading)› · call in col 2301

Sic Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones: Quomodo contra levitas Romanos disceptandum sit, qui contendunt levitas sacerdotibus, et diaconos presbyteris coaequare.

So the manuscripts and the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however: "How one is to argue against the Roman levites who strive to make levites equal to priests, and deacons to presbyters."

(printed under page 499)

(2) ‹anchor: nomen habet Falcidii› · call in col 2301

Ms. Colbert., Falsi-de-re-quaerunt duce, etc.

The Colbert manuscript: "Falsi-de-re-quaerunt duce", etc. [a corrupt reading for the name].

(printed under page 499)

(3) ‹anchor: forte incredibile videatur› · call in col 2301

Juxta Er. Lugd. et Ven., videtur. M.

According to Erasmus and the Lyons and Venice editions, "videtur" ["seems"]. M[aurists].

(printed under page 499)

(a) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2301

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 499)

Page

running head: 2301 APPENDIX. (head cut off at right edge of image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word sacerdotibus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2302

PL 35:2302

suis vindicare : quia si ii qui inferiores sunt crescunt propter magnificentiam civitatis, quanto magis qui potiores, sublimandi sunt? Quidquid enim officialibus praestatur, augmentum fit p⟨o⟩testati : sicut honor servi ad laudem proficit domini. Quanquam apud justum judicem Deum unicuique hic honor maneat, qui decretus est singulis Ecclesiarum officiis, ut qui diaconus est, diaconi honorem per omnes Ecclesias habeat. Non enim qualiscumque honor est, antistiti Dei servire in Ecclesia duntaxat ut sacerdos totius honoris ecclesiastici dignus habeatur. Major enim ordo intra se et apud se habet et minorem : presbyter enim et diaconi agit officium et exorcistae et lectoris. Presbyterum autem intelligi episcopum, probat Paulus apostolus, quando Timotheum quem ordinavit presbyterum, instruit qualem debeat creare episcopum (I Tim. III, 1-7). Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos? Denique non aliter quam compresbyteros hic vocat et consacerdotes suos. Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus? Non utique, quia multo inferiores sunt. Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium. Nam in Alexandria et per totam Aegyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat presbyter. Quanta autem sit dignitas ordinis sacerdotalis, causa ostendit Caiphae, qui cum esset homo pessimus, prophetavit. Quare? Quia princeps, inquit, erat sacerdotum (Joan. XI, 49). Et iterum multum distare inter diaconum et sacerdotem, liber approbat, quem dicimus Actus Apostolorum. Cum enim ex Samaria credidissent Philippo praedicanti diacono ab Apostolis ordinato, Miserunt, inquit, ad Petrum et Joannem ut venirent, et iis qui crederent, darent Spiritum sanctum per manus impositionem (Act. VIII, 14, 15). Sed inscii credo Scripturarum aut immemores Legis haec defendunt. Recordari ergo debet qui ista putat asserenda, quid levitis acciderit cum taliter saperent. Cum enim nihil inter sacerdotes et levitas interesse praesumerent, Deo judice hiatu terrae absorpti sunt Chore et consentientes ei, et ducentos quinquaginta viros torrens ignis simul consumpsit (Num. XVI, 31-35) : et Ozias rex cum opus sacerdotale praesumeret, lepra perfusus est (II Paral. XXVI, 19-21) : ut hoc utique exemplo caeteri territi non audeant quod sibi concessum non est praesumere. Nunc enim videmus diaconos temere quod sacerdotum est agere per convivia et in oratione id velle, ut respondeatur illis, cum istud solis liceat sacerdotibus. Diaconi enim ordo est, accipere a sacerdote, et sic dare plebi. Vides quid pariat vana praesumptio? Immemores enim elatione mentis, eo quod videant Romanae Ecclesiae se esse ministros, non considerant quid illis a Deo decretum sit, et quid debeant custodire : sed tollunt haec de memoria assiduae stationes domesticae et officialitas, quae per suggestiones malas seu bonas nunc plurimum potest. Aut timetur enim ne male suggerant, aut emuntur ut praestent. Hi sunt qui faciunt eos ordinis sui non considerare rationem. Dum enim per adulationem obsequuntur illis illicite, praecipites illos faciunt, ut plus sibi putent licere : quippe cum videant non sic deferri sacerdotibus; ac per hoc anteferri se putant. Sed testimonio, inquit, diaconi fit presbyter : quasi istud ad praerogativam pertineat magnitudinis. Legimus enim ad plebem dixisse Petrum apostolum : Eligite, inquit, ex vobis quos constituamus deservire mysteriis Ecclesiae (Act. VI, 3). Nolo dicere, mensis. Ecce laicorum testimonio creati sunt diaconi. Et Apostolus eum qui ordinandus dicitur episcopus, etiam testimonium vult habere Gentilium : sic enim ait, Oportet enim hunc et testimonium habere bonum ab his qui foris sunt (I Tim. III, 7). Omnium ergo est testimonium dare, et non tamen omnes hoc honore digni sunt. Judicare enim omnes possunt, et non tamen omnes possunt esse quod judicant. Potest enim pictor judicari bonus, et praeferri alteri ab

to claim for their priests: for if those who are lower grow great on account of the magnificence of the city, how much more must those who are higher be exalted? For whatever is bestowed on the officials becomes an increase to the authority, just as the honour of a servant contributes to the praise of his master. And yet before God the just judge there remains to each one here that honour which has been decreed for the several offices of the Churches, so that he who is a deacon has the honour of a deacon throughout all the Churches. For it is no ordinary honour to serve the bishop of God in the Church, provided only that the priest be held worthy of all ecclesiastical honour. For the greater order holds within itself and with itself the lesser as well: for the presbyter performs the office both of deacon and of exorcist and of reader. And that the bishop is understood by presbyter, the apostle Paul proves when he instructs Timothy, whom he had ordained presbyter, what sort of man he ought to create bishop (1 Tim. 3:1–7). For what is a bishop, if not the first presbyter, that is, the highest priest? Indeed he calls them nothing other than his fellow presbyters and fellow priests. Does the bishop also call the ministers his fellow deacons? Certainly not, because they are much lower. And it is shameful to call a judge a primicerius. For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is lacking, a presbyter consecrates. And how great is the dignity of the priestly order, the case of Caiaphas shows, who, though he was a most wicked man, prophesied. Why? Because, it says, he was chief of the priests (John 11:49). And again, that there is a great distance between deacon and priest is proved by the book which we call the Acts of the Apostles. For when those of Samaria had believed Philip, a deacon ordained by the Apostles, as he preached, They sent, it says, to Peter and John, that they might come and give to those who believed the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14–15). But it is, I believe, men ignorant of the Scriptures or forgetful of the Law who defend these things. Let him therefore who thinks these things should be asserted remember what befell the Levites when they thought in such a way. For when they presumed that there was no difference between priests and Levites, by the judgement of God Korah and those who consented with him were swallowed up by a chasm of the earth, and a torrent of fire consumed two hundred and fifty men together (Num. 16:31–35); and King Uzziah, when he presumed to perform the priestly work, was covered with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:19–21): so that, terrified by this example at any rate, the rest might not dare to presume what has not been granted to them. For now we see deacons rashly doing at banquets what belongs to priests, and in prayer wishing that response be made to them, though this is permitted to priests alone. For the order of the deacon is to receive from the priest, and so to give to the people. Do you see what vain presumption brings forth? For, forgetful through elation of mind, because they see that they are ministers of the Roman Church, they do not consider what has been decreed for them by God and what they ought to keep: but these things are taken from their memory by the constant attendance in the household and by the officialdom, which now has very great power through suggestions bad or good. For either it is feared that they may make ill suggestions, or they are bought so that they may render service. These are the ones who cause them not to consider the rationale of their own order. For while through flattery they unlawfully defer to them, they make them headlong, so that they think more is permitted to them, since they see that such deference is not paid to the priests; and for this reason they think themselves preferred. But, he says, it is on the testimony of a deacon that a presbyter is made: as if this pertained to the 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 mysteries of the Church (Acts 6:3). I will not say, tables. Behold, deacons were created on the testimony of laymen. And the Apostle wishes him who is said to be about to be ordained bishop to have the testimony even of the Gentiles; for he says thus: For this man must also have a good testimony from those who are outside (1 Tim. 3:7). Therefore it belongs to all to give testimony, and yet not all are worthy of this honour. For all can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. For a painter can be judged good, and be preferred to another by

Editors' notes and page, col. 2302

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2302

Ms. Colbert., consignat.

The Colbert manuscript: "consignat" ["seals"].

(printed under page 499)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2302
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2303

illo qui pingere nesciat; et choraula melior alio choraula approbari ab eo, qui alterius est artis : ita et testis potest esse creandi presbyteri qui inferior ordine est. Et iterum, quo inflentur et putent sibi multum deberi, A nobis enim, inquiunt, perducuntur qui ordinandi sunt : ut dum lateri illorum septi sunt, honore digni videantur. Fac verum esse. Quasi officialis enim ab episcopo mittitur, ut obsequium praebeat ordinando. Nam et imperator, ut imperator appareat, ordinatur obsequio militari : non tamen melior nec par est exercitus imperatori. Nam et Aman cum esset clarus in honore militari, a rege missus est ut Mardochaeo in obsequium iret (Esther VI, 10) : ut quantum dignus esset Mardochaeus, ex hujusmodi obsequiis nosceretur. Ita et diaconi creandis presbyteris in obsequium mittuntur; ut dignos eos fieri sacerdotes, omnes intelligant. Exceptis enim sacerdotibus, quibus obsequium debent, omnibus praeponuntur diaconi.

one who does not know how to paint; and that a flute-player better than another flute-player is approved by one who is of a different craft: so too one who is lower in order can be a witness of a presbyter who is to be created. And again, so that they may be puffed up and think that much is owed to them: 'For by us,' they say, 'those who are to be ordained are led forward, so that, while they are flanked at their side by them, they may seem worthy of honour.' Grant that it is true. For he is sent by the bishop as an attendant, as it were, to render service to the one being ordained. For an emperor too, that he may appear an emperor, is installed with military attendance: yet the army is not better than the emperor, nor equal to him. For Haman too, though he was distinguished in military honour, was sent by the king to go in attendance upon Mordecai (Esth. 6:10), so that how worthy Mordecai was might be recognized from attendance of this kind. So too deacons are sent in attendance upon presbyters who are being created, so that all may understand that they are made worthy priests. For, with the exception of the priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are set above all.

CONTRA NOVATIANUM.

Against Novatian.

CII. — Dicunt discipuli sui ad Jesum, Domine, vis ut dicamus, descendat ignis de coelo, et consumat eos, sicut fecit Elias? Et respondit illis Domnus dicens, Nescitis cujus spiritus estis. Filius enim hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare (Luc. IX, 54-56). Cum dignum utique esset vindicare in Samaritanos non suscipientes eum; Dominus tamen qui ad misericordiam dandam advenit, sententiam amovit, ut de caetero corrigentes emendarentur. Et propheta Eliseus indignatus pueris qui ei contumeliam faciebant, Deo judice vindicavit in eos, ut eo loco ab ursis comederentur, ubi silva esse negatur (IV Reg. II, 23, 24) : Dominus autem oblatae sibi meretrici pepercit, ei videlicet quam in adulterio se deprehendisse majores Judaeorum dixerunt (Joan. VIII, 11); ut quia pia praedicatio incoeperat, non condemnandum, sed ignoscendum doceret. Nam per Moysen data Lex, quia justitiam habuit ad vindictam, in primordiis suis severitatem exercuit. Quia et in illum qui sabbatis exiit ligna colligere, funebriter vindicavit (Num. XV, 32-36); et in filium Aegyptiae qui blasphemaverat in D⟨e⟩um, similiter ultionem dedit (Levit. XXIV, 10-14); et in causa fusilis vituli percussit filios Israel (Exod. XXXII, 27). Unaquaeque ergo Lex inter ipsa primordia sensum suum plenum ostendit, ut vetus Lex, quia ad vindicandum promptior erat, inter initia sua asperior videretur, ut metu incusso diligentes et sollicitos faceret auditores suos. Nova vero propterea quod pia et ad misericordiam facilis est, primordia sua mitissima et clementissima demonstravit, ut ipsa oblectatione ac dilectione omnes ad indulgentiam provocaret. Postea autem et illa quae asperior visa est propter fragilitatem humani generis, non solum rigorem suum mollivit, sed et humanam et piam se praestitit, et haec quae clemens visa est aliquando vindicavit. Ananias enim cum Saphira uxore sua divinitus caesi sunt (Act. V, 5, 10). Et Elimas magus incredulus et Dei legi repugnans, Domini judicio et virtute caecatus est (Id. XIII, 8-11). Et Herodes rex propterea quod honorem non dedit Deo coeli, ab angelo Dei percussus scatens vermibus exspiravit (Id. XII, 23). Ne quia misericordia praedicatur, inultum omnino putarent homines et impune peccari, timorem posuit, ostendens ad hoc dari veniam delictorum, ut quasi ex mortuis vivificati postea abstinerent se a contrariis, ut id elaboretur, ne quis hinc cum crimine exeat, quia ad judicium venietur. Haec enim unicuique sententia imputatur, in qua defungitur. Quoniam igitur nova Lex plenitudinem habet misericordiae, ne contemptui duceretur ab amatoribus peccatorum, in supra dictos vindicavit. Vetus vero Lex quanquam ad

CII. His disciples say to Jesus, Lord, wilt Thou that we say, Let fire come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did? And the Lord answered them, saying, You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them (Luke 9:54–56). Although it would certainly have been fitting to take vengeance on the Samaritans who did not receive Him, yet the Lord, Who came to grant mercy, set aside the sentence, so that henceforth they might correct themselves and be amended. And the prophet Elisha, indignant at the boys who were insulting him, took vengeance on them with God as judge, so that they were devoured by bears in that place where it is said there is no forest (2 Kgs. 2:23–24); but the Lord spared the harlot brought before Him, namely the one whom the elders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery (John 8:11), so that, since the preaching of mercy had begun, He might teach that she was not to be condemned but pardoned. For the Law given through Moses, since it held justice for the purpose of vengeance, exercised severity in its beginnings. For it punished with death him who went out on the sabbath to gather wood (Num. 15:32–36); and on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed against God it likewise exacted vengeance (Lev. 24:10–14); and in the matter of the molten calf it struck down the sons of Israel (Exod. 32:27). Each Law, therefore, showed its full meaning in its very beginnings: so that the old Law, since it was readier to punish, appeared harsher in its beginnings, in order that by the fear it struck it might make its hearers diligent and careful. But the New, because it is merciful and inclined to mercy, displayed its beginnings as most mild and most clement, so that by that very delight and love it might call all to forgiveness. Afterwards, however, the one which seemed harsher not only softened its rigour on account of the frailty of the human race, but also showed itself humane and merciful; and the one which seemed clement sometimes took vengeance. For Ananias with his wife Sapphira were struck down by divine power (Acts 5:5, 10). And Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing the law of God, was blinded by the judgement and power of the Lord (ibid. 13:8–11). And King Herod, because he did not give honour to the God of heaven, was struck by an angel of God and expired swarming with worms (ibid. 12:23). Lest, because mercy is preached, men should think that sin goes altogether unavenged and that one sins with impunity, it established fear, showing that pardon of offences is given to this end: that, as though brought to life from the dead, they should afterwards keep themselves from what is contrary, and that effort be made that no one depart hence with crime upon him, since one will come to judgement. For to each person is imputed that sentence in which he dies. Since, therefore, the new Law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be held in contempt by lovers of sins, it took vengeance on those mentioned above. But the old Law, although it was given

Editors' notes and page, col. 2303

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot (on the question's heading)› · call in col 2303

sic Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones: Quomodo contra Novatianos contendendum sit, qui poenitentiam salutarem negant.

So the manuscripts and the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however: "How one is to contend against the Novatianists, who deny saving penance."

(printed under page 500)

(a) ‹anchor: CII (a)› · call in col 2303

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 500)

Misprints kept as printed

- Domnus (for Dominus), Q. CII: "Et respondit illis Domnus dicens"

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQ (cut off at the image edge; column number 2303 at left)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2304

vindictam data sit, quibusdam tamen ignovit, ne omnino crudelis diceretur : sed in plures vindicavit, quia sensus ejus ad ulciscendum promptus est. Sine dubio ergo major gratia novae Legis est quam fuit veteris. Si ergo major gratia est, quomodo negatur hoc praestare posse, quod praestitit illa, quae minorem gratiam habuit? Erat enim propensior in severitatem. Itaque si ista poenitentibus ignovisse probatur, qui fieri potest ut ista quae clemens est, non recipiat poenitentes? Nam et Judaei filii Dei appellati sunt, qui per Moysen in nube et in mari baptizati, apostoli Pauli auctoritate leguntur (I Cor. X, 2). Legem enim accepturi procul dubio purificati noscuntur, ut de caetero acceptae Legis redderent rationem, ut si quid peccarent, per poenitentiam se reformarent; dicente Domino per Isaiam prophetam, Poenitentiam agite qui erratis, et convertimini (Isai. XLV, 22). Sed forte e contrario dicitur, Poenitentia quidem praedicata est, non tamen remissio. Si ergo poenitentia a Deo praedicata est, fructus erit agentibus poenitentiam. Nec enim supervacue hoc Dominus commoneret. Porro autem sciens Dominus conversis dari debere peccatorum remissionem, hoc praecepit : quippe cum dixerit, Nolo mortem peccatoris, tantum ut convertatur et vivat (Ezech. XVIII, 32). Itaque et est fructus poenitentiae, sicut claruit, conversis ad Deum. Exclusa est ergo Novatiani impie composita assertio, qua verborum Domini sensum invertit dicens, Ait Dominus, Qui me negaverit, et ego negabo ipsum (Matth. X, 33): ut si aliquis christianus quacumque ex causa negaverit, jam redire non possit, aut certe revertens, minime recipiatur. Et ubi erit demandata poenitentia? Cum Salvator post datam hanc sententiam negantem apostolum Petrum non negaverit. Quare? Quia poenitentia subsequente erratum suum amarissime flevit (Id. XXVI, 75), sciens utique conversis ignosci, et reformari eos per poenitentiam. Sed Novatianus fingit agendam poenitentiam. Quia enim aperte non audet negare poenitentiam dandam, astrictus Lege, subtiliter hanc frustrare contendit. Quando enim dicit, quia qui negaverit, nullo modo veniam habebit, sed negabitur et ipse in conspectu Angelorum Dei, quomodo non cum dolo agendam poenitentiam profitetur? Hinc autem manifeste fraus ejus apparet, cum subjungit dicens, Quicumque peccaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque hic, neque in futurum (Id. XII, 32). Quamvis alia causa sit qua peccatum est in Spiritum sanctum, et alia negare Dominum Jesum; Novatianus tamen ut huic peccato veniam deneget, unum sensum vult esse, et negantis Dominum, et peccantis in Spiritum sanctum, ut hac tergiversatione fructum amputet poenitentiae. Si enim idem est negare Dominum quod peccasse in Spiritum sanctum, nulla venia speranda est negantibus, neque fructus aliquis poenitentiae; quia hoc peccatum, neque hic, neque in futuro remitti dominica oracula promiserunt. Hinc ergo apparet, Novatianum cum dolo dicere agendam poenitentiam, Utquid enim poeniteret, si delictum aboleri negatur? Poenitentiae enim gemitus, fletus et lamentatio hoc acquirit, ut et veniam mereatur et reformationem. Denique David poenitens et confitens peccatum suum, et veniam meruit (II Reg. XII, 13), et ad pristinum statum redditus est; quia et rex permansit, et postea prophetavit. Quod liquido probatur : in quinquagesimo enim psalmo poenituit, et postea persecutionem a filio suo passus prophetavit. Tertius enim psalmus juxta historiam post quinquagesimum est. Sed forte regi ignosci oportuit, humilibus autem ignosci non debet; cum magis potentioribus difficilius ignoscendum videatur? Deus enim personam hominis non accipit (Rom. II, 11). Quanto enim quis sublimior, tanto magis, licet leve peccatum ejus, grave est crimen. Sicut enim humilitas in potente sublimis et magnifica est; ita et culpa ejus pro crimine habenda

for vengeance, nevertheless it pardoned some, lest it be called altogether cruel; but on the greater number it took vengeance, because its disposition is quick to punish. Without doubt, therefore, the grace of the new Law is greater than that of the old was. If then the grace is greater, how is it denied that it can furnish this which that one furnished which had the lesser grace? For that one was more inclined towards severity. And so if that one is proved to have pardoned penitents, how can it be that this one, which is merciful, does not receive penitents? For the Jews too were called sons of God, who, on the authority of the apostle Paul, are read to have been baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). For, being about to receive the Law, they are known without doubt to have been purified, so that thereafter they should render account of the Law they had received, so that if they sinned in anything, they should reform themselves through penance; the Lord saying through Isaiah the prophet, Do penance, you who err, and be converted (Isa. 45:22). But perhaps it is said on the contrary, Penance indeed was preached, but not remission. If then penance was preached by God, there will be fruit for those who do penance. For the Lord would not have given this admonition to no purpose. Moreover, the Lord, knowing that remission of sins must be given to the converted, commanded this: since indeed He said, I do not will the death of the sinner, only that he be converted and live (Ezek. 18:32). And so there is indeed fruit of penance, as has become clear, for those converted to God. Excluded therefore is the impiously composed assertion of Novatian, by which he inverts the sense of the Lord's words, saying, The Lord says, Whoever denies Me, I too shall deny him (Matt. 10:33): so that if any Christian has denied for whatever cause, he can no longer return, or at any rate, if he returns, is by no means received. And where will the penance enjoined be? Since the Saviour, after giving this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter when he denied. Why? Because, with penance following, he wept most bitterly over his error (Matt. 26:75), knowing surely that the converted are pardoned and are reformed through penance. But Novatian feigns that penance is to be done. For since he does not dare openly to deny that penance is to be granted, being bound by the Law, he strives subtly 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 with guile that penance is to be done? Moreover his fraud plainly appears from this, when he adds, saying, Whoever sins against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future (Matt. 12:32). Although the case in which one sins against the Holy Spirit is one thing, and denying the Lord Jesus another, Novatian nevertheless, in order to deny pardon to this sin, wants the meaning to be one and the same, both of him who denies the Lord and of him who sins against the Holy Spirit, so that by this evasion he may cut off the fruit of penance. For if to deny the Lord is the same as to have sinned against the Holy Spirit, no pardon is to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of penance; because the Lord's oracles have declared that this sin is forgiven neither here nor in the future. From this therefore it appears that Novatian says with guile that penance is to be done. For to what end would one repent, if it is denied that the offence is wiped out? For the groaning, weeping and lamentation of penance acquire this, that one merits both pardon and reformation. Finally David, repenting and confessing his sin, both merited pardon (2 Sam. 12:13) and was restored to his former state; for he both remained king and afterwards prophesied. Which is clearly proved: for in the fiftieth psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied. For the third psalm, according to the history, comes after the fiftieth. But perhaps it was fitting for a king to be pardoned, whereas the lowly ought not to be pardoned; when it would seem rather that the more powerful should be pardoned with greater difficulty? For God does not accept the person of man (Rom. 2:11). For the more exalted someone is, the more, even though his sin be light, is it a grave crime. For just as humility in a powerful man is sublime and magnificent, so also his fault is to be held as a crime.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2304

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2304

In B.: Quantum ut convertatur et vivat. Lectionem Er. Lugd. Ven. Lov. secuti sumus. M.

In B.: "Quantum ut convertatur et vivat" ["how much that he be converted and live"]. We have followed the reading of Erasmus and the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions. M[aurists].

(printed under page 500)

Page

running head: [QUAESTION]ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2304
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2305

est. Exceptis enim peccatis, quae constat omnibus esse illicita, non omnia licent potentibus, quae sunt concessa humilibus. Dignitatis enim homini negotiari deforme est, et popinam ingredi notabile est. Senatoribus quoque fenus infamia est. Si ergo in his ⟨l⟩evibus inventi notandi sunt, quanto magis rei constituendi sunt, si peccaverint? Per hoc ergo apparet David gravissime peccasse, et quidem duplici modo: conversus tamen, et homicidii et adulterii veniam consecutus est, et quod est amplius, deflens reformatus est. Cum enim a propheta Nathan argueretur, peccatum celare non ausus est, sed confessus est dicens, Peccavi Domino. Tunc respondit propheta et dixit, Abstulit Dominus peccatum tuum, et non morieris, quoniam poenituisti. Et quia invenitur postea prophetasse, dubium non est hunc reformatum. Nam et Achab correptus a propheta propter mortem Nabuthe ibat plorans, et conscidit vestimenta sua, et praecinxit se cilicio, et factum est verbum Domini in manu servi ejus Eliae de Achab, et dixit Dominus: Audisti, quoniam motus est Achab a facie mea? non inducam ei mala in diebus ejus (III Reg. XXI, 27-29). Et Ninivitis peccata deflentibus, imminente morte reparata est vita (Jonae III, 10). Ecce quantus profectus est poenitentiae. Sed forte dicatur e contra, Concessa quidem est, sed non de crimine idololatriae: quamvis enim haec gravia sint, majus est tamen crimen idololatriae. Recte tamen explosa est non ex modica parte Novatiani assertio, qua duo crimina gravia concessa poenitentiae videntur. Quia si fornicationi ignosci non debet, sicut Novatiano videtur, quanto magis homicidio, aut adulterio? Sed hinc vanitas ejus apparet, quando haec quae graviora sunt, concessa probantur: quamobrem nunc, an idololatris concedi posse promiserit Deus, requirendum est. Omne enim quod jure hic concessum non fuerit, nec in futurum poterit concedi. Hic enim, sicut dixit Dominus, aut ligantur, aut solvuntur peccata (Matth. XVI, 19); in futuro autem nihil aliud erit, nisi remuneratio aut condemnatio. Omnis enim qui hic jure reprobatur, non poterit eligi, aut dignus in futurum judicari. Audiamus igitur quae dicat Dominus de idololatris ad Jeremiam prophetam: Vade, et dic, inquit, Revertere ad me, commoratio Israel, dicit Dominus, et non firmabo faciem meam in vos: quia misericors ego sum, dicit Dominus, et non irascar vobis in aevum. Verumtamen cognosce delictum tuum: impie egisti, et posuisti vias tuas in alienos subtus omne lignum nemorosum (Jerem. III, 12, 13). Ecce quid promittit eis Deus, qui post lapsum ad se convertuntur, ut post apostasiam regressis remittat peccata. Et iterum dicit Deus per Jeremiam: Delicati mei ambulaverunt vias asperas, ducti sunt ut grex direptus ab inimicis. Constantes estote, filii, et proclamate ad Deum, erit vestra in abductione memoria. Nam sicut fuit mens vestra ut erraretis a Deo, duplicabitis decies tantum conversi, quaerentes eum. Qui enim induxit in vos mala, inducet in vos aeternam jucunditatem cum salute vestra (Baruch IV, 26-29). O clementia Dei! quemadmodum lapsos provocat ut se erigant! quomodo hortatur ut post errorem idolorum revertantur ad eum! quasi pater benevolus, filiis suis jucunditatem perennem promittit salutis si se corrigant. Item apud eumdem inter caetera: Et restituam illos in terram istam, et reaedificabo eos, et non destituam; et replantabo eos, et non evellam (Jerem. XXIV, 6): ut quia comminatus dixerat, Sacrificans diis, eradicabitur; ne peccantes in Deum desperarent de se, quasi jam qui sacrificaverant idolis eradicati, replantari non possent; hortatur eos, quia si poeniteant, poterunt ad statum suum pristinum reformari. Sententia enim tunc manet, si non emendetur delictum. Denique Ninivitis praedicatum est, quia post triduum everteretur civitas eorum. Quare post triduum, nisi ut aut poeniterent, et auferretur sententia; aut in eo permanentes, justius deperirent? Hoc

For apart from sins, which are agreed to be unlawful for all, not everything that is allowed to the lowly is permitted to the powerful. For a man of rank, to engage in trade is unseemly, and to enter a tavern is a mark of disgrace. For senators, too, usury is an infamy. If, then, those found in these light matters are to be marked with disgrace, how much more are they to be held guilty if they have sinned? By this, then, it is plain that David sinned most gravely, and indeed in a twofold way: yet, having turned back, he obtained pardon both for homicide and for adultery, and, what is more, by weeping he was restored. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare to conceal his sin, but confessed, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered and said, The Lord has taken away your sin, and you shall not die, because you have repented. And since he is found afterwards to have prophesied, there is no doubt that he was restored. For Ahab too, rebuked by the prophet on account of the death of Naboth, went about weeping, and tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth, and the word of the Lord came by the hand of His servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you heard that Ahab has been moved before My face? I will not bring evils upon him in his days (1 Kgs. 21:27–29). And to the Ninevites, weeping for their sins, when death was imminent, life was restored (Jonah 3:10). See how great is the profit of penitence. But perhaps it may be said on the other side, It has indeed been granted, but not for the crime of idolatry: for although these things are grave, yet the crime of idolatry is greater. Rightly, however, has the assertion of Novatian been rejected in no small part, by which two grave crimes are seen to be granted to penitence. For if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian holds, how much more homicide, or adultery? But from this his emptiness appears, when these things which are graver are shown to have been granted: wherefore we must now inquire whether God has promised that it can be granted to idolaters. For everything that has not been rightfully granted here will not be able to be granted in the future either. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); but in the future there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is rightfully rejected here will not be able to be chosen, or to be judged worthy in the future. Let us hear, therefore, what the Lord says concerning 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: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you for ever. Nevertheless acknowledge your offence: you have acted impiously, and you have set your ways towards strangers beneath every leafy tree (Jer. 3:12–13). See what God promises to those who after a fall turn back to Him, namely that to those who have returned after apostasy He remits their sins. And again God says through Jeremiah: My delicate ones have walked rough ways, they have been led away like a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, sons, and cry out to God, there will be remembrance of you in the captivity. For as your mind was to stray from God, so, having turned back, you will redouble it ten times as much, seeking Him. For He Who brought evils upon you will bring upon you eternal gladness together with your salvation (Bar. 4:26–29). O clemency of God! how He calls upon the fallen to raise themselves up! how He exhorts them to return to Him after the error of idols! like a kindly father, He promises His sons perennial gladness of salvation if they amend themselves. Likewise in the same, among other things: And I will restore them to this land, and I will rebuild them, and not forsake them; and I will replant them, and not pluck them up (Jer. 24:6): so that, since He had said threateningly, He who sacrifices to gods shall be uprooted, those sinning against God should not despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, being already uprooted, could not be replanted; He exhorts them that, if they repent, they will be able to be restored to their former state. For the sentence stands only if the offence is not amended. Finally, it was preached to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, unless either that they might repent and the sentence be taken away, or that, persisting in it, they might perish the more justly? This

Editors' notes and page, col. 2305

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2305

Ms. Colbert., dignitoso.

The Colbert manuscript: "dignitoso" [apparently "dignified"].

(printed under page 501)

Page

running head: 2305 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2306

est quod dixit per prophetam, Nolo mortem morientis, tantum ut revertatur et vivat. Ita factum est ut morituris peccatorum causa Ninivitis, ignosceretur poenitentia subsequente. Utquid enim centum annis sub Noe arcam invenimus fabricatam (Gen. V, 31; VII, 6), nisi ut videntes et audientes quid immineret emendarent se? Neminem enim Deus vult perire. Hinc est unde in Salomone legimus, Quoniam, inquit, Altissimus misertus est poenitentibus (Eccli. XII, 3). Et iterum, Misereris omnium, quia omnia potes, et dissimulas peccata hominum propter poenitentiam (Sap. XI, 24). Hoc sensu et Dominus dolens super perfidiam Judaeorum, ait: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, quae interficis Prophetas, et lapidas missos ad te; quoties volui congregare filios tuos, quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alis suis, et noluisti (Matth. XXIII, 37)! Igitur semper Dominus per totam Legem peccatores ad se converti hortatur, nolens opus suum perditioni esse obnoxium; cum nec alia causa datae Legis esset, quam ut ex errore homines convertantur ad veritatem: ita tamen, ut in Novo Testamento auctor Legis clementior videatur, quia tempore quo sacramentum Filii sui Domini nostri manifestare dignatus est, largior et uberior in misericordia esse voluit, ut plus gratiae praedicante Filio esset, quam fuerat praedicantibus servis. Nec immerito: sic enim fuit dignum ut majora dona per Filium, quam per famulos largiretur. Denique ad se conversis credentibus omnia simul peccata concedit, nulla interveniente lamentatione poenitentiae. Unde dicit Paulus apostolus, Sine poenitentia enim sunt dona et vocatio Dei (Rom. XI, 29). Post autem si peccaverint, per poenitentiam poterunt mereri veniam; ut quia post acceptam gratuitam misericordiam peccaverunt, non jam gratis, sed interveniente gemitu et fletu possint ad indulgentiam pervenire. Impossibile est enim homini ut non peccet. Unde Joannes apostolus, Si dixerimus, inquit, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. Si confitemur peccata nostra, fidelis et justus est, ut remittat nobis peccata, et mundet nos ab omni injustitia (I Joan. I, 8). Sicut David meruit veniam et reformationem, cum confiteretur peccatum. Certe Christianis loquitur Joannes apostolus. Ait enim in subjectis, Filioli mei, haec scribo vobis ut non peccetis: et si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud Patrem, Jesum Christum (Id. II, 1). Hoc dicit, ut si post Baptismum peccaverimus, advocatum supplices deprecemur, ut exoret pro nobis Patrem. Si enim apud veteres nostros poenitentia habuit locum, quomodo fieri potest ut hoc tempore locum non habeat, quando major clementia praedicationis est? et qui inimicis misertus est vocando illos ad gratiam, amicis factis non miserebitur cum mercede? Tribulatio enim cordis, merces est poenitentis. Quod si esset verum, dolerent homines ex inimicis factos se amicos. Aut qualis aestimandus erat ille, si inimicis non poenitentibus misericordiam daret, amicis vero et poenitentibus non daret? Praeterea cum sciat Dominus diabolum adversus amicos et servos Dei plus se extollere et saevire: unde dicit Petrus Apostolus, Vigilate et sobrii estote, quia adversarius vester diabolus fremens sicut leo circumit, quaerens quem devoret (I Petr. V, 8): quoniam ergo novit Dominus adversarium nos habere horrendum et validum; si victi ab eo fuerimus, vult nos ad auxilium suum confugere, dolens elisos nos, ut virtute ejus reparati fortiter repugnemus. Sicut enim nisi breviati fuerint dies illi, quos dicit Dominus (Matth. XXIV, 22), nulla fiet salva caro; ita et si negetur hominibus poenitentia, nemo poterit salvus fieri. Si enim nemo, inquit, gloriabitur mundum se habere cor (Prov. XX, 9); et alibi, Nemo, ait, sine sorde, nec infans unius diei (Job XIV, 4): quis poterit evadere,

is what He said through the prophet, I do not will the death of the dying man, only that he turn back and live. So it came about that the Ninevites, who were to die because of their sins, were pardoned, penance following. For why do we find the ark built by Noah over a hundred years (Gen. 5:31; 7:6), except so that, seeing and hearing what was impending, men might amend themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Hence it is that we read in Solomon, Since, he says, the Most High has had mercy on the penitent (Ecclus. 12:3). And again, Thou hast mercy on all, since all things are in Thy power, and Thou overlookest the sins of men for the sake of penance (Wis. 11:24). In this sense the Lord too, grieving over the faithlessness of the Jews, says: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kill the Prophets and stone those sent to you; how often have I wished to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not (Matt. 23:37)! Therefore throughout the whole Law the Lord always urges sinners to turn to Him, not wishing His work to be liable to perdition; since there was no other reason for the Law's being given than that men should be turned from error to truth: yet in such a way that in the New Testament the author of the Law appears more clement, because at the time when He deigned to make manifest the mystery of His Son our Lord, He willed to be more generous and more abundant in mercy, so that there should be more grace when the Son was preaching than there had been when the servants were preaching. And not undeservedly: for so it was fitting that He should bestow greater gifts through the Son than through the servants. Accordingly, to believers who have turned to Him He forgives all sins at once, no lamentation of penance intervening. Hence the apostle Paul says, For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29). But afterwards, if they have sinned, they will be able to merit pardon through penance; so that, since they sinned after receiving mercy freely given, they may come to forgiveness no longer freely, but with groaning and weeping intervening. For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Hence the apostle John says, If we say, he says, 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, so as to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all injustice (1 John 1:8). Just as David merited pardon and restoration when he confessed his sin. Certainly the apostle John is speaking to Christians. For he says in what follows, My little children, these things I write to you so that you may not sin: and if anyone has sinned, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (ibid. 2:1). He says this so that, if we have sinned after Baptism, we may as suppliants entreat the advocate to prevail upon the Father for us. For if penance had a place among our forebears, how can it be that it has no place at this time, when the clemency of the preaching is greater? And will He Who had mercy on enemies by calling them to grace not have mercy, with reward, on them once they are made friends? For tribulation of heart is the reward of the penitent. But if that were true, men would grieve at having been made friends out of enemies. Or what sort of person would He have to be reckoned, if He gave mercy to enemies who did not repent, but did not give it to friends who did repent? 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, Be watchful and sober, because your adversary the devil, roaring like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8)): since therefore the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we have been overcome by him, He wills us to flee to His help, grieving that we have been dashed down, so that, restored by His power, we may resist bravely. For just as, unless those days had been shortened, of which the Lord speaks (Matt. 24:22), no flesh would be saved; so too, 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 (Prov. 20:9); and elsewhere, No one, he says, is without filth, not even an infant of one day (Job 14:4): who will be able to escape,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2306

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: dolerent› · call in col 2306

Ita Ms. Colbert. At editi, post, poenitentis, prosequuntur sic: Si lapsis poenitentibus, qui ante lapsum amici fuerant, non ignosceretur, quod dictum est Novatiani si esset verum, dolerent, etc.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions, after "poenitentis", continue thus: "If the lapsed who repent, who had been friends before the lapse, were not forgiven — if the saying of Novatian were true — they would grieve," etc.

(printed under page 501)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2306
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2307

si poenitentia denegetur? Et ubi est quod dicit Dominus, quia gaudium erit in coelo super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente (Luc. XV, 7)? Sed majora crimina, inquit, ignosci non debent, fornicatio et idololatria. Et ubi est dictum dominicum, quo omnia peccata et blasphemias promittit remitti hominibus; Spiritus autem sancti blasphemia non remittetur hominibus (Matth. XII, 31)? Omnia penitus peccata dicit posse remitti, excepto uno. Nunc elige; Novatiane, de quibus vis dictum; de adhuc non credentibus, aut de jam credentibus? Si de non credentibus; quomodo datur remissio peccatorum, cum constet omnes, antequam credant, in Deum peccare et in Spiritum sanctum? Nam nonnulli gesta dominica magicas artes appellant, opus sancti Spiritus daemoniis assignantes. Si autem de credentibus vis dictum, exclusa est asseveratio tua, quia omnia peccata remittentur: Et qui dixerit, inquit, verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei. Ergo sive in Deum, sive in Christum peccetur, remittetur hominibus. Omnia enim peccata complexus est, praeter in Spiritum sanctum. Itaque non hoc peccatum vult intelligi, quod peccatur in Deum, hoc esse et in Spiritum sanctum: si enim hoc esset, non utique istud exciperet. Quoniam ergo aliud peccatum significat, cum blasphematur in Spiritum sanctum (ad personam enim pertinet hoc dictum, non ad naturam Spiritus sancti); sive jam credentibus per poenitentiam, sive futuris credentibus per Baptismum, omnia remittentur peccata. Quod autem in Spiritum sanctum peccaverunt Judaei, alia causa est, et quae ad tempus illud pertinuit. Unde non illis hoc remitti, neque hic, neque in futurum ostendit. Non enim errore peccaverunt in Spiritum sanctum, sed malevolentia. Scientes enim prudentesque, opera quae videbant in gestis Salvatoris Dei esse, ut populum a fide ejus averterent, haec simulabant esse principis daemoniorum. Hinc est unde dicit eis Dominus, Vos habetis clavem scientiae, et nec vos intratis, nec alios sinitis intrare (Luc. XI, 52). Haec ergo sententia contra malevolos prolata est quibus remedium inveniri non potest ut salventur. Nihil est enim hoc crimine gravius: fingit enim falsum esse, quod scit esse verum. Judaei enim qui sub Dei lege esse videbantur, quibusque facta promissio Christi est, videntes magnalia, et intelligentes hoc esse quod promiserat Deus; invidia caecati sunt, ut hoc esse negarent; et non solum negarent, sed et persequerentur usque ad mortem. Non ergo dignum est, istis peccatum hoc unquam debere remitti, qui conscientia sua teste, Deo, cui se devotos dicebant, ausi sunt repugnare. Ut autem in Deum vel in Christum peccetur, diversae sunt causae. Aut enim aliquis dum felicitati alterius invidet, dolore humilitatis suae insurgit in Creatorem; aut aliquid repentinum passus quod sit adversum, in iracundiam excitatus, in parentem injuriosus existit. Christi autem incarnatio etiam ad injuriam provocat. Dum enim ignorant homines sacramentum incarnati Christi, blasphemant, indignum ducentes si Filius Dei, qui incorporalis et simplicis naturae est, hominum more natus dicatur. Blasphemant ergo, quia ignorant mysterium. Quamobrem conversis his porrigenda est manus, quia sic contra verum existunt, dum pro vero se facere arbitrantur. Tortus hujusmodi et exungulatus, hoc verum esse dicit, quod persequebatur. Supra memorati autem Judaei aliud senserunt, et aliud egerunt, qui sine judice et carnifice, conscientia sua teste semper torquentur. Qui enim per errorem inimicus exstitit vero, cum conversus fuerit, gaudet cognovisse se veritatem: malevolus autem non habet quod emendet; si enim converterit se, incipiet verum dicere quod prius falsum esse nesciebat. Spiritui autem sancto ut fiat injuria, causa nulla existit: officium enim ejus offensionem non parit, quia in

if penance is denied? And where is what the Lord says, that there will be joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance (Luke 15:7)? But greater crimes, he says, ought not to be pardoned, fornication and idolatry. And where is the Lord's saying, by which He promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men; but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men (Matt. 12:31)? He says that absolutely all sins can be forgiven, except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you will have it said: of those not yet believing, or of those already believing? If of those not believing, how is remission of sins granted, since it is established that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the Lord's deeds magic arts, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you will have it said of believers, your assertion is excluded, because all sins will be forgiven: And whoever speaks, He says, a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. Therefore whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men. For He has embraced all sins, except that against the Holy Spirit. And so He does not wish it to be understood that this sin, which is committed against God, is also that against the Holy Spirit: for if this were so, He would certainly not have excepted that one. Since, then, He signifies another sin when blasphemy is uttered against the Holy Spirit (for this saying pertains to the person, not to the nature of the Holy Spirit), all sins will be forgiven, whether to those already believing through penance, or to those who will believe through Baptism. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit is another matter, and one which pertained to that time. Hence He shows that this is not forgiven them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through malevolence. For, knowing and understanding that the works which they saw in the deeds of the Saviour were God's, they pretended, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, that these were the prince of demons'. Hence it is that the Lord says to them, You have the key of knowledge, and neither do you enter, nor do you allow others to enter (Luke 11:52). This sentence, therefore, was pronounced against the malevolent, for whom no remedy can be found that they may be saved. For nothing is graver than this crime: for one pretends that what one knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who seemed to be under the law of God, and to whom the promise of Christ was made, seeing the mighty works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy, so that they denied that it was so; and not only denied it, but also persecuted even unto death. It is not fitting, therefore, that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist God, to Whom they said they were devoted. But that one sins against God or against Christ has diverse causes. For either someone, while envying the happiness of another, rises up against the Creator out of grief at his own lowliness; or, having suffered something sudden that is adverse, he is roused to anger and becomes insulting towards his Parent. But the incarnation of Christ also provokes to insult. For while men are ignorant of the sacrament of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, considering it unworthy if the Son of God, Who is of an incorporeal and simple nature, is said to have been born in the manner of men. They blaspheme, therefore, because they do not know the mystery. Wherefore, when these are converted, a hand must be held out to them, because they stand thus against the truth while they suppose that they are acting for the truth. Such a one, racked and torn with hooks, says that this is true which he used to persecute. But the aforementioned Jews thought one thing and did another, and without judge or executioner they are always tormented, with their own conscience as witness. For he who through error became an enemy to the truth, when he has been converted, rejoices to have come to know the truth: but the malevolent man has nothing to amend; for if he turns himself, he will begin to call true what before he did not know to be false. But for an injury to be done to the Holy Spirit there exists no cause: for His office gives rise to no offence, because in

Editors' notes and page, col. 2307

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: injuriam provocat› · call in col 2307

Ms. Colbert., Christo autem incarnatio sua injuriam provocat.

The Colbert manuscript: "But for Christ his own incarnation provokes insult."

(printed under page 502)

(2) ‹anchor: quod persequebatur› · call in col 2307

Ms. Colbert., sequitur.

The Colbert manuscript: "sequitur" ["follows"].

(printed under page 502)

Page

running head: 2307 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQ[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2308

virtute signorum et prodigiorum apparet. Quis enim insibilare contra eum audeat, videns mortuos excitatos? Aut quis irascatur ei, cujus effectu videat currentes paralyticos, caecos lumen accipere, surdos audire? Aut quomodo non amabit eum, quem videat spiritus immundos ejicere, leprosos mundare, et simul omnes infirmitates curare? Huic Judaei maluerunt injuriam facere, opus ejus dicentes opus esse daemoniorum, dummodo invidiam atque odium contra Salvatorem exercentes explerent: idcirco neque hic, neque in futurum, hoc peccatum remitti eis ostendit. Sed Novatianus, Majora, inquit, crimina nominatim remitti probentur, id est, idololatria et fornicatio post lavacrum. Idcirco enim in Baptismo, ait, simul omnia remittuntur peccata, ut de caetero si quid grave commiserint, nullo modo veniam consequantur; quia post acceptum Spiritum sanctum, quod contra Spiritum sanctum est, admitti non debet. Quis neget peccari nunquam debere, si esset possibile? Porro autem sciens Deus fragile genus humanum, semper remediis salutaribus prosecutus est eos, ut post peccata haberent quomodo se repararent. Si autem Spiritus datus prohibet peccantibus dari poenitentiam, nulla providentia est in Novo Testamento, et melius videbitur veteribus provisum, quibus medicina ista minime est denegata. Et quomodo major gratia est in Novo quam in Veteri? Nam hoc inimici est, qui sciens hominibus aliter provideri non posse, ut perveniant ad salutem, quam interventu poenitentiae, Spiritum sanctum det, cui si injuria facta fuerit metu aliquo, aut per aliquem errorem, jam satisfactio locum non habeat reformandi hominem: hoc est occasionem quaesiisse perdendi homines, non salvandi. Sed absit, quia Dominus ait, Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare. (Luc. IX, 56). Nam si nobis peccata, quae in nos peccamus invicem, si convertamur, septuagies septies remitti a nobis alterutrum praecepit Deus (Matth. XVIII, 22); quanto magis ipse, si in illum peccetur, ignoscit conversis? Omnem enim peccatorem converti vult. Unde Apostolus fornicariis et immundis remissum probat dicens, Ne forte veniens lugeam multos ex his, qui ante peccaverunt, et non egerunt poenitentiam super immunditia et fornicatione, quam gesserunt (II Cor. XII, 21). Probat quosdam egisse poenitentiam, de quibus non dolet, sed gaudet: aliquos autem significat, non egisse fornicationis suae poenitentiam; propter quod et lugere se eos dicit, non pertinentes ad vitam, quia non egerunt poenitentiam. Si enim hujusmodi criminis in hac vita semper agenda poenitentia esset, non diceret lugere se eos, quia non egerunt, sed quia non agunt. Sciens autem hic et incipi, et peragi poenitentiam, ait, quia non egerunt. Hoc enim volebat, ut veniens ad eos pacem haberet cum communione eorum. Ecce probatum est, fornicariis post actam poenitentiam communicandum esse. Non enim potest illis communicari quamdiu agunt: tunc autem communicandum est, cum desinunt agere judicio Ecclesiae. Nunc superest videre an specialiter idololatris posse remitti probemus. Legimus enim in Apocalypsi beati Joannis apostoli, poenitentiam super idololatria praedicari. Commonentur enim episcopi, quos angelos vocat, id est nuntios, sicut et beatus Paulus apostolus ait, Sicut angelum Dei excepistis me (Galat. IV, 14), ut peccantibus dent poenitentiam, nec eos patiantur minime commoneri, qui scandala faciunt in Ecclesia, cum sint et ipsi de Ecclesia. Dicit ergo, Et angelo Pergami Ecclesiae scribe: Haec dicit, qui habet gladium ex utraque parte acutum, Scio ubi habitas, ubi sedes est satanae: et tenes nomen meum, et non negasti fidem meam, in diebus, quibus Antipas testis meus fidelissimus occisus est apud vos, ubi satanas habitat. Sed habeo adversus te pauca, quia habes illic tenentes doctrinam Balaam, qui docebat Balac mittere scandalum sub oculis filiorum Israel,

the power of signs and wonders it appears. For who would dare to hiss against Him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry with Him, by Whose working he sees paralytics running, the blind receiving light, the deaf hearing? Or how will he not love Him Whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and curing all infirmities together? The Jews preferred to do Him injury, saying that His work was the work of demons, provided only that they might give full vent to the envy and hatred they were exercising against the Saviour: therefore He shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says: Let it be proved that the greater crimes, that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing, are by name forgiven. For this reason, he says, all sins are forgiven together in Baptism, so that for the rest, if they commit anything grave, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, what is against the Holy Spirit ought not to be admitted. Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if it were possible? But God, knowing the human race to be frail, has always attended them with saving remedies, so that after sins they might have a means of restoring themselves. If, however, the Spirit once given forbids penance to be granted to those who sin, there is no providence in the New Testament, and better provision will seem to have been made for those of old, to whom this medicine was by no means denied. And how is grace greater in the New than in the Old? For this is the part of an enemy: knowing that no other provision can be made for men to attain salvation than through the intervention of penance, to give the Holy Spirit, so that, if injury has been done to Him through some fear or through some error, satisfaction should then have no place for restoring the man: this is to have sought an occasion for destroying men, not for saving them. But far be it, for the Lord says, The Son of Man came not to destroy souls but to save. (Luke 9:56). For if God has commanded that the sins which we commit against one another be forgiven by us to one another seventy-seven times, if we turn back (Matt. 18:22); how much more does He Himself, if sin is committed against Him, pardon those who turn back? For He wills every sinner to be converted. Hence the Apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying, Lest perhaps when I come I should mourn many of those who sinned before and have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication which they committed (2 Cor. 12:21). He proves that some have done penance, over whom he does not grieve but rejoices; but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication; for which reason he also says that he mourns them, as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if penance for a crime of this kind were always to be being done in this life, he would not say that he mourns them because they have not done it, but because they are not doing it. But knowing that penance is both begun and completed here, he says, because they have not done it. For what he wished was that, coming to them, he might have peace in communion with them. See, it is proved that fornicators are to be admitted to communion after penance has been done. For communion cannot be given them so long as they are doing it; but then communion is to be given, when by the judgement of the Church they cease doing it. Now it remains to see whether we may prove that forgiveness can be granted specifically to idolaters. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed apostle John that penance is preached for 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 (Gal. 4:14), are admonished to give penance to those who sin, and not to suffer those who cause scandals in the Church, though they are themselves of the Church, to go entirely unadmonished. He says therefore, And to the angel of the Church of Pergamum write: These things says He 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 slain among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2308

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Quis enim insibilare› · call in col 2308

Ms. Colbert., insilire.

The Colbert manuscript: "insilire" ["to leap upon"].

(printed under page 502)

(2) ‹anchor: Salvatorem exercentes› · call in col 2308

Ms. Colbert., quod circa Salvatorem exercebant.

The Colbert manuscript: "which they practised against the Saviour."

(printed under page 502)

Page

running head: NES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (cut off at the left edge of the image; the beginning of the head is not visible)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2309

manducare delibata, et fornicari : ita et tu habes tenentes doctrinam Nicolaitarum. Similiter age poenitentiam. Hanc dicit esse doctrinam Nicolaitarum quae fuit et Balaam, id est, idololatriam et fornicationem, de qua jubet agi poenitentiam. Et quia hominibus Ecclesiae loquitur, ostendit dicens, Haec dicit spiritus Ecclesiis. Quis autem fructus est poenitentiae, ita significat, Vincenti, inquit, dabo manducare manna, quod est absconditum; ut per poenitentiam quasi vincat peccata. Quid est enim poenitere, nisi dolere praeterita, et de caetero temperare ab his quae admiserat? Et Angelo Thiatyrae Ecclesiae scribe : Haec dicit Filius Dei, qui habet oculos sicut flammam ignis, et pedes ejus similes aeramento Tyrino : Scio opera tua, et dilectionem, et fidem, et ministerium, et patientiam, et opera tua novissima meliora prioribus. Sed habeo adversum te, quod sinis mulierem Jezabel, quae se dicit prophetam, et docet, et seducit servos meos fornicari, et manducare immolata idolis. Et dedi ei tempus ad poenitendum, et noluit agere poenitentiam de fornicatione sua. Ecce mittam illam in lectum; et adulteros ejus cum illa in tribulationem magnam, nisi egerint poenitentiam factorum suorum, et natos ejus occidam morte; et scient omnes Ecclesiae, quia ego sum qui scrutor renes et corda; et dabo unicuique vestrum secundum opera sua. Vobis autem dico, et caeteris qui Thiatyrae estis, qui hanc doctrinam non habetis, et ignoratis altitudinem satanae, sicut dicunt, non mitto in vos aliud pondus : verum tenete quod habetis donec veniam. Vincenti autem et servanti opera mea usque in finem, dabo ei potestatem super gentes (Apoc. II, 12-26). Sub una Epistola data ad Ecclesiam Thiatyram duplicem Novatianae haeresis confundit et explodit errorem : et poenitentibus enim idololatriae causa fructum promittit, et in una Ecclesia malos non contaminare bonos ostendit, cum unius utique essent communionis : nec enim extra Ecclesiam positis scribebat dicens, Qui habet aures, inquit, audiat quid dicat Spiritus Ecclesiis. Simili etenim modo apostolus Paulus, Scimus enim, inquit, quia quaecumque lex loquitur, his qui sub lege sunt loquitur (Rom. III, 19). Et alio loco, Quid enim, inquit, mihi de his qui foris sunt judicare (I Cor. V, 12)? Unius ergo Ecclesiae homines, partim ad poenitentiam provocat, partim collaudat dicens, Vobis autem dico, et caeteris qui Thiatyrae estis, quicumque non habetis doctrinam istam, id est idololatriae, tenete quod habetis, donec veniam; hoc est, perseverate usque ad finem, quia qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit (Matth. X, 22). Similiter et qui perseveraverit in malo, damnabitur. Ac per hoc sicut justitia justi non liberabit eum, in die qua erraverit; sic et iniquitas injusti non nocebit ei, cum converterit se. Ideo dixit, sacrificans diis eradicabitur : si autem converterit se vita vivet. Sicut est et illud quod ait Dominus, Qui me negaverit, negabo eum (Ibid. 33). Si autem converterit se, non poterit negari ab eo quem confitetur. Hinc est ut diceret in Psalmo, Non justificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis homo vivens (Psal. CXLII, 2). Haec enim sententia imputatur homini in qua moritur. Nam quia in Ecclesia mali cum bonis futuri essent usque ad judicium Dei, ipse Deus significavit, dicens, Simile est regnum coelorum reti misso in mare, quod ex omni genere piscium colligit. Cum autem venissent ad littus, bonos segregaverunt in vasa sua, malos autem foras miserunt. Sic erit in consummatione saeculi : exibunt Angeli, et segregabunt de reqno Dei omnia scandala, et eos qui iniquitatem faciunt (Matth. XIII, 47 49). Haec causa significatur etiam in illo, qui inter discumbentes inventus est non habens vestimentum nuptiale (Id. XXII, 12, 13) : quem solum projectum de coetu ostendit Ecclesiae, quia crimen indignitatis ejus non polluit caeteros; et quia haec indignitas ejus designata est, eo quod vestimentum non habuerit nuptiale, manifestus fuit caeteris. Videbant enim eum inter se aliud esse vestitum. Hinc est unde Paulus apostolus, In magna autem, inquit, domo, non solum sunt vasa aurea et argentea,

to eat things sacrificed, and to commit fornication: so you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise do penance. He says that this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, for which He commands penance to be done. And because He is speaking to men of the Church, He shows it, saying, These things says the Spirit to the Churches. And what the fruit of penance is, He indicates thus: To him who overcomes, He says, I will give to eat the manna which is hidden; so that through penance he may, as it were, overcome his sins. For what is it to repent, except to grieve over past things, and for the rest to refrain from the things which one had committed? And to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, Who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like Tyrian bronze: I know your works, and your love, and faith, and ministry, and patience, and your last works better than the former. But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches, and seduces My servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she would not do penance for her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed; and her adulterers with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds; and I will kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall know that I am He Who searches the reins and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to his works. But to you I say, and to the rest who are at Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine, and do not know the depth of Satan, as they say, I do not put upon you another burden: but hold what you have until I come. And to him who overcomes and keeps My works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations (Rev. 2:12–26). Under one Epistle given to the Church of Thyatira He confounds and drives off the twofold error of the Novatian heresy: for He both promises fruit to those doing penance on account of idolatry, and shows that in one Church the wicked do not contaminate the good, since they were certainly of one communion: for He was not writing to those placed outside the Church when He said, He who has ears, He says, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. For in like manner the apostle Paul says, For we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law (Rom. 3:19). And in another place, For what have I, he says, to do with judging those who are outside (1 Cor. 5:12)? So He calls men of one Church partly to penance, and partly praises them, saying, But to you I say, and to the rest who are at Thyatira, whoever do not have this doctrine, that is, of idolatry, hold what you have, until I come; that is, persevere unto the end, because he who perseveres unto the end, he shall be saved (Matt. 10:22). Likewise he also who perseveres in evil shall be condemned. And for this reason, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not deliver him on the day on which he goes astray, so also the iniquity of the unrighteous will not harm him when he has turned himself. Therefore He said, he who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out: but if he turns himself, he shall live by life. So it is also with that which the Lord says, Whoever denies Me, I will deny him (ibid. 33). But if he turns himself, he will not be able to be denied by Him Whom he confesses. Hence it is that he said in the Psalm, No man living shall be justified in Thy sight (Ps. 142:2). For this sentence is imputed to a man in the state in which he dies. For that in the Church the wicked would be with the good until the judgement of God, God Himself signified, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers of every kind of fish. And when they had come to the shore, they sorted the good into their vessels, but cast the bad out. So shall it be at the consummation of the age: the Angels shall go forth, and shall sort out from the kingdom of God all scandals, and those who do iniquity (Matt. 13:47–49). This matter is signified also in him who was found among those reclining at table not having a wedding garment (ibid. 22:12–13): whom alone He shows cast out of the assembly of the Church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not pollute the rest; and because this unworthiness of his was marked out, in that he did not have a wedding garment, he was manifest to the rest. For they saw that he was clothed differently from themselves. Hence it is that the apostle Paul says, But in a great house, he says, there are not only vessels of gold and silver

Editors' notes and page, col. 2309

Page

running head: 2309 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column set as one continuous paragraph (no visible indentation); "manna,.quod" has a stray point before quod, set as "manna, quod"; "Haec dicit spiritus" printed with lowercase s, kept; "(Matth. XIII, 47 49)" printed without hyphen, kept; "reqno" (line-broken re-qno) appears printed with q, set as misprint, UNSURE whether damaged g; last word split at column break: ar-(gentea)

PL 35:2310

sed et lignea et fictilia (II Tim. II, 20). Istud propter Hymenaeum et Philetum posuit, qui cum essent ex Ecclesia, perverse de resurrectione sentiebant; sicut aliqui de Corinthiorum Ecclesia resurrectionem negabant. Sed hanc domum magnam Novatianus mundum significat intelligendum, non Ecclesiam; ne in una Ecclesia malos cum bonis, mundos cum immundis cogatur asserere. Quod facile puto convelli. In una enim domo omnes sub uno sunt nomine: quamvis enim moribus diversi sint, uno tamen domini sui nomine censentur in professione. Mundus autem hic diversae professionis continet homines, ita ut dispares profiteantur se habere et deos et dominos. Vides ergo non hoc potuisse dici de mundo, sed de Ecclesia, in qua sub uno degentes nomine, diversi sunt actu. Quod quidem Novatianum non ignorasse adverto, sed quia abcessionis suae justas querimonias non habebat, ne aperte erubesceret, argumenta quaedam sibi conflavit per malam legis interpretationem, quibus excusare niteretur et tegere livoris sui invidam voluntatem. Denique respondet ad haec quae diximus dicens, Nec ego renuo agendam poenitentiam admissae idololatriae, sed ego remittere non audeo; quia crimen hoc ab eo remittendum est, in quem admissum est. Haec autem cum dolo respondet. Interpretationibus enim suis detegitur, quibus fraus ejus apparet. Quando enim dicit, scriptum est, Qui me negaverit, et ego negabo eum, et mentiri non potest cujus verba sunt; poenitentiam quam agendam dicit, inanem et infructuosam ostendit. Si enim sententia data est, et non fallit qui dedit; quid excruciari compellis hominem lamentationibus et gemitibus, qui hujus rei effectum, aut denegas, aut scire te minime profiteris? Omnis enim qui consilium alicui dat, ad hoc utique dat, ut quid ex eo proficere possit, praedicet. Sed quia tu, Novatiane, dolose hoc profiteris, ad illudendas mentes hominum, agendam poenitentiam dicis. Sciens enim aperte hoc negari non posse, subtiliter facis, quia non voce sed affectu poenitentiam amputas. Omnem certe qui idolis sacrificaverit, in Spiritum sanctum dicis peccare, cui neque hic, neque in futurum, peccatum hoc remitti per legis verba contendis. Quomodo ergo hujus delicti agendam poenitentiam dicis, nisi quia fallis, sicut supra ostendi? Sed soles alio dolo fraudem hanc velle contegere, dicens eodem sensu etiam Petrum apostolum dixisse Simoni, Age poenitentiam ab hac malitia tua, si forte remittatur tibi (Act. VIII, 22). Sed contuens apostolus Petrus veterem et venenatam malitiam hominis et peramaram, idcirco dubium ei dedit responsum. Quis enim mortalium sic peccavit, ut donum Dei pecunia vellet mercari? Malevolentiae ergo responsum istud datum est, non errori. Haec est enim quae remedium non habet; quia nec error est, nec per quam excusetur necessitas, ut possit per fletum ad veniam pervenire. Si in tali itaque causa aliqui fuerint inventi, hoc audiant quod audivit et Simon. Nam ideo dubie respondit ei ⟨A⟩postolus Petrus dicens, In felle enim amaritudinis et in obligatione iniquitatis video te esse. Si ergo in tam gravi causa, et quae sine remedio videatur, dubie responsum est; ambiguum non est, eis qui errore aut necessitate aliqua in Deum peccant posse remitti, si congruam poenitentiam agant. Hoc enim concessum est juri ecclesiastico ab auctore, ut et poenitentiam det, et post poenitentiam recipiat. Et adhuc est aliquid quod reprehendit Novatianus: Cur, inquit, corpus Domini tradunt eis quos noverunt peccatores? Quasi possint ipsi accusatores esse, qui sunt judices. Si autem accusati fuerint et manifestati, poterunt abjici. Nam quis judex accusantis sumat personam? Nam si ipse Dominus Judam passus est, quem sciebat furem esse, et ea quae mittebantur exportare (Joan. XII, 6), nec eum qui accusatus non est, abjecit: hoc exemplo uti oportet, ut eum abjicere non liceat, qui publice detectus non fuerit. Nam nec justo

but also of wood and of earthenware (2 Tim. 2:20). He set this down on account of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the Church, held perverse views about the resurrection; just as some of the Church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian indicates that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the Church, so that he may not be compelled to assert that in the one Church there are bad with good, clean with unclean. This, I think, is easily overturned. For in one house all are under one name: for although they are diverse in their conduct, yet they are reckoned by the one name of their master in their profession. But this world contains men of diverse profession, so that they profess, differently, that they have both gods and lords. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the Church, in which those living under one name are diverse in action. That Novatian was not ignorant of this I indeed perceive, but because he had no just grievances for his secession, lest he should openly blush, he forged for himself certain arguments through a bad interpretation of the law, by which he might strive to excuse and to cover the envious will of his spite. Then he replies to what we have said, saying: Neither do I refuse that penance is to be done for idolatry committed, but I do not dare to remit it; because this crime is to be remitted by Him against Whom it was committed. But he replies this with guile. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, by which his deceit appears. For when he says it is written, Whoever denies Me, I too will deny him, and He Whose words they are cannot lie, he shows the penance which he says is to be done to be empty and fruitless. For if sentence has been given, and He Who gave it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tormented with lamentations and groans, when you either deny the effect of this thing, or profess that you do not know it at all? For everyone who gives counsel to someone gives it certainly to this end, that he may declare what can be gained from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this with guile, to mock the minds of men, you say that penance is to be done. For knowing that this cannot openly be denied, you act subtly, in that you cut off penance not in word but in disposition. Certainly you say that everyone who has sacrificed to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you contend from the words of the law that this sin is remitted to him neither here nor in the future. How, then, do you say that penance is to be done for this offence, unless because you deceive, as I have shown above? But you are accustomed to wish to cover this deceit with another guile, saying that the apostle Peter too said to Simon in the same sense, Do penance for this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be remitted to you (Acts 8:22). But the apostle Peter, beholding the old and poisoned and very bitter wickedness of the man, therefore gave him a doubtful reply. For who among mortals has sinned in such a way as to wish to purchase the gift of God with money? This reply, therefore, was given to ill will, not to error. For this is that which has no remedy; because it is neither error, nor a necessity by which it might be excused, so that it could come through weeping to pardon. If, therefore, any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon also heard. For the apostle Peter answered him doubtfully for this reason, saying, For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. If, therefore, in so grave a case, and one which seems to be without remedy, the reply was doubtful, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through error or some necessity can be forgiven, if they do fitting penance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical right by its Author, that it should both grant penance and after penance receive back. And there is still something that Novatian finds fault with: Why, he says, do they give the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners? As if they who are judges could themselves be accusers. But if they have been accused and made manifest, they will be able to be cast out. For what judge would take on the role of an accuser? For if the Lord Himself bore with Judas, whom He knew to be a thief and to carry off what was put in (John 12:6), and did not cast out one who 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 neither for the just

Editors' notes and page, col. 2310

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: sed affectu› · call in col 2310

Ms. Colbert., effectu.

The Colbert manuscript: "effectu" ["in effect"].

(printed under page 503)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2310 (column number printed indistinctly)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2311

viro competit aliquem accusare. Unde Matthaeus, Joseph cum esset, inquit, homo justus, et nollet eam traducere, voluit eam occulte dimittere (Matth. I, 19). Judas ergo cum esset inter discipulos, contagione sua non eos maculavit, dissentientes utique a furtis ejus; et Eucharistiam inter eos accipiens, non polluit innocentes. Nec Dominus ei quem latronem sciebat, corpus suum denegabat; quia secundum Apostolum, Qui indigne sumit, gladium sibi sumit (I Cor. XI, 27). Unde nec ab oculis ejus se avertit. Peccatores etenim eos polluunt, qui consentiunt malis eorum. Unde dictum est, Videbas furem, et concurrebas cum eo (Psal. XLIX, 18). Hinc est unde Apostolus plebem Corinthiorum arguit, propterea quod illum qui publice uxorem patris habebat, non corriperent aut evitarent, ut se emendaret, dicens, Nescitis quia modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit (I Cor. V, 1, 6)? Cum enim non esset dux aliquis, aut praepositus Ecclesiae; plebis erat corripere eum, quem videbant tam turpiter et obscoene inter eos conversari. Ac per hoc quasi consentientes eos crimini ejus Apostolus arguit. Nec enim in hac re accusatore opus erat, aut testibus; publice enim novercam suam loco uxoris habebat. Itaque, quantum ad causam nostram pertinet, exposuimus rationem, non alios criminantes, sed nos defendentes. Novatiani autem obtestor conscientiam, qui nos semper accusat, si sanctos scit esse omnes quos secum habet. In tantum autem irascitur nobis, ut et christianos nos neget; cum sciat nos ea fide initiatos, de qua ipse praesumit. Christianum certe professio facit et vita. Si ergo vides hominem ea profiteri quae tu, et non dissimilem esse in vita; quare negas esse eum quod tu es? Certe qui dicit Dominum Jesum, in Spiritu sancto dicit (Id. XII, 3); verum enim dicit. Omnis enim veritas de Deo est. Cur non assentis vera dicenti, sed negas? fatenti Deum contradicis non ratione, sed furore? Numquid non inimicus Dei videris, qui vera de eo profitenti resistis? Numquid paganus, audiens aliquem idola dicentem esse deos, negat paganum esse? Cur tu negas christianum quem audis verba integrae fidei profitentem, cum legas, Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem (Rom. X, 10)? At tu, ut inimicus, quod per iracundiam non vides, Deo repugnas; negans hoc confitentem habere salutem, cum Dominus dicat, Quicumque me confessus fuerit, et ego eum (Luc. XII, 8). Numquid ait, Si Novatianus me fuerit confessus? Sed tu hoc sic astruis, ut tibi hoc defendere videaris, ut is salvetur qui non christianus tantum, sed qui fuerit et novatianus. Sed si in Christum facta confessio dat salutem; ubicumque, apud quoscumque integra fuerit haec confessio, habet salutem. Itaque si confessionis hujus traditio corrupta est apud nos aut sensus immutatus, recte accusas. Si enim haec manet in nobis sicut et in te, nos negando et te negare videris. Sed fidei ministros accusas: fac verum esse, quamvis probare non possis, Qui tamen ab his audierunt; verum est quod audierunt, an falsum? Nec enim si vitiosus verum dixerit, non erit verum, quia a vitioso dictum est; cum alia causa sit conversationis, et alia professionis. Nonne persecutor odio christiani nominis professionem persequitur, non conversationem? Primo in loco sciens hoc proficere religioni, cum confitemur esse nos christianos, sacrilegus confitentibus nobis credit quod non vult audire, quia audit. Tu autem cum ejusdem professionis sis et signaculi, non credis confitentibus nobis quae ipse confiteris. Si aliter nos renatos scires quam tu renatus es, recte non crederes hoc nos esse quod tu es. Utquid a sacrilego persecutionem patior, si non hoc sum quod tu es? Nam si hoc de me profiterer, quod tu de me dicis; persecutionem non paterer. Ac postremum mihi credendum est de me, non tibi. Meam enim professionem quaerit judex, non tuam de me. Quid ergo me confitentem tu negas, cum verum sit, in hac causa non alienum testimonium, sed meam professionem requiri, aut pro me, aut contra

man is it fitting to accuse someone. Hence Matthew says, Joseph, since he was a just man and did not wish to expose her, wished to put her away secretly (Matt. 1:19). Judas therefore, while he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they certainly dissented from his thefts; and receiving the Eucharist among them, he did not pollute the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny His body to the one whom He knew to be a thief; for according to the Apostle, He who takes unworthily takes a sword for himself (1 Cor. 11:27). Hence neither did He turn away from his sight. For sinners pollute those who consent to their evil deeds. Hence it was said, You saw a thief, and you ran along with him (Ps. 49:18). Hence it is that the Apostle reproves the people of the Corinthians, because they did not rebuke or shun the man who publicly had his father's wife, so that he might amend himself, saying, Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:1, 6)? For since there was no leader, or superior of the Church, it fell to the people to rebuke him whom they saw living among them so shamefully and obscenely. And for this reason the Apostle reproves them as if they consented to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser, or of witnesses; for he publicly had his stepmother in the place of a wife. And so, as far as pertains to our case, we have set out the reasoning, not incriminating others, but defending ourselves. But I appeal to the conscience of Novatian, who always accuses us, whether he knows all those whom he has with him to be holy. Indeed he is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, although he knows that we were initiated in that faith on which he himself relies. Certainly profession and life make a Christian. If therefore you see a man profess the things which you profess, and not unlike you in life, why do you deny that he is what you are? Certainly he who says Lord Jesus says it in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3); for he speaks the truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not assent to one who speaks true things, but deny him? Do you contradict one who acknowledges God, not by reason but by fury? Do you not appear an enemy of God, you who resist one who professes true things about Him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why do you deny that he is a Christian whom you hear professing the words of the entire faith, when you read, With the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10)? But you, as an enemy, because through anger you do not see, fight against God, denying that one who confesses this has salvation, when the Lord says, Whoever confesses Me, I also [will confess] him (Luke 12:8). Does He say, If a Novatian confesses Me? But you assert this in such a way that you seem to yourself to be defending this, that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who is also a Novatian. But if confession made to Christ gives salvation, then wherever, among whomever this confession is entire, it has salvation. And so if the tradition of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you rightly accuse us. For if it remains in us just as it does in you, by denying us you appear to deny yourself as well. But you accuse the ministers of the faith: suppose it true, although you cannot prove it, Yet those who heard from them: is what they heard true or false? For if a vicious man says something true, it will not cease to be true because it was said by a vicious man; since the matter of conduct is one thing, and that of profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? In the first place, knowing that this benefits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes us as we confess what he does not wish to hear, because he hears it. But you, though you are of the same profession and seal, do not believe us when we confess the things which you yourself confess. If you knew us to have been reborn otherwise than you were reborn, you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed concerning myself what you say concerning me, I would not suffer persecution. And finally, I must be believed concerning myself, not you. For the judge seeks my profession, not yours concerning me. Why then do you deny me when I confess, since it is true that in this case not another's testimony but my own profession is required, either for me, or against

Editors' notes and page, col. 2311

Page

running head: 2311 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQ (running head cut off at the image's right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: right-hand column (2312) partly visible at the image edge and not set; "gladium sibi sumit" set as printed (Vulgate has judicium), verify; stray mark printed between "me" and "fuerit" ignored; "con-" split at the column break, completed in col. 2312; "Ac postremum" set as printed; "(Id. XII, 3)" refers to 1 Cor.; no paragraph break visible, set as one paragraph
other: the word contra was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2312

PL 35:2312

me? Nolebam pro nomine torquere te contra me, ut appareret si vera confitentem et tu negares contra me, aut cui crederetur. Dolo enim hoc proponis, ut justam causam videaris habere schismatis. Nam non ignoras in hac re meam de me testificationem requiri, non alienam; et hoc verum haberi, quod ego fuero confessus, non quod alter negaverit. Manifestum est utique liberos esse eos, qui amore Christi non disquirentes hominum actus, ad fidem ejus consequendam concurrunt: hoc eorum probantes quod sibi utile norunt, id est, ut traditionem fidei, quae de Christo est, consequantur. Nam qui praeter mysterium aliquid aliud in hac re putat homini necessarium, traditioni facit injuriam; minus enim sentit de gratia Dei. Quando enim nisi meritum hominis adfuerit, negat donum Dei proficere posse devoto sibi, aut potiorem, aut parem facit hominem ipsi traditioni, cum longe sit meritum hominis ab hoc officio. Sicut de hac eadem re dicit apostolus Paulus, Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, sed Deus incrementum dedit. Itaque neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus (I Cor. III, 6, 7). Quomodo in hac re aliquid de homine sperandum est, cum verba data sint quae tradantur? Videamus itaque quid proderit, si boni meriti fuerit, aut quid oberit, si mali fuerit meriti. Accedens verba Dei audire desiderat, quibus fidem commodans, salutem se credit accipere. Quid facit in hac re, si bonae aut malae vitae sit qui verba solemnia tradit, cum fides devota quaeratur percipientis, ut ea quae audit, toto animo credat? Numquid si malae vitae sit qui tradit, impedimentum faciet percipienti, ut non credat quae audit credenda, ut peccatum ejus intret in cor ejus ne credat? aut Deus, qui justus est, despicere habet devotum sibi propter peccatum ejus, quem ipse patitur esse in ordine? Nec homo sic judicat, quem constat falli frequenter, aut esse gratiosum. Si ita esset, et homo causam suam ageret, nonne diceret Deo: Quis sit iste cujus causa me despicis, nescio. Ego ad eum tui causa accessi, quia tuus dicebatur antistes: te quaesivi, te desideravi, tibi credidi, de homine nihil speravi: quare ergo mala ejus mihi obsint, quem nescirem nisi te quaesissem? Si bona ejus mihi possent proficere, justum videretur forte, ut et mala ejus obessent mihi. Sed sicut bona ejus si dubie credidissem, nihil proderant mihi; ita et mala ejus nihil obesse mihi debent bene credenti. Ego enim verbis ejus fidem dedi, quae a te data dicuntur, quaeque te inspirant, te loquuntur, de te promittunt: huic de se nihil credidi, nec gestis ejus; sed fidei, quae ex te est, me copulavi. Secundum haec integra est causa credentis. Advocatorum enim more accipe antistites: numquid si malae vitae sit advocatus, contra susceptum ejus pronuntiabitur? Hoc est officium advocati, ut secundum juris ordinem, suscepti sui causam peroret: numquid poterit vita ejus, si turpis est, obesse causae suscepti? Persona enim advocati nec obesse, nec prodesse poterit; qualis enim fuerit causa, sic et respondebitur ei. Sic sunt et qui volunt christiani fieri: accedunt ad antistitem, dicunt ei vota sua: ille facit verba juris ecclesiastici. Si vera vota sunt, suscipiuntur a judice: in quo ille aut obesse poterit, aut prodesse? quippe cum nec causam suscepti sui norit. Deo enim judici soli cognitum est, quis, qua mente accedat. Antistitis ergo est, delegato sibi fungi officio; judicis autem, aut suscipere, aut renuere causam suscepti. Ipse enim invenitur dixisse, Filia, fides tua te salvam fecit (Matth. IX, 22). Vides itaque nullius adjutorio, sed unumquemque fide sua salvari. Hoc enim Deus decrevit fidei, ut si non dubitet, omne quod voluerit, consequatur. Tu tamen non ut amicus, sed quasi inimicus Christi, populum sub tuo nomine congregasti, ut non sint Christiani nisi fuerint et Novatiani; cum Apostolus condemnet, si quis dicat se Paulianum, aut alterius alicujus (I Cor. III, 4): sed tu potiorem te judicans, super Christi nomen,

me? I did not wish to put you to the torture on account of the name against me, so that it might appear, if I confessed true things and you denied them against me, which of us would be believed. For you put this forward by guile, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not unaware that in this matter it is my testimony about myself that is required, not another's; and that what is held true is what I shall have confessed, not what another shall have denied. It is plain, certainly, that those are free who, out of love of Christ, not inquiring into the acts of men, run together to obtain faith in Him: approving in this matter what they know to be useful to themselves, that is, to obtain the tradition of the faith which is concerning Christ. For whoever thinks that anything else besides the mystery is necessary for a man in this matter does injury to the tradition; for he thinks less of the grace of God. For when he denies that the gift of God can profit one devoted to Him unless the merit of the man be present, he makes the man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas the merit of the 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. So neither is he who plants anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6–7). How in this matter is anything to be hoped for from a man, when the words that are to be handed on have been given? Let us see, therefore, what it will profit if he be of good merit, or what it will harm if he be of bad merit. The one who comes desires to hear the words of God, and lending faith to them he believes that he receives salvation. What does it matter in this case whether he who hands on the solemn words be of good or bad life, when what is sought is the devout faith of the one receiving, that he may believe with his whole mind the things that he hears? Will he who hands them on, if he be of bad life, put a hindrance in the way of the one receiving, so that he does not believe the things he hears that are to be believed, so that his sin enters into the other's heart so that he does not believe? Or does God, who is just, have to despise one devoted to Him on account of the sin of that man whom He Himself suffers to be in the order? Not even a man judges thus, though it is certain that he is frequently deceived or shows favour. If it were so, and a man were pleading his own cause, would he not say to God: Who this man is on whose account Thou despisest me, I do not know. I came to him for Thy sake, because he was called Thy bishop: Thee I sought, Thee I desired, in Thee I believed, from the man I hoped for nothing: why then should his evil deeds harm me, whom I would not have known had I not sought Thee? If his good deeds could profit me, it would perhaps seem just that his evil deeds too should harm me. But just as his good deeds, had I believed doubtfully, would have profited me nothing, so too his evil deeds ought to harm me nothing when I believe well. For I gave faith to his words, which are said to have been given by Thee, and which breathe Thee, speak Thee, make promises concerning Thee: to him I gave no credence regarding himself, nor regarding his deeds; but I joined myself to the faith which is from Thee. According to these things the cause of the believer is whole. Take bishops after the manner of advocates: if an advocate be of bad life, will judgement be pronounced against his client? This is the office of an advocate, that according to the order of law he should plead the cause of his client: will his life, if it is shameful, be able to harm the cause of his client? For the person of the advocate can neither harm nor profit; for as the cause shall be, so too shall answer be given to it. So too are those who wish to become Christians: they come to the bishop, they tell him their vows: he performs the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are received by the judge: in what will he be able either to harm or to profit, seeing that he does not even know the cause of his client? For it is known to God the judge alone who comes, and with what mind. It belongs therefore to the bishop to discharge the office delegated to him; but to the judge either to receive or to reject the cause of the client. For He Himself is found to have said, Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). You see therefore that each one is saved not by anyone's help, but by his own faith. For God has decreed this for faith, that if it does not doubt, it shall obtain all that it wills. You, however, not as a friend but as it were an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are also Novatians; whereas the Apostle condemns anyone who says he is of Paul, or of anyone else (1 Cor. 3:4): but you, judging yourself superior, have set your own name above the name of Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 2312

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot; the note's numeral is cut off at the left edge› · call in col 2312

Ms. Colbert., Volebam pro nomine torqueri.

The Colbert manuscript: "I wished to be tortured for the name."

(printed under page 504)

Page

running head: …NES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (start cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word nomen, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2313

PL 35:2313

tuum posuisti; quasi ille non sufficeret ad tuendam Ecclesiam suam.

as though He were not sufficient to safeguard His Church.

CIII. — Quomodo in Levitico Dominus sacrificia et libamina offerenda praecepit, quae alibi respuit? cum constet in Levitico de sacrificiis offerendis Dominum mandasse Patribus, ut offerrent libamina vel sacrificia, sive holocausta: denique sic dicit per Jeremiam prophetam, Haec dicit Dominus, Holocausta vestra congregate cum sacrificiis vestris, et manducate carnes; quia non sum locutus ad patres vestros, neque mandavi illis, qua die eduxi illos de terra Aegypti (Jerem. VII, 21 et 22).

CIII. — How is it that in Leviticus the Lord commanded sacrifices and libations to be offered which elsewhere He rejects? For it is established that in Leviticus the Lord gave a command to the Fathers concerning the offering of sacrifices, that they should offer libations or sacrifices, or burnt offerings; and yet He speaks thus through the prophet Jeremiah: Thus says the Lord: Gather your burnt offerings together with your sacrifices, and eat the flesh; for I did not speak to your fathers, nor did I command them, on the day when I led them out of the land of Egypt (Jer. 7:21–22).

De holocaustis et sacrificiis, si penitus advertas, non est de hac re facere quaestionem: nec mentitum Dominum aut immutatum putes, ut mandaret, et postea denegaret. De hujusmodi enim sacrificiis et libaminibus seu holocaustis nihil invenitur mandasse, de quibus nunc se locutum testatur. Duo etenim genera sacrificiorum adverte: unum quod per singula genera offerri mandatum est, et aliud quod voluntarium dictum est. Illud ergo quod per diversa genera, sive pro peccatis, sive pro primogenitis offerri praeceptum est, quid et quale et quomodo offerendum esset, mandatum est. Sacrificium autem voluntarium non utique mandatum est, quia arbitrio remissum est, ut si aliquis voluisset offerre, quod illi visum fuisset, offerret: voluntaria enim erant haec sacrificia. Et quia negligenter et improvide haec offerebant, non deliberantes, quia qui offerret potentiori, munera electa offerret; idcirco dicitur eis, Non mandavi vobis de his: sed si vultis, debetis quae digna sunt offerre. Sic etenim invenitur, et Cain peccasse, cum non considerat Deo haec debere offerri, quae potiora sunt. Cum enim ad propitiandum Deum haec offerre se dicerent, in eo ipso provocabant Deum ad indignationem, ut in id quod dicerent se bene facere, peccarent offerentes Deo holocausta indigna. Unde dicit in Malachia propheta, Si adducatis ad victimam caecum aut claudum aut aegrum, non est bonum. Offer autem ea duci aut praeposito tuo, si suscipiet te, dicit Dominus omnipotens (Malach. I, 8). Hinc est ut per Isaiam de eadem re queratur Deus, dicens, Quo mihi oves holocausti tui? Neque in sacrificiis tuis honorasti me. Non enim ad hoc te feci, ut laborares in thure, aut ut mercareris mihi argento incensum; nec adipem sacrificiorum tuorum concupivi: in peccatis autem tuis et iniquitatibus astitisti mihi (Isai. I, 11). Manifestum est itaque ortas esse querelas: quia cum voluntaria sacrificia offerrent, non in his Deum honorabant, offerentes indigna, cum haec utique non essent necessitatis. Si enim mandata fuissent, necessitate videbantur qualiacumque offerre; quando autem arbitrio suo haec offerebant, talia debebant offerre, ex quibus obsequium in se Dei ostenderent. Sed quia animus illorum cupiditate idolorum errabat, inconsiderate haec agebant. Igitur duplici genere exprobrantur, quia et inique agentes, Deo audebant offerre; et quae indigna erant, offerebant: cum iniqui actus non sacrificiis redimantur, sed lamentatione et misericordia. Unde dicit David cum peccasset, Si voluisses, sacrificia dedissem: utique holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus; et cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit (Psal. L, 18, 19). Denique dicit Samuel ad Saül, qui cum contempsisset praeceptum Domini, sacrificio Deum putabat posse placari, Non enim, inquit, vult Deus sacrificium magis, quam audiri vocem suam (I Reg. XV, 22). Et Scriptura dicit, Misericordiam volo plus quam sacrificium (Osee VI, 6). Judaei cum injusti essent, et immisericordes, oblationibus propitium Deum fieri arbitrabantur: sicut et nunc quidam spernentes justitiam, oblationibus laudari se putant. Bona est ergo oblatio, si servetur justitia, et non negligatur misericordia; quia quod nobis petimus, et aliis praestare debemus.

Concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices, if you consider the matter thoroughly, there is no reason to raise a question about it: nor should you think that the Lord lied or changed, so as to command and afterwards deny it. For He is found to have commanded nothing concerning sacrifices and libations or burnt offerings of the kind of which He now testifies that He spoke. For note two kinds of sacrifices: one which was commanded to be offered according to its several kinds, and another which was called voluntary. As for that which was ordered to be offered according to its various kinds, whether for sins or for the firstborn, what was to be offered, and of what sort, and in what manner, was commanded. But the voluntary sacrifice was certainly not commanded, because it was left to free choice, so that if anyone wished to make an offering, he should offer whatever seemed good to him: for these sacrifices were voluntary. And because they offered these carelessly and without forethought, not considering that whoever makes an offering to one more powerful should offer choice gifts, it is therefore said to them, I did not command you concerning these: but if you are willing, you ought to offer what is worthy. For thus Cain too is found to have sinned, since he did not consider that those things ought to be offered to God which are the better. For when they said that they offered these things to propitiate God, by that very act they provoked God to indignation, so that in the very thing in which they said they were doing well, they sinned by offering God unworthy burnt offerings. Hence He says in the prophet Malachi, If you bring for a victim the blind or the lame or the sick, it is not good. Offer them, then, to your ruler or to your governor, if he will receive you, says the Lord almighty (Mal. 1:8). Hence it is that through Isaiah God complains about the same matter, saying, To what purpose are the sheep of your burnt offering to Me? Nor have you honoured Me with your sacrifices. For I did not make you for this, that you should labour over frankincense, or buy incense for Me with silver; nor have I desired the fat of your sacrifices: but in your sins and your iniquities you have stood before Me (Isa. 1:11). It is clear, therefore, that the complaints arose because, when they offered voluntary sacrifices, they did not honour God by them, offering unworthy things, since these were certainly not of necessity. For if they had been commanded, they would have seemed to offer whatever sort of thing out of necessity; but when they offered these of their own choice, they ought to have offered such things as would show their devotion to God. But because their mind strayed through desire for idols, they did these things thoughtlessly. They are therefore reproached on a twofold count: both because, while acting wickedly, they dared to make offerings to God, and because they offered what was unworthy; for wicked acts are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by lamentation and mercy. Hence David says, when he had sinned, If Thou hadst wished, I would have given sacrifices: with burnt offerings Thou wilt certainly not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit; and a contrite and humbled heart God does not spurn (Ps. 50:18–19). Again, Samuel says to Saul, who, when he had despised the command of the Lord, thought that God could be appeased by sacrifice: For God does not, he says, want sacrifice more than that His voice be heard (1 Sam. 15:22). And Scripture says, I desire mercy more than sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). The Jews, though they were unjust and unmerciful, supposed that God was made propitious by offerings: just as even now certain people, spurning justice, think themselves praised for their offerings. An offering, therefore, is good if justice is kept and mercy is not neglected; for what we ask for ourselves we ought also to furnish to others.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2313

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: voluntaria› · call in col 2313

Ms. Colbert., votiva.

The Colbert manuscript: "votiva" ["votive (offerings)"].

(printed under page 505)

(a) ‹anchor: CIII (a)› · call in col 2313

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 505)

Page

running head: 2313 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
signature at the page foot, under the notes: PATROL. XXXV.

PL 35:2314

DE EVANGELIO LUCAE.

On the Gospel of Luke.

CIV. — Sciens Dominus bellum Judaicum adversus se futurum, dixit discipulis suis ut gladios sibi pararent: quo facto, cum coeptum esset bellum duce Juda Scariote, videns Petrus apostolus insurgentes hostes, protulit gladium, et amputavit auriculam servi sacerdotum. Tunc Dominus jussit Petro, ut reconderet gladium in thecam suam: Omnis enim, inquit, qui accepit gladium, gladio peribit (Matth. XXVI, 51, 52). Utquid parari jussit, qui prohibuit percutere; reum etiam mortis designans eum, qui percusserit gladio, cum non utique injuste videatur apostolus percussisse? Quantum enim pertinet ad Petrum, percussit eum quem contra se armatum videbat. Resistere enim debuit ingratis servis, et ad Dominum necandum armatis. Si singula membra inspicias causae, cujus vis patefieri rationem, invenies et alia quae requiras his dictis. Quid enim opus erat, ut hic qui spirituali fretus erat virtute, gladios juberet parari carnales: et qui prius jussit in via nec peram ferri, nec pecuniam, nec virgam (Id. X, 10); nunc juberet haberi, quae prius prohibuit? Incipiamus ergo, cur gladios jusserit parari et occidi prohibuerit, explanare. Non solum enim inimicorum, verum etiam ipsorum discipulorum suorum causa, ad superventurum bellum arma procurari praecepit. Nova enim et mirabilis res futura erat, ut is qui nova et inaudita signa faciebat, sic subito humiliaretur, ut et verberibus subjiceretur et morti. Ne ergo velut impraescius haec pati videretur, et a quo forte virtus recessisset, haec omnia sic praedixit, ut non dubitaret de his, sed praescius contra haec se pararet; et quia voluntate humiliatus est, non resistere acrius inimicis juberet: in tantum seipsum esse qui fuerat ostendens, ut jam detentus, aurem quae abscissa fuerat restitueret; ut quod gladio operante deciderat, redderet: non quasi carnalis utique medicus, sed quasi corporum conditor opus suum truncatum refinxit. Nec enim possunt medici abscissa corporis membra reparare. Ut autem Dei virtus in illo non diminuta, sed ita ut fuerat inesse videretur, et illud firmaret quod dixerat, Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam (Joan. X, 18): hac ergo causa gladios parari, non tamen occidi jussit. Nunc illud ostendere superest, quare contuens factum apostoli Petri, eum qui gladio usus fuerit, gladio dixit perire, cum non injuste percussisse videatur. Nam sicut significatur in Luca, ipso Domino permittente percussit, et sic prohibitus haec audivit (Luc. XXII, 49, 50). Ideo etenim permissum est, ut et vindicare se posse videretur, sed nolle; et ut virtus ostenderetur in eo manere, in quo fuerat, ut in utroque vindicare se posse non ambigeretur; inimici vero pro certo haberent datam sibi ab eo potestatem, ut hoc facerent. Non enim victus apparebat, sed tradens se voluntati eorum. Quare ergo sententia data est, ut qui gladium accipit, gladio pereat; nisi quod nulli licet, excepto judice, quemquam gladio occidere? Apostolo autem Petro usque ad hoc permissum est, ut dolorem faceret, non quod occideret. Ob hoc enim audivit, ne iterum percuteret. Didicit praeterea, quia christianis jam factis occidere non licet. In misericordia enim positis, lege juris mundo crediti uti non licet aspere. Illud autem quod ante euntibus in via discipulis mandasse videtur, ut nihil tollerent in via, pacis est causa, et gratia virtutum, et affabilitas doctrinae. Quid enim opus erat tollere aliquid in via, quibus signorum causa omnia offerenda erant? At ubi tempus, quo se pati permisit, advenit, propter quod rixa magis quam bellum imminebat; armatos jubet esse discipulos: non ut repugnaret qui pati volebat, sed, ut dixi, ut praescium se hujus rei, et in potestate habere passionem suam ostenderet; humiliaret autem se humanae salutis causa, quod suo loco dicetur.

104. — The Lord, knowing that a Jewish war would come against Him, told His disciples to procure swords for themselves; when this had been done, and the war had begun under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, 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 ordered Peter to put his sword back into its sheath: For everyone, He said, who took the sword shall perish by the sword (Matt. 26:51–52). Why did He order [swords] to be procured, He Who forbade striking, even designating as guilty of death the one who strikes with the sword, when the apostle does not at all seem to have struck unjustly? For as far as Peter is concerned, he struck the one whom he saw armed against him. For he was bound to resist ungrateful servants, armed to kill the Lord. If you examine the individual parts of the case whose reason you wish to have laid open, you will find other things too which you might ask about in these sayings. For what need was there that He Who relied on spiritual power should order carnal swords to be procured; and that He Who earlier ordered that neither bag nor money nor staff be carried on the way (ibid. 10:10) should now order that the things He had earlier forbidden be kept? Let us therefore begin to explain why He ordered swords to be procured and forbade killing. For not only for the sake of His enemies, but also for the sake of His own disciples, He commanded that arms be got ready for the war that was about to come. For a new and wonderful thing was going to happen, that He Who was performing new and unheard-of signs should be so suddenly humbled as to be subjected both to scourging and to death. So, lest He should seem to suffer these things as one without foreknowledge, and as one from whom power had perhaps departed, He foretold all these things in such a way that He should not be in doubt about them, but, knowing beforehand, should prepare Himself against them; and because He was humbled by His own will, He ordered them not to resist the enemies too fiercely, showing Himself to be so much the same as He had been that, when already held captive, He restored the ear that had been cut off; so that what had fallen off by the working of the sword He gave back: not, assuredly, as a carnal physician, but as the Creator of bodies He refashioned His own mutilated work. For physicians cannot restore the cut-off members of the body. Now so that the power of God might be seen to be in Him not diminished, but just as it had been, and that He might confirm what He had said, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18): for this reason, then, He ordered swords to be procured, yet not killing to be done. Now it remains to show why, looking upon the deed of the apostle Peter, He said that one who has used the sword perishes by the sword, when he does not seem to have struck unjustly. For as is indicated in Luke, he struck with the Lord Himself permitting it, and thus, being restrained, he heard these words (Luke 22:49–50). For it was permitted for this reason, that He might be seen to be able to avenge Himself, but unwilling; and that it might be shown that power remained in Him in which it had been, so that it should not be doubted that in both respects He was able to avenge Himself; while the enemies should hold for certain that the power to do this had been given them by Him. For He did not appear as one conquered, but as one handing Himself over to their will. Why then was the sentence given that whoever takes the sword should perish by the sword, except that it is lawful for no one, save a judge, to kill anyone with the sword? But to the apostle Peter it was permitted only so far as to inflict pain, not to kill. For this reason he heard that he should not strike again. He learned moreover that for those who have now become Christians it is not lawful to kill. For to those placed in mercy it is not lawful to use harshly the law of justice entrusted to the world. Now that which He seems to have commanded earlier to the disciples when they were going on the way, that they should take nothing on the way, is for the sake of peace, and the grace of the virtues, and the affability of the teaching. For what need was there to take anything on the way for those to whom, by reason of the signs, all things were to be offered? But when the time came in which He permitted Himself to suffer, on account of which a brawl rather than a war was impending, He ordered the disciples to be armed: not so that He Who wished to suffer might fight back, but, as I have said, so that He might show that He had foreknowledge of this matter and held His passion in His own power; and that He humbled Himself for the sake of human salvation, which will be discussed in its own place.

CV. — Quomodo Prophetia quadret cum Evangelio,

105. — How the Prophecy agrees with the Gospel

Editors' notes and page, col. 2314

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2314

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 505)

(b) ‹anchor: CV› · call in col 2314

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 505)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word Evangelio, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2315

PL 35:2315

de obscuratione solis et quibusdam aliis.

on the darkening of the sun and certain other matters.

Cum in primo adventu Domini praedictum sit, quia contenebraretur sol in passione ejus, eadem hora qua factum probatur. id est, meridie. Sic enim scriptum est in Amos propheta, Et erit in illa die, dicit Dominus, occidet sol in meridie, et contenebrescet super terram dies lucis (Amos VIII, 9). Illo ergo die a sexta hora contenebratus est sol usque ad horam nonam, et ita completa est prophetia supradicti prophetae. Imago hujus rei, quae futura est in adventu Domini secundo, in passione Domini est ostensa; quia in fine, cum coeperit Dominus advenire ut judicet mundum, solventur luminaria ab officio suo, dicente Domino, In illis diebus sol contenebrabitur, et luna non dabit lumen suum (Matth. XXIV, 29). Quod quidem et Joel propheta non praetermisit, ut cum a multis significatur, sine dubio impleri credatur. Ita enim dixit: Sol convertetur in tenebras, et luna in sanguinem, priusquam veniat dies Domini magnus et manifestus (Joel. II, 31). Hoc quantum apparet, secundo adventui magis congruit; tunc enim omnibus aperte manifestabitur, sic dicente Scriptura. Tunc videbit illum omnis oculus, et plangent se super illum omnes tribus terrae, et qui illum crucifixerunt (Apoc. I, 7). Itaque si in utroque adventu hoc continetur, quia sol contenebrabitur illis diebus, qui dies ille est, quo ampliari solem et lunam cecinit Scriptura? Ait enim inter caetera Isaias dicens: Eritque super omnem montem excelsum, et in omni loco excelso aqua perambulans in die illa, cum perierint multi, et cum ceciderint turres. Et erit lumen lunae, ut lumen solis; et lux solis erit septies tantum in die, cum sanabit contritionem populi sui (Isai. XXX, 25, 26), et caetera. Qui dies potest intelligi, quo promisit se Dominus sanare contritionem populi sui? Hunc opinor esse diem, quem pater Joannis Zacharias ostendit dicens: Benedictus Dominus Israel, quia visitavit et fecit redemptionem plebis suae. Et erexit cornu salutis nobis in domo David pueri sui. Sicut locutus est per os sanctorum Prophetarum suorum, qui a saeculo sunt. Et liberabit nos de inimicis nostris, et de manu omnium qui oderunt nos. Ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris (Luc. I, 68-72). Et Simeon inter caetera, Hic positus est, inquit, in ruinam, et in resurrectionem multorum in Israel (Id. II, 34). Haec ruina est Scribarum et Pharisaeorum et principum Judaeorum, quos propheta significavit per turres. His ergo per incredulitatem ruentibus, alii surrexerunt credendo qui prius videbantur infirmi, et aegri per negligentiam. Unde Salvator, In judicio, ait, ego veni in hunc mundum, ut qui non vident, videant; et qui vident, caeci fiant (Joan. IX, 39): ut qui per Legis culturam et peritiam lumina videntur, per incredulitatem caecarentur; caeci vero, id est, imperiti vel publicani viderent, dum crederent. Quorum infirmitates propheta Salvatorem portaturum praedixit (Isai. LIII, 11). Itaque hoc tempore Salvatoris factum est, sicut legitur in Evangelio, quia ipse infirmitates nostras accepit, et vulnera nostra curavit (Matth. VIII, 17). Quae quidem omnia in passione Salvatoris consummata et adimpleta sunt: sic enim salus humani generis, tam apud superos quam apud inferos et redempta est et firmata, quia prophetia Zachariae supradicti utrumque comprehendit. Et hic enim apud superos liberati sunt a contritione inimicorum, interventu misericordiae; et illic apud inferos, cum erepti sunt de tartaro⟨.⟩ Cuncti enim qui speraverunt in promissum Christum, exspectabant adventum ejus, ut devicta morte liberarentur de inferno. Unde dixit, Ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris. Si quis autem salutem hanc et in secundo adventu contineri intelligat; in utroque tamen adventu, maxime in secundo, sol convertetur in tenebras, et luna non dabit fulgor⟨e⟩m suum: quomodo ergo augeri solem et lunam die quo visitabit Dominus populum suum, advertemus;

Since at the first coming of the Lord it was foretold that the sun would be darkened at His passion, at the very hour at which it is shown 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 shall set at midday, and the day of light shall grow dark over the earth (Amos 8:9). On that day, therefore, the sun was darkened from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, and so the prophecy of the aforesaid prophet was fulfilled. An image of this thing, which is to come at the second coming of the Lord, was shown in the passion of the Lord; for at the end, when the Lord begins to come to judge the world, the lights will be released from their office, as the Lord says: In those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light (Matt. 24:29). This indeed the prophet Joel too did not pass over, so that, since it is signified by many, it may be believed without doubt to be fulfilled. For thus he said: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes (Joel 2:31). This, so far as appears, fits the second coming better; for then He will be openly made manifest to all, as Scripture says: Then every eye will see Him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him, and those who crucified Him (Rev. 1:7). So if this is contained in both comings, that the sun will be darkened in those days, what day is that on which Scripture sang that the sun and moon would be increased? For Isaiah says, among other things: And there shall be upon every high mountain, and in every lofty place, water flowing on that day, when many have perished, and when towers have fallen. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun; and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold on the day when He heals the bruising of His people (Isa. 30:25–26), and so on. What day can be understood, on which the Lord promised that He would heal the bruising of His people? I think this is the day which Zechariah, the father of John, pointed out when he said: Blessed be the Lord of Israel, for He has visited and wrought redemption for His people. And He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David. As He spoke through the mouth of His holy Prophets, who have been from of old. And He will free us from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us. To show mercy to our fathers (Luke 1:68–72). And Simeon, among other things: This one is set, he says, for the fall and for the rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34). This fall is that of the Scribes and Pharisees and the chief men of the Jews, whom the prophet signified by the towers. So, while these were falling through unbelief, others rose up by believing who previously seemed weak, and sick through negligence. Hence the Saviour says: For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind (John 9:39): so that those who through their cultivation and knowledge of the Law seem lights should be blinded through unbelief, while the blind, that is, the unlearned or the publicans, should see, in that they believed. Their infirmities the prophet foretold that the Saviour would bear (Isa. 53:11). So it was done in the time of the Saviour, as is read in the Gospel, that He Himself took up our infirmities and healed our wounds (Matt. 8:17). All these things indeed were consummated and fulfilled in the passion of the Saviour: for thus the salvation of the human race, both among those above and among those below, was both redeemed and made firm, since the prophecy of the aforesaid Zechariah embraces both. For here, among those above, they were freed from the bruising of their enemies through the intervention of mercy; and there, among those below, when they were rescued from Tartarus. For all who hoped in the promised Christ were awaiting His coming, so that, death being vanquished, they might be freed from hell. Hence he said: To show mercy to our fathers. But if anyone understands this salvation to be contained in the second coming as well; yet in both comings, and most of all in the second, the sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon will not give its brightness: how then [is it said] that the sun and moon are increased on the day on which the Lord will visit His people,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2315

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Et liberabit› · call in col 2315

Er. Lugd. et Lov. legunt, liberavit. Ven., liberabit, ut PP. Bened. M.

Erasmus and the Lyons and Louvain editions read "liberavit" ["he has delivered"]. The Venice edition, "liberabit" ["he will deliver"], as the Benedictine Fathers. M[aurists].

(printed under page 506)

Page

running head: 2315 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word advertemus; was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2316

PL 35:2316

quando utroque in tempore, quo coepta liberatio populi et adimpleta est, solem et lunam non minui, sed contenebrari legamus? nisi plane solem et lunam sanctis comparatos intelligamus; sicut in alio loco legimus sanctos luminaribus exaequatos, Paulo apostolo praedicante, quia inter hos homines sancti in hoc mundo velut luminaria videantur. Et in Evangelio, Tunc justi, inquit, fulgebunt sicut sol (Matth. XIII, 43). Dominus enim opera justa lumen appellat: sic enim ait, Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut videntes opera vestra bona, magnificent Patrem vestrum, qui est in coelis (Id. V, 16). Hi ergo, qui omnibus suis relictis, Dominum sequuntur, justitiae et sanctitatis causa, soli et lunae comparantur septies honorati; sicut dicit Dominus, Nemo est qui relinquat domum, aut uxorem, aut filios, aut agros, qui non recipiet septies tantum in hoc saeculo (Luc. XVIII, 29, 30). Qui ergo ad praesens septies honorantur, potest intelligi, quia etiam in futuro septem partibus clariores caeteris futuri credantur; ut resurrectio eorum soli comparetur ac lunae, caeterorum vero sicut ⟨s⟩tell⟨ae⟩ sint. Claritas ergo sanctorum, quae hic septies honoratu⟨r⟩, in resurrectione aliud septies consequitur, ut qui hic claritatem lunae habet, in futuro solis accipiat claritatem; et qui hic soli comparatur, septies tantum futurus credatur accipere. Propheta ergo Isaias solis et lunae comparatione sanctorum merita augeri praedixit, nec immerito. Si enim ipse Dominus sol justitiae dictus est, sancti autem similes ei erunt, Joanne apostolo dicente, Cum enim apparuerit, inquit, similes ei erimus (I Joan. III, 2); convenienter sanctos in sole esse significatos, septem tamen partibus majorem solem quam lunam propheta supradictus ostendit. Quando enim lunam, sicut lumen solis, futuram ostendit, solem autem septies tantum; ad modum utique solis septies lunam augeri significat, ut talis sit tunc luna, qualis nunc est sol: quamvis sanctorum ratio hic vertatur, sub hac tamen causa luminarium ex parte prodidit quantitatem, ut post crementum solis ac lunae tantum iterum major sit, quantum erat sol; et quantum in praesenti distat sanctus a sancto, tantum distet in futuro post remunerationem.

shall we understand, when we read that in both times, in which the liberation of the people was begun and completed, the sun and the moon were not diminished but darkened? unless we plainly understand the sun and the moon as compared to the saints; just as in another place we read that the saints are made equal to luminaries, as the apostle Paul preaches that among these men the saints in this world appear as luminaries. And in the Gospel, Then the just, He says, shall shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43). For the Lord calls just works light: for thus He says, Let your light shine before men, so that seeing your good works they may magnify your Father, Who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). Those, therefore, who, having left all their possessions, follow the Lord for the sake of justice and holiness, are compared to the sun and the moon, being honoured sevenfold; as the Lord says, There is no one who leaves house, or wife, or sons, or fields, who will not receive seven times as much in this age (Luke 18:29–30). Since, then, they are honoured sevenfold at present, it can be understood that in the future also they are to be believed to be seven parts brighter than the rest; so that their resurrection is compared to the sun and the moon, while the rest are as stars. The brightness of the saints, therefore, which here is honoured sevenfold, attains in the resurrection another sevenfold, so that he who here has the brightness of the moon receives in the future the brightness of the sun; and he who here is compared to the sun is to be believed about to receive seven times as much. The prophet Isaiah, therefore, foretold that the merits of the saints would be increased by the comparison of the sun and the moon, and not without reason. 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 shall be like Him (1 John 3:2); it is fitting that the saints are signified in the sun, yet the aforesaid prophet shows the sun to be seven parts 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, certainly to the measure of the sun, so that the moon will then be such as the sun is now: although the account here turns on the saints, yet under this cause he has in part disclosed the magnitude of the luminaries, so that after the increase of the sun and the moon it is again greater by as much as the sun was; and as much as saint differs from saint at present, so much will he differ in the future after the reward.

DE LIBRO GENESIS.

On the Book of Genesis.

CVI. — In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram (Gen. I, 1). Si coelum in principio fecit, et terram, coelum autem firmamentum est, sicut in subjectis apparet; non est verum, quia prior lux facta est, et sic firmamentum: aliud enim coelum significare non poterat, quia facturam mundi describit Deo operante perfectam. Propterea enim quod diversis opinionibus homines fallebantur in causa mundi, Moyses Deo se inspirante ostendit quae esset ratio mundi. Quibusdam enim videbatur initium non habere; aliis initium quidem habere, sed ab Angelis quibusdam fabricatus esse; nonnullis vero factus similiter, sed a Sacla quodam, qui est et Deus potestatis adversae: pauci autem de origine, veritatis traducem sequentes, Deum opificem ejus asserebant. Horum ergo causa qui diversitatis falsa opinione trahebantur, coactus est Moyses quae esset causa hujus vera ostendere; ne filii Israel erepti de potestate Aegyptiorum, a falsa tamen intellig⟨e⟩ntia eorum liberati non essent. Ipsi enim inter caeteros magis erroris studium sequebantur: hi enim antiquitus prae caeteris vanae philosophiae operam dabant. Denique Moyses per id, quod a filia Pharaonis adoptatus videbatur, eruditus est omni sapientia Aegyptiorum (Act. VII, 22). Quid est ergo quod dicit, In principio f⟨e⟩cit Deus coelum et terram? Si enim firmamentum significat secundum quod supra ostendimus,

106. — In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). If He made heaven in the beginning, and earth, and heaven is the firmament, as appears in what follows, then it is not true that light was made first and so the firmament: for he could not mean another heaven, since he describes the making of the world as completed by the working of God. For because men were deceived by diverse opinions about the cause of the world, Moses, with God inspiring him, showed what the account of the world was. For to some it seemed to have no beginning; to others to have a beginning indeed, but to have been fashioned by certain angels; to some, again, to have been made likewise, but by a certain Sacla, who is also the god of the adverse power: but a few, following the transmission of the truth concerning its origin, asserted that God was its maker. On account of these, then, who were drawn away by the false opinion of diversity, Moses was compelled to show what the true cause of this was; lest the sons of Israel, rescued from the power of the Egyptians, should nevertheless not be freed from their false understanding. For they more than the others pursued the zeal of error: for from antiquity they devoted their effort to vain philosophy beyond the others. Finally Moses, through the fact that he was regarded as adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh, was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). What is it, then, that he says, In the beginning God made heaven and earth? For if it signifies the firmament, according to what was shown above

Editors' notes and page, col. 2316

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: DE LIBRO GENESIS (heading)› · call in col 2316

Sic Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones: Quomodo intelligenda sunt quae habentur in Genesi, praecipue de opere sex dierum.

So the manuscripts and the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however: "How the things in Genesis are to be understood, especially concerning the work of the six days."

(printed under page 506)

(2) ‹anchor: sed a Sacla› · call in col 2316

Am. Er. et Lov., a spiritu. Rat., a Secla. Aliquot Mss., a Secla, uti etiam supra, in quaestione tertia.—Ven. et Lov., ferunt, sed a spiritu quodam. M.

Amerbach, Erasmus and the Louvain edition: "a spiritu" ["by a spirit"]. The Regensburg edition: "a Secla". Some manuscripts: "a Secla", as also above, in the third question. The Venice and Louvain editions give: "but by a certain spirit". M[aurists].

(printed under page 506)

(a) ‹anchor: CVI› · call in col 2316

Haec quaestio deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 506)

Page

running head: ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2316 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word ostendimus, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2317

PL 35:2317

videamus quid dicat. Arbitramur, quia Moyses ut omnem errorem inferioris creaturae auferret, et impensarum facti mundi; in principio substantias ipsas, ex quibus mundus constat, factas esse significavit; quia si hoc tacuisset, aeternae forte putarentur esse substantiae, Deo jugabiles aestimatae: ut qui hujus rei testimonium recipit, ambigere non possit factum esse mundum, quando substantias, quae ad impensas mundi profecerunt, initio subjectas fatetur. Igitur In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram, id est supernam et infernam substantiam. Superna est, qua constat coelum; inferna autem concretio e⟨s⟩t quaedam faeculenta, quae profecit in aridam quae dicitur terra, et tenebras. Unde dicit in Isaia propheta, Ego Deus, qui feci lucem, et creavi tenebras (Isai. XLV, 6, 7). His ergo creatis, fecit simul sub⟨s⟩tantiam; hoc est, aquam, tenebras, et terram ante tempora: tempora enim sub firmamento sunt. Firmamentum enim, sicut quibusdam videtur, glacies est aquarum. Et ideo firmamentum dicitur, quia concretis divinitus aquis firmatum est, quod ab occulendo vel celando appellatum est coelum. Itaque propterea quod aqua majus sit elementum, prior e⟨s⟩t significata, quia pars ejus profecit in cameram mundi. Terra autem pavimentum: quae quidem et David a Spiritu sancto creata fatetur. Ait enim, Et aquae quae super coelos sunt, laudent nomen Domini. Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt (Psal. CXLVIII, 4, 5). Post haec ergo el⟨e⟩menta, ante comp⟨a⟩ginationem mundi, fecit Deus lucem, ut opera ejus in lucem procederent, quae lux modo disposito, cursum diei explevit. Facta est nox juxta diei modum, quae similiter impleto modo spatii, illuminata est adventu luminis matutini: et sic impletus est primus dies, cum coepit secundus; nox enim diei deputata est, ut simul dicantur unus dies: propterea enim, quod subjectae sunt tenebrae lumini, auctoritate carent, nec possunt numerum facere. Triginta etenim dies una luna appellantur, cum secum habeant noctes. Itaque lucis ministerium, quo spatium consumit sibi decretum, dies nuncupatur. Tenebrarum autem substantia antequam illuminetur, nox appellatur. Spatium autem illud, quod inter occasum et ortum est, nox est. Non enim tenebrae faciunt noctem, sicut et lux diem; quia tenebrae manent in sua natura. Lucis autem accessus facit diem, et discessus noctem. Non immerito ergo subjecta est nox diei. Luce ergo facta, et cursu duodecim horarum impleto, totidemque et noctis spatio peracto, aequinoctium fuit in primo die: et exinde coepit dies increscere super noctem tribus scilicet mensibus, qui sunt tempus veris. Ex eo deinde augmento suo minuitur dies aliis mensibus tribus, qui sunt tempus aestatis. Et iterum fit ⟨ae⟩quinoctium, ita ut ex eo nox increscat supra diem aliis mensibus tribus, qui sunt tempus autumni. Et incipit iterum nox de magnitudine sua, qua supergreditur diem, minorari usque ad finem quarti temporis, quod est hiems. Et fit aequinoctium primi temporis, quando Deus mundum creavit, qui dies intelligitur esse undecimus calendas aprilis, quando primus dies Paschae est, id est primus dies primi mensis. In Lege enim mandatum est, ut decima die primi mensis vespere praepararent se ad Pascha faciendum quarta decima mensis die, id est, ab undecimo. Jam enim vesper decimi diei in undecimum lucet, ut ab undecimo calendas aprilis initium esset primi mensis. In principio etenim facta luna fuit quarta decima, quia omnia plena sunt facta: adde triduum a decimo vespere, et hi sunt tres dies ante luminaria qui fuerunt, ut undecimo calendas aprilis factus sit mundus; quia numerus lunae ab undecimo venit ad quartum decimum, cui Paschae primus mensis integer est attributus, ut in Pascha die solemni neque extra undecimum calendas aprilis sit, neque extra lunam quartam decimam, quia undecima mundus factus est, quarta decima autem luna majori lumine clarior factus est. Inter principium ergo et claritatem qua illuminatus est mundus, Salvator noster et passus est et resurrexit; quia quarta decima luna passus est, et primo

let us see what it says. We judge that Moses, in order to remove every error about the lower creation and about the materials of the made world, indicated that in the beginning the very substances of which the world consists were made; for if he had kept silent about this, the substances would perhaps have been thought eternal, reckoned as yoked together with God: so that whoever accepts the testimony on this matter cannot doubt that the world was made, since he confesses that the substances which went to make up the materials of the world were set down at the beginning. Therefore In the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the upper and the lower substance. The upper is that of which heaven consists; the lower, however, is a certain dreggy concretion, which went to form the dry land which is called earth, and darkness. Hence He says in Isaiah the prophet, I am God, Who made light and created darkness (Isa. 45:6–7). These things therefore having been created, He made the substance at the same time; that is, water, darkness and earth before the times: for the times are beneath the firmament. For the firmament, as it seems to some, is a freezing of the waters. And it is called the firmament for this reason, that it was made firm when the waters were congealed by divine power, and from concealing or hiding it is called coelum. And so, because water is the greater element, it is mentioned first, since part of it went to form the vault of the world. The earth, however, is the floor: and these things indeed David too, [taught] by the Holy Spirit, confesses to have been created. For he says, And let the waters which are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord. For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created (Ps. 148:4–5). After these elements, then, before the joining together of the world, God made light, so that His works might come forth into the light; and this light, in the manner appointed, completed the course of a day. Night was made according to the measure of the day, and it, when likewise the measure of its space was completed, was lit up by the coming of the morning light: and so the first day was completed when the second began; for night has been assigned to the day, so that together they are called one day: for because darkness is subject to light, it lacks authority and cannot make up a number. For thirty days are called one moon, since they have their nights with them. And so the service of the light, by which it uses up the space decreed for it, is called day. The substance of darkness, however, before it is lit up, is called night. But that space which lies between setting and rising is night. For darkness does not make night in the way that light makes day; for darkness remains in its own nature. But the approach of light makes day, and its departure night. Not without reason, then, is night made subject to day. Light, then, having been made, and the course of twelve hours completed, and as many again of the space of night gone through, there was an equinox on the first day: and from then on the day began to increase over the night for three months, namely, which are the time of spring. Then from that increase of its own the day diminishes for another three months, which are the time of summer. And again there is an equinox, so that from it the night increases above the day for another three months, which are the time of autumn. And again the night begins to lessen from the greatness by which it surpasses the day, up to the end of the fourth season, which is winter. And there comes the equinox of the first season, when God created the world, which day is understood to be the eleventh before the Kalends of April, when the first day of the Passover falls, that is, the first day of the first month. For it was commanded in the Law that on the tenth day of the first month, in the evening, they should prepare themselves to keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month, that is, counting from the eleventh. For already the evening of the tenth day dawns into the eleventh, so that the beginning of the first month should be from the eleventh before the Kalends of April. For in the beginning the moon was made at the fourteenth, because all things were made full: add three days from the evening of the tenth, and these are the three days that were before the luminaries, so that the world was made on the eleventh before the Kalends of April; for the number of the moon comes from the eleventh to the fourteenth, to which the first month of the Passover has been assigned entire, so that at the Passover the solemn day should be neither outside the eleventh before the Kalends of April, nor outside the fourteenth moon, because the world was made on the eleventh, while on the fourteenth moon it was made brighter by the greater light. Between the beginning, then, and the brightness by which the world was illuminated, our Saviour both suffered and rose again; for He suffered on the fourteenth moon, and on the first

Editors' notes and page, col. 2317

Page

running head: 2317 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2318

die resurrexit, qui ideo dominicus dicitur, quia ipsum Dominus fecit, qui multiplicatos menses fecit, et tempora, et annos. Ut autem uno atque eodem modo minime celebretur, cursus facit lunae in decrementis et crementis. Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita. Manifestum est, quia terra, postquam facta est, invisibilis erat et incomposita: tegebatur enim aquis, ideo erat invisibilis; incomposita autem ideo, quia cum esset fluxa, non erat apta ad culturam. Et tenebrae erant super abyssum. Tenebras dicit fuisse super abyssum, id est, super immensam ex omni parte aquam. Et spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam (Gen. I, 2). Hanc aquam quasi summitatem significat, super quam spiritus Dei quia superferebatur, ostendit, ut tenebras super infinitam profunditatem fuisse significet. Spiritum autem Dei super aquas, quia ubi spiritus Dei erat, obscuritas non erat; quantum enim poterat, illuminabat aquam. Abyssum autem, id est immensam profunditatem illuminare non poterat: hoc est, superiores aquas illuminabat, et subter erant tenebrae, et super abyssum. Idcirco autem hunc Dei spiritum dicit, non quia sanctum hunc intelligi vult Spiritum, sed eum super creaturam hylicam spiritualiter vult intelligi, totum autem Dei esse significans, Dei hunc, qui super aquas ferebatur, spiritum vocat, ut pravam asseverationem convellat, qua quidam utuntur, dicentes aliquid esse quod non sit Dei. Nam nec ordinis, nec rationis est, ut super aquas Spiritus sanctus fuisse dicatur, quia super omnem creaturam est. Quod enim de Deo est, super omnes potestates et principatus et similiter super omnes potentias spirituales est. Non moveat autem mentem alicujus, quia Dei spiritus dicitur, cum constat omnia Dei esse. Ait enim Deus inter caetera facturus diluvium, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro (Id. VI, 3): et in Ezechiele inter alia, Haec dicit Dominus ossibus istis, Extendam super vos cutem, et dabo spiritum meum in vos, et vivetis (Ezech. XXXVII, 5). Numquid haec ad officium Spiritus sancti pertinent, et non ad animam? Spiritus ergo hic Dei est quidem, sicut caetera, hylicarum tamen moderator est substantiarum; ipsius enim ordo est his praeesse. Luce ergo facta, et cursu diei moderato, et peracto secundo die, fecit firmamentum, id est, coelum, ut lux in terra firmamenti moderaretur diem, ut esset quasi lucerna in domo. Hoc, inquam, firmamentum factum est ex supradicta aquae substantia. Nunc enim compaginatur in specie mundus, ut de confusione rerum discretis substantiis, singulae partes aptarentur, quae ad membra mundi proficerent. Substantiae enim quas primum factas esse diximus, impensae sunt mundi. Et ideo mundus dicitur, quia res ab invicem separatae quae erant confusae, et in speciem productae, mundum fecerunt vocari, cujus in fabricam profecerunt. Firmamentum ergo, id est coelum, factum est in medio aquarum, ut divideret inter aquam quae erat supra firmamentum, et inter aquam quae erat sub firmamento; ut Dei virtute in medio aquarum consisteret firmamentum, sub se, et intra se, et supra et circa se habens aquam; ut esset concavum deforis, et intra munitum, ne aquae sive interiores sive exteriores penetrarent concavum ejus, ut esset quasi domus munita atque firmata, ut securi essent habitantes in ea. Tertio die jussit congregari aquam quae erat sub coelo, hoc est, intra capacitatem firmamenti, in congregationem unam, ut appareret arida, quae est terra, et factum est sic. Exhausta enim latitudine terrae, factum est velut alveum, in quo demergeretur omnis aqua, quae erat intra firmamentum, et apparuit arida. Recedente enim aqua, necesse erat appareret terra f⟨a⟩cta visibilis, quae prius erat invisibilis. Tunc arida appellata est terra, et congregationes aquarum maria. Et jussit producere terram herbam pabuli, et ligna fructifera ad semen super terram. Quarto item die jussit Deus fieri luminaria in firmamento coeli, ut luceant super terram; luminare majus, in inchoationem †diei; et luminare minus, in inchoationem noctis, et stellas. Haec ad conceptum et nativitatem

day He rose again, which is therefore called the Lord's [day], because the Lord made it, He Who made the months manifold, and the seasons, and the years. And so that it should not be celebrated in one and the same manner, the course of the moon brings this about in its wanings and waxings. But the earth was invisible and without form. It is manifest that the earth, after it was made, was invisible and without form: for it was covered with waters, therefore it was invisible; and without form for this reason, that since it was fluid, it was not fit for cultivation. And darkness was over the abyss. He says that darkness was over the abyss, that is, over water boundless on every side. And the spirit of God was borne over the water (Gen. 1:2). He signifies this water as a kind of surface; because the spirit of God was borne over it, he shows [this], so as to signify that darkness was over the infinite depth. And the spirit of God [was] over the waters, because where the spirit of God was, there was no obscurity; for as far as it could, it illuminated the water. But it could not illuminate the abyss, that is, the boundless depth: that is, it illuminated the upper waters, and beneath was darkness, and over the abyss. Now he calls this the spirit of God, not because he wishes this to be understood as the Holy Spirit, but he wishes it to be understood spiritually as over the material creation; and signifying that the whole belongs to God, he calls this spirit, which was borne over the waters, God's, in order to overturn the depraved assertion which certain people use, saying that there is something which is not God's. For it is neither orderly nor reasonable that the Holy Spirit should be said to have been over the waters, since He is over all creation. For what is from God is over all powers and principalities, and likewise over all spiritual potencies. Let it not disturb anyone's mind that it is called the spirit of God, since it is established that all things are God's. For God says, among other things, when about to make the flood, My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh (Gen. 6:3): and in Ezekiel, among other things, Thus says the Lord to these bones, I will stretch skin over you, and I will give My spirit into you, and you shall live (Ezek. 37:5). Do these things pertain to the office of the Holy Spirit, and not to the soul? This spirit, then, is indeed God's, like other things, yet it is the governor of material substances; for its order is to preside over these. So when light had been made, and the course of the day had been regulated, and the second day completed, He made the firmament, that is, the heaven, so that the light on the earth of the firmament might regulate the day, so as to be like a lamp in a house. This firmament, I say, was made from the aforesaid substance of water. For now the world is fitted together into form, so that, the substances having been separated out of the confusion of things, the individual parts might be fitted together which would serve towards the members of the world. For the substances which we said were made first are the materials of the world. And therefore it is called the world (mundus), because things which were confused, being separated from one another and brought forth into form, caused the world to be so called, towards whose construction they served. The firmament, then, that is, the heaven, was made in the midst of the waters, to divide between the water which was above the firmament and the water which was under the firmament; so that by the power of God the firmament might stand in the midst of the waters, having water beneath itself, and within itself, and above and around itself; so that it might be concave on the outside, and fortified within, lest the waters, whether inner or outer, should penetrate its hollow, so that it might be like a house fortified and made firm, so that those dwelling in it might be secure. On the third day He commanded the water which was under the heaven, that is, within the capacity of the firmament, to be gathered into one gathering, so that the dry land might appear, which is the earth, and so it was done. For the breadth of the earth having been hollowed out, it was made like a channel, into which all the water which was within the firmament might sink, and the dry land appeared. For as the water receded, it was necessary that the earth should appear, made visible, which before was invisible. Then the dry land was called earth, and the gatherings of the waters seas. And He commanded the earth to bring forth the grass of pasture, and fruit-bearing trees for seed upon the earth. Likewise on the fourth day God commanded lights to be made in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth; the greater light, for the beginning of the day; and the lesser light, for the beginning of the night, and the stars. These pertain to the conception and birth

Editors' notes and page, col. 2318

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2318
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins and ends mid-sentence; no paragraph breaks visible, set as one paragraph; "diei" in "in inchoationem diei" is damaged and looks like "divi", set with † as unsure; "f⟨a⟩cta" letter lost to damaged type; the cut-off left column (2317) at the image edges is not set; no full-width lines or editors' matter

PL 35:2319

et ad nutrimenta pertinent eorum, quae gignuntur in mundo, et ad signa temporum certis curriculis necessaria, necnon et ad ornatum totius mundi. Sicut enim ad ornamentum domus pertinet, si camera ejus habeat auro distincta laquearia; ita et mundo ornatum praestant stellae diversa luce fulgentes. Luci itaque, quae facta est prior, est additus splendor solis, ita ut connexa sint haec et individua. Nocti autem, quae erat tenebrosa, datum est luminare: et quia quarta decima fuit luna quando facta est, sic ait, Luminare minus, in inchoationem noctis: facta etenim, tota nocte luxit. A parte ergo ad totum dictum est, in inchoationem noctis; quia non semper vespere lucet. Luminare autem majus, quod solem dicimus, manet in initio diei, quia simul cum luce priore concretus est. Tribus ergo diebus sine luminaribus his fuit mundus; non enim erant adhuc quibus proficerent officia eorum. At ubi autem produxit terra herbam pabuli, et ligna fructifera; necessaria fuerunt quae enutrirent vel conservarent quae erant producta. Quia ergo generatio omnis horum interventu perficitur, non oportuit prius haec fieri, ne eorum effectu quae producta de terra sunt, orta putarentur; sed illa ante facere, ut sic haec sine his facta esse non ambigantur. Quinta deinde die, aquas jussit producere reptilia animarum vivarum, et volatilia volantia super terram secundum firmamentum coeli, et factum est sic. Et inter caetera, Et vidit, inquit, Deus quia bona sunt, et dixit, Crescite et multiplicamini (Gen. I, 21, 22) Ideo autem adjecit, Et vidit Deus quia bona sunt, quia a quibusdam dicuntur mala esse, ut vel sic erubescant. Quando enim Deo et conditori suo placent, nulli utique debent displicere. Nam solent dicere stulti, Ideo, inquiunt, vidit, et placuerunt ei, quia ante nesciebat. O hebetes, quomodo nescivit? Quidquid voluit, productum est. An quis vult quod nescit? et qui potest facere, potest dici quia nescit quod faciat? Et quod amplius est, non ipse fecit, sed jussit ut fierent; et qui jussit, non est hujus virtutis ut faceret? Sed quia huic omnia possibilia sunt, jubente hoc quae non poterat, coepit posse, ut ad hujus laudem proficeret. Duplex ergo virtus est, ut insensibilem juberet sensibilia producere. Sexto vero die praecepit ut produceret terra animam viventem, quadrupedia, et bestias terrae; et factum est sic, et producta sunt. Et vidit Deus, quia bona sunt, et valde bona, quia omnia necessaria sunt. Supra dicta ergo die dixit Deus: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et habeat, inquit, potestatem super omnia quae facta sunt super terram (Ibid., 26). Primum quidem fecit Deus substantias ex quibus mundum compaginaret, quo compacto, et omnibus ornatibus decorato, et necessariis honestato, post hoc hominem fecit, qui frueretur eo, et omnibus quae in illo sunt. Nam cum omnia super terram ex aquis et terra produci jussisset, hominem tamen ut faceret, limum terrae manibus apprehendisse describitur, ut multum differre hominem ab his quae fecerat, edoceret. Ad honorem enim hominis pertinere vult, quando eum Dei manibus factum describit, et factum ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei, id est Patris et Filii. Quid sit autem ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei, quamvis alibi dixerimus, hic tamen locus et causa postulat ut iterum dicamus. Patris enim ad Filium verba sunt dicentis, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: quanquam in opere utriusque intelligatur persona, dicentis et obaudientis. Haec ergo imago Dei est in homine, ut unus factus sit quasi Dominus, ex quo caeteri orirentur, habens imperium Dei quasi vicarius ejus; quia omnis rex Dei habet imaginem. Ideoque mulier non est facta ad Dei imaginem. Sic etenim dicit, Et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit eum. Hinc est unde Apostolus, Vir quidem, ait, non debet velare caput suum, quia imago et gloria Dei est; mulier autem ideo

and to the nourishment of the things that are begotten in the world, and are necessary as signs of the times in fixed courses, and moreover [they pertain] to the adornment of the whole world. For just as it belongs to the adornment of a house if its vault has ceiling-panels picked out with gold, so too the stars, shining with diverse light, lend adornment to the world. To the light, therefore, which was made first, the splendour of the sun was added, so that these are joined and indivisible. But to the night, which was dark, a luminary was given: and because the moon was on its fourteenth day when it was made, he speaks thus, The lesser luminary, at the beginning of the night: for, once made, it shone the whole night. So it was said of the whole from the part, at the beginning of the night; for it does not always shine at evening. But the greater luminary, which we call the sun, abides at the beginning of the day, because it was joined together with the former light. For three days, therefore, the world was without these luminaries; for there were not yet things for which their functions might be of use. But when the earth brought forth grass for pasture and fruit-bearing trees, there was need of things that would nourish or preserve what had been brought forth. Since, then, the generation of all these is brought to completion through their intervention, it was not fitting that these should be made first, lest the things brought forth from the earth should be thought to have arisen by their effect; rather, [it was fitting] to make those beforehand, so that there might be no doubt that these were made without them. Then on the fifth day He commanded the waters to bring forth creeping things of living souls, and flying things flying over the earth along the firmament of heaven, and so it was done. And among other things, And God saw, he says, that they are good, and said, Increase and multiply (Gen. 1:21–22). Now he added, And God saw that they are good, because some say that they are evil, so that even thus they may be put to shame. For when they please God their Maker, they surely ought to displease no one. For fools are accustomed to say, For this reason, they say, He saw, and they pleased Him, because beforehand He did not know. O dullards, how did He not know? Whatever He willed was produced. Or does anyone will what he does not know? And can He who is able to make be said not to know what He makes? And what is more, He did not make them Himself, but commanded that they be made; and has He who commanded not the power to make? But because to Him all things are possible, at His command that which was not able began to be able, so that it might redound to His praise. The power, therefore, is twofold, in that He commanded the insensible to bring forth sensible things. Then on the sixth day He commanded that the earth should bring forth the living soul, four-footed beasts, and beasts of the earth; and so it was done, and they were brought forth. And God saw that they are good, and very good, because all are necessary. On the aforesaid day, therefore, God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him have, He says, power over all things that have been made upon the earth (ibid. 1:26). First, indeed, God made the substances from which He might frame the world; and when it had been framed, and decorated with all adornments, and furnished with necessities, after this He made man, to enjoy it and all things that are in it. For although He commanded all things upon the earth to be brought forth from the waters and the earth, yet in order to make man He is described as having taken the slime of the earth in His hands, so as to teach that man differs greatly from the things He had made. For he means it to pertain to man's honour when he describes him as made by the hands of God, and made to the image and likeness of God, that is, of the Father and the Son. What it is to be to the image and likeness of God, although we have said it elsewhere, nevertheless this place and occasion demand 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: though in the work the person of each is understood, of the one speaking and of the one obeying. This, then, is the image of God in man, that one was made as it were lord, from whom the rest should arise, holding the rule of God as His vicar; for every king has the image of God. And therefore woman was not made to the image of God. For thus he says, And God made man, to the image of God He made him. Hence it is that the Apostle says, A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but woman therefore

Editors' notes and page, col. 2319

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: laudem proficeret› · call in col 2319

Er. Lugd. Ven. Lov. sic exhibent hunc locum: Quae non poterat, coepit esse, ut ad hujus laudem proficeret. M.

Erasmus and the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions give this passage thus: "What could not [be], began to be, so as to advance his praise." M[aurists].

(printed under page 508)

Page

running head: 2319 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQUE (cut off at the image's right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2320

ve⟨l⟩at, quia non est gloria aut imago Dei (I Cor. XI, 7). Similitudo autem Dei haec est in homine, ut sicut ex Patre Filius, sic ex homine mulier. In hoc plane dispar, quia haec facta, ille vero natus est. Quibusdam tamen videtur omnia simul Deum fecisse. Si enim verbo, inquiunt, fecit, quare non omnia simul fecisse dicatur? Nam hic hominum mos est, ut per partes fecisse credatur. Ad potentiam ergo Dei magis facere videtur, si uno die omnia ab eo facta dicantur. Porro autem magnam providentiam in hoc opere et ordine contuemur. Nam potuit utique simul facere cuncta; sed ratio multiformis prohibuit, et sepositis his omnibus, Scripturae divinae fides adhibenda est, quae dicit, et saepe dicit, quia in sex, inquit, diebus fecit Dominus Deus tuus coelum et terram, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt (Exod. XX, 11). Primo enim in loco sic debuerunt fieri, ut sentirent ac scirent quia facta sunt: quando enim non se omnia simul viderunt, sed unum hodie, cras alterum; cognoverunt initio se contineri, et nullo modo posse aeternitatem suspicari, ubi se partibus invicem recognoscunt. Nam si omnia simul exstitissent, non esset eis sensus infirmitatis, sed putarent se non coepisse. Quae enim verbo Dei subito simul existunt, non se fieri sentiunt, nisi aliud ante se, aliud post se videndo. Et ne forte illud quod primum factum est putet se infectum, majora post se facta cernendo, hoc credit de se quod vidit in altero potiore. Denique lumen quod dies appellatur, ante se habet coelum et terram, id est, aquam et aridam. Cum autem ipsa aqua et arida et tenebrae confusa fuissent facta, aeternitatem sibi vindicare non poterant, quia nihil horum statum et proprietatem sibi ausum est vindicare. Sol iterum et luna cum sint clarissima, ante se habent multa. Ita ergo factum est, ut potiora posteriora, anteriora autem inferiora cum se vident, nihil horum sibi vindicet aeternitatem. Praetereaque sex diebus opus consummatum, totius mundi aetatem in se continet, ut sex dierum opera, sex millium annorum haberent figuram: quia quod unoquoque saeculo futurum erat, sex dierum per ordinem operibus continetur; utputa, quia prioribus saeculis tanta cognitio Dei in terris non erat futura, sine splendore anteriores dies videntur: ut autem ante hominem pecora fierent, quia veteres nostri inculti et agrestes pecorum more victuri erant: sexto autem die homo fieret, haec res fecit, quia in sexto millenario annorum adventus Christi hominem fecit, ne morti esset obnoxius. Ut autem imago Dei esset homo, quia dono Dei coimaginari haberet Filio Dei, dicente Joanne apostolo, Scimus autem, inquit, quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus (I Joan. III, 2). Et Vas electionis: coimaginati, ait, Filio Dei (Rom. VIII, 29). Arbor autem vitae quae posita est in paradiso, imago fuit futurae gratiae Dei, quae est corpus Domini, quod qui edit, vivet in aeternum. Nam arbor scientiae boni et mali significat quod Lex data est per Moysen, quae cum cognitum fecisset peccatum quod prius latebat, dedit scientiam boni et mali. Ostendit enim quid esset bonum, quidve malum. Illud vero, quod septimo die requievit ab operibus suis, hoc significat, quia impleto sexto millenario annorum, in septimo millenario requiescet, cessante jam mundo ab omni opere saeculari. Haec diximus pauca de multis, ut viam panderemus intelligendi secundum ea quae supra ostendimus.

veils, because she is not the glory or image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). Now this likeness of God is in man, that just as the Son is from the Father, so woman is from man. In this it is plainly unlike, because she was made, but He was born. To some, however, it seems that God made all things at once. For if He made by a word, they say, why should He not be said to have made all things at once? For this is the custom of men, that He should be believed to have made by parts. It seems therefore to pertain more to the power of God if all things are said to have been made by Him in one day. But further, we behold great providence in this work and order. For He certainly could have made all things at once; but a manifold reason forbade it, and, setting all these things aside, faith must be given to divine Scripture, which says, and often says, that in six, it says, days the Lord your God made heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them (Exod. 20:11). For in the first place they had to be made thus, so that they might perceive and know that they were made: for when they saw that they were not all at once, but one today, another tomorrow, they recognized that they were bounded by a beginning, and could in no way suspect eternity, since they recognize one another as parts. For if all things had come into being at once, they would have no sense of their weakness, but would think that they had not begun. For things that come into being suddenly and at once by the word of God do not perceive that they are made, except by seeing one thing before them and another after them. And lest perhaps that which was made first should think itself unmade, by seeing greater things made after it, it believes of itself what it saw in another, better one. Finally the light which is called day has before it heaven and earth, that is, water and dry land. But since the water itself and the dry land and the darkness had been made confused, they could not claim eternity for themselves, because none of these dared to claim for itself a fixed state and property. Again, the sun and moon, though they are most bright, have many things before them. Thus therefore it came about that, since the later things see themselves as better and the earlier ones as inferior, none of them claims eternity for itself. And besides, the work completed in six days contains in itself the age of the whole world, so that the works of six days should bear the figure of six thousand years: because what was to be in each age is contained in order in the works of the six days; for example, because in the former ages there was not to be so great a knowledge of God on earth, the earlier days appear without splendour; and that cattle were made before man, because our forefathers were to live uncultivated and rustic after the manner of cattle; and that man was made on the sixth day, this was brought about because in the sixth millennium of years the coming of Christ made man, so that he should not be subject to death. And that man was the image of God, because by the gift of God he was to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, as John the apostle says: But we know, he says, that when He appears, we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2). And the Vessel of election: conformed, he says, to the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29). Now 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, which whoever eats shall live for ever. For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil signifies that the Law was given through Moses, which, when it had made known sin that was formerly 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 signifies this, that when the sixth millennium of years has been completed, there will be rest in the seventh millennium, the world then ceasing from all worldly work. These few things out of many we have said, in order to open a way of understanding according to what we have shown above.

DE ORDINE DIEI ET NOCTIS.

On the order of day and night.

CVII. — Quantum ad mundi rationem pertinet, tenebras ante legimus quam lucem. Ea enim quae ad mundi fabricam profecerunt, quaeque simul facta videntur, lumine privata fuisse considerantur; id est, aqua, terra, tenebrae, ex quibus compaginatus est mundus, sicut continetur in Sapientia, quae dicitur Salomonis, ex materia invisa (Sap. XI, 18), hoc est tenebrosa. Et tenebras enim et aquam factam sacra volumina ipsius Domini voce testantur per Isaiam

CVII. — As far as the plan of the world is concerned, we read of darkness before light. For the things which contributed to the fabric of the world, and which appear to have been made at the same time, are considered to have been deprived of light; that is, water, earth, darkness, from which the world was put together, as is contained in the Wisdom which is called Solomon's, from unseen matter (Wis. 11:18), that is, dark. For the sacred volumes testify by the voice of the Lord Himself through Isaiah that both darkness and water were made

Editors' notes and page, col. 2320

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: sexto millenario› · call in col 2320

Ms. Colbert., hic et infra, millesimo.

The Colbert manuscript, here and below: "millesimo" ["thousandth"].

(printed under page 508)

Page

running head: S EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2320 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2321

prophetam: Ego, inquit, Deus feci lucem, et creavi tenebras (Isai. XLV, 6, 7). Similiter et per David, et aquas factas, et terram firmatam super aquas Spiritus sanctus ostendit (Psal. CXXXV, 6). Quod convenit et Evangelicae auctoritati et Apostolicae traditioni, in quibus omnia facta leguntur: et ut nihil exciperet, sive quae in coelis sunt, ait, sive quae in terris (Joan. I, 3, Coloss. I, 16). In hac ergo parte, quae ad terras pertinet, ante tenebras legimus quam lucem: hoc autem est quantum ad ordinem lectionis pertinet, non quantum ad dignitatem; nam utique multo melior lux quam tenebrae: in mundi tamen ratione lux accipit nomen ut appelletur dies, et tenebrae nox; sed hac scilicet ratione, quia dum illuminantur tenebrae, et praeterit lux, illud tempus quamdiu redeat lux, dicitur nox; et illud tempus quo illuminantur tenebrae, appellatur dies. Nox ergo cum dicitur, speratur futurus dies; et cum dies dicitur, speratur futura nox. Cum vero officia haec cessaverint, transeunte mundo, tenebrae tantum dicentur, et lumen. Non enim potest dici nox, cum perpetuo sint tenebrae; neque dies, cum occidere cessaverit lumen. Ubi aeternitas est, cessant haec nomina, quia cum mundo coeperunt. Denique antequam lux fieret, quae appellata est dies, non nox legitur fuisse, sed tenebrae: quae postquam illuminatae sunt, et praeteriit lux, vesper appellatae sunt et nox. Igitur quantum apparet, subjecta est nox diei. Non enim quia ante tenebrae leguntur quam lux, idcirco anteponendae debent videri: quia et coelum ante solem est, et tamen claritate major est sol; et terra ante hominem, et pecora et caetera animantia, et tamen subjecta sunt homini: non ergo idcirco nox praeferri debet diei, quia ante leguntur et tenebrae; cum appareat et dignitate lumen tenebris, et tempore diem nocti anteponi. Sicut enim supra ostensum est, cum essent tenebrae facta est lux. Et appellavit Deus lucem diem, et tenebras appellavit noctem: et factum est vespere et mane dies unus (Gen. I, 5). Nam nisi dies fuisset, nec nox esset; tenebrae enim erant, quae cum illuminatae sunt, et praeteriit dies cursu suo peracto, factus est vesper. Et cum post vesperum illuxisset, factus est dies primus nocte transacta, ut diem sequeretur nox. Hoc et dignum est, et ratione commendatum, ut inferior natura per omnia subjecta sit potiori. Quomodo ergo nox ante diem dicitur, cujus nomen post diem legis? Non enim appellata fuisset nox, neque vesper, nisi facta lux diem egisset: quo transacto, factus est vesper, qui est nox: dies utique factus est vesper, ut scias noctem partem esse diei. Tunc enim consummatur dies, cum transit et nox. Denique sic dicimus, Annus dies habet trecentos sexaginta quinque; non utique sine noctibus. Cum enim dies dicimus, ibidem computamus et noctes. Sub auctoritate enim diei significamus et noctem; nam et si nox praeiret diem, sub vocabulo noctis computaretur et dies. Quis etenim hominum dicat, Post quinque noctes videbo te, et non, post quinque dies? Nec legisse nos meminimus alicubi noctem ante diem significatam. Nam fuit, inquit, Moyses in monte quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus (Exod. XXIV, 18). Et in Psalmo, Sol, inquit, non uret te per diem, neque luna per noctem (Psal. CXX, 6). Et ut de ipsis primordiis demus exemplum, Fiant, inquit, luminaria in firmamento coeli, et luceant super terram: luminare majus in inchoationem diei; et luminare minus, in inchoationem noctis (Gen. I, 14): sed luna non potest praeponi soli, sicut nec nox diei; sed sicut luna sub sole est, ita nox sub die. Et in Evangelio habemus sub auctoritate et numero dierum significatas et noctes: ait enim inter caetera Dominus, Sunt hic quidam circumstantium, qui non gustabunt mortem, donec videant Filium hominis in regno suo. Et subjecit, Factum est post dies octo (Luc. IX, 27), etc. Numquid non in hoc numero continentur et noctes? Et alio loco, Haec, inquit, in Bethania gesta sunt trans Jordanem, ubi erat Joannes baptizans. Postera die vidit Jesum venientem. Numquid dixit, Postera nocte? Iterum sequitur, Sequenti die voluit proficisci in Galilaeam

the prophet: I, He says, God, made light, and created darkness (Isa. 45:6–7). Likewise also through David the Holy Spirit showed both that the waters were made and that the earth was made firm upon the waters (Ps. 135:6). This agrees both with the authority of the Gospel and with the Apostolic tradition, in which all things are read to have been made: and so as to except nothing, he says, whether the things that are in the heavens, or the things that are on earth (John 1:3; Col. 1:16). In this part, then, which pertains to the earth, we read of darkness before light: but this concerns the order of the reading, not dignity; for light is certainly much better than darkness: yet in the order of the world light receives the name so that it is called day, and darkness night; but evidently on this principle, that when the darkness is illuminated, and the light passes away, the time until the light returns is called night; and the time in which the darkness is illuminated is called day. So when night is spoken of, a coming day is hoped for; and when day is spoken of, a coming night is hoped for. But when these functions have ceased, as the world passes away, they will be called only darkness and light. For it cannot be called night when there is perpetual darkness; nor day when the light has ceased to set. Where there is eternity, these names cease, because they began with the world. Indeed, before light was made, which was called day, we read that there was not night but darkness: and after it had been illuminated, and the light had passed, it was called evening and night. Therefore, as far as appears, night is subject to day. For it is not because darkness is read of before light that it ought for that reason to be thought preferable: for the heaven too is before the sun, and yet the sun is greater in brightness; and the earth is before man, and the cattle and the other animals, and yet they are subject to man: so night ought not to be preferred to day because darkness too is read of first; since it is evident that light is placed before darkness in dignity, and day before night in time. For as was shown above, when there was darkness, light was made. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night: and there was evening and morning, one day (Gen. 1:5). For unless there had been day, neither would there have been night; for there was darkness, which, when it had been illuminated and the day had passed, its course completed, became evening. And when after the evening it had dawned, the first day came to be, the night having passed, so that night followed day. This is both fitting and commended by reason, that the inferior nature be in all things subject to the better. How then is night said to be before day, when you read its name after day? For it would not have been called night, nor evening, unless light, once made, had made the day: and when this had passed, evening came, which is night: the day indeed became evening, that you may know that night is part of the day. For the day is completed only when the night too passes. Thus indeed we say, The year has three hundred and sixty-five days; not, surely, without the nights. For when we say days, we count the nights there as well. For under the authority of day we signify night too; for if night went before day, day too would be counted under the term night. For who among men would say, After five nights I will see you, and not, after five days? Nor do we remember having read anywhere of night indicated before day. For Moses was, it says, on the mountain forty days and forty nights (Exod. 24:18). And in the Psalm, The sun, it says, shall not burn you by day, nor the moon by night (Ps. 120:6). And to give an example from the very beginnings, Let there be, it says, lights in the firmament of heaven, and let them shine upon the earth: the greater light for the beginning of the day; and the lesser light, for the beginning of the night (Gen. 1:14): but the moon cannot be put before the sun, just as night cannot be put before day; but as the moon is beneath the sun, so night is beneath day. And in the Gospel we have the nights too signified under the authority and number of the days: for among other things the Lord says, There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man in His kingdom. And he added, It came to pass after eight days (Luke 9:27), etc. Are not the nights too contained in this number? And in another place, These things, it says, were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day he saw Jesus coming. Did he say, On the next night? Again there follows, On the following day He wished to set out for Galilee

Editors' notes and page, col. 2321

Page

running head: 2321 APPENDIX. (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column set as one printed paragraph; overlapping lines between images set once; "dies utique factus est vesper" set as printed, possibly corrupt; Luc. IX, 27 printed for the "post dies octo" verse (Luke 9:28), set as printed; reference figures after Joan., Coloss., Gen. read as small-capital I; no full-width line; no editors' matter

PL 35:2322

(Joan. I, 28, 29, 43). Et in subjecto, Et die tertio nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae (Id. II, 1). Ecce ubique dies in auctoritate probatur, noctem habens subjectam. Si enim noctis nomine contineretur, praeiret nox diem. Nam quia Romani regnum habent; Hispani et Galli et Afri et caeteri subjecti eis, sub eorum nomine Romani vocantur: ita et nox, quia subjecta est diei, sub ejus nomine continetur. Sed inde quidam falluntur, quia Judaei in sabbatum vespere jubentur intrare, non considerantes cur ita mandatum sit. Nam utique pridie necesse habent emere sibi escas et praeparare in sabbatum, et lotum ire. Numquid possunt haec nocte facere, ut orto die intrarent in sabbatum? Dominus certe vespere resurrexit, et diei deputatur. In die enim resurrectio celebratur, qui dies dominicus appellatur. Sic enim legis, Haec dies quam fecit Dominus (Psal. CXVII, 24); non tamen nox dominica, quia principatum dies habet. Sive enim praeterito die, sivo futuro, semper nox subjecta est; quia et ordine inferior est et natura, dicente Apostolo, Filii diei estis et luminis, non noctis neque tenebrarum (I Thess. V, 5). Et si de consulibus conjiciamus, videbimus illum primum nominari qui prior eligitur. Denique solet dici, Cum illo quis erit consul? Si ergo et nox ante diem esset, prior nominaretur. Nam usque adeo a die incipit numerus, utputa si dicamus, Cras sextum calendas est; a mane utique est usque dum veniatur ad aliud mane, ut transacto die et nocte computetur. Nam et luna utique in initio mane facta est quarta decima ⟨:⟩ facta enim lucere debuit tota nocte, et in aliud mane coepit quinta decima. Quid ergo ambigitur, ut non a die principia teneantur? Propter quorumdam contentiones de re manifesta coacti sumus latius loqui, cum ipsa se lectio explanet, in qua dies ante noctem aperta ratione significatur. Haec omnia supra memorata secundum mundi originem diximus. Verum si altius loqui velimus, intellectum nostrum spirituali erigentes vigore, incongruum deprehendimus tenebras ante lucem creatas asserere. Si enim lucis coelestis natura est, et tenebrarum terrena, ineptum utique est post tenebras lucem factam putare: quia Moyses lucem quidem factam, sed in qua nunc mundus est parte, non quia tunc creata est, dicit; quia omnia spiritualia ante creata sunt quam carnalia, ut lux quae in supernis erat fieret in subjectis, ut lampas in domo. Qua autem ratione ante lucem tenebrae dicuntur, cum semper post lucem videantur? Denique coelestia et spiritualia lumen natura esse creduntur, terrena et carnalia tenebrae; ut tenebrarum natura potentia luminis subsistere videatur, quia omne imum summitatis est. Nam si requiramus, in ipso sole tenebras deprehendimus. Quando enim juxta illum fueris, tam clarissimus videtur, ut prospici non possit; si vero intervallo, clarissimus quidem, sed ut possit aspici; si autem longe, minus clarus: quanto longius, tanto minus clarus. Unde defectus quidam apparet, qui tenebras nuntiat, et ita pervenitur, ut tenebrae ex lumine ortum capere videantur. Itaque qui fecit lucem, hoc modo creavit et tenebras, quomodo faciens aquam simul creavit et terram: ut sicut firmum aquae terra est, ita tenebrae defectus luminis. Deus autem solus est qui defectum non patitur, qui cum ubique sit, imo omnia intra se habeat, tam praeclarus est ut a nullo videatur, nisi si voluerit temperare. Denique Salvator cum esset in corpore et clausus non esset, tamen minime videbatur, nisi voluisset. Nam utique quod in monte transfiguratus est, et in claritate magna apparuit (Matth. XVII, 1, 2), hoc veluti latebat in corpore, quod cum voluit, manifestavit. Quomodo ergo latebat, qui clausus non erat? Nam si cum corpore clausis ostiis intravit ad discipulos (Joan. XX, 19), quemadmodum divinitas ejus non omnia penetrat? hoc est, claudi non potest, quia defectum non patitur. Cum ergo nusquam desit Deus, illic tamen dicitur esse, ubi apparet, et vult videri. Cum ergo omnia in Deo sint, quia excedit cuncta, dicente Apostolo, In ipso enim vivimus, movemur et sumus (Act. XVII, 28); ipse tamen

(John 1:28, 29, 43). And in what follows: And on the third day a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1). Behold, everywhere the day is proved by authority to have the night subject to it. For if it were contained under the name of night, night would go before day. For since the Romans hold the kingdom, the Spaniards and Gauls and Africans and the rest who are subject to them are called Romans under their name: so too the night, because it is subject to the day, is contained under its name. But some are deceived on this point, because the Jews are commanded to enter upon the sabbath at evening, not considering why it was so commanded. For of course on the day before they must buy themselves food and make ready for the sabbath, and go to wash. Could they do these things at night, so as to enter upon the sabbath once day had risen? The Lord certainly rose at evening, and it is reckoned to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on the day, which is called the Lord's day. For thus you read: This is the day which the Lord has made (Ps. 117:24); yet not the Lord's night, because the day holds the primacy. For whether with the past day or with the coming one, night is always subject; because it is inferior both in order and in nature, as the Apostle says: You are sons of the day and of the light, not of the night nor of darkness (1 Thess. 5:5). And if we draw an inference from the consuls, we shall see that he is named first who is elected first. Accordingly it is customary to say: With him, who will be consul? If therefore night too were before day, it would be named first. For the count begins from the day to such an extent that, for instance, if we say, Tomorrow is the sixth before the calends, it is surely from morning until one comes to the next morning, so that it is reckoned once the day and the night have passed. For the moon too was surely made fourteenth at the beginning, in the morning: for once made it had to shine the whole night, and on the next morning it began to be fifteenth. Why then is there doubt, so that the beginnings are not held to be from the day? On account of the contentions of certain people about a plain matter we have been compelled to speak at greater length, although the reading explains itself, in which day is signified before night by evident reasoning. All these things recorded above we have said according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more loftily, raising our understanding with spiritual vigour, we find it incongruous to assert that darkness was created before light. For if the nature of light is heavenly and that of darkness earthly, it is surely foolish to think that light was made after darkness: for Moses says that light was made, but in the part where the world now is, not that it was then created; because all spiritual things were created before carnal ones, so that the light which was in the heights came to be among the things below, like a lamp in a house. But for what reason is darkness spoken of before light, when it is always seen after light? Indeed heavenly and spiritual things are believed to be light by nature, earthly and carnal things darkness; so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because everything lowest belongs to what is highest. For if we inquire, we detect darkness in the sun itself. For when you are near it, it appears so very bright that it cannot be looked at; but if at an interval, very bright indeed, but such that it can be looked at; but if far off, less bright: the further, the less bright. Hence a certain failing appears, which announces darkness, and so it comes about that darkness seems to take its origin from light. Therefore He Who made light created darkness in this way, just as in making water He created the earth at the same time: so that as earth is the solid of water, so darkness is the failing of light. But God alone is He Who suffers no failing, Who, though He is everywhere, nay holds all things within Himself, is so exceedingly bright that He is seen by no one, unless He wills to temper [it]. Indeed the Saviour, when He was in the body and was not enclosed, was nevertheless not seen at all unless He willed it. For indeed the fact that He was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great brightness (Matt. 17:1–2), this lay as it were hidden in the body, and He manifested it when He willed. How then was He hidden, Who was not enclosed? For if with the body He entered to the disciples when the doors were shut (John 20:19), how does His divinity not penetrate all things? that is, it cannot be enclosed, because it suffers no failing. Since therefore God is nowhere absent, He is nevertheless said to be there where He appears and wills to be seen. Since therefore all things are in God, because He exceeds all things, as the Apostle says: For in Him we live, move and are (Acts 17:28); He nevertheless

Editors' notes and page, col. 2322

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2322
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "quarta decima ·" prints only a raised dot, probably a damaged colon, set ⟨:⟩; "dicit" has a stray mark over the i; column number in the head blurred, read as 2322; no paragraph breaks visible in this column

PL 35:2323

in nullo est nisi in quo voluerit. Mysterio enim quodam in omnibus est, et providentia quadam in quo vult, apparet.

is in none except in whom He wills. For by a certain mystery He is in all things, and by a certain providence He appears in whom He wills.

DE LINGUA HEBRAICA, EX QUO NOMEN ACCEPERIT.

On the Hebrew language, from whom it received its name.

CVIII. — Omne quod a Deo est, rationabile est: et unicuique rei exordium causa dat, quae sit origo ipsius, ut non absurde nominari aut subsistere videatur, sed ut nuncupationem ostenderet, quae caput intelligitur esse ipsius nominis. Igitur ratio hominis est causa qua constat. Constat autem ex quatuor elementis, scilicet terra, aere, aqua et igne, Deo auctore duntaxat: quintus est animus quasi auriga, ut concretum et figuratum corpus agat, et quasi imperator ipsius. Et ab humo initium sumpsimus, et ejus nomine nuncupamur. Homines enim vocamur propter humum, unde pater noster forinsecus originem habet. Igitur causa et ratio facit ut ex nomine alicujus caeteri subsistentes sub eodem nomine appellentur, ipsum significantes in sese. Quamobrem videamus si congruit, sicut quidam putant, ex Heber dictos Hebraeos. Videtur enim quantum ad nomen pertinet, inde hujus nominis origo descendere; anterior est etenim Heber quam Abraham. Quod si esset verum, deberent hi, qui de tribu Heber sunt, post ipsum eodem nomine nuncupari: ab Heber enim septima generatione natus est Abraham (Gen. XI, 16, 25). Si ergo super Abraham, vel ipse Abraham Hebraeus dictus est; sine dubio Hebraei ab Heber nuncupantur: si autem non legitur super Abraham dictos Hebraeos, sed post Abraham, non jam utique ex Heber, sed ab Abraham dicuntur Hebraei: quippe cum filii Abraham primo hoc nomine appellati noscantur. In Genesi enim Joseph et fratres ejus Hebraei sunt appellati (Id. XLIII, 32). Scientes enim Abraham fuisse, qui de Syria descendisset in Chanaan (Id. XII, 4), et multiplicatus fuisset, fidei causa omnibus copiis refertus, rex et Propheta appellatus et pater multarum gentium (Id. XVII, 4), qui cum trecentis decem et octo viris vernaculis suis quinque reges confoderit (Id. XIV, 14, 15); quia non in angulo haec gesta et dicta sunt, ut laterent; eos qui ex semine ejus erant, Hebraeos nuncupaverunt. Ordinis ergo et meriti ejus fuit Abraham, ut caput fieret his qui ex eo traducem habent. Dei enim judicio princeps et origo positus est in terra Chanaan, ut ex eo geniti, alterius essent et professionis et conversationis, quam fuerat ipse priusquam descenderet in terram Chanaan: innovatus enim ipse, novum constitueret populum in Dei devotione. Hinc est unde apostolus Paulus Hebraeum se ex Hebraeis fatetur (Philipp. III, 5): hoc enim dignitatis videbatur esse cognomen. Testimonium enim et nobilitas generis erat, ut ex nomine ejus cognominarentur, qui multis modis Deo placuerat, quique eis erat origo. Abnuatur, si non convenit rationi; spernatur, si dispar est; convellatur, si alienum est a meritis Abrahae; et nos refellamur quasi adulatores ejus. Quae est inimicitia adversus Abraham, quae aemulatio, qua ei obtrectant inimici; et qui sunt hi, nisi qui filii ejus dicuntur? Quid est in quo displicet Abraham, ut gloria haec aliena ab eo putetur? Et quid est quod placeat in Heber, ut primatum istum habere dicatur? Cujus si conversatio posset inquiri, inveniretur forte idola coluisse sicut Thare et Nachor, et pater Nachor, quos constat non longe ab eo fuisse, sicut testatur Jesus Nave, qui idola coluerunt (Josue XXIV, 2). Aut certe qui ex diverso sunt, ostendant qua ratione vindicandum est hoc Heber, ne forte a nobis supprimatur meritum ejus; sed nullum est, quia communes sunt nobis Scripturae, et quid unicuique debeatur, in propatulo est. Si enim ex solo nomine putant hoc debere defendi, infirmum et improbabile est. Tunc etenim rite nomini ejus vindicaretur, si causae aliquae testes existerent quae hoc confirmarent: possent enim aliqui ejusdem nominis rem sibi non suam vindicare. Ideoque hoc est verum, quod non solo nomine, sed et perspicua ratione firmatur. Nam quoniam dignatione

CVIII. — Everything that is from God is rational: and to each thing a cause gives its beginning, which is to be its origin, so that it may not seem to be named or to subsist absurdly, but that it might show its designation, which is understood to be the head of the name itself. Therefore the rationale of man is the cause by which he consists. Now he consists of four elements, namely earth, air, water and fire, God alone being the author: the fifth is the soul, as it were a charioteer, to drive the compacted and shaped body, and as it were its commander. And we took our beginning from the soil, and are called by its name. For we are called men (homines) on account of the soil (humus), from which our father has his origin outwardly. Therefore cause and rationale bring it about that from the name of someone the rest, subsisting under the same name, are called by it, signifying him in themselves. Let us therefore see whether it fits, as some think, that the Hebrews are named after Heber. For as far as the name is concerned, the origin of this name seems to descend from there; for Heber is indeed earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are of the tribe of Heber ought to have been called by the same name after him: for Abraham was born in the seventh generation from Heber (Gen. 11:16, 25). If therefore [anyone] before Abraham, or Abraham himself, was called a Hebrew, without doubt the Hebrews are named after Heber: but if we do not read that people were called Hebrews before Abraham, but after Abraham, then surely the Hebrews are called not from Heber but from Abraham, since the sons of Abraham are known to have been the first to be called by this name. For in Genesis Joseph and his brothers were called Hebrews (Gen. 43:32). For knowing that it was Abraham who had come down from Syria into Canaan (Gen. 12:4), and had been multiplied, filled with all resources on account of his faith, called king and Prophet and father of many nations (Gen. 17:4), who with three hundred and eighteen of his home-born men had cut down five kings (Gen. 14:14–15) — since these things were not done and said in a corner, so as to lie hidden — they called those who were of his seed Hebrews. Abraham was therefore of such rank and merit that he became head to those who have their descent from him. For by God's judgement he was set up as prince and origin in the land of Canaan, so that those begotten of him should be of a different profession and way of life from what he himself had been before he came down into the land of Canaan: for he himself, being renewed, was to establish a new people in devotion to God. Hence it is that the apostle Paul declares himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:5): for this seemed to be a surname of dignity. For it was a testimony and nobility of race that they should be surnamed from the name of him who had pleased God in many ways, and who was their origin. Let it be refused, if it does not agree with reason; let it be spurned, if it is incongruous; let it be torn up, if it is foreign to the merits of Abraham; and let us be refuted as his flatterers. What is this enmity against Abraham, what this rivalry, by which enemies disparage him; and who are these, except those who are called his sons? What is there in which Abraham displeases, that this glory should be thought foreign to him? And what is there that pleases in Heber, that he should be said to hold this primacy? If his way of life could be investigated, he would perhaps be found to have worshipped idols like Thare and Nachor, and the father of Nachor, who are known to have been not far from him, as Jesus Nave testifies, who worshipped idols (Josh. 24:2). Or at least let those who are on the opposite side show by what reasoning this is to be claimed for Heber, lest perhaps his merit be suppressed by us; but there is none, since the Scriptures are common to us, and what is owed to each is in plain view. For if they think this ought to be defended from the name alone, it is weak and improbable. For then it would rightly be claimed for his name, if some causes existed as witnesses to confirm it: for some people of the same name could claim for themselves a thing not their own. And therefore that is true which is established not by name alone, but also by clear reasoning. For since by the condescension

Editors' notes and page, col. 2323

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2323

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is missing in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 510)

Page

running head: 2323 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[E] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2324

Dei factum est ut in Abraham vivificaretur genus humanum, et forma fieret salutaris hominibus, nulli est ambiguum, idcirco in ipso reparatum esse quod fuerat amissum vitio fragilitatis humanae. Hic enim imago quaedam positus est, ut ad ejus similitudinem genus hominum reverteretur ad Deum, ut et Dei culturam, et sermonem qui datus prius fuerat in usum hominum, recuperaret hominibus: quia sicut in principio in Adam Dei fuit imago, ut cognitio ejus esset in terris; ita post ruinas humani generis, et oblivionem veri Dei, in Abraham reformatum est, ut ab ipso fides in Deum coepta, iterum germinaret in fructum. Unde non est absurdum ut ex nomine ejus plebs ab eo coepta vocabulum sortiretur. Sed ne forte propter nomen Heber scrupulum patiantur, quia magis cum Hebraeis Heber sonat nomen, quia Hebraei dicuntur, non Abrahaei; recognoscant iterum quia Hebraei, non Heberaei dicuntur: Heber enim dictus est, non Hebre. Si ergo hinc impugnandum putant, patiuntur quod faciunt, et neuter nostrum habebit ex hac parte victoriam, nisi is qui per ordinem reddita ratione ostendit verum esse quod asserit: qui enim in una re par est, perdidisse dicendus est, si in altera inaequalis fuerit inventus: nam propter sonum immutata est littera, ut Hebraei pro Hebraei dicerentur, quia melius sonat. Quoniam et ex Juda non Judai dicuntur, sed Judaei. Ubicumque enim absurdum visum est, immutata est littera, ut vox sonum compositum haberet. Nam pro medio die meridie dicimus, et multa sunt talia. Igitur convenit, ut est ostensum, ut nomine Abrahae, tam lingua quam populus nuncuparetur. Haec ergo lingua est, quam dicimus primitus datam Adae et caeteris, quam propter praesumptionem turris aedificatae credimus in multas dispersam et confusam, ut non jam haec, sed multae ex hac, immutatione habita quorumdam dictorum, existerent: ut unam haberent speciem, nec tamen deperiret, sed tota confusa esset caeteris linguis. Ita enim tunc actum est, ne se homines intelligerent, et majora auderent (Gen. XI, 8). Tantae ergo tunc linguae intelliguntur exstitisse, quanti et homines fuerunt, qui dispersi, locis in quibus habitarunt, unusquisque linguam suam instituit. Si autem ipsa esse minime putabitur quae scripta est tunc una fuisse, hoc supererit, ut de caeteris linguis collecta sit particulatim, et compaginata in speciem linguae unius qua uteretur Abraham; ut quia pater multarum gentium erat, ex multis linguis sermonem haberet compositum, et esset per omnia innovatus. Sed quia ii quos memorat liber Geneseos unius vocis et sermonis (Id. X, 31), ab Oriente migrasse leguntur, et inde iterum dispersi a Deo super faciem totius terrae, non utique illic remansit, quin primitus lingua data remaneret. Denique neque terram aliquam habet inter homines, ut caeterae linguae, neque gentem, exceptis Judaeis; quia primo homini data est in paradiso. Et postquam confusae sunt linguae, nusquam reperta haec quae nunc dicitur Hebraea. Si ergo nusquam habet locum vel gentem; Abraham autem natione Syrus erat; unde hanc linguam Abrahae vel caeteris seminis ejus, nisi quia aut illa prima est, aut certe de multis aptata? Videmus enim aliquantas linguas nonnulla verba similia ejus habere. Sed hoc non sic convenit rationi quomodo illud, si prima ipsa esse dicatur: non enim otiose hoc factum ratio probat. Ipsam enim linguam debuit Abraham habere, quam habuit primus homo, ut Moyses veniens, et creaturam et hominem a Deo factum describens, hac voce uteretur, qua Deus locutus est et hominem appellavit Adam, et Adae mulier vocata est Eva: ut haec vox esset in libro Moysi, quae fuerat et in iis quos describit, ut vere in omnibus reformatam doceret primam causam, et beneficium divinum in Abraham.

of God it came about that in Abraham the human race was given life, and that a saving pattern was made for men, it is doubtful to no one that therefore in him was restored what had been lost through the fault of human frailty. For he was set up as a kind of image, so that after his likeness the race of men might return to God, and that he might recover for men both the worship of God and the speech which had formerly been given for the use of men: because just as in the beginning the image of God was in Adam, so that the knowledge of Him might be on earth, so after the ruin of the human race and the forgetting of the true God it was formed anew in Abraham, so that faith in God, begun from him, might sprout again into fruit. Hence it is not absurd that the people begun from him should take its name from his name. But lest perhaps they be troubled by a scruple on account of the name Heber, because the name Heber sounds more in keeping with "Hebrews", since they are called Hebrews, not Abrahaeans, let them recognize in turn that they are called Hebrews, not Heberaeans: for he was called Heber, not Hebre. If therefore they think the point should be attacked from this side, they suffer what they inflict, and neither of us will win the victory on this score, except the one who, having given his reasoning in order, shows that what he asserts is true: for he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost if he is found unequal in another: for a letter was changed for the sake of sound, so that they were called Hebraei instead of Hebraei, because it sounds better. Since from Juda too they are not called Judai, but Judaei. For wherever something seemed awkward, a letter was changed so that the word might have a well-formed sound. For instead of "medio die" we say "meridie", and there are many such cases. It is fitting therefore, as has been shown, that both the language and the people should be named after the name of Abraham. This, then, is the language which we say was given at the first to Adam and to the rest, which we believe, on account of the presumption of the tower that was built, was dispersed and confounded into many, so that there no longer existed this one, but many out of it, a change having been made in certain words: so that they had one form, and yet it did not perish, but was wholly confounded with the other languages. For so it was done at that time, that men might not understand one another and might not dare greater things (Gen. 11:8). So many languages, then, are understood to have arisen at that time as there were men, who, having been dispersed, each established his own language in the places where they dwelt. But if it shall be thought that this is by no means the one which is written to have been the one [language] at that time, it will remain that it was gathered piecemeal from the other languages and joined together into the form of a single language which Abraham might use; so that, because he was the father of many nations, he might have a speech composed out of many languages, and might be renewed in all things. But since those whom the book of Genesis records as being of one voice and speech (Gen. 10:31) are read to have migrated from the East, and from there to have been dispersed again by God over the face of the whole earth, it certainly did not remain there, but rather the language given at the first remained. Finally, it has neither any land among men, as the other languages have, nor any nation, except the Jews; because it was given to the first man in paradise. And after the languages were confounded, this which is now called Hebrew was found nowhere. If therefore it has no place or nation, and Abraham was by nation a Syrian, whence came this language to Abraham or to the rest of his seed, unless because either it is that first one, or certainly it was fitted together out of many? For we see that a good many languages have some words similar to it. But this does not accord with reason in the way that the other does, if it be said to be the first itself: for reason proves that this was not done to no purpose. For Abraham ought to have that very language which the first man had, so that Moses, when he came and described the creation and man made by God, might use this tongue, in which God spoke and called the man Adam, and Adam's wife was called Eve: so that this tongue might 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, had been restored in all things in Abraham.

DE MELCHISEDECH.

On Melchizedek.

CIX. — De Melchisedech legimus in libr⟨o⟩

109. — Of Melchizedek we read in the book

Editors' notes and page, col. 2324

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 2324

Ms. Colbertinus, visitaretur.

The Colbert manuscript: "visitaretur" ["were visited"].

(printed under page 510)

(2) ‹anchor: DE MELCHISEDECH (heading)› · call in col 2324

Sic in Mss., et in editione Ratisponensi. Aliae vero editiones addunt: Quomodo Abraham benedixerit, et quid de eo senserit Apostolus.

So in the manuscripts and in the Regensburg edition. The other editions, however, add: "How he blessed Abraham, and what the Apostle thought of him."

(printed under page 510)

(a) ‹anchor: CIX› · call in col 2324

Deest in Mss. secundi generis. — Bernardus Vindin- (continues)

It is missing in the manuscripts of the second class. — Bernard Vindin[g] … (continues)

(printed under page 510)

Page

running head: S EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2324 (cut off at the left edge; column number blurred)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2325

Geneseos, de Melchisedech etiam simili modo est et in Epistola data ad Hebraeos, quia obviavit, inquit, Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi Abrahae revert⟨e⟩nti a caede regum, et protulit panes et vinum, et obtulit ei, et b⟨e⟩nedixit eum, dicens: Benedictus es, Abraham, a Deo excelso, qui fecit caelum et terram, qui tradidit inimicos tuos sub manus tuas (Gen. XIV, 18-20). Et ut Apostolus significaret, quis intelligendus esset per Melchisedech, adjecit, Sine dubio enim, ait, quod minimum est, a meliore benedicitur (Hebr. VII, 7). Quod quidem non utique ad traditionem retulit officii ecclesiastici. Quis enim ambigeret regulam traditionis dominicae, qua benedicuntur subjecti a Domino, meliorem esse iis qui benedicuntur ab ea? Domini enim mysterium in iis verbis, quae ipsum complectuntur ac memorant, operatur. Personae autem ejus proprium meritum et potentiam voluit demonstrare. Quis ergo hic et quantus est, ad cujus comparationem minimus dicitur Abraham, quem constat in omnibus fidelibus signum habere testimonii nobilitatis ac fidei? Igitur hic Melchisedech non utique sic benedixisse intelligitur Abraham, sicut faciunt homines sacerdotes, ut ex delegatione daret benedictionem verbis solemnibus; sed quasi propriam, quam non per verba, sed per naturam acceperit substantialiter, ut sit ei propria. Sacerdotes autem, quos antistites dicimus, regulam habent verbis solemnibus ordinatam et traditam sibi, quam superponentes hominibus benedicunt: non tamen quos volunt, sed etiam aliquando quos nolunt; quia dator regulae ipse scit cui dari debeat vel infundi sacratissima benedictio. Ille vero qui natura habet benedictionem substantialiter, quem dicit summi Dei sacerdotem, per voluntatem dat benedictionem. Verba enim benedictionis et natura ejus cum voluntate concordant. Nec errat, ut ibi velit ubi non debet, neque nolit ubi debet; sed cui dederit verba, dat et effectum. Nostri autem sacerdotes super multos quotidie nomen Domini et verba benedictionis imponunt, sed in paucis effectus est. Est iterum quando meliores se benedicunt. Quamvis enim qui sanctus sit, curvat tamen caput ad benedictionem sumendam, quia non proprium sacerdotis est, sed Dei inventum. Heli enim sacerdos Annam benedixit, et prosecutus effectus est (I Reg. I, 17, 20), non utique merito sacerdotis, sed ipsius Annae, cujus mundum cor inspexit Deus. Igitur Melchisedech non ideo mel⟨i⟩or Abrahae dicitur propter solum officium sacerdotii: sed et natura anteponitur illi, ut ultra homines intelligatur. Nullo enim modo fieri potest ut qui tanto amico Dei praeponitur, et fideli usque adeo ut amore et timore ejus nec filium suum charissimum dubitaret occidere, homo putetur. Qua enim justitia, quibus operibus plus posset mereri, quam meruit Abraham? Nec enim erat plus quod faceret ad commendationem meritorum, quam fecit Abraham. Primum enim cum nesciret Deum, nec signum vidisset quo ei suaderetur; dicenti sibi Deo, Exi de terra tua, et de cognatione tua, et de domo patris tui (Gen. XII, 1), nec distulit, sed statim obedivit, non solum praesentis Dei, sed et futuri Domini implens voluntatem. Dicit enim Dominus: Quicumque plus fecerit domum, aut parentes, aut fratres, aut cognatos quam me, non est me dignus (Matth. X, 37). Qualis ergo Abraham, et cujus meriti est, qui ante mandata Salvatoris implevit quam praedicarentur? Apostolus hospitalitatem sectandam magnopere docet (Hebr. XIII, 2); hanc Abraham sic et tam devote excoluit (Gen. XVIII, 3), ut videatur ab hoc didicisse Apostolus hanc praedicandam.

of Genesis, concerning Melchizedek, it is likewise in a similar way also in the Epistle given to the Hebrews, because, it says, Melchizedek, priest of God most high, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and brought forth loaves and wine, and offered to him, and blessed him, saying: Blessed are you, Abraham, by God most high, Who made heaven and earth, Who delivered your enemies under your hands (Gen. 14:18–20). And so that the Apostle might signify who was to be understood by Melchizedek, he added: For without doubt, he says, that which is least is blessed by the better (Heb. 7:7). This indeed he by no means referred to the tradition of the ecclesiastical office. For who would doubt that the rule of the Lord's 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 those words which contain and recall Him. But he wished to demonstrate the proper merit and power of His person. Who, then, and how great is this one, in comparison with whom Abraham is called least, who, as is agreed, holds among all the faithful the sign of the testimony of nobility and of faith? Therefore this Melchizedek is understood to have blessed Abraham not at all as men who are priests do, so as to give the blessing by delegation with solemn words; but as his own, which he received not through words but through nature, substantially, so that it is his own. But priests, whom we call bishops, have a rule set in order in solemn words and handed down to them, by laying which upon men they bless: yet 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 poured in. But he who has the blessing substantially by nature, whom it calls priest of God most high, gives the blessing by his will. For the words of the blessing and his nature agree with his will. Nor does he err, so as to wish it where he ought not, or not to wish it where he ought; but to whom he gives the words, he gives also the effect. Our priests, however, daily lay the name of the Lord and the words of blessing upon many, but in few is there effect. Again, there are times when they bless those better than themselves. For although someone be holy, he nevertheless bows his head to receive the blessing, because it is not the priest's own, but God's devising. For Eli the priest blessed Anna, and the effect followed (1 Sam. 1:17, 20), not at all by the merit of the priest, but by that of Anna herself, whose clean heart God looked upon. Therefore Melchizedek is said to be better than Abraham not on account of the office of the priesthood alone: but he is also set before him by nature, so that he may be understood to be beyond men. For in no way can it be that he who is set above so great a friend of God, and one so faithful that out of love and fear of Him he did not hesitate to kill his own dearest son, should be thought a man. For by what righteousness, by what works could anyone merit more than Abraham merited? For there was nothing more that he could do for the commendation of merits than Abraham did. For first, when he did not know God, nor had seen a sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him: Go out from your land, and from your kindred, and from your father's house (Gen. 12:1), he did not delay, but obeyed at once, fulfilling the will not only of God present but also of the Lord to come. For the Lord says: Whoever makes more of home, or parents, or brothers, or kinsfolk than of Me, is not worthy of Me (Matt. 10:37). What kind of man, then, is Abraham, and of what merit, who fulfilled the commands of the Saviour before they were preached? The Apostle teaches emphatically that hospitality is to be pursued (Heb. 13:2); this Abraham cultivated in such a way and so devoutly (Gen. 18:3) that the Apostle seems to have learned from him to preach this.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2325

Footnotes

(continued) · from the previous page, foot of col 2325

…gus in Critico Aug. ad hanc quaest. « Nonnulli, inquit, suspicantur hujus operis auctorem esse illum quem reprehendit Hieronymus epist. ad Evagr., asserentem Melchisedech esse Spiritum sanctum. Concedo quidem, librum illum de Melchisedech, quem ibi exagitat, huic insertum, sicut et caetera ipsius constat ex variis auctoribus et libris collecta: si vero hunc totum accepisset S. Hieronymus ab Evagrio, cum scateat longe pluribus iisque gravissimis erroribus, non is unum solum de Melchisedech carpsisset, sed reliquos etiam saltem verbo tetigisset. »

[…]gus, in the Criticus Augustinianus on this question: "Some," he says, "suspect that the author of this work is the man whom Jerome censures in his letter to Evagrius, who asserted that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit. I grant indeed that the book on Melchizedek which he there attacks has been inserted into this one, just as it is clear that the rest of it too was gathered from various authors and books; but if St Jerome had received this whole work from Evagrius, since it teems with far more errors, and very grave ones, he would not have picked out the single one about Melchizedek, but would have touched on the others too, at least with a word."

(printed under page 511)

Page

running head: 2325 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): caelum et terram | coelum (page appears to print cœlum); text NOT changed
other: the word praedicandam. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2326

PL 35:2326

Deinde provectus annis, sic multiplicari credidit semen suum, quod prudentibus mundi stultum videtur, quemadmodum sunt stellae coeli, ut antequam sententia decerneretur prudentibus saeculi, ab hoc damnati videantur. Postea enim dictum est, Perdam prudentiam prude⟨n⟩tum (Isai. XXIX, 14; I Cor. I, 19). Jussu Dei circumciditur; quod non utique sine dolore fit: et non aegre fert, ut posteris formam daret patientiae. Ex Sara illi uxore sua jam anicula filius promittitur, et non dubitat (Gen. XVII, 17): ut futuris ostenderet in tantum Dei auctoritati credendum, ut etiamsi quae irrationabilia videntur, praecipiat aut promittat, non ambigatur; quia magis persona ejus respicienda est quam verba, ut quod in verbis infirmum aut impossibile videtur, persona ejus confirmet, et faciat videri possibile. Deus est enim qui promittit, de quo credendum est quia potest quod hominibus impossibile videtur. Quae enim offensio potest judicari, cum plus de Deo opinatur, quam de se sentit h⟨uma⟩nitas? Propter quod datum sibi a Deo Abraham filium eodem jubente occidere illum non ambigit, nec tempus differt; nec admiratur ad Dei voluntatem, ut filium, quem magnopere beneficii et admirationis dederat gratia, hunc juberet occidi: certus Dei voluntatem non debere ab homine retractari, neque jussionem aut factum Dei sine providentia esse. Quod ut omni devotione ⟨f⟩estinanter impleret, matri ejus conjugi suae non indicat, non ignarus fragiliores esse circa filios feminas, et posse huic devotioni lacrymarum miseratione impedimentum afferre: nec non et ipsum puerum latet usque ad horam necis, ut jussioni Dei toto mentis obsequio obediret (Id. XXII, 3-10); non parricidium hoc deputans, sed holocaustum, quod justo judice auctore fiebat. Quae ergo his majora posset gerere Melchisedech, quibus praecederet Abraham, quem sicut videmus, in nullo constat inobedientem fuisse? Moyses etenim, cui legitur facie ad faciem Dominus esse locutus (Exod. XXXIII, 11), missus ad gentem et ad fratres suos, ire nolebat (Id. IV, 1). Jonas propheta praeceptum sibi ut Ninivitis praedicaret irrupit, ut ad alium locum pergeret, quo missus non fuerat (Jonae I, 1-3). Job plane egregius in omnibus, tamen motus amissione filiorum, vestimenta scidit sua, et totondit comam capitis sui (Job I, 20): Abraham autem nec contristatus legitur de morte charissimi filii, et quem jussus fuerat ipse occidere, nec a⟨l⟩icubi Deo sibi jubente legitur trepidasse. Igitur per haec apparet Melchisedech ultra hominem esse, quia non erat unde melior esset quam Abraham, nisi sola praecedat illum natura. Natura enim impassibilis, beatitudinem per substantiam habet: humana autem nativitas beatitudinem acquirit per gesta. Quia enim perfectionem divinitatis non habet, per exercitium et colluctationem proficit ut melior fiat, cum plus vincit quam vincitur. Si enim sic ageret, quod impossibile est, ut nunquam peccaret, melior Deo fieret: quod absit, quia natura quae potest peccare, sicut et non peccare, si semper vinceret, illi naturae praeponenda erat, quae ideo non peccat, quia impassibilis est. Non enim magnum videretur non peccare, quia non potest; magnificum autem, si cum posset peccare, non peccaret. Hoc ergo interest inter substantiam Dei et hominis, quia Dei substantia beata semper est securitate invincibilis aeternitatis suae; hominis autem substantialiter beata fit per laborem. Et alia necesse est beatitudo sit impassibilis, alia illius qui tribulationibus conficitur, ut possit aliquando gaudere. Beatitudo enim impassibilis in eo est semper ut beata sit; passibilis autem post magna exitia gaudet evasisse mortem. Contristatur ergo ut possit gaudere, nec perpetuo securus passibilitate naturae. Impassibilis autem, semper beatas

Then, advanced in years, he believed that his seed would be multiplied as the stars of heaven are, which seems foolish to the prudent of the world, so that before sentence was decreed upon the prudent of the age, they might be seen to be condemned by him. For afterwards it was said, I will destroy the prudence of the prudent (Isa. 29:14; 1 Cor. 1:19). By the command of God he is circumcised, which is certainly not done without pain; and he does not take it ill, so as to give posterity a pattern of patience. From Sarah his wife, already an old woman, a son is promised to him, and he does not doubt (Gen. 17:17), so as to show those to come that the authority of God is to be believed to such a degree that, even if He commands or promises things that seem irrational, there should be no hesitation; because His person is to be regarded rather than the words, so that what seems weak or impossible in the words, His person may confirm and make seem possible. For it is God Who promises, of Whom it must be believed that He can do what seems impossible to men. For what offence can be judged, when humanity thinks more of God than it feels about itself? For this reason Abraham does not hesitate to kill the son given him by God when the same God commands it, nor does he put off the time; nor does he wonder at the will of God, that He should command the son to be killed whom He had given by a grace of great favour and wonder: being certain that the will of God ought not to be called into question by man, and that no command or deed of God is without providence. And so that he might fulfil it in haste with all devotion, he does not disclose it to the boy's mother, his wife, not unaware that women are frailer where their sons are concerned, and might put an obstacle in the way of this devotion through the pity of tears; and he also conceals it from the boy himself up to the hour of slaughter, so that he might obey the command of God with the whole compliance of his mind (Gen. 22:3–10); not reckoning this a parricide, but a holocaust, which was being done on the authority of a just judge. What greater things than these, then, could Melchizedek have done, by which he would surpass Abraham, who, as we see, is agreed to have been disobedient in nothing? For Moses, to whom the Lord is read to have spoken face to face (Exod. 33:11), when sent to the nation and to his brethren, was unwilling to go (Exod. 4:1). Jonah the prophet broke through the command given him to preach to the Ninevites, so as to go to another place, to which he had not been sent (Jonah 1:1–3). Job, plainly outstanding in all things, was nevertheless moved by the loss of his sons, tore his garments and shaved the hair of his head (Job 1:20): but Abraham is not read to have been saddened at the death of his dearest son, one whom he himself had been commanded to kill, nor is he read anywhere to have trembled when God commanded him. Therefore by these things it appears that Melchizedek is beyond man, since there was no way in which he could be better than Abraham, unless nature alone sets him before him. For an impassible nature has beatitude by its substance; but human birth acquires beatitude by deeds. For because it does not have the perfection of divinity, it advances through exercise and struggle so as to become better, when it conquers more than it is conquered. For if it were to act so, which is impossible, as never to sin, 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 for the reason that it is impassible. For it would not seem a great thing not to sin because one cannot; but a magnificent thing if, though one could sin, one did not sin. This, then, is the difference between the substance of God and that of man: that the substance of God is always blessed in the security of its invincible eternity; but man's is made substantially blessed through toil. And necessarily the beatitude of the impassible is one thing, and that of him who is worn down by tribulations, so that he may at some time rejoice, is another. For the beatitude of the impassible consists in this, that it is always blessed; but the passible, after great perils, rejoices to have escaped death. It is saddened, therefore, so that it may rejoice, and is not perpetually secure, because of the passibility of its nature. But the impassible is always blessed;

Editors' notes and page, col. 2326

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: humana autem nativitas› · call in col 2326

Sic Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones, necessitas.

So the manuscripts and the Ratisbon edition. The other editions, however, read "necessitas" ("necessity").

(printed under page 511)

(2) ‹anchor: hominis autem substantialiter› · call in col 2326

Forte hic melius legeretur: Substantia aliter, pro, substantialiter. Vid. Morel, Elem. Crit. p. 311. M.

Perhaps it would be better read here "substantia aliter" ("the substance otherwise") for "substantialiter" ("substantially"). See Morel, Elementa Critica, p. 311. M.

(printed under page 511)

(a) ‹anchor: quod absit,› · call in col 2326

Reliqua in editione Rat. et in Ms. Colbert. desunt.

The rest is lacking in the Ratisbon edition and in the Colbert manuscript.

(printed under page 511)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2326
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2327

est; quia neque novit tristitiam, neque suspicatur posse se contristari. Nam et natura hominum, quamvis per laborem beatitudinem consequitur, non erit tamen intacta, neque deerunt ei cicatrices. Quomodo enim fieri potest ut saepe congressa et aliquoties victa, non sit vulnerata? Impassibilis autem semper intacta, illaesa, inviolabilis manet. Igitur non minimus diceretur Abraham ad Melchisedech, nisi potior esset natura Melchisedech quam Abraham. Nam haec quae diximus, ingenii esse forte videntur. Si autem Legem respiciamus, plurima adhuc et potiora dicentur. Hic enim Melchisedech rex Salem, sacerdos Dei summi, qui obviavit Abrahae regresso a caede regum, qui et benedixit eum, primum quidem interpretatur Rex justitiae, deinde Rex Salem, quod est rex pacis, sine patre, sine matre, et sine genealogia, neque initium dierum, nec finem vitae habens: similatus autem Filio Dei manet sacerdos in perpetuum. Et ut haec locis quibus significaverat, commendaret, de eo adjecit: Videtis, ait, quantus sit hic, cui decimas dedit Abraham de primitivis princeps patrum (Hebr. VII, 1-4). Ut enim qua potentia et quanta Melchisedech sit ostendat, laudat Abraham dicens quia princeps patrum est, hoc est, caeteris omnibus melior Abraham, sed minimus ad Melchisedech. Nonne manifestum est hunc hominem non esse, sed meliorem? Quid est enim quod dicit de eo, quia rex pacis est, et rex justitiae? Propius accedite, et videte. De longe enim solem videntes lucernam putatis, et argentum aspicientes, aestimatis stannum. Potest aliquis hominum dici rex pacis atque justitiae? Pax enim hominibus praedicatur, similiter et justitia: hic autem ideo rex pacis et justitiae dicitur, ut ab eo justitia et pax originem habere noscatur. Non enim super ipsum esse dici potest, quod ab ipso regitur. Nam homines justitia magistra et pace erudiuntur ad Deum promerendum. Haec ergo quae hominum magistra est, Melchisedech habet regem. Quantum ergo melior est homine Melchisedech, quando gubernatrix hominum sub ipso est, hoc est, regem esse regum? Itaque cum rex justitiae et pacis dicitur, auctor eorum esse significatur: ut quomodo Dominus Jesus auctor vitae est, ita et Melchisedech auctor justitiae sit et pacis; quia qui per Christum vivunt, hi dispensante justitia et pace reguntur. Cordibus enim servorum Dei justitiam infundit et pacem, ad exornandam disciplinam dominicam. Scriptum legimus in psalmo octogesimo quarto, quia Justitia et pax complexae sunt se, et veritas de terra orta est: et ut de qua justitia diceret, ostenderet, ait quia Justitia de coelo prospexit (Psal. LXXXIV, 11, 12). Hoc de tempore Salvatoris Scriptura ostendit, quo justitia Dei data est mundo per Christum, in cognitione mysterii Dei unius quod ante promiserat. Justum est enim scire creaturam veritatem Creatoris sui: quae justitia manifestata in terris, sublata discordia quae de injustitia fuerat generata incogniti Dei, pacificos fecit discordes, dum diversos dudum in una fide constituit. Sic se complexae sunt justitia et pax et veritas unius. De terra orta est magistra justitia. Incarnatio enim Christi ostendit quae esset de ipso Deo veritas cognoscenda. Igitur haec certe justitia Dei est. Similiter et pax, dicente Apostolo, Ipse autem Deus pacis conterat satan (Rom. XVI, 20) Quomodo hoc possit discernere, non adverto, ut cum Deus pacis, Pater sit Domini nostri Jesu Christi, necnon et ipse Christus; dicit enim Pacem meam do vobis (Joan. XIV, 27); de Melchisedech dicatur quia rex justitiae et pacis est: qua ratione secernatur, non intelligo. Puto enim nihil differre, quantum ad rem pertinet, regem pacis a Deo pacis. Quia enim in mundo quisquam Deus dici non debuit, ut uni soli ex quo sunt omnia, reservaretur hoc tantum nomen, regem qui imaginem ejus haberet instituit, qui excepto Dei nomine omnem potestatem ejus haberet: sed quia terrenus est, hominum rex est, non tamen pacis et justitiae. Quia etiam ipse ducem habet justitiam, quam non illi licet contemnere. Justitia enim Deus illi est. Res† enim Dei est justitia, et

because it neither knows sadness nor suspects that it can be saddened. For the nature of men too, although it attains blessedness through toil, will nevertheless not be untouched, nor will scars be lacking to it. For how can it be that, having often joined battle and been several times defeated, it is not wounded? But the impassible remains always untouched, unharmed, inviolable. Therefore Abraham would not be called least in comparison with Melchisedech, unless the nature of Melchisedech were more powerful than that of Abraham. Now these things which we have said perhaps seem to be of [our own] ingenuity. But if we look to the Law, very many and weightier things will yet be said. For this Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, who also blessed him, is first indeed interpreted King of justice, then King of Salem, which is king of peace, without father, without mother, and without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like the Son of God he remains a priest for ever. And in order to commend these things by the passages in which he had signified them, he added concerning him: You see, he says, how great this man is, to whom Abraham, the chief of the fathers, gave tithes of the firstfruits (Heb. 7:1–4). For to show with what power and how great Melchisedech is, he praises Abraham, saying that he is chief of the fathers, that is, Abraham is better than all the others, but least in comparison with Melchisedech. Is it not manifest that this one is not a man, but better? For what is it that he says of him, that he is king of peace and king of justice? Come nearer, and see. For seeing the sun from afar you think it a lamp, and looking at silver you reckon it tin. Can any one of men be called king of peace and of justice? For peace is preached to men, and likewise justice; but this one is called king of peace and justice for this reason, that justice and peace may be known to have their origin from him. For what is ruled by him cannot be said to be above him. For men are trained, with justice as mistress and with peace, towards meriting God. This, then, which is the mistress of men, has Melchisedech as king. How much better, then, is Melchisedech than man, when the governess of men is under him, that is, when he is king of kings? So when he is called king of justice and of peace, he is signified to be their author: so that just as the Lord Jesus is the author of life, so too Melchisedech is the author of justice and of peace; because those who live through Christ are ruled by the dispensing of justice and peace. For he pours justice and peace into the hearts of the servants of God, to adorn the Lord's discipline. We read it written in the eighty-fourth psalm that Justice and peace have embraced each other, and truth has sprung from the earth; and to show of which justice he was speaking, he says that Justice has looked forth from heaven (Ps. 84:11–12). Scripture shows this of the time of the Saviour, in which the justice of God was given to the world through Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of the one God which He had promised before. For it is just that the creature should know the truth of its Creator: this justice, made manifest on earth, having removed the discord which had been begotten of the injustice of God being unknown, made the discordant peaceable, while it established in one faith those long divided. Thus justice and peace and the truth of the One have embraced each other. Justice the mistress has sprung from the earth. For the incarnation of Christ showed what truth was to be known concerning God Himself. Therefore this certainly is the justice of God. Likewise also peace, as the Apostle says, But may the God of peace Himself crush Satan (Rom. 16:20). How he can distinguish this I do not perceive, that, while the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also Christ Himself, for He says, My peace I give to you (John 14:27), it should be said of Melchisedech that he is king of justice and of peace: by what reasoning he is set apart I do not understand. For I think that, as far as the matter is concerned, king of peace differs in nothing from God of peace. For because no one in the world ought to be called God, so that this name alone might be reserved to the one only from whom are all things, He established a king who would have His image, who, apart from the name of God, would have all His power; but because he is earthly, he is king of men, yet not of peace and justice. For he too has justice as his leader, which he is not permitted to despise. For justice is God to him. For justice is the thing of God, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 2327

Page

running head: 2327 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "tas" of a word broken from the previous column; English begins at "is". Scan is badly degraded throughout; readings such as enim, Propius, lucernam, putatis taken as damaged impression rather than misprints. No full stop visible after "(Rom. XVI, 20)" before "Quomodo"; set as printed. Last line very faint: "Justitia enim Deus illi est. Res" uncertain (punctuation after est and Res/Rex unclear). "coelo" read as printed with œ. Right-hand column (2328) not set.

PL 35:2328

qui praevaricatur eam, reus fit Dei judicio. Melchisedech autem sicut datur intelligi, non more hominum rex appellatur; quia sub se habet justitiam, quae regibus dominatur. Nemo etenim potest habere sub se justitiam, nisi ejus naturae sit ut peccare non possit. Sub ipso autem esse ideo dicitur, quia ab eo inventa est modo legis, per quam gubernentur, qui possunt peccare. Igitur rex justitiae moderator est verborum a se inventorum, quibus bene beateque et vivi possit et credi. Diu multumque laboramus, et adhuc minus de Melchisedech dicimus, nisi revertamur ad Scripturam, quae et ipsa diu pulsat et clamitat, ut pressos gravi somno excitet ad intellectum, non noctis, sed diei. Dicit ergo quia sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia est Melchisedech. Et ne aliter intelligeretur quam dignum est, adjecit: Nec initium dierum, nec finem vitae habens. Per quod ostendit neque natum, neque mortuum esse Melchisedech. Quid ad haec tam manifesta humana argumentatur subtilitas? Quae est tam versuta ingenii calliditas, quae audet resistere manifestis, ut non sensum capiat ex lectione, sed sensum tribuat lectioni? Vis infertur Scripturis dominicis, ita ut etiam hos inimicos sentiat, qui auctoritati ejus se inclinare videntur. Dicunt enim quidam non ita de Melchisedech debere credi, ut relatum est Scripturis, ac per hoc ad sensum suum Scripturas convertunt. Quibus melius esset aperte non recipere Scripturas, quam dolose agere contra illas, ut sub nomine pacis paretur bellum, et sub tegmine amicitiae lateat hostis. Dicunt ergo non ad generositatem pertinere Melchisedech, sed ad humilitatem generis ejusdem, quia sine patre et matre legitur fuisse. Hoc enim ideo aiunt sic scriptum esse, ut ostenderetur ex alienigenis fuisse, non ex tribu qua ortus est Abraham, quia genus ejus non invenitur in Lege. Unde et adjecit, inquiunt, Et sine genealogia, ut intelligeretur penitus origo ejus in Lege descripta non esse, ut ex parentibus qualibuscumque per seipsum vir bonus factus credatur. Porro autem jam tanta est Scriptura, ut omnia per ordinem digesta causae necessaria ponat. Primum enim dicit, Sine patre, sine matre. Videamus si caeterorum matres significantur in Lege: quae fuerit uxor Nachor avia Abrahae, mater Thare, non legitur quae fuerit mater Abrahae, ut de caeteris taceam. Numquid hi sine matribus fuisse dicendi sunt? Si dixisset, Sine patre, sine fuerat color, quia omnium qui fuerunt, patres habentur in Lege. Addit, Et sine genealogia. Si ideo haec dixit, ut ostenderet generationem ejus in Lege non esse, suffecerat dixisse, sine patre; quia illius patrem nemo novit. Multo magis iterum ad manifestationem dicit, Neque initium dierum, neque finem vitae habens. Dic, quisquis es violentus, quomodo istud interpretaris? Quid est initium dierum non habere, neque finem vitae? Suffecerat certe dixisse generationem ejus in Lege scriptam non esse, ac per hoc origo ejus ex allophylis est credenda. Potest dici translatum hunc sicut Enoch, ideo non mortuum esse. Esto. Quid est initium dierum vitae non habere? Forte dicas, quia dies natalis ejus scriptus non est. Cujus enim scriptus est in Lege? et haec ratio est, ut cujus natalis dies scriptus non est, initium dierum vitae negetur habere. Potuit ergo et de caeteris idem dici. Et si ut homo translatus fuisset, non tamen sine vitae erat fine; quia quidquid sub spe mortis est, finem habet. Desine, quisquis contentioni studes. Expedit enim veris vinci, quam vincere vera per falsa. Perdere est enim, non vincere; quia si in homine perdere videretur veritas, apud Deum tamen vincit, quia ratio ejus invincibilis est. Itaque animus a Lege vinci debet, ut hoc sentiat quod a Lege significatur, non ut ipse Legi sensum det suo arbitrio, ut Legem se violenter legi exhibeat. Et audi Zorobabel, quia super omnia, ait, vincit veritas (III Esdr. III, 12). Jam Melchisedech futurum mysterium incarnationis et passionis Domini ostendit, dum Abrahae primum, quasi patri fidelium tradidit Eucharistiam et corporis et sanguinis Domini, ut praefiguraretur in patre, quae

who transgresses it becomes guilty at the judgement of God. But Melchisedech, as is given to be understood, is called king not after the manner of men; because he has under him justice, which rules over kings. For no one can have justice under him unless he is of such a nature that he cannot sin. And it is said to be under him for this reason, that it was devised by him in the manner of a law, by which those who are able to sin may be governed. Therefore the king of justice is the regulator of the words devised by himself, by which one may both live and believe well and blessedly. Long and much do we labour, and still we say too little about Melchisedech, unless we return to Scripture, which itself also knocks long and cries out, in order to rouse those weighed down by heavy sleep to an understanding not of night but of day. It says, then, that Melchisedech is without father, without mother, without genealogy. And lest it be understood otherwise than is fitting, it added: Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. By this it showed that Melchisedech was neither born nor died. What does human subtlety argue against things so manifest? What is this so crafty cunning of wit, which dares to resist manifest things, so as not to take a sense from the reading but to give a sense to the reading? Violence is done to the Lord's Scriptures, so that it finds even those to be enemies who seem to bow to its authority. For some say that one ought not to believe concerning Melchisedech as it is related in the Scriptures, and on this account they turn the Scriptures to their own sense. It would be better for them openly not to accept the Scriptures than to act deceitfully against them, so that under the name of peace war is prepared, and under the covering of friendship an enemy lies hidden. They say, then, that it pertains not to the nobility of Melchisedech but to the lowliness of his family that he is read to have been without father and mother. For they say it was written thus for this reason, to show that he was from foreigners, not from the tribe from which Abraham sprang, since his family is not found in the Law. Hence also it added, they say, And without genealogy, so that it would be understood that his origin was not described in the Law at all, so that he might be believed, from parents of whatever kind, to have become a good man by himself. But further, Scripture is now so great that it sets down, arranged in order, all things necessary to the case. For first it says, Without father, without mother. Let us see whether the mothers of the others are indicated in the Law: who was the wife of Nahor, the grandmother of Abraham, the mother of Terah, who was the mother of Abraham, is not read, to say nothing of the others. Are these then to be said to have been without mothers? If it had said, Without father, the 'without' would have had some colour, because of all who have lived the fathers are recorded in the Law. It adds, And without genealogy. If it said these things to show that his generation is not in the Law, it would have sufficed to say, without father; because no one knew his father. Much more again, for plainness, it says, Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Tell me, whoever you are, violent one, how do you interpret this? What is it not to have beginning of days nor end of life? It would surely have sufficed to say that his generation was not written in the Law, and on this account his origin is to be believed to be from the foreigners. It can be said that he was translated like Enoch, and therefore did not die. So be it. What is it not to have a beginning of the days of life? Perhaps you will say, because his birthday is not written. For whose is written in the Law? And this is the reasoning, that he whose birthday is not written is denied to have a beginning of days of life. The same could therefore have been said of the others too. And even if he had been translated as a man, he would not for all that have been without an end of life; because whatever is under the expectation of death has an end. Desist, whoever you are who are bent on contention. For it is better to be conquered by truths than to conquer truths through falsehoods. For that is to lose, not to win; because if in a man truth should seem to lose, yet with God it wins, because its reasoning is invincible. Therefore the mind ought to be conquered by the Law, so that it holds what is signified by the Law, not so that it gives the Law a sense by its own judgement, so as violently to present the Law to be read according to itself. And hear Zerubbabel, that above all things, he says, truth conquers (3 Esd. 3:12). Now Melchisedech showed the future mystery of the incarnation and passion of the Lord, when he first handed over to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist both of the body and of the blood of the Lord, so that it might be prefigured in the father, which

Editors' notes and page, col. 2328

Page

running head: ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2328 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins and ends mid-sentence; the marginal letters are not visible in the crop, so none are recorded; the last line (et sanguinis Domini, ut praefiguraretur in patre, quae) is printed with worn type, and the readings sanguinis and praefiguraretur are taken from the visible traces; 'Si dixisset, Sine patre, sine fuerat color' is set as printed, and the sense is unsure; the phrase 'ut Legem se violenter legi exhibeat' is translated tentatively; 'tanta est Scriptura' is set as printed; the reference III Esdr. is rendered as 3 Esdras (= 1 Esdras in English Bibles)

PL 35:2329

in filiis futura erat veritas. Qui si homo putatur et sacerdos, eo more quo fuit Aaron, aut nunc sunt, ostendatur aut l⟨e⟩gatur locus habitationis ejus; aut si fuit te⟨m⟩plum aliquod aut synagoga in qua congregabat populum, et offerebat eorum sacrificia, vel qui populus conveniebat ad illum. Si enim sacerdos in terris erat, sine dubio habuit populum, et ante Abraham utique, vel tempore ejus erat populus qui serviret Deo. Et quomodo Abraham quasi caput fact⟨u⟩s est fidei, ut ex eo populus haberet notitiam Dei? Similiter enim si Melchisedech erat, qui doceret unius Dei timorem in terris, frustra electus est Abraham, ut ex eo plebs Dei nuncuparetur. Potuerant enim inter eos esse, qui conveniebant ad Melchisedech. Et ubi est illud quod legitur in cantico Deuteronomii, quia cum divideret, inquit, Altissimus gentes, quemadmodum separavit filios Adae, statuit fines gentium, secundum numerum Angelorum Dei. Et facta est pars Domini populus ejus Jacob (Deut. XXXII, 8, 9). Igitur si in mundo plebs non erat Dei, exceptis filiis Abrahae, qua ratione alia plebs putatur fuisse, quae ex doctrina descenderat Melchisedech, negante Propheta? Quando enim nominat omnes gentes quae in mundo sunt, et non dicit populum Dei esse nisi filios Abrahae; quid superest nisi ut, exceptis his, negetur caeteros Dei habuisse notitiam, quia notus in Judaea Deus (Psal. LXXV, 1)? Melchisedech autem sacerdos Dei summi, ad benedicendum Abraham apparuit ad praesagium futurorum sanctorum: quia benedictio danda erat in futurum plebi Dei per antistitem fere Dei, quem dic⟨i⟩mus sacerdotem. Hic ergo Melchisedech praecursor apparuit sacrati futuri Filii Dei, quia praecedit ad obsequium qui ordine sequens. Non ergo admiranda sunt quae diximus de Melchisedech, quando Scriptura ad confusionem obstrepentium plus addat et dicat. Post omnia enim laude digna, ut confundat malevolos ait: Similatus aute⟨m⟩ Filio Dei manet sacerdos in perpetuum. Jam vide de quo male sentire contendis, et si hunc non vereris, vel Christum metue, cui similis Scripturae auctorit⟨at⟩e refertur. Per ordinem enim paulatim ad naturale ejus meritum venit, ut si quos dicta superiora moverent, quibus rex justitiae et pacis significatus est, et quia in carne visus neque patrem, neque matrem habuit, hoc est ingenitus apparuit, neque ortum, neque occasum habens; ex iis quae ultima subjecit, superiora credibilia demonstraret. Quis enim audeat dicere nisi vesanus, haec omnia quae sublimia dicta sunt, incongrua esse illi qui Dei Filio similis designatus est, manens sacerdos in perpetuum? Similis autem Dei Filio non potest esse, nisi sit ejusdem naturae. Et quid incredibile videtur, si Melchisedech ut homo apparuit, cum intelligatur tertia esse persona? Si enim Christus qui secunda persona est, frequenter visus est in habitu hominis, quid ambigitur de iis quae dicta sunt? Legimus etenim in Psalmo quia, Tu ⟨es⟩, inquit, sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Psal. CIX, 4). Hoc nemo nostrum dubitat ad Christi pertinere personam, quia eodem genere sacerdos est Christus in aeternum, quo et Melchisedech. Sed summus sacerdos Christus est, Melchisedech secundus. Nam si homo est Melchisedech, quomodo convenit ut s⟨e⟩cundum ordinem ejus Christus sacerdos sit in aeternum? Jam ambo similes esse leguntur, et unius esse dispensationis, quia u⟨n⟩ius sunt et naturae. Quoniam autem omni modo unius Dei auctoritas conservanda est, idcirco et tertia persona subjicitur paterno nomini. Christus autem vicarius Patris est et antistes, ac per hoc dicitur et sacerdos. Similiter et Spiritus sanctus quasi antistes, sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt. Quia quamvis unius sit substantiae Christus et Spiritus sanctus, uniuscujusque tamen ordo observandus est. Sacerdotes igitur vel legati ideo dicuntur, quia illum in se ostendunt cujus legati sunt: sunt etenim ejus imago. Ac per hoc Christus et Spiritus sanctus naturaliter habentes Dei imaginem, sacerdotes ejus

in the sons the truth was to be. If he is thought to be a man and a priest, after the manner in which Aaron was, or as [priests] now are, let the place of his dwelling be shown or read; or whether there was some temple or synagogue in which he gathered the people and offered their sacrifices, or what people came together to him. For if he was a priest on earth, without doubt he had a people, and certainly before Abraham, or in his time, there was a people which served God. And how was Abraham made as it were the head of faith, so that from him a people should have knowledge of God? For likewise, if Melchisedech existed, who taught the fear of the one God on earth, Abraham was chosen in vain, that from him the people of God should be named. For there could have been among them those who came together to Melchisedech. And where is that which is read in the song of Deuteronomy, that when, it says, the Most High divided the nations, as He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And the portion of the Lord became His people Jacob (Deut. 32:8–9). If therefore in the world there was no people of God except the sons of Abraham, on what ground is another people thought to have existed, which had descended from the teaching of Melchisedech, when the Prophet denies it? For when he names all the nations that are in the world, and does not say that the people of God is any but the sons of Abraham, what remains but that, these excepted, the rest be denied to have had knowledge of God, since God is known in Judaea (Ps. 75:1)? But Melchisedech, priest of the most high God, appeared to bless Abraham as a presage of the saints to come: because a blessing was to be given in the future to the people of God through a prelate, as it were, of God, whom we call a priest. This Melchisedech therefore appeared as forerunner of the consecrated Son of God to come, because he who follows in order goes before for service. So the things we have said about Melchisedech are not to be wondered at, when Scripture, to confound those who clamour against it, adds still more and says. For after all the things worthy of praise, to confound the malevolent it says: But made like to the Son of God he remains a priest for ever. Now see about whom you strive to think ill, and if you do not reverence him, at least fear Christ, to whom he is reported similar by the authority of Scripture. For step by step it comes gradually to his natural merit, so that if the earlier sayings troubled any, by which he was signified king of justice and of peace, and because, seen in the flesh, he had neither father nor mother, that is, he appeared unbegotten, having neither rising nor setting, it might by those things which it added last show the earlier ones to be credible. For who but a madman would dare to say that all these things which have been said loftily are unfitting for him who has been designated like to the Son of God, remaining a priest for ever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he is of the same nature. And what seems incredible if Melchisedech appeared as a man, since he is understood to be the third person? For if Christ, Who is the second person, was often seen in the guise of a man, why is there doubt about the things that have been said? For we read in the Psalm that, Thou art, it says, a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps. 109:4). None of us doubts that this pertains to the person of Christ, because Christ is a priest for ever in the same kind as Melchisedech also. But Christ is the high priest, Melchisedech the second. For if Melchisedech is a man, how is it fitting that Christ should be a priest for ever according to his order? Now both are read to be similar, and to be of one dispensation, because they are also of one nature. But since in every way the authority of the one God is to be preserved, therefore the third person also is made subject to the paternal name. Christ, moreover, is the vicar and prelate of the Father, and for this reason is also called priest. Likewise the Holy Spirit also, as a prelate, has been called priest of God most high, not high priest, as our people presume in the oblation. For although Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, yet the order of each is to be observed. Priests or envoys, therefore, are so called because they show in themselves Him whose envoys they are: for they are His image. And for this reason Christ and the Holy Spirit, naturally having the image of God, His priests

Editors' notes and page, col. 2329

Page

running head: 2329 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2330

dicuntur. In ipsis videtur Deus, sicut dicit Dominus, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. XIV, 9). Et si in gestis Dei visus est Dominus, gesta autem Spiritus sancti sunt opera, significante Domino, Quia ego in Spiritu Dei ejicio daemonia (Matth. XII, 28); et in Spiritu sancto visus est Deus.

are said. In them God is seen, as the Lord says, He who sees Me sees the Father also (John 14:9). And if the Lord was seen in the deeds of God, and the deeds are works of the Holy Spirit, as the Lord indicates, For I cast out demons in the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28), then God was seen also in the Holy Spirit.

DE PSALMO PRIMO.

On the First Psalm.

CX. — Beatus vir qui in via peccatorum non stetit. Si autem steterit, non jam beatus, sed reus dignus plagis. Ad emendationem enim aliquam videtur habere spem, quia non impius, sed peccator est. Si au⟨t⟩em unus fuerit qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et in via peccatorum non s⟨t⟩etit, duplici genere beatus est. Nec enim potest esse beatus, si in consilium peccatorum non eat, et in via peccatorum stet; quia si non perditioni, poenae tamen obnoxius est. Dehinc adjecit, Et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit. Hanc dicit beatitudinem esse, quae his tribus gradibus constat, et triplici ratione munitur; id est, ut neque in consilium impiorum eatur, neque in via peccatorum stetur, neque in cathedra pestilentiae sedeatur. Sed cum duo genera tantum habeantur impiorum et peccatorum, in comprehensione eorum quae supra memorata sunt, hoc tertium cui generi adscribi voluit, quod adjecit, dicens, Et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit; impiorumne, an peccatorum? Sed videamus quid sit in cathedra pestilentiae sedere, et tunc cui generi hoc adscribat intelligemus. Hanc dicimus cathedram pestilentiae, quae extra Dei ordinationem est, ad hoc utique inventa, ut iniqua inde exeant judicia: propterea pestilentiae cathedra dicta est, quia est corruptio quae parit mortem, sicut et iniquitas damnationem. Non est ergo a Deo quae est cathedra mortis. Nam Moyses accepit cathedram vitae. Ad hoc enim data est, ut auctoritas in ea sit justi judicis vel creatoris Dei. Unde dicit Dominus, Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribaeet Pharisaei (Matth. XXIII, 2). : et Apostolus, Non est, inquit, potestas nisi a Deo: quae enim sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt (Rom. XIII, 1). Unde dicit ad principem plebis: Tu quidem sedes judicans secundum Legem, et contra Legem jubes me percuti (Act. XXIII, 3). Quod dixit, secundum Legem, justam et salutarem cathedrae auctoritatem significavit. Illud autem quod ait contra Legem jubes me percuti, illum ipsum injustum judicem ostendit, ut in Dei cathedra sedens judicaret injuste. Hinc est unde et Daniel, Dei est, ait, regnum, et cui vult dabit illud (Dan. IV, 14). Sicut enim terreni imperatoris auctoritas sic currit per omnes, ut in omnibus ejus sit reverentia; ita Deus instituit, ut ab ipso rege D⟨e⟩i auctoritas incipiat, et currat per cunctos: quamvis frequenter mundus hoc non intelligat, et aliis se subjiciat in potestate positis quam debet, tamen institutio est ut unus sit qui timeatur. Ubi ergo haec institutio non est, ibi cathedra pestilentiae reperitur. Nusquam unius Dei auctoritas abnuitur, nisi apud eos qui multorum deorum praedicant metum et reverentiam. Hi ergo sunt qui in cathedra pestilentiae sedent, quia quod pontifices eorum praedicant, mors est. Hoc enim debent, ut cultores unius Dei quasi stulti et inimici, aut opprobrio sint, aut de hac vita tollantur. Haec ipsa materia impietatis est, quae etiam in caeteras partes extenditur, per quas impietatis suae leges ostendat. Nam jussu Jezabel antistites iniquitatis in cathedra pestilentiae sederunt, qui adversus innocentem Naboth, cum judices non essent, prava meditantes, subornatis falsis testibus, mortis tulerunt sententiam (III Reg. XXI, 11-13). Unde et in alio psalmo dicit, Et cum impiis non sedebo (Psal. XXV, 5). Hoc enim judicium ejus est, cujus et cathedra pestilentiae. Itaque si in Dei cathedra sedentes, innocentes opprimant, injustum erit judicium, non cathedra. Ubi enim cathedra pestilentiae est, non potest judicium non esse iniquum:

CX. — Blessed is the man who has not stood in the way of sinners. But if he has stood there, he is no longer blessed, but guilty and deserving of stripes. For he seems to have some hope of amendment, because he is not ungodly, but a sinner. But if there should be someone who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly and has not stood in the way of sinners, he is blessed in a twofold manner. For he cannot be blessed if he does not go into the counsel of sinners and yet stands in the way of sinners; for even if he is not liable to perdition, he is nevertheless liable to punishment. Then he added, And has not sat in the chair of pestilence. He says that this is blessedness, which consists of these three steps and is fortified by a threefold principle; that is, that one should neither go into the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the chair of pestilence. But since only two kinds are reckoned, of the ungodly and of sinners, in the scope of what has been mentioned above, to which kind did he wish this third thing to be assigned, which he added, saying, And has not sat in the chair of pestilence: to that of the ungodly, or to that of sinners? But let us see what it is to sit in the chair of pestilence, and then we shall understand to which kind he assigns this. We call that the chair of pestilence which is outside the ordinance of God, devised indeed for this purpose, that unjust judgements may go forth from it: it is called the chair of pestilence for this reason, that it is a corruption which brings forth death, just as iniquity brings forth damnation. That, therefore, which is the chair of death is not from God. For Moses received the chair of life. For it was given for this purpose, that in it there might be the authority of the just judge, that is, of God the Creator. Hence the Lord says, The scribes and Pharisees have sat upon the chair of Moses (Matt. 23:2); and the Apostle says, There is no power except from God: for those that are, are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1). Hence he says to the ruler of the people: You indeed sit judging according to the Law, and contrary to the Law you order me to be struck (Acts 23:3). By saying, according to the Law, he indicated the just and salutary authority of the chair. But by saying contrary to the Law you order me to be struck, he showed that man himself to be an unjust judge, in that, sitting in God's chair, he judged unjustly. Hence it is that Daniel too says, The kingdom is God's, and He will give it to whom He wills (Dan. 4:14). For just as the authority of an earthly emperor runs through all, so that reverence for him is in all; so God has established that the authority of God should begin from the king himself and run through all: although the world often does not understand this, and subjects itself to others placed in power more than it ought, nevertheless the ordinance is that there should be One who is feared. Where, therefore, this ordinance does not exist, there the chair of pestilence is found. Nowhere is the authority of the one God denied, except among those who preach fear and reverence of many gods. These, therefore, are the ones who sit in the chair of pestilence, because what their pontiffs preach is death. For they require this, that the worshippers of the one God, as fools and enemies, should either be held in reproach or be removed from this life. This is the very substance of ungodliness, which extends also into other areas, through which it may display the laws of its ungodliness. For at the command of Jezebel the priests of iniquity sat in the chair of pestilence, who, though they were not judges, devising evil against the innocent Naboth, suborned false witnesses and passed sentence of death (1 Kgs. 21:11–13). Hence also in another psalm he says, And I will not sit with the ungodly (Ps. 25:5). For this is the judgement of him whose chair also is the chair of pestilence. Therefore, if those sitting in God's chair oppress the innocent, it will be the judgement that is unjust, not the chair. For where there is the chair of pestilence, the judgement cannot but be unjust:

Editors' notes and page, col. 2330

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: pestilentiae reperitur› · call in col 2330

Ms. Colbert.: Ubi ergo haec institutio est, non ibi cathedra pestilentiae reperitur.

The Colbert manuscript: Where, then, this ordinance exists, there the chair of pestilence is not found.

(printed under page 513)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2330

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 513)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2330
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2331

quamvis quaedam sibi applicent veluti velamina, quibus impietatem contegant, ut videntes fallantur. Non potest enim sola impietas proponi, quia non invenit emptorem: et ubi lex diaboli est, si ipse nominetur, horretur. Sed sicut mel veneno admiscetur per quod lateat, ita et legi diaboli quaedam justa admiscent, et nomen applicant veritatis, sed uniuscujusque sensus est judicandus, quia ideo aliquando aliquid verum ostendit, ut fallat, ut cum maligna praedicat, bona putentur. Quoniam cathedram pestilentiae non esse de Dei ordinatione asseveravimus, etiam eorum qui extra Ecclesiam vel contra Ecclesiam sedes sibi instituerunt, cathedram pestilentiae dicimus. Qui enim inconcessa praesumit, reus est; quanto magis si et corrumpat traditionem ejus cujus sedem usurpat? Nam et ordinem ab apostolo Petro coeptum, et usque ad hoc tempus per traducem succedentium episcoporum servatum perturbant, ordinem sibi sine origine vindicantes, hoc est, corpus sine capite profitentes; unde congruit etiam eorum sedem cathedram pestilentiae appellare. Nec enim ideo impune erit, quia sub Dei nomine hoc agunt. Constat enim suas illos causas sub Dei nomine agere. Non enim zelo Dei hoc agunt, sed sibi locum volentes defendere: cum sciamus Core et ducentos quinquaginta viros per praesumptionem Deo offerentes, hiatu terrae absorptos esse (Num. XVI, 31, 35), et Oziam regem cum Deo illicite obtulisset lepra in fronte percussum (IV Reg. XV, 5, et II Paral. XXVI, 21). Quoniam claruit cathedram pestilentiae ad impietatem supradictam pertinere, reliqua prosequamur. Adjecit enim: Sed in lege Domini fuit voluntas ejus. Ejus voluntatem in lege Domini dicit esse, qui spretis impiis et desertis peccatoribus, abnuens pestilentiae cathedram, voluntatem suam in Dei lege statuit. Quamobrem beatum hunc dixit. Et sequitur: Et in lege ejus meditabitur die et nocte. Manifestum est, quia liber ab omnibus illecebris, et immunis ab iis quae Dei legi adversa sunt, nihil aliud quam in Dei lege exercitium facit, sacramentis Filii Dei confirmatus, in die bonis operibus insistit, et nocte orationibus. Hic est enim de quo dicit in Canticis canticorum, quia dormit et cor ejus vigilat (Cant. V, 2). Unde ait: Et erit tanquam lignum quod vlantatum est juxta decursus aquarum. Quis ambigit eum qui in lege Dei meditatur, spem habere ad praemium capiendum? Quia sicut lignum juxta aquam plantatum sterile esse non potest; ita et qui frequenti usu legi Dei studet, non potest ejus operis minime habere effectum. Et adjecit: Quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo. Omnis plantatio bene gubernata fructum dat tempore competenti; sic et hic qui legi Dei obtemperat, fructum habebit tempore praefinito. Tunc enim hujus devotionis mercedem accipiet, cum coeperit Dominus Jesus Christus sedere ad judicandum vivos et mortuos. Dehinc subjecit: Et folium ejus non defluet. Manifestum est in arbore cujus folia non decidunt, vitam significasse. Humore enim decurrentis aquae vegetatum lignum, folia continet sua. Nam et Dominus Jesus. Si in humido, ait, ligno haec faciunt, in arido quid fiet (Luc. XXIII, 31)? In ligno humido vitam significavit et fructum. Sicut lignum ergo auxilio decurrentis aquae siccitatem non sentit; ita et hic qui legi Dei studet, accedente tentatione, praesidio Dei tutus non amittit, sed acquirit salutem, dicente Apostolo, Quia per multas tribulationes oportet nos intrare in regnum Dei (Act. XIV, 21). Et sequitur: Et omnia quaecumque fecerit, prosperabuntur. Apertum est quod dicit, quia qui legi Dei fidem servat cupidus mandatorum ejus, felix fit in omnibus suis factis: sicut et Joseph, qui propterea quod timorem Dei praesenti vitae praeposuit, omnia quae agebat prospera faciebat Deus in manibus ejus. Et subjecit: Non sic impii, non sic. Iteratio sermonis, non aliter omnino futurum significat quae promittit, quia impiis

although they apply certain things to themselves like veils, with which to cover their impiety, so that those who see may be deceived. For impiety cannot be set forth on its own, because it finds no buyer; and where there is the law of the devil, if he himself is named, he is shuddered at. But just as honey is mixed with poison so that the poison may lie hidden in it, so too they mix certain just things into the law of the devil and attach the name of truth to it; but the sense of each one must be judged, because for this reason it sometimes shows something true, in order to deceive, so that when it proclaims evil things, they may be thought good. Since we have asserted that the chair of pestilence is not of God's ordaining, we also call the seat of those who have set up seats for themselves outside the Church or against the Church a chair of pestilence. For whoever presumes to do what is not granted is guilty; how much more if he also corrupts the tradition of him whose seat he usurps? For they also throw into confusion the order begun by the apostle Peter and preserved up to this time through the line of succeeding bishops, claiming for themselves an order without origin, that is, professing a body without a head; whence it is fitting also to call their seat a chair of pestilence. Nor will it go unpunished because they do this under the name of God. For it is evident that they conduct their own causes under the name of God. For they do not do this out of zeal for God, but wishing to defend a place for themselves: since we know that Core and two hundred and fifty men, offering to God through presumption, were swallowed up by a chasm of the earth (Num. 16:31, 35), and that King Ozias, when he had unlawfully made an offering to God, was struck with leprosy on his forehead (2 Kgs. 15:5, and 2 Chr. 26:21). Since it has become clear that the chair of pestilence pertains to the impiety mentioned above, let us pursue the rest. For he added: But his will was in the law of the Lord. He says that his will is in the law of the Lord who, having spurned the impious and forsaken sinners, refusing the chair of pestilence, has set his will in the law of God. Therefore he called this man blessed. And there follows: And in His law he will meditate day and night. It is manifest that he who is free from all enticements, and untouched by those things which are adverse to the law of God, exercises himself in nothing other than the law of God; strengthened by the sacraments of the Son of God, by day he applies himself to good works, and by night to prayers. For this is he of whom it says in the Song of Songs that he sleeps and his heart keeps watch (Song 5:2). Hence it says: And he will be like a tree which is planted beside the runnings of waters. Who doubts that he who meditates on the law of God has hope of receiving a reward? Because just as a tree planted beside water cannot be barren, so too he who devotes himself to the law of God with frequent practice cannot fail to have the effect of his work. And he added: Which will give its fruit in its season. Every plantation that is well managed gives fruit at the proper time; so too this man who obeys the law of God will have fruit at the appointed time. For he will then receive the reward of this devotion, when the Lord Jesus Christ begins to sit to judge the living and the dead. Then he subjoined: And its leaf will not fall off. It is manifest that by a tree whose leaves do not fall he signified life. For a tree quickened by the moisture of running water keeps its leaves. For the Lord Jesus too. If they do these things in the green wood, He says, what will happen in the dry (Luke 23:31)? By the green wood He signified life and fruit. So just as a tree, by the help of running water, does not feel dryness, so too this man who devotes himself to the law of God, when temptation comes, being safe by the protection of God, does not lose salvation but acquires it, as the Apostle says, That through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). And there follows: And all things whatsoever he does will prosper. What he says is plain, namely that he who keeps faith with the law of God, eager for His commandments, is made happy in all his deeds: just as Joseph too, because he put the fear of God before the present life, God made all the things that he did prosperous in his hands. And he subjoined: Not so the impious, not so. The repetition of the saying signifies that what it promises will come to pass in no other way at all, because to the impious

Editors' notes and page, col. 2331

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2331

Er. Lugd. Ven. Lov. sic legunt, inconcessa. In B. separatum, in concessa M.

Erasmus, the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions read thus, inconcessa ("not granted"). In B. it is separated, in concessa ("in things granted"). M.

(printed under page 514)

Page

running head: 2331 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQ[UE] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2332

nihil prosperum erit in futuro, sed omnia adversa usque ad interitum eorum: unde ait, Sed tanquam pulvis, quem projicit ventus a facie terrae. Eodem modo dicit impios interire, sicut pulverem, quem spiritus projicit a facie terrae ut pereat. Sublatus enim a substantia sua, per aerem dispersus paulatim deperit: ita et impii, ministris Angelis projecti a facie auctoris Dei, sine quo non potest vivi, interibunt. Et sequitur: Ideo non resurgent impii in judicio. Dignum est quod dicit. Utquid enim in judicio resurgant, qui nullum negotium Dei credi sibi maluerunt cujus redderent rationem? Spernentes enim Dei legem et negantes, non est unde praestent ration⟨e⟩m, ut in judicio interrogati juxta legem sibi creditam praestent causas. Arrogantes ergo et rebelles in Deum inventi, ad hoc resurgunt, ut videant verum esse quod credere noluerunt, ut pereant, quia Deum mendacem judicaverunt. Et adjecit: Neque peccatores in consilio justorum. In hoc psalmo, Psalmista trium hominum genera significat; impiorum, peccatorum, et justorum, que ordine coeptus est error. Sed impii ab his alieni sunt, quia sub Dei decreto, sicut dixi, vivere noluerunt. Peccatores autem sub Dei lege agentes ante tribunal Christi sistendi sunt, segregati a justis ut acceptae legis praestent rationem mandatorum, in quibus operam non dederunt, ut plus haberent laudis, quam vituperationis. Justi vero valde propensiores in exercitio implendae legis inventi, remunerandi sunt. Et subjecit: Quoniam scit Dominus viam justorum. Hos scire dicitur Deus, qui memores praeceptorum ejus bonis operibus insistunt, ut justi habiti coronentur. His autem qui immemores ejus circa curam animae negligentes sunt, sic dicet, Recedite a me; nescio vos, operarii iniquitatis (Luc. XIII, 27). Et sequitur: Et iter impiorum peribit. Unde Psalmus coeptus est, et terminatus, ut causa impiorum tractata, nulli alii quam perditioni docerentur obnoxii. Sicut enim dixi, idcirco dicitur Deus scire viam justorum, quia in lege ejus ambulant: iter autem impiorum, quia extra legem Dei est, peribit; quia omnes viae impiorum tenebrosae (Prov. IV, 19), sicut dicit Salomon, piorum autem clarissimae duce Christo Domino nostro.

nothing will be prosperous in the future, but all things will be adverse up to their destruction: whence he says, But like the dust which the wind casts from the face of the earth. In the same way he says that the impious perish, like dust which the wind casts from the face of the earth so that it may perish. For, carried away from its own substance and scattered through the air, it gradually perishes: so too the impious, cast out by the ministering Angels from the face of God the Author, without Whom there can be no living, will perish. And there follows: Therefore the impious will not rise again in judgement. What he says is fitting. For why should they rise again in judgement who preferred that no business of God be entrusted to them of which they would render an account? For, scorning and denying the law of God, they have nothing from which to render an account, so that, questioned in judgement, they might plead their causes according to the law entrusted to them. Found therefore arrogant and rebellious against God, they rise again to this end, that they may see that what they refused to believe is true, so that they may perish, because they judged God a liar. And he added: Nor sinners in the council of the just. In this psalm the Psalmist signifies three kinds of men: the impious, sinners, and the just, in which order the error began. But the impious are strangers to these, because, as I said, they refused to live under the decree of God. Sinners, however, living under the law of God, are to be set before the tribunal of Christ, separated from the just, so that they may render an account of the commandments of the law they received, to which they did not give effort so as to have more praise than blame. But the just, found much more inclined in the practice of fulfilling the law, are to be rewarded. And he subjoined: For the Lord knows the way of the just. God is said to know those who, mindful of His precepts, apply themselves to good works, so that, held to be just, they may be crowned. But to those who, unmindful of Him, are negligent concerning the care of the soul, He will speak thus: Depart from Me; I know you not, workers of iniquity (Luke 13:27). And there follows: And the way of the impious will perish. Whence the Psalm was begun, there it was also ended, so that, the case of the impious having been treated, they might be shown to be liable to nothing other than perdition. For, as I said, God is said to know the way of the just for this reason, that they walk in His law; but the way of the impious, because it is outside the law of God, will perish; because all the ways of the impious are dark (Prov. 4:19), as Solomon says, but those of the pious are most bright, with Christ our Lord as guide.

DE PSALMO VIGESIMO TERTIO.

On the Twenty-Third Psalm.

CXI. — Titulus Psalmi rationem ejus insinuat. De Christi enim Domini nostri sacramento locuturus, dominicum diem signavit, dicens, Huic David prima sabbati: cum enim dicitur, Huic David, ad eum pertinet, cujus hic David habet imaginem, de quo dicit propheta, Et puer meus David pascet illos (Ezech. XXXVII, 24). Prima autem sabbati, prima feria est. Post sabbatum enim primus dies dominicus est, affirmante Evangelio et dicente, Prima autem sabbati venit Maria Magdalene et altera Maria ad sepulcrum, etc. (Matth. XXVIII, 1). In dominico autem die, Salvatoris sacramentum significavit. Sed ut per rationem ordinis Psalmus exponeretur, a persona Dei Patris initium fecit, ut divinitatis sacramentum non sine ordine manifestaretur hominibus. Qui enim causam aliquam insinuare vult, nisi ejus caput et originem teneat, non poterit proprietatem ejus ostendere, neque quae sit ejus veritas edocere. Itaque sic orsus est Propheta, et ait: Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus. Fidem rerum tenuit dicens: Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus. Auctoritatem enim veterum sanctorum secutus est, qui terram et ea quae sunt in ea ad Dominum Deum pertinere dixerunt. Et adjecit: Orbis terrarum et omnes qui habitant in eo. Ne forte minus aliquid significasse putaretur, quia dixerat, Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus; se⟨n⟩sum suum aperuit dicens, orbis terrarum et universi qui habitant in eo: ut doceret omnem omnino terram Domini esse, et qu⟨a⟩e sunt in ea, ut nihil esset exceptum quod non sit Dei. Sicut putant quidam haeretici, qui secundum dictum apostoli Petri dominium Deo abnegant (II Petr. II, 10), quorum ad condemnationem

111. — The title of the Psalm intimates its meaning. For, being about to speak of the sacrament of Christ our Lord, he marked the Lord's day, saying, To this David, the first of the sabbath: for when it is said, To this David, it pertains to Him of Whom this David bears the image, of Whom the prophet says, And My servant David shall feed them (Ezek. 37:24). Now the first of the sabbath is the first weekday. For after the sabbath the first day is the Lord's day, as the Gospel affirms and says, But on the first of the sabbath came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to the sepulchre, etc. (Matt. 28:1). And by the Lord's day he signified the sacrament of the Saviour. But so that the Psalm might be expounded by the rule of order, he began from the person of God the Father, so that the sacrament of the divinity might not be made manifest to men without order. For whoever wishes to set forth some matter, unless he holds its head and origin, will not be able to show its proper character, nor to teach what its truth is. And so the Prophet began thus, and says: The earth is the Lord's and its fullness. He held to the truth of things, saying: The earth is the Lord's and its fullness. For he followed the authority of the ancient saints, who said that the earth and the things which are in it belong to the Lord God. And he added: The world and all who dwell in it. Lest perhaps he should be thought to have signified something less, because he had said, The earth is the Lord's and its fullness, he disclosed his meaning, saying, the world and all who dwell in it: so as to teach that the whole earth altogether is the Lord's, and the things which are in it, so that nothing should be excepted which is not God's. As certain heretics suppose, who, according to the saying of the apostle Peter, deny lordship to God (2 Pet. 2:10), to whose condemnation

Editors' notes and page, col. 2332

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2332

Ms. Colbertinus, praestent rationem emendandi.

The Colbert manuscript: let them render an account of amending.

(printed under page 514)

(a) ‹anchor: CXI› · call in col 2332

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 514)

Page

running head: …ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word condemnationem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2333

PL 35:2333

cuncta Dei esse, prophetica oracula docuerunt. Et sequitur, Ipse super maria fundavit eam; hoc est, quod in alio psalmo significavit dicens, Terram super aquas tu formasti (Psal. CXXXV, 6): ut fidem testimonium sequeretur, ostendit quomodo fecerit. Dum enim confusio esset rerum, et neque terra, neque aqua propriam haberet speciem, jussu Dei adunata est terra, et firmata super aquas, ut et terra et aqua haberent originis suae proprietatem. Unde in Regnorum libro vox est Dei dicentis, Nonne aquas ego feci? Et subjecit: Et super flumina praeparavit illam. Sic super flumina praeparata est, dum intra se aquas conditas habet, quae quasi per venarum fistulas fluitantes praestant ei densitatem, ne penitus sicca fragilis esset, et inutilis ad culturam. Radicibus enim nascentium vitalem praestant effectum, simulque locis aridis siti auxilio sunt. Et ut professionem sine bona vita non valde proficere ostenderet, ait: Quis ascendet in montem Domini, aut quis stabit in loco sancto ejus? Proponit qualis debeat esse qui Deum creatorem profitetur; ne quia puniendos ostendit, qui, sicut dixi, dominium Deo abnegant, ii qui confitentur immunes se a poena scirent non esse, si recte minime versarentur. Montem ergo Domini dicens, coelum significavit. Unde in alio psalmo dicit: Levavi oculos meos ad montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi (Psal. CXX, 1). Locus Domini est ubi apparet. Dicitur autem ad Jesum Nave, cum Dominus ei apparuisset, Locus in quo stas, terra sancta est (Josue V, 16): et Jacob ubi Deum vidit, Haec est, ait, domus Dei (Gen. XXVIII, 17). Et sequitur: Innocens manibus et mundo corde. Hunc dicit dignum ascendere in montem Domini, id est, in coelum, aut stare in loco sancto ejus, si quis fuerit innocens operibus, et mundum cor habeat in causa Dei, id est, fidei. Hujusmodi enim potest in coelum ascendere, et stare in loco sancto ejus. Defunctus enim hac vita ascendit in coelum. Deinde dum civitas Jerusalem in adventu Domini descendit de coelo, dignus erit stare ubi judicaturus est Dominus de vivis et mortuis quasi innocens: impii autem et peccatores indigni erunt stare in loco sancto judicii Dei, quia resurgent impii ad perditionem, peccatores ad poenam. Nam si vultum Moysi glorificatum descendentis de monte filii Israel peccati causa videre non poterant (Exod. XXXIV, 29, 30); quanto magis ipsum gloriae Dominum in throno majestatis suae sedentem, conscientia delictis obnoxia formidabit aspicere? Audient enim, Non novi vos, operarii iniquitatis (Matth. VII, 23). Et adjecit: Qui non accepit in vano animam suam. Nunc ipsa genera peccatorum tangit. Primo enim in loco, hic est innocens, et mundum cor habet, qui a fornicatione idololatriae immunis est. Ipsa est enim vanitas, cui qui se inclinat, animam suam subjugat corruptioni. Et sequitur: Nec juravit proximo suo in dolum. Duas causas memoravit, quae sunt principales, Dei et proximi; quia qui in his idoneus fuerit, sine dubio et in caeteris probatus habebitur, dicente Domino, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex omni virtute tua. Hoc est primum mandatum. Et secundum est simile illi, Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. In his duobus mandatis tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 37-40). Quis ergo ex toto corde Deum diligens legem ejus non servet? Aut quis habens proximi charitatem, peccatis studeat? quippe cum causa timoris Dei diligat proximum. Et subjecit: Hic accipiet benedictionem a Domino, et misericordiam a Deo salutari suo. Nunc quod meritum est ejus qui in causa Dei et hominis, creatoris et proximi, fidem habuerit et dilectionem, ostendit: quia et benedicetur a Domino, ut commendatus appareat, et in his misericordiam consequetur quae implere non potuit. Nec enim tam circumspectus potest aliquis esse, ut nusquam erret; sed quia in magnis sollicitus et fidelis inventus est, et in minimis misericordiam accipiat a Deo suo. Qui ideo salutaris dicitur, quia non vult morientis mortem, sed ut convertatur et vivat (Ezech. XVIII, 32). Et sequitur: Haec est generatio quaerentium Dominum, quaerentium faciem Dei Jacob. Unam dixit esse generationem requirentium

the prophetic oracles have taught that all things are God's. And there follows, He has founded it upon the seas; that is, what he signified in another psalm, saying, Thou hast formed the earth upon the waters (Ps. 135:6): so that testimony might follow faith, he showed how He did it. For when there was a confusion of things, and neither earth nor water had its own form, at God's command the earth was gathered together and made firm upon the waters, so that both earth and water might have the property of their origin. Hence in the book of Kingdoms there is the voice of God saying, Did I not make the waters? And he added: And upon the rivers He has prepared it. Thus it was prepared upon the rivers, inasmuch as it holds waters stored within itself, which, flowing as though through the pipes of veins, give it density, lest, being entirely dry, it should be brittle and useless for cultivation. For they supply a life-giving effect to the roots of things that spring up, and at the same time they are a help to dry places in their thirst. And to show that profession without a good life does not avail much, he says: Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord, or who shall stand in His holy place? He sets forth what kind of person he ought to be who professes God as Creator; lest, because he has shown that those who, as I said, deny God's dominion are to be punished, those who confess Him should think themselves immune from punishment, if they do not live rightly. So in saying the mountain of the Lord, he signified heaven. Hence in another psalm he says: I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, whence help shall come to me (Ps. 120:1). The place of the Lord is where He appears. And it is said to Jesus Nave, when the Lord had appeared to him, The place in which you stand is holy ground (Josh. 5:16): and Jacob, where he saw God, This, he says, is the house of God (Gen. 28:17). And there follows: The innocent in hands and clean of heart. He says that this one is worthy to ascend into the mountain of the Lord, that is, into heaven, or to stand in His holy place, if anyone is innocent in works and has a clean heart in the cause of God, that is, of faith. For such a one can ascend into heaven and stand in His holy place. For having departed this life he ascends into heaven. Then, when the city Jerusalem descends from heaven at the coming of the Lord, he will be worthy to stand where the Lord is to judge the living and the dead, as being innocent: but the ungodly and the sinners will be unworthy to stand in the holy place of God's judgement, because the ungodly will rise again to perdition, sinners to punishment. For if the sons of Israel, because of sin, could not look upon the glorified face of Moses as he came down from the mountain (Exod. 34:29–30), how much more will a conscience liable for its offences dread to behold the very Lord of glory sitting on the throne of His majesty? For they will hear, I do not know you, workers of iniquity (Matt. 7:23). And he added: Who has not received his soul in vain. Now he touches on the very kinds of sins. For in the first place, he is innocent and has a clean heart who is free from the fornication of idolatry. For that is vanity, and whoever bows to it subjects his soul to corruption. And there follows: Nor has sworn deceitfully to his neighbour. He has mentioned two causes, which are the principal ones, that of God and that of the neighbour; because whoever proves fit in these will without doubt be held approved in the rest as well, as the Lord says, You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hangs the whole Law, and the Prophets (Matt. 22:37–40). Who then, loving God with his whole heart, would not keep His law? Or who, having love of neighbour, would be eager for sins? since indeed it is for the sake of the fear of God that he loves his neighbour. And he added: This one shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his saviour. Now he shows what is the merit of him who, in the cause of God and of man, of the Creator and of the neighbour, has had faith and love: that he will both be blessed by the Lord, so that he may appear commended, and will obtain mercy in those things which he could not fulfil. For no one can be so circumspect as never to go astray; but because he has been found careful and faithful in great things, he may also receive mercy from his God in the least things. And He is called saviour for this reason, that He does not will the death of the dying, but that he be converted and live (Ezek. 18:32). And there follows: This is the generation of those who seek the Lord, who seek the face of the God of Jacob. He said that there is one generation of

Editors' notes and page, col. 2333

Page

running head: 2333 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "mnationem" (rest of a word broken from the previous column, probably [do]minationem); column ends with "re-" split across the column break; "fidem testimonium" set as printed (fidei possible but print reads fidem); Ezech. reference figure read as 32 (type ambiguous, could look like 52); right-hand column (next column) not set; no full-width line, no editors' matter.
other: the word requirentium was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2334

PL 35:2334

Deum, et quaerentium faciem Dei Jacob, quod non est otiosum. Quamvis enim utrumque bonum sit, duos tamen gradus his dictis significavit. Bonum est requirere Deum, plenum est autem bonum quaerere faciem Dei Jacob. Digniores enim sunt, qui ante faciem judicis sunt. Horum ergo meritorum haec est generatio: quia ut ad hoc veniatur, innocentia facit et puritas cordis; sicut iterum ut ad malum possit veniri, praecurrit injustitia atque iniquitas. Quia duae generationes sunt: una est ex parte iniquitatis, quae est mater Cain; altera ex parte justitiae, quae est mater Abel: haec in fide consistit et bona conversatione, illa in perfidia et obliquis operibus. Istae sunt duae leges, boni et mali, Dei et diaboli; et quam secutus quisque fuerit, ejus appellabitur filius. Ac per hoc requirentium Deum generatio haec est, fides in Deum, et dilectio in proximum, sicut supra diximus. Qu⟨i⟩ enim fidem habet in Deum, semper ejus quaerit auxilium; nec hominibus injustum se praebet, qui Deum vult habere propitium. Cujus signum hoc est cum dicitur, Deus Jacob, quia notus in Judaea Deus (Psal. LXXV, 2). Sed quare ejus faciem quaerere dicuntur, cum audierit Moyses, quia, Non, inquit, videbitur tibi facies mea (Exod. XXXIII, 20)? Si ergo et Moyses faciem Dei quaesivit, et videre non potuit; frustra hi quaerere dicuntur, quia meliores Moyse non sunt. Sed nemo frustra faciem Dei quaerere dicendus est; quia ideo faciem Dei dicuntur quaerere, ut sciatur, quem quaerunt quia digni sunt et videre. Omnis enim qui quaeritur, tunc cognoscitur si facies ejus videatur. Sed quoniam a mortalibus facies Dei videri non potest, significatio haec pro facie est, cum dicitur, Deus Jacob. Diapsalma. Diapsalma hoc in loco personae significat mutationem. Post enim illa quae ad Patris Dei personam pertinent, subjungit ea quae ad Filii Dei pertinent sacramentum, ut ordo integer conservetur Patris et Filii. Nam data est Lex per Moysen, ut quasi paedagogus esset hominibus, erudiens et praeparans eos magistra justitia, ut digni fierent ad expiandum annum Domini et diem retributionis; ut qui sub spe futuri Christi fideles fuissent, susciperent eum, et possent Adae peccatum effugere, de suis securi, quia adventus ejus quem speraverunt, daturus esset illis misericordiam de iis in quibus subreptum est illis ut delinquerent. Hoc est quod superius memoravit, dicens, Accipiet misericordiam a Deo salutari suo. Dicit ergo: Tollite portas, principes, vestras. Haec vox sanctorum est Angelorum, de quibus dicit in Evangelio, quia accesserunt, inquit, Angeli, et ministrabant ei (Matth. IV, 11). Hi ergo dicunt ad principes et potestates adversus quos nobis colluctationem dicit esse Apostolus (Ephes. VI, 12), ut tollant portas principis sui, id est diaboli, qui est princeps principum in errore constitutorum, per quas itur in gehennam. Hae portae perfidia est et fallacia idololatriae. Et sequitur: Et elevamini, portae aeternales. Fides et spes cum charitate portae sunt aeternales, quia non potest aboleri quod per veritatem praedicatur. Illae autem portae, quas dixi perfidiam esse et fallaciam idolorum, temporales sunt, quia omne mendacium non permanet. Manifestata enim veritate interibit. Docentur ergo ut tollant portas principis sui tenebrarum, id est, ut amoto multorum deorum errore, unius Dei fides introducatur in Christo. Hec est quod se Apostolus edocere missum testatur, ut non solum ostendat hominibus, sed principibus et potestatibus in coelestibus mysterium Dei unius in Christo ((Id. III, 8-12). Et subjecit: Et introibit rex gloriae. Tollendas dicit fallaces portas diaboli subtilitate compositas, quae sunt praesumptio, per quam deum se existimavit, ut introeat rex gloriae, qui est Christus Jesus Dominus noster. Nullius enim mentem Dei fides ingreditur, nisi tulerit a se errorem diaboli praevaricatione inventum. Et principes supra memorati non possunt in unius Dei fidem Christum regem recipere, nisi projecerint a se traditionem per quam uni Deo inportatur calumnia; non solum terrena,

those who seek God, and of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob, which is not idle. For although each is good, yet by these words he has indicated two degrees. It is good to seek God, but it is a full good to seek the face of the God of Jacob. For those are worthier who are before the face of the judge. This, then, is the generation of these merits: for that one may come to this, innocence and purity of heart bring it about; just as, again, that one may come to evil, injustice and iniquity run ahead. For there are two generations: one is on the side of iniquity, which is the mother of Cain; the other on the side of justice, which is the mother of Abel: the latter consists in faith and good conduct, the former in faithlessness and crooked works. These are the two laws, of good and of evil, of God and of the devil; and whichever of them each one has followed, he will be called its son. And so this is the generation of those who seek God: faith in God and love towards one's neighbour, as we said above. For whoever has faith in God always seeks His help; nor does he who wishes to have God propitious show himself unjust to men. The sign of this is when it is said, the God of Jacob, because God is known in Judaea (Ps. 75:2). But why are they said to seek His face, when Moses heard: My face, He says, shall not be seen by you (Exod. 33:20)? If, then, even Moses sought the face of God and could not see it, these are said to seek in vain, since they are not better than Moses. But no one is to be said to seek the face of God in vain; for they are said to seek the face of God for this reason, that it may be known whom they seek, because they are worthy also to see. For everyone who is sought is recognized when his face is seen. But since the face of God cannot be seen by mortals, this signification stands in place of the face, when it is said, the God of Jacob. Diapsalma. Diapsalma in this place signifies a change of person. For after the things which pertain to the person of God the Father, he adds those which pertain to the sacrament of the Son of God, so that the order of the Father and the Son may be kept entire. For the Law was given through Moses, so that it might be as it were a pedagogue to men, instructing and preparing them with justice as their teacher, that they might become worthy to expiate the year of the Lord and the day of retribution; so that those who had been faithful in the hope of the Christ to come might receive Him, and might escape the sin of Adam, secure about their own [sins], because His coming, for which they had hoped, would give them mercy for those things in which they had been stealthily led into transgression. This is what he mentioned above, saying, He shall receive mercy from God his Saviour. He says, therefore: Lift up your gates, O princes. This is the voice of the holy angels, of whom he says in the Gospel: angels, he says, came and ministered to Him (Matt. 4:11). These, then, say to the principalities and powers against whom the Apostle says our wrestling is (Eph. 6:12), that they should lift up the gates of their prince, that is, of the devil, who is the prince of the princes set in error, through which gates one goes into Gehenna. These gates are the faithlessness and the deceit of idolatry. And there follows: And be lifted up, O eternal gates. Faith and hope with charity are the eternal gates, because what is preached through the truth cannot be abolished. But those gates, which I said are faithlessness and the deceit of idols, are temporal, because no lie abides. For once the truth has been made manifest it will perish. They are therefore taught to lift up the gates of their prince of darkness, that is, that the error of many gods being removed, faith in the one God may be brought in in Christ. This is what the Apostle testifies that he was sent to teach, that he might show not only to men but to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places the mystery of the one God in Christ (Eph. 3:8–12). And he added: And the King of glory shall enter. He says that the deceitful gates of the devil, put together with subtlety, are to be lifted up, which are the presumption through which he thought himself a god, so that the King of glory may enter, Who is Christ Jesus our Lord. For faith in God enters no one's mind unless he has removed from himself the error devised by the devil's transgression. And the princes mentioned above cannot receive Christ the King into the faith of the one God unless they have cast away from themselves the tradition through which calumny is brought against the one God, not only the earthly one,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2334

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: ad expiandum› · call in col 2334

Forte, exspectandum.

Perhaps exspectandum ("to be awaited").

(printed under page 515)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2334
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word terrena, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2335

PL 35:2335

sed et ea quae in coelestibus usurpata est a principe principum satana: quia illic errorem quem inter se conspiraverunt, ut auctore diabolo deos se dicerent, etiam hic in terra disposuerunt, ut hic error illius imago sit. Et sequitur: Quis est iste rex gloriae? Ne supervacue forte Christum regem gloriae dicere putaretur, interrogantis ponit personam et dicentis, Quis est iste rex gloriae? Quasi admiretur aut doceri se velit, an verum est et condignum dicere Christum regem gloriae. Et ideo responderunt ei: Dominus fortis et potens, Dominus potens in praelio, ut hoc subjecto non nudis verbis, sed cum testimonio regem gloriae Christum addisceret. Virtus enim et potentia qua subegit et pressit diabolum cum satellitibus ejus, haec ostendit illum regem esse gloriae. Et adjecit: Tollite portas, principes, vestras, et elevamini, portae aeternales; hoc est, quoniam virtutis testimonio, cui contradici nefarium est, didicistis dignum esse Christum dici regem gloriae, auferte errorem de mentibus vestris. Et quod ait, Introibit rex gloriae, ostenditur quia non possunt participare cum fide Christi, nisi ab omni immunditia idololatriae emundaverint corda eorum. Nisi enim innovatus fuerit homo, non intrabit Spiritus sanctus in eum. Et sequitur: Quis est iste rex gloriae? Iteratio ista confirmationem facit. Omne enim quod novum auditur, non concipitur corde nisi iteretur. Admirationem autem et stuporem facit, cum dicitur quod auditum est nunquam. Et adjecit: Dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae. Eadem repetendo docet rite dici hunc regem gloriae, qui sit Dominus virtutum. Non immerito enim rex gloriae appellatur qui virtutibus dominatur. Unde Apostolus: Si enim intellexissent, ait, nunquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent (I Cor. II, 8).

but also that which was usurped in the heavens by the prince of princes, Satan: because the error which they conspired among themselves there, that at the devil's instigation they should call themselves gods, they also arranged here on earth, so that this error might be the image of that one. And there follows: Who is this king of glory? Lest it be thought perhaps superfluous to call Christ the king of glory, he introduces the person of one asking and saying, Who is this king of glory? As if he wondered or wished to be taught whether it is true and fitting to call Christ the king of glory. And therefore they answered him: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, so that, with this added, he might learn that Christ is the king of glory not by bare words but with testimony. For the power and might with which He subdued and crushed the devil with his satellites, this showed Him to be the king of glory. And he added: Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates; that is, since by the testimony of power, which it is wicked to contradict, you have learned that Christ is worthy to be called the king of glory, remove the error from your minds. And in that he says, The king of glory shall enter, it is shown that they cannot share in the faith of Christ unless they have cleansed their hearts from all the uncleanness of idolatry. For unless a man has been renewed, the Holy Spirit will not enter into him. And there follows: Who is this king of glory? This repetition produces confirmation. For everything that is heard as new is not conceived in the heart unless it is repeated. And it produces wonder and astonishment when what has never been heard is spoken. And he added: The Lord of powers, He is the king of glory. By repeating the same things he teaches that He is rightly called this king of glory Who is the Lord of powers. For not undeservedly is He called the king of glory Who has dominion over powers. Whence the Apostle: For if they had understood, he says, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty (1 Cor. 2:8).

DE PSALMO QUINQUAGESIMO.

On the Fiftieth Psalm.

CXII. — Quinquagesimus Psalmus hic positus est, non pro temporis ordine, sed ratione. Titulus enim ejus non numero, sed rationi subjectus est. Quantum enim ad historiam pertinet, anterior est quam tertius. Prius enim a propheta Nathan delicti causa correptus est, quam insurgeret contra illum filius ejus Absalon, ut eum vellet et vita et regno privare. Haec ergo causa est ut quinquagesimus poneretur, quam constat ex Lege descendere. Illic enim cautum est quinquagesimum numerum remissionem habere. Est enim post septem septimanas primus typum habens dominici diei: quia sicut post septem dies, primus dies ipse est qui initio factus est, qui semper finita septimapa dies primus est; ita et post septem septimanas quinquagesimus numeratus, in mysterio primus est, qui duplici genere dominicus dies appellatur: primum quia initio factus a Domino est, qui semper in se conversus per curricula impleta septimana primus est; deinde quia in eo resurrexit Dominus, triumphata morte, dominicus etiam dies nuncupatur. Non immerito ergo in quinquagesimo numero, quem in mysterio primum significatum advertimus, remissio continetur. Denique Lex quinquagesimo die data est. A profectione enim filiorum Israel ex Aegypto, quadragesimo et octavo die ablui jubentur, ut biduo purificati, tertia die parati essent ad Legem accipiendam (Exod. XIX, 10, 11). Quae ablutio quid aliud indicat, quam remissionem factam in quinquagesimo die, ut purificati Legem acciperent? Ex quo de caetero praeteritis oblitteratis, actus sui redderent rationem secundum creditam sibi Legem. Hac etiam ratione possessionem emptam quinquagesimo anno remitti debere praecepit Lex (Levit. XXV, 10). Hinc est ergo unde et Psalmus quinquagesimus intitulatus est. In hoc enim rex David remissionem postulat secundum praedictum sensum; unde ait: Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. Sciens rex David graviter se peccasse, sic postulat dicens: Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. Magna enim misericordia tunc est, cum grandia ignoscit peccata. Et adjecit: Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum, dele iniquitatem meam. Ut manifestaret

112. — The fiftieth Psalm has been placed here not according to the order of time but according to reason. For its title is subject not to number but to reason. For as far as pertains to history, it is earlier than the third. For he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan on account of his offence before his son Absalom rose up against him, wishing to deprive him of both life and kingdom. This therefore is the reason why it was placed fiftieth, a reason which, it is agreed, comes down from the Law. For there it is laid down that the number fifty holds remission. For after seven weeks it is the first, having the type of the Lord's day: because just as after seven days the first day is that very one which was made at the beginning, which, whenever the week is finished, is always the first day; so also, after seven weeks, the fiftieth counted is first in mystery, and it is called the Lord's day in a twofold manner: first because it was made at the beginning by the Lord, which, ever turning back upon itself through the completed courses, is the first of the week; then because on it the Lord rose again, death having been triumphed over, it is also named the Lord's day. Not undeservedly, therefore, is remission contained in the number fifty, which we observe to be signified as first in mystery. Finally, the Law was given on the fiftieth day. For from the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, on the forty-eighth day they are ordered to be washed, so that, purified for two days, on the third day they might be ready to receive the Law (Exod. 19:10–11). What else does this washing indicate than remission made on the fiftieth day, so that being purified they might receive the Law? From which point, the past being blotted out for the rest, they were to render an account of their conduct according to the Law entrusted to them. For this reason also the Law commanded that a purchased possession must be remitted in the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:10). This therefore is why the Psalm too is entitled the fiftieth. For in it King David asks for remission according to the sense stated above; whence he says: Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy. King David, knowing that he had sinned grievously, thus asks, saying: Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy. For mercy is great then, when it pardons great sins. And he added: And according to the multitude of Thy compassions, blot out my iniquity. That he might make

Editors' notes and page, col. 2335

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: CXII› · call in col 2335

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 516)

Page

running head: 2335 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2336

acerbe se deliquisse, peccatum suum iniquitatem appellat, quia iniquitas non leve peccatum est; et qui delet iniquitatem, hoc est, non imputat, miseratione abundat. Nihil ergo in causa sua excusare nititur, ut non solum animum sibi judicis mitiget, sed et faciat condolere. Commovetur enim animus ad misericordiam, quando videt reum sic sua confiteri peccata, ut ostendat dolere sibi quia peccavit. Qui enim non dolet, irridere videtur judicem; quia ideo precatur, ut evadat iterum postea eadem facturus. Et sequitur postea: Usquequaque, inquit, lava me ab injustitia mea, et a peccato meo munda me. Quoniam multam miserationem Dei praedicat, penitus se mundari precatur, ut nihil maneat delicti aut injustitiae in eo, unde suspectus sit. Et ut hoc ipsum obtinere possit vel impetrare, adjecit: Quoniam iniquitatem meam ego cognosco, et delictum meum coram me est semper. Quoniam graviter scit se peccasse, sollicitus est ne non totum ei remittatur. Considerans enim magnitudinem peccatorum suorum, timet, sciens gravia peccata non facile ignosci; ac per hoc cum fletibus confitetur, peccatum suum ante oculos habens, ut ex omni parte propitium sibi faciat judicem. Scit enim scriptum esse: Dic prior iniquitates tuas, ut justificeris (Isai. XLIII, 26). Et sequitur: Tibi soli peccavi, et malum coram te feci. Nunc ex alia parte culpae suae medelam prospicit, ut ad effectum postulationem deducat. Hac enim prosecutione in prima causa innocentem se dicit: nam qui alteri Deo peccat, inimicus est auctoris Dei. In locum enim ejus alterum eligit, cui auctoritatem ejus adscribat. Unde hic ab hac se iniquitate alienum ostendens, Tibi, ait, soli peccavi, et malum coram te feci: hoc est, quia tibi, et nulli alii quem Deum per errorem dicerem, peccavi, minor mea culpa est quam caeterorum, qui sunt perditioni obnoxii. Non enim impius sum; sed peccator, quia non in te, sed in legem tuam peccavi: nec te negavi, sed te Deum et Dominum confitens, in hominem peccavi. Ergo quia in illa quae tua propria causa est, reus non sum, ignosce quod in conservum peccavi. Sic enim peccavi, ut honorificentiam nominis tui nec negarem, nec alteri darem. Fuit itaque unde commoveretur ad misericordiam judex. Cum enim multi in illum peccent, quos etiam hortatur ad se converti, dum ii qui non in illum peccant, ex aliis tamen causis veniam postulant, libe⟨n⟩ter admittit. Semper enim Dominus ad auxilium suum vult confugere servos suos. Unde adjecit: Ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, et vincas cum judicaris. Misericordiam postulans, Deum justitiam suam non immutare precatur, cum soleat media esse justitia, ut non peccantibus et peccantibus aequa sit, id est, ut unicuique reddat secundum opera sua: sed non ignorat quid postulet vir innocens in Dei sacramento. Sciens e⟨n⟩im Deum frequenter in Lege dixisse, quia misericors, inquit, sum ego Dominus Deus vester (Exod. XXII, 27); inde rogat ut haec fides maneat, et in sermonibus suis Deus justificetur, dum in eo permanet quod locutus est, nec peccatis hominum vincitur, ut non misereatur. Scientes enim qui peccant, quae promisit Deus bene viventibus, et quia in eo perdurant, judicant illum mendacem. Non enim credunt male vivendo vera esse quae promisit. Idcirco petit rex David ut vincat hoc Deus quod putant homines, et det quae promisit; ut erubescant qui dum non servant mandata, judicant illum non daturum. Et sequitur: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. Nunc hoc adjecto causam infirmitatis humani generis memorat, quia facile est homini peccare, ut examen circa se judicis mitiget. Primae enim culpae facit mentionem, ex qua praevaricando Adam genus humanum obnoxium fecit peccato. Suasu enim et fallacia inimici iniquitatem concipiendo, omne semen suum iniquitati subjecit, ut ex eo omnes per traducem geniti peccato essent obnoxii. Propterea adjec⟨i⟩t, Et in delictis concepit me mater mea: ut ab

known that he had sinned bitterly, he calls his sin iniquity, because iniquity is no light sin; and He Who blots out iniquity, that is, does not impute it, abounds in compassion. So he attempts to excuse nothing in his case, so that he may not only soften the mind of the judge towards himself, but also make Him grieve with him. For the mind is moved to mercy when it sees the accused so confessing his sins as to show that he grieves that he has sinned. For he who does not grieve seems to mock the judge, since he prays for this reason, that he may escape, intending afterwards to do the same things again. And afterwards it follows: Wash me thoroughly, he says, from my injustice, and cleanse me from my sin. Since he proclaims the great compassion of God, he prays to be cleansed completely, so that nothing of offence or injustice may remain in him on account of which he might be suspected. And so that he might be able to obtain or win this very thing, he added: For I know my iniquity, and my offence is ever before me. Since he knows that he has sinned gravely, he is anxious lest not the whole be forgiven him. For considering the greatness of his sins, he is afraid, knowing that grave sins are not easily pardoned; and therefore he confesses with tears, having his sin before his eyes, so that in every respect he may make the judge favourable to himself. For he knows that it is written: Tell your iniquities first, that you may be justified (Isa. 43:26). And it follows: Against Thee only have I sinned, and done evil before Thee. Now from another side he looks to a remedy for his fault, so as to bring his petition to effect. For by this line of pleading he declares himself innocent on the first charge: for he who sins with respect to another god is an enemy of God the Creator. For in His place he chooses another, to whom he ascribes His authority. Hence here, showing himself a stranger to this iniquity, he says: Against Thee only have I sinned, and done evil before Thee: that is, because I have sinned against Thee, and against no other whom I might through error call God, my fault is less than that of the rest, who are liable to perdition. For I am not impious, but a sinner, because I sinned not against Thee but against Thy law: nor did I deny Thee, but, confessing Thee as God and Lord, I sinned against a man. Therefore, since in that which is Thy own proper cause I am not guilty, pardon me that I sinned against a fellow servant. For I sinned in such a way that I neither denied the honour of Thy name nor gave it to another. There was therefore ground by which the judge might be moved to mercy. For since many sin against Him, whom He even exhorts to turn to Him, when those who do not sin against Him nevertheless ask pardon for other causes, He readily admits them. For the Lord always wishes His servants to take refuge in His help. Hence he added: That Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest prevail when Thou art judged. Asking for mercy, he prays that God may not change His justice, since justice is wont to stand in the middle, so as to be equal to those who do not sin and to those who sin, that is, so as to render to each according to his works: but he is not unaware of what an innocent man asks for in the mystery of God. For knowing that God often said in the Law, For I, He says, the Lord your God, am merciful (Exod. 22:27), he therefore asks that this faithfulness may remain, and that God may be justified in His words, while He abides by what He has spoken and is not overcome by the sins of men so as not to have mercy. For those who sin, knowing what God has promised to those who live well, and because they persist in it, judge Him a liar. For, living badly, they do not believe that what He promised is true. Therefore King David asks that God may overcome this which men think, and give what He has promised, so that those may blush who, while not keeping the commandments, judge that He will not give it. And it follows: For behold, I was conceived in iniquities. Now by adding this he recalls the cause of the weakness of the human race, that it is easy for man to sin, so as to soften the judge's scrutiny of himself. For he makes mention of the first fault, by which Adam, through transgressing, made the human race liable to sin. For by conceiving iniquity at the persuasion and through the deceit of the enemy, he subjected all his seed to iniquity, so that all begotten from him by propagation should be liable to sin. Therefore he added: And in offences my mother conceived me: so that from

Editors' notes and page, col. 2336

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not certainly visible (a mark stands after "culpa est")› · call in col 2336

Ms. Colbert., contra me.

The Colbert manuscript: contra me ("against me").

(printed under page 516)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2336

Editi, nocentem; et infra, alteri a Deo. Sequimur Mss.

The printed editions read nocentem ("guilty"), and below, alteri a Deo ("to another than God"). We follow the manuscripts.

(printed under page 516)

(3) ‹anchor: Primae enim culpae› · call in col 2336

Ms. Colbert., causae.

The Colbert manuscript: causae ("of the cause").

(printed under page 516)

Page

running head: ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (cut off at left edge) 2336
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2337

Adam derivatio facta peccati, conceptis et natis impedimento esset ad bonam vitam agendam; ac per hoc supplici non negandam misericordiam, quia infestum habet hostem, qui ei suadet ut peccet. Per peccatum enim diabolus subjecto sibi primo homine potestatem accepit carni ejus se immiscere, et delictorum quadam subtilitate oblectamenta suggerere, per quod captum hominem spoliat vita. Quam rem magister gentium memorans, Video autem, inquit, aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae (Rom. VII, 23). ut hoc contuens judex, dolenti circumvento porrigat manum. Et sequitur: Ecce enim veritatem dilexisti. Quia ergo veritatem diligis, inquit, subveni roganti, et quem scis vera pectoris sui impedimenta exponere, cuique reo olim motus misericordia subvenire decrevisti, ut errorem admissum in terra, coelestis providentia emendaret. Propter quod subjecit: Incerta et occulta cordis manifestasti mihi. Incerta et occulta cordis haec significat, quae Deus ad praesidium humani generis procuravit, sicut et Apostolus, Quod oculus, inquit, non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus dil⟨i⟩gentibus se (I Cor. II, 9). Qui sunt qui diligunt Deum, nisi qui legi ejus consentiunt, non celando vel excusando peccata? Haec ergo occulta cordis manifesta sunt diligentibus Deum, ut quia dolebant se delictis circumveniri, ne correpti negarent, sibi et origini suae imputantes, in auctorem Deum transferentes quae peccabant: corda eorum illuminata sunt spirituali corusco, ut viderent Dei providentiam in Christo, quia venturus erat ad damnandum peccatum, quod ex praevaricatione Adae humano generi impe⟨r⟩abat. Hoc ergo orat rex David, ut quod decreverat Deus in futurum, videns genus humanum laborare, sibi prius subveniret in eadem necessitate constricto, in qua omnibus se decreverat subventurum; ut donum quod gratuitum futurum erat, et ante tempus dari non poterat, huic pro prece et lacrymis concederetur. Quod quomodo fiat, non tacet dicens: Asperges me hyssopo, et mundabor. Recte aspersione hyssopi petit se mundari. De hoc enim filii Israel postes suos sanguine liniverunt, ut tuti praestarentur a morte (Exod. XII, 22, 23): ita et hic aspersione hyssopi orat mundari se a peccatis, ne tangatur a morte. Et sequitur: Lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor. Manifestum est, quia factum Dei distat a facto hominis: ideo super nivem, inquit, dealbabor, quia quod Deus fecit, multo melius est quam quod fecit homo. Propterea aspersione hyssopi petit se mundari, ut sicut carnale corpus aqua abluitur, ita et per hyssopi significationem, spirituali ratione animarum macul⟨ae⟩ abluantur. Aspersio enim hyssopi, lustratio quaedam est; ut per id quod visibile est, invisibiliter emundetur. Et sequitur: Auditui meo dabis gaudium et laetitiam. Dubium non est, quia vox praedicantis remissionem, gaudium praestat peccatoribus. Quis enim non laetetur, cum audit dari indulgentiam? Cum enim Deus remittit, et in praesenti et in futuro securus est. Proptera exsultabunt ossa humiliata. Duplici genere sunt ossa humiliata: quia et ut peccaret humiliatus est; nemo enim peccans exaltatur; et ut postea supplex veniam imploraret. Nam utique in cilicio et cinere volutatus misericordiam precabatur, quam obtinens elevatus est mentis exsultatione et corporis refectione. Et subjecit: Averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis, et omne⟨s⟩ ⟨i⟩niquitates meas dele. Hac forma remissionem postulat, ⟨s⟩icut constitutum erat in futurum per fidem Christi, ut Salvator qui ei spiritualiter est promissus, ab ipso inciperet cuncta conversis donare peccata. Cujus enim non respiciuntur peccata, et omnes delentur iniquitates, non habet unde reus constituatur, et inimicorum ejus ora clauduntur. Qui enim non respicit peccata, non illa imputat. Hoc est enim avertere faciem

Adam the transmission of sin that was effected would be an impediment to those conceived and born for leading a good life; and for this reason mercy is not to be denied to the suppliant, because he has a hostile enemy who persuades him to sin. For through sin the devil, having subjected the first man to himself, received power to mingle himself with his flesh, and by a certain subtlety to suggest the delights of offences, by which he robs the captured man of life. Recalling this matter, the teacher of the Gentiles says, But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind (Rom. 7:23). so that the judge, beholding this, may stretch out His hand to the one who grieves at being ensnared. And it follows: For behold, Thou hast loved truth. Since therefore, he says, Thou lovest truth, come to the aid of one who asks, of one whom Thou knowest to be setting forth the true impediments of his heart, and to whom, a defendant, Thou, moved long ago by mercy, didst decree to bring aid, so that heavenly providence might amend the error committed on earth. On which account he added: The uncertain and hidden things of the heart Thou hast made manifest to me. By the uncertain and hidden things of the heart he signifies those things which God has provided for the protection of the human race, as the Apostle also says, What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has ascended into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). Who are they who love God, except those who consent to His law, not concealing or excusing their sins? These hidden things of the heart, therefore, are manifest to those who love God, so that, since they grieved at being ensnared by offences, lest when reproved they should deny [them], imputing to themselves and to their origin, transferring to God as author, what they sinned: their hearts were enlightened by a spiritual flash, so that they might see the providence of God in Christ, because He was to come to condemn sin, which from the transgression of Adam held command over the human race. This, then, King David prays: that what God had decreed for the future, seeing the human race labouring, He would first bring to the aid of him, bound in the same necessity in which He had decreed that He would come to the aid of all; so that the gift which was to be free, and could not be given before its time, might be granted to this man in answer to prayer and tears. How this comes about he does not keep silent, saying: Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. Rightly he asks to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop. For with this the children of Israel smeared their doorposts with blood, so that they might be kept safe from death (Exod. 12:22–23): so too here he prays to be cleansed from sins by the sprinkling of hyssop, lest he be touched by death. And it follows: Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made white above snow. It is manifest that the deed of God differs from the deed of man: therefore he says, I shall be made white above snow, because what God has made is much better than what man has made. Therefore he asks to be cleansed by the sprinkling of hyssop, so that, just as the fleshly body is washed with water, so too through what hyssop signifies the stains of souls may be washed away in a spiritual manner. For the sprinkling of hyssop is a kind of purification; so that through that which is visible one may be cleansed invisibly. And it follows: To my hearing Thou shalt give joy and gladness. There is no doubt that the voice of one preaching remission affords joy to sinners. For who would not rejoice when he hears that pardon is granted? For when God forgives, one is secure both in the present and in the future. Therefore the humbled bones shall exult. The bones are humbled in two kinds of way: both because he was humbled so as to sin, for no one is exalted by sinning; and so that afterwards as a suppliant he might implore pardon. For indeed, rolling in sackcloth and ashes, he prayed for mercy, and obtaining it he was lifted up by exultation of mind and refreshment of body. And he added: Turn away Thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. In this form he asks for remission, as had been established for the future through faith in Christ, so that the Saviour, Who had been spiritually promised to him, might begin with him to forgive all sins to the converted. For he whose sins are not looked upon, and all whose iniquities are blotted out, has nothing whereby he may be made guilty, and the mouths of his enemies are shut. For He Who does not look upon sins does not impute them. For this is to turn away the face

Editors' notes and page, col. 2337

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2337

Ms. Colbert., insertum. Et mox idem vetus codex, peccatum enim qui est diabolus.... potestatem accepit carni ejus [one or two words illegible on the scan], et dilectorum, etc.

The Colbert manuscript: insertum ("inserted"). And just after, the same old codex reads: for sin, which is the devil.... received power over his flesh [illegible], and of the beloved, etc.

(printed under page 517)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2337

Ms. Colbert., nec correpti negabant.

The Colbert manuscript: nec correpti negabant ("nor, when rebuked, did they deny").

(printed under page 517)

Page

running head: 2337 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2338

a peccatis alicujus, accusationem contra eum non accipere. Et quid est hoc, ut cum de duobus peccatis correptus sit, hic addat de multis se accusando? et cum audierit a propheta Nathan quia ignotum erat ei, quare sic postulat sedula prece, ut possit ad veniam pervenire, nisi quia non suam solius causam agit, sed sub accusatione peccati sui, totius populi miserias narrat? Sibi enim reformationem precatur, quia cui ignoscitur, non est sine rubore, nisi loco suo fuerit redditus, ut dignitas loci ruborem excuset: caeteris autem beneficium Dei, quod ad cuncta peccata abluenda futurum erat in Christo significavit. Et sequitur: Cor mundum crea in me, Deus, et spiritum justum dedica in visceribus meis. Hoc est bona mente misericordiam deprecari. Non solum autem de praeteritis rogat, sed etiam de futuris sollicitus est, ut peccator intendens odisse peccare ne peccet, adjuvetur a Deo per spiritum justitiae quem orat dedicari in visceribus suis; id est, ut novus ad hoc ponatur in eo, ut custodiat eum a peccatis, ne cogatur facere quod scitur nolle. Cor autem mundum sic potest habere, si neque intus, neque foris delinquat; hoc est, neque in opere, neque in cogitatione. Quod quia prope impossibile est ut in omnibus servetur, vel in Dei causa servandum est, quae principalis est ut mundum cor in sacramento Dei et Christi custodiatur, dum fides eorum inviolata servatur; quia et in alio loco dicitur, Quis gloriabitur mundum se habere cor, aut immunem esse a peccatis (Prov. XX, 9)? Denique rex David mundum cor habuit in causa Dei, quia neque auxilium aliquando a vanitate quaesivit, quae est idololatria, neque aliud a Deo sibi praeceptum non implevit. Ideo de caeteris adjecit: Ne projicias me a facie tua, et Spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me. Hic sensus est, quem supra memoravi, quia securus de venia, soliicitus est de reformatione. Cui enim ignoscitur solum, solet a facie Domini secerni. Quamvis enim non in illum vindicetur, in animo tamen Domini vel judicis facinus ejus deletum non est. Ideo orat, ut penitus peccatum ejus deleatur, et dignus sit accedere ad faciem Domini, et iterum prophetare; quod et factum est. Hoc est enim quod dicit: Et Spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me. Hic est spiritus Prophetarum. Et sequitur: Redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui, et Spiritu principali confirma me. Laetitiam dari sibi postulat, quae promissa erat in Christo, ut omnibus maculis ablutus et reparatus, laetus esset in salute quaesita; nec amotus, sed confirmatus in regno a Spiritu sancto. Quem ideo principalem dixit, quia super omnem creaturam est, per quem reges regnant. Et subdit: Doceam iniquos vias tuas, et impii ad te convertentur. Hoc dicit, ut in eo discant iniqui pietatem Dei, qui confitentes sibi suscipit peccatores et promovet; nec impios conversos negligit, sed hortatur dum aliis miseretur. Et sequitur: Libera me de sanguinibus, Deus, Deus salutis meae. Hoc dicto ostendit peccatum suum morte dignum, ut Dei misericordia quanta sit, praedicet. Per hoc enim etiam alios provocat confugere ad Dei clementiam. Unde subjecit: Exsultabit lingua mea justitiam tuam, Domine. Gaudere se dicit in justitia Domini, quia in eo permanet quod promisit dicens: Misericordiam autem meam non movebo ab eis (Psal. LXXXVIII, 34). Laetus ergo David rex et securus in hac parte, Dei sui justitiam praedicat. Et sequitur: Labia mea aperies, et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam. Sic labia ejus aperit, dum subjectum illum esse non sinit causa peccati. Liberati enim os patet; peccatoris autem clausum est os: pudore enim et metu correptus loqui non audet; absolutus autem et liberatus tripudians praedicat laudem judicis. Nam et Apostolus sicut i⟨p⟩se testatur, propter quod ab hominibus liber esset, Os nostrum, ait, patet ad vos, o Corinthii (II Cor. VI, 11).

from the sins of someone, not to accept an accusation against him. And what is this, that although he was rebuked concerning two sins, he here adds [an accusation] concerning many, accusing himself? And when he had heard from the prophet Nathan that it had been forgiven him, why does he ask thus with earnest prayer that he may be able to attain to pardon, unless because he is pleading not his own cause alone, but under the accusation of his own sin recounts the miseries of the whole people? For himself he prays for restoration, since one who is forgiven is not without shame unless he has been restored to his own place, so that the dignity of the place may excuse the shame; but for the rest he signified the benefit of God which was to come in Christ for washing away all sins. And there follows: Create a clean heart in me, O God, and dedicate a just spirit in my inward parts. This is to pray for mercy with a good mind. And he asks not only concerning things past, but is also anxious about things to come, that the sinner, striving to hate sinning, may not sin, being helped by God through the spirit of justice which he prays to be dedicated in his inward parts; that is, that a new [spirit] may be placed in him for this purpose, to guard him from sins, lest he be compelled to do what he is known not to will. Now a man can have a clean heart in this way, if he offends neither within nor without; that is, neither in deed nor in thought. And since it is almost impossible that this be kept in all things, it must at least be kept in God's cause, which is the principal one, so that a clean heart may be guarded in the mystery of God and of Christ, while faith in them is kept inviolate; for it is also said in another place, Who will boast that he has a clean heart, or that he is free from sins? (Prov. 20:9). In short, King David had a clean heart in God's cause, because he never sought help from vanity, which is idolatry, nor did he leave unfulfilled anything else commanded him by God. Therefore concerning the rest he added: Cast me not away from Thy face, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. This is the sense which I mentioned above, that, secure of pardon, he is anxious about restoration. For one who is merely forgiven is usually kept apart from the face of the Lord. For although punishment is not exacted upon him, yet in the mind of the Lord or judge his crime has not been blotted out. Therefore he prays that his sin may be blotted out entirely, and that he may be worthy to approach the face of the Lord and to prophesy again; which also came to pass. For this is what he says: And take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. This is the spirit of the Prophets. And there follows: Restore to me the joy of Thy salvation, and confirm me with a principal Spirit. He asks that joy be given to him, which had been promised in Christ, so that, washed of all stains and restored, he might be joyful in the salvation he sought; not removed, but confirmed in the kingdom by the Holy Spirit. He called Him principal for this reason, because He is above every creature, through Whom kings reign. And he adds: Let me teach the wicked Thy ways, and the impious will be converted to Thee. He says this so that in him the wicked may learn the goodness of God, Who receives sinners who confess to Him and advances them; nor does He neglect the impious who have been converted, but encourages them while He has mercy on others. And there follows: Deliver me from bloodshed, O God, God of my salvation. By this saying he shows that his sin was worthy of death, so that he may proclaim how great the mercy of God is. For by this he also calls others to take refuge in God's clemency. Hence he added: My tongue shall exult in Thy justice, O Lord. He says that he rejoices in the justice of the Lord, because there abides in Him what He promised, saying: But My mercy I will not remove from them (Ps. 88:34). Joyful, therefore, and secure in this respect, King David proclaims the justice of his God. And there follows: Thou wilt open my lips, and my mouth shall announce Thy praise. Thus He opens his lips, while He does not allow him to be subject on account of sin. For the mouth of one set free is open; but the mouth of the sinner is shut: for, seized by shame and fear, he does not dare to speak; but absolved and set free, he proclaims with exultation the praise of the judge. For the Apostle too, as he himself testifies, because he was free from men, says, Our mouth is open to you, O Corinthians (2 Cor. 6:11).

Editors' notes and page, col. 2338

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: sub accusatione› · call in col 2338

Ms. Colbertinus, occasione.

The Colbert manuscript: occasione ("by occasion").

(printed under page 517)

(2) ‹anchor: dedica› · call in col 2338

Sic Ms. At editi, innova.

So the manuscript. But the printed editions read innova ("renew").

(printed under page 517)

(3) ‹anchor: ne peccet› · call in col 2338

Ms. Colbertinus, ne peccator tendens odisse peccare se adjuvetur.

The Colbert manuscript: lest the sinner, striving to hate sinning, be helped himself (the variant is obscure as printed).

(printed under page 517)

(4) ‹anchor: de caeteris adjecit› · call in col 2338

Ms. Colbertinus: Ideo videris de caeteris. Et adjecit.

The Colbert manuscript: Therefore you are seen concerning the rest. And he added.

(printed under page 517)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2338
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprint kept as printed: "soliicitus" (for sollicitus). "i se" is printed with a gap where the p failed to print; set i⟨p⟩se. "nec a motus" is printed with a space inside the word; set amotus (word-spacing, read as one word).

PL 35:2339

Et adjecit: Quoniam si voluisses sacrificium, dedissem utique. Hoc de comperto loquitur, sciens sanctum Samuel dixisse ad Saül regem, qui cum peccatum suum non dolore mentis, neque lacrymarum miseratione, sed sacrificii oblatione oblitterari putaret, Non vult, inquit, Deus sacrificium magis quam audiri vocem suam (I Reg. XV, 22); quia hujusmodi sacrificia damnum possunt facere, non tamen Deum placare. Deus enim sic placatur, si anima peccati sui memor in tribulatione et moerore cordis, defleat quod peccavit. Et sequitur: Holocaustis non delectaberis. Nec delectatur holocaustis Deus, sed in hujusmodi causis. Ipse enim animus pro se satisfacere debet, non se de foris redimere. Nam ista adjutorium praestare possunt. Animus enim sicut oblectatus est in peccatis, sic tribulari debet in poenitentia, et tunc delectabit Deum delere ejus peccata. Unde subjecit: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit. Ostendit quale sacrificium pro peccatis Deus suscipit; quia non poterit Deum placare, nisi qui laetatus est contra salutem, contribulatus fuerit corde, et sic reparetur ad vitam. Denique omnis inquietus, vel indisciplinatus frequenter incurrit, ut membra corporis laedat, quae utique non sine dolore possunt sanitatis recipere medicinam: sic et peccatores non possunt peccata sua redimere, nisi dolorem senserit animus qui peccaverit. Hoc enim justum est, ut quia contra rationem gavisus est, secundum rationem patiatur moerorem. Et sequitur: Benigne fac, Domine, in bona voluntate tua Sion. Sion dicens Ecclesiam significat, ut perseveratio nostra non improbabilis videatur, cui ut impleat Deus promissum suum, suggerit, sciens se tunc plenam remissionem accepturam, cum quod decrevit Deus in Christo impleverit: id est, ut ab omni peccato liberentur sperantes in salute promissa; quia non solum a propriis, sed ab Adae peccato quod per traducem in omnes pervenit, liberabuntur per Christum. Et adjecit: Et aedificabuntur muri Jerusalem. Numquid destructi fuerant? Sed muros Jerusalem dicens, Ecclesiam significat, quae per fidem in Christo disposita erat construenda. Cujus muri esse sancti homines intelliguntur, docente nos Apocalypsi Joannis apostoli; quia et Jerusalem civitas et muri ejus servi Dei sunt intelligendi (Apoc. XXI, 12). Sciens etiam per Christum rex David promissum, quod futurum erat implendum ad liberationem servorum Dei, orat ut impleatur; id est, ut per fidem aedificetur Ecclesia, et liberentur sperantes de hac fide salutem. Et sequitur: Tunc acceptabis sacrificium justitiae, oblationes et holocausta. Hoc dicit, quia oblationes et holocausta tunc accepta sibi haberet, cum esset Ecclesia aedificata; et non passim aut secundum omnem consuetudinem, sed sacrificium, inquit, justitiae acceptabis. Justum est sacrificium, cum condignum munus offertur: porro autem nihil est tam justum sacrificium et condignum, nisi ut nos ipsos offeramus Deo. Quia enim Deus spiritus est (Joan. IV, 24), spiritualia illi offerenda sunt sacrificia, ut vivo viva hostia offeratur. Quia enim dixerat, in causa peccati sacrificiis carnalibus Deum minime delectari, ostendit futurum, quia spiritualiter Deo offerendum erat, et acceptaret; quia haec Deo digna sunt sacrificia: hoc est, in praeterito minora fuerunt, quia carnalia; nunc majora, quia spiritualia. Et adjecit: Tunc imponent super altare tuum vitulos. Si cessantibus pristinis sacrificiis, spiritualia successura sacrificia significavit, quid est ut diceret, Tunc imponent super altare tuum vitulos: nisi quia per haec corporalia spiritualia significat; quippe cum dixerit, quia carnalibus non delectatur? Vitulos ergo dicens, populum novellum significavit, Christi fide renatum, cujus devotio quotidie super altare Domini delibatur. Qui enim de Ecclesia intelligitur locutus, sacrificia quoque ejus spiritualia significasse debet intelligi.

And he added: For if Thou hadst wanted sacrifice, I would certainly have given it. He says this from sure knowledge, knowing that holy Samuel had said to King Saul, who thought that his sin was blotted out not by sorrow of mind, nor by the compassion of tears, but by the offering of a sacrifice: God does not want sacrifice, he said, more than that His voice be heard (1 Sam. 15:22); because sacrifices of this kind can do harm, but cannot appease God. For God is appeased in this way: if the soul, mindful of its sin, weeps in tribulation and grief of heart for what it has sinned. And there follows: Thou wilt not be delighted with burnt offerings. Nor is God delighted with burnt offerings, but [this is said] in cases of this kind. For the mind itself ought to make satisfaction for itself, not redeem itself from outside. For those things can provide help. For just as the mind took delight in sins, so it ought to be afflicted in penitence, and then it will delight God to blot out its sins. Hence he added: A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart God does not spurn. He shows what sacrifice God accepts for sins: that no one will be able to appease God except one who, having rejoiced against his salvation, has been afflicted in heart, and is so restored to life. Indeed, every restless or undisciplined person often comes to grief, so that he injures the members of his body, which certainly cannot receive the medicine of health without pain: so also sinners cannot redeem their sins unless the soul that has sinned has felt pain. For this is just, that since it rejoiced against reason, it should suffer grief according to reason. And there follows: Deal kindly, O Lord, in Thy good will with Sion. In saying Sion he signifies the Church, so that our perseverance may not seem improbable; he urges that God fulfil His promise to her, knowing that she would then receive full remission when God has fulfilled what He decreed in Christ: that is, that those who hope in the promised salvation be freed from every sin; because they will be freed through Christ not only from their own [sins], but from the sin of Adam, which came to all by transmission. And he added: And the walls of Jerusalem will be built. Had they been destroyed? But in saying the walls of Jerusalem he signifies the Church, which had been ordained to be built through faith in Christ. Its walls are understood to be holy men, as the Apocalypse of John the apostle teaches us; for both the city of Jerusalem and its walls are to be understood as the servants of God (Rev. 21:12). King David, knowing also what had been promised through Christ, which was to be fulfilled for the liberation of the servants of God, prays that it be fulfilled; that is, that the Church be built through faith, and that those who hope for salvation from this faith be freed. And there follows: Then Thou wilt accept the sacrifice of justice, offerings and burnt offerings. He says this because He would hold offerings and burnt offerings acceptable to Himself then, when the Church had been built; and not indiscriminately or according to every custom, but, he says, Thou wilt accept the sacrifice of justice. A sacrifice is just when a worthy gift is offered: and further, nothing is so just and worthy a sacrifice as that we offer ourselves to God. For since God is spirit (John 4:24), spiritual sacrifices must be offered to Him, so that a living victim may be offered to the Living One. For since he had said that in the matter of sin God is not at all delighted by carnal sacrifices, he showed what was to come: that it was to be offered to God spiritually, and He would accept it; because these are the sacrifices worthy of God: that is, in the past they were lesser, because carnal; now they are greater, because spiritual. And he added: Then they will lay calves upon Thy altar. If he signified that, when the former sacrifices ceased, spiritual sacrifices would succeed them, what does it mean that he should say, Then they will lay calves upon Thy altar: unless that through these bodily things he signifies spiritual things, seeing that he had said that He is not delighted by carnal things? So in saying calves he signified the new people, reborn by faith in Christ, whose devotion is offered daily upon the altar of the Lord. For since he is understood to have spoken of the Church, he must be understood to have signified its sacrifices also as spiritual.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2339

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ut perseveratio› · call in col 2339

Ms. Colbertinus, asseveratio.

The Colbert manuscript: "asseveratio" ("assertion").

(printed under page 518)

Page

running head: QUAESTIONES EX UTROQUE (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2340

CXIII. — Cur Fili⟨u⟩s Dei missus sit, et ⟨n⟩on alius?

CXIII. Why the Son of God was sent, and not another?

Quanquam omne quod facit Deus, rationabiliter et providenter factum credendum sit; melius tamen puto, si post fidem etiam causa facti possit adverti, ut quod creditur, non ignoretur. Unde Dominus ait: Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. XVII, 3). Primum enim credi debet, sicut a Propheta dictum est, deinde sciri quod creditur: quia jam fidelem et in hac re diligentem adjuvat Spiritus sanctus, ut cognoscens intelligat fidei rationem. Tunc enim plenum habet gaudium credulitatis suae, si quod credit intelligat. Hoc est enim fidei robur, hoc immobile fundamentum credulitatis, addiscere sacramentum. Ubi enim sola fides est, non est tam mera devotio, et potest aditum habere subreptio. Unde vas electionis ideo laborat, ut credentes fidei suae rationem ediscant. Cum enim cognoverint quantus sit cui se crediderint, et quae sit ejus potentia; nullo pacto, nullaque ratione ab ejus spe traduci se patientur. Unde dictum legimus, Gustate, et videte, quoniam suavis est Dominus (Psal. XXXIII, 9): ut data opera cognoscant divinitatis ejus saporem, intelligentes nihil sapientius esse quam in Christum credere. Quamobrem ipse Magister Gentium inter caetera ait, In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi (Coloss. II, 3): et iterum, Scio, inquit, cui credidi, quia potens est depositum meum custodire (II Tim. I, 12). Igitur hic scit fidei suae rationem, et non dubitat de potentia ejus, qui intelligit omnes thesauros sapientiae et scientiae in sacramento nativitatis et passionis et resurrectionis Christi esse absconditos. Manente ergo fide, diu mecum contuli, ut scirem cur Dominus noster de sacris et de coelestibus sedibus ad terram incarnatus venisset, et non alius, ex eis quos ipse Dominus sanctos Angelos vocat. Incongruum enim videtur personae ejus hoc opus subiisse, nisi causa facti noscatur. Denique hoc est quod movet multos. Nam potuit Dei Patris provisio per alteram personam hoc negotium gerere, ut et hominibus in errore constitutis ostenderet veritatem, et diabolum praesumptorem et salutis invidum cum satellitibus ejus comprimeret, et exspoliaret devictum. Quia pervicacia et irreverentia nequissimorum servorum, ministris famulis fuerat compescenda, ut non Dominus omnium rem sibi indignam experiretur. Neque enim ⟨t⟩anta vis et potentia est satanae, ut per alteram potestatem ejusdem conditionis superari minime potuisset, cum constet Dei auxilio ipsum etiam ab hominibus vinci. Nam quamvis impar sit, si ex terrenis sumamus exempla, tamen ex aliqua parte convenient rationi. Servum enim contra David regem rebellantem, Joab conservus ejus missus est persequi et trucidare; et contra Absalon in patrem impium servis injuncta res est (II Reg. XX, 6, et XV, 14): quanto magis et tyrannidem diaboli vincendam unius de multis suffecerat efficacia; quippe cum legamus quia repugnans contra Michael archangelum perdurare non potuit, sed projectus in terram est (Apoc. XII, 7-9)? Hoc ergo mecum saepe reputans, hoc solum sciebam, quia ideo ipse a Patre missus est, ne ad injuriam ejus pertineret, si opus per eum factum, per alterum reformaretur: sed hoc scire minimum erat. Non enim satisfaciebat ad tam magnam et admirabilem causam, nisi et aliud comprehenderetur quod proficeret ad arcanum intellectum. Sic factum est, ut animadverterem causam hoc poposcisse, ut sic veniret qui venit. Ipsum enim ratio tangebat, ut ad eum comprimendum veniret, qui dignitatem ejus et meritum usurpasset. Post Deum enim Patrem diabolus deus dici voluit, quod et nunc usque contendit, cum utique non illum res contugeret,

Although everything that God does must be believed to have been done rationally and providently, yet I think it better if, after faith, the cause of the deed can also be perceived, so that what is believed may not be unknown. Hence the Lord says: And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3). For first it must be believed, as was said by the Prophet, and then what is believed must be known: because the Holy Spirit helps the one who is already faithful and diligent in this matter, so that by coming to know he may understand the reason of faith. For then he has the full joy of his belief, if he understands what he believes. For this is the strength of faith, this the immovable foundation of belief: to learn the mystery. For where there is faith alone, devotion is not so pure, and stealthy error can find an entrance. Hence the vessel of election labours for this reason, that believers may learn thoroughly the reason of their faith. For when they have come to know how great He is to Whom they have entrusted themselves, and what His power is, by no means and on no account will they allow themselves to be drawn away from hope in Him. Hence we read it said, Taste, and see that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 33:9): so that by deliberate effort they may come to know the savour of His divinity, understanding that nothing is wiser than to believe in Christ. Wherefore the Teacher of the Gentiles himself says among other things, In Whom are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Col. 2:3); and again, I know, he says, Whom I have believed, that He is able to guard my deposit (2 Tim. 1:12). Therefore he knows the reason of his faith, and does not doubt His power, who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the mystery of the nativity and passion and resurrection of Christ. So, with faith remaining, I long pondered with myself, in order to know why our Lord came incarnate from the holy and heavenly seats to earth, and not another of those whom the Lord Himself calls holy angels. For it seems unfitting for His person to have undertaken this work, unless the cause of the deed is known. In short, this is what troubles many. For the providence of God the Father could have carried out this business through another person, so as both to show the truth to men set in error, and to crush the presumptuous devil, envious of salvation, together with his attendants, and to despoil him when defeated. For the obstinacy and irreverence of the most wicked servants ought to have been checked by ministering servants, so that the Lord of all might not undergo a thing unworthy of Him. For neither is the strength and power of Satan so great that he could not at all have been overcome by another power of the same condition, since it is established that by God's help he is conquered even by men. For although the comparison is unequal, if we take examples from earthly things, yet in some part they will agree with the reasoning. For against a servant rebelling against King David, Joab his fellow servant was sent to pursue and slay him; and against Absalom, impious towards his father, the matter was enjoined on servants (2 Sam. 20:6, and 15:14): how much more would the efficacy of one out of many have sufficed to conquer the tyranny of the devil, since indeed we read that, fighting against Michael the archangel, he could not hold out, but was cast down to earth (Rev. 12:7–9)? Often turning this over with myself, therefore, this alone I knew, that He was sent by the Father for this reason, lest it should redound to His injury if the work done through Him were restored through another: but to know this was very little. For it did not suffice for so great and wonderful a cause, unless something else were also grasped which would lead on to a hidden understanding. So it came about that I perceived that the cause had demanded this, that He Who came should come in this way. For the reason touched Him Himself, that He should come to crush him who had usurped His dignity and merit. For after God the Father the devil wished to be called god, which he contends even until now, since assuredly the matter did not concern him,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2340

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ad terram incarnatus› · call in col 2340

Ms. Colbertinus, incarnandus

The Colbert manuscript: "incarnandus" ("to be made flesh").

(printed under page 518)

(2) ‹anchor: per alterum reformaretur› · call in col 2340

Ms. Colbert., reformaret.

The Colbert manuscript: "reformaret" ("should restore", active).

(printed under page 518)

(a) ‹anchor: CXIII. (a)› · call in col 2340

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 518)

Page

running head: …S EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2340
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
UNSURE (Q4): the column's last word is printed hyphenated at the foot ("cont…-"); at this resolution it cannot be told whether the page prints "contu-" (giving the file's "contugeret", a misprint) or "contin-" (contingeret, which the English follows). Check at higher zoom with the head of col 2341.

PL 35:2341

sed esset hoc Filii Dei, qui post Patrem Deum secundus est, non natura, sed ordine. Ad hanc ergo causam agendam non alium oportuit venire nisi Christum Dominum nostrum: qui non tantum ad comprimendum diabolum venit, sed et manifestare seipsum omni creaturae: ut reprobata persona diaboli, hunc esse cognoscerent, cujus principatum et majestatem praesumpserat satanas; et de caetero cognita veritate relinquerent errorem, pro certo habentes Christum esse Dei Filium, qui solus Deus de Deo sit, et caput sive principium eorum omnium, sive quae in coelo sunt, sive quae in terra: quia virtute et potentia, qua superavit tyrannum satanam, manifestatus est ipse esse, cujus imperium praesumpserat impius diabolus, qui est satanas. Dum enim voluit inique deus dici, ut dominaretur potentiis spiritualibus (unde increpatur a propheta dicente, Tu enim, inquit, dixisti in corde tuo, Ponam sedem meam in nubibus, et ero similis Altissimo [Isai. XIV, 13, 14]), multos decepit, quorum conspiratione princeps erroris est factus. Qui in Psalmo commonentur, ut rejicientes mendacium, suscipiant veritatem. Dicitur enim eis: Tollite portas, principes, vestras; et elevamini, portae aeternales, et introibit rex gloriae. Nisi enim tollatur error de mentibus incredulorum, non poterunt susc⟨i⟩pere fidem unius Dei in Christo. Hoc enim edocentur, ut sublatis portis per quas itur ad mortem, secundum perfidiam a diabolo coeptam, suscipiant fidei sacramenta per quae itur ad vitam. Ista sunt enim quae significat in aeternalibus portis; quia veritas fidei aeternitas est: perfidia autem temporalis est, quia mendacium adinventio diaboli est. Diabolus enim coeptam praevaricationem in coelis, seminavit in terris, multorum deorum suadens culturam, inter quos principatum haberet. Caput enim et principium voluit esse caeterorum, quod non ei debebatur, sed Salvatori. Unde persequitur eum usque ad terram, ut comprimens eum ostendat erroris ejus praevaricationem manifestata in se veritate. Unde dictum est: Veritas de terra orta est (Psal. LXXXIV, 12). Projectus enim de coelis, confugit ad terras, ut meditatam divinitatem in supernis, expleret in inferioribus. Unde dicit Apostolus: Ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens sese quasi sit Deus (II Thess. II, 4). Quoquo enim modo desiderium suum implere vult et damnari: furore enim plenus minus putat esse damnari, quam non explere aviditatem erroris.

but this would belong to the Son of God, Who after God the Father is second, not by nature, but by order. To carry out this cause, therefore, it was fitting that no other should come but Christ our Lord: Who came not only to subdue the devil, but also to manifest Himself to every creature: so that, the person of the devil having been rejected, they might recognize Him to be the one whose sovereignty and majesty Satan had presumed upon; and that for the rest, having come to know the truth, they might abandon error, holding for certain that Christ is the Son of God, Who alone is God from God, and the head or beginning of them all, whether those that are in heaven or those that are on earth: because by the might and power with which He overcame the tyrant Satan, He Himself was made manifest as the one whose dominion the impious devil, who is Satan, had presumed upon. For while he wickedly wished to be called god, so as to lord it over the spiritual powers (whence he is rebuked by the prophet, who says, For you, he says, have said in your heart, I will set my seat in the clouds, and I will be like the Most High [Isa. 14:13–14]), he deceived many, by whose conspiracy he was made the prince of error. These are admonished in the Psalm that, rejecting the lie, they should receive the truth. For it is said to them: Lift up your gates, O princes; and be lifted up, eternal gates, and the king of glory shall enter in. For unless error is removed from the minds of unbelievers, they will not be able to receive faith in the one God in Christ. For they are taught this: that, the gates having been taken away through which one goes to death, according to the faithlessness begun by the devil, they should receive the sacraments of faith through which one goes to life. For these are the things which he signifies by the eternal gates; because the truth of faith is eternity: but faithlessness is temporal, because the lie is the devil's invention. For the devil sowed on earth the transgression begun in heaven, urging the worship of many gods, among whom he might hold the sovereignty. For he wished to be the head and beginning of the rest, which was owed not to him, but to the Saviour. Hence He pursues him even to the earth, so that, subduing him, He may show forth the transgression of his error, the truth having been made manifest in Himself. Hence it is said: Truth has sprung from the earth (Ps. 84:12). For, cast out of heaven, he fled to the lands, so that the divinity he had plotted on high he might fulfil in the lower regions. Hence the Apostle says: So that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God (2 Thess. 2:4). For he wants to fulfil his desire in whatever way, even to be damned: for, full of fury, he thinks it a lesser thing to be damned than not to satisfy the craving of his error.

ADVERSUS PAGANOS.

Against the Pagans.

CXIV. — Qua ratione Pagani adversus nos audeant congredi, aut fidem nostram impugnare, se autem putent absolutos esse, non video. Quippe cum nulla habeant assertionum suarum documenta, superstitionis suae magis dicam quam religionis. Nam quae cauta non habent, proferunt, ut ipsi potius novarum rerum auctores et defensores habeantur. Primo enim in loco deos se asserunt colere: quorum nulla insign⟨i⟩a, nulla dant testimonia. Illos enim deos appellant, qui se ausi non sunt hoc nomine nuncupare, ut homines auctores deorum habeantur, cum Deus auctor debeat esse hominibus: ac per hoc va⟨n⟩a et inanis assertio est. Quidquid enim sine Deo est, stabile esse non potest. Manifesta enim esse quae dico, probant libri eorum, in quibus nihil divinum, nihil Deo jubente legitur constitutum; sed singulos viros propter quasdam causas diversa asserunt instituisse numinum sacrificia, ut ii qui nullius meriti videntur, ea ipsa quae statuerant digne statuisse probarentur. Quando ergo quos deos appellant, nihil horum mandasse leguntur; qua auctoritate hi faciunt, aut accepto ferri putant, quod non probant mandatum; cum si etiam mandatum probaretur, examinandum prius fuerat si dignum esset aut debitum his obedire, quorum nulla signa, aut prodig⟨i⟩a, ad commendationem divinitatis in rebus

CXIV. — On what reasoning the Pagans dare to engage with us, or to attack our faith, while thinking themselves acquitted, I do not see. For they have no proofs of their assertions, or rather, I should say, of their superstition than of their religion. For they put forward things which they do not hold as warranted, so that they themselves may rather be regarded as the authors and defenders of novelties. For in the first place they assert that they worship gods: of whom they give no tokens, no testimonies. For they call those gods who did not dare to name themselves by this name, so that men are held to be the authors of gods, whereas God ought to be the author for men: and for this reason it is a vain and empty assertion. For whatever is without God cannot be stable. That what I say is manifest, their books prove, in which nothing divine, nothing is read as established at God's command; but they assert that individual men, for certain reasons, instituted various sacrifices to divinities, so that those who seem to be of no merit might be proved to have rightly established the very things they had established. Since, then, those whom they call gods are not read to have commanded any of these things, by what authority do these men act, or think it is credited to them, which they do not prove to have been commanded? whereas, even if the command were proved, it ought first to have been examined whether it was fitting or due to obey those of whom no signs or wonders, for the commendation of their divinity, were found in their

Editors' notes and page, col. 2341

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2341

Ms. Colbertinus, ad mortem secundam, quae sunt perfidia a diabolo coepta.

The Colbert manuscript: to the second death, which are faithlessness begun by the devil.

(printed under page 519)

(a) ‹anchor: CXIV› · call in col 2341

Quaestio haec deest in Mss. secundi generis.

This question is lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 519)

Page

running head: 2341 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2342

gestis existerent? Sed solent ab his exclusi ad elementa confugere, dicentes haec se colere quorum gubernaculis regitur vita humana. A quibus, ut supra, requirimus si mandatum est aut jussum a Deo, quem etiam ipsi magnum et summum fatentur, et negligunt eum. Si enim fieri debet, ab illo mandari oportuit, qui auctor eorum dicitur. Si autem ab illo non est mandatum, praesumptio est, et ad poenam proficiet, non ad praemium; quia ad contumeliam pertinet Conditoris, ut contempto Domino colantur servi, et spreto imperatore adorentur comites. Quomodo istud impunitum erit, quod etiam in hac vita vindicari, et quidem acerbius, videamus? Sed si forte ab ipsis elementis dicant mandatum, ostendant alicubi praeceptum, legant aliquando aliquid illa locuta. Quod si non ostendunt, qua poena digni sunt, qui auctores praesumptae et confictae religionis deteguntur? Libera sunt ex hac impietate elementa. Ipsa enim luminaria mundi accusabunt illos apud judicem Deum, quia in hac consilii vanitate minime se auctores ostendunt. Similiter et illi quos cum constet homines fuisse, deos nuncupant, cum coeperint pro peccatis suis cruciari, in hac parte minime se reos esse defendent, in hos crimen hoc retorquentes, quibus cum hoc non mandassent, ut deos illos colere coeperunt. Igitur quo pudore fidem nostram reprehendant aut irridendam putent, quorum legem virtutum testimoniis fultam, necnon et ipsius Domini ac Dei nostri relegunt vocem dicentis, Ego sum Deus, et non est alius praeter me (Isai. XLV, 21, 22)? Quod si nudis verbis diceret, non erat ei credendum, ne similes Paganis videremur, qui nulla deorum suorum signa majestatis videntes, colere eos coeperunt; et, quod pejus est, inhonesta. Turpia enim illic aguntur, quae pudoris est revelare, et prudentes se appellant, quia de lege sua sicut a Samardaco illuduntur. Porro autem Deus noster teste virtute coli se mandavit: et ut nihil suspicionis relinqueret, legem ipsam honestam et sanctam, ut et Deo dignum est, tradidit. Nos vero qui stulti a Paganis dicimur, Deo nostro non credidissemus, nisi nobis satisfecisset etiam testimoniis virtutum; nec legem ejus suscepissemus, si non illam puram et ipsa professione dignam cognovissemus. Hinc est unde nihil apud nos in tenebris vel occulte geritur. Omne enim quod honestum scitur, publicari non timetur: illud autem quod turpe est et inhonestum, prohibente pudore non potest publicari. Quamobrem Pagani mysteria sua in tenebris celebrant, vel in eo prudentes. Erubescunt enim palam illudi: piacula enim quae illic vice legis aguntur, nolunt manifestare, ne qui prudentes se dicunt, hebetes his videantur quos stultos appellant. Sed ne forte hinc illis stulti videamur, quia lex nostra castitatem, misericordiam, pietatem, continentiam praedicat: apud illos enim haec stulta sunt, quia omnis bonus malo malus est, et prudens stulto insensatus est. Nam in tantum castitatem exsecrantur, ut etiam cinaedis delectentur, magisterio eorum subjecti; qui nisi tales fuerint, idonei non erunt ipsi, si dicendum est, religioni. Propterea enim abscinduntur, et habitum immutant, ut de viris quasi feminae fiant, et contra naturam subjecti muliebria patiantur, et tunc demum apti et digni sint ministri superstitionis illorum. Numquid accusari potest hujusmodi, quem lex facit talem? Ideo enim amisso viri et actu et habitu in mulierem transformatur, ut licenter muliebria patiatur. Quae ergo putantur esse mysteria, ubi de honesto inhonestum fit, et de incorrupto corruptum, cum hic sit vere cultus religionis, qui de turpibus honestos facit, de indisciplinatis modestos? Quomodo cultores ejus aemuli possunt esse bonae vitae, quando mysteria legis eorum sine cinaedis celebrari non possunt? Si ergo lex eorum his delectatur, peccator erit et stultus quisquis non fuerit talis. Ideoque stultos nos appellant. Colentes enim haec turpia, prudentes ab his judicantur; evitantes autem et fugientes,

deeds? But when shut out by these [arguments] they are accustomed to take refuge in the elements, saying that they worship these things by whose governance human life is ruled. Of them, as above, we ask whether it has been commanded or ordered by God, Whom even they themselves confess to be great and supreme, and yet they neglect Him. For if it ought to be done, it ought to have been commanded by Him Who is said to be their author. But if it has not been commanded by Him, it is presumption, and will lead to punishment, not to reward; for it amounts to an insult to the Creator that, the Lord being despised, the servants should be worshipped, and, the emperor being spurned, the counts should be adored. How will that go unpunished which we see avenged even in this life, and indeed rather harshly? But if perhaps they say it was commanded by the elements themselves, let them show the precept somewhere, let them read at some time something that those [elements] have spoken. But if they do not show it, of what punishment are they worthy who are detected as the authors of a presumptuous and fabricated religion? The elements are free of this impiety. For the very luminaries of the world will accuse them before God the judge, because they show themselves in no way the authors of this vanity of counsel. Likewise those too whom they call gods, although it is established that they were men, when they begin to be tormented for their sins, will maintain that they are in no way guilty in this respect, turning this charge back upon these men, who began to worship them as gods although they had not commanded this. With what shame, then, do they censure our faith or think it to be mocked, who read again our law, supported by the testimonies of miracles, and also the voice of our Lord and God Himself, saying, I am God, and there is no other besides Me (Isa. 45:21–22)? But if He had said it in bare words, He would not have had to be believed, lest we should seem like the pagans, who, though seeing no signs of majesty in their gods, began to worship them; and, what is worse, [with] dishonourable things. For shameful things are done there, which it is a matter of shame to reveal, and they call themselves wise, because they are made sport of concerning their law as by a Samardacus. But our God commanded that He be worshipped with power as witness: and so as to leave no ground for suspicion, He handed down the law itself honourable and holy, as is worthy of God. We indeed, who are called fools by the pagans, would not have believed our God, had He not satisfied us also by the testimonies of miracles; nor would we have taken up His law, if we had not recognized it as pure and worthy of the very profession. Hence it is that nothing among us is done in darkness or secretly. For everything that is known to be honourable is not afraid of being made public; but that which is shameful and dishonourable cannot be made public, since shame forbids it. Therefore the pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness, being prudent in this at least. For they blush to be mocked openly: for the expiatory rites which are performed there in place of law they are unwilling to make manifest, lest those who call themselves wise should seem dull to those whom they call fools. But lest perhaps on this account we seem fools to them, because our law preaches chastity, mercy, piety, continence: for among them these things are foolish, because every good man is bad to a bad man, and the wise man is senseless to a fool. For they execrate chastity to such a degree that they even take delight in catamites, being subject to their instruction; and unless these are such, they will not themselves be fit, if it must be said, for the religion. For this reason they are castrated, and change their dress, so that from men they become as it were women, and, subjected against nature, suffer what women suffer, and then at last they are fit and worthy ministers of their superstition. Can one of this sort be accused, whom the law makes such? For to this end, having lost both the action and the dress of a man, he is transformed into a woman, that he may freely suffer what women suffer. What then are these things that are thought to be mysteries, where from the honourable comes the dishonourable, and from the uncorrupted the corrupted, when that is truly the worship of religion which makes the shameful honourable and the undisciplined modest? How can its worshippers be zealous for a good life, when the mysteries of their law cannot be celebrated without catamites? If then their law delights in these things, whoever is not such will be a sinner and a fool. And therefore they call us fools. For those who practise these shameful things are judged wise by them; but those who avoid and flee [them],

Editors' notes and page, col. 2342

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: palam illudi: piacula› · call in col 2342

Ms. Colbertinus, turpia.

The Colbert manuscript: turpia ("shameful things").

(printed under page 519)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2342
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2343

stulti. Quod quidem callide et astute ab ipsis videtur aptatum. Idcirco enim legi suae applicant nomen prudentiae, ut contegant reprehensibilia ejus; quia ubi prudentia, reprehensio nulla est. Nostram autem legem stultam dicunt, ut prohibeant ab ea. Sed sublatis nominibus prudentiae et stultitiae, et submota omni invidia, quam parit defensio ambarum partium, ipsae leges inter se confligant, ut appareat ubi sit prudentia, et ubi stultitia. Sed praesente signo crucis obmutescit Paganitas. Et si adest, quam vocant stultitiam, prudentia illa, sacra illorum respondere non audent. Reprimuntur enim exta illorum, et occultantur ob reverentiam christianae majestatis. Magna res est, ut illa quam vocant prudentiam, metuat illam quam appellant stultitiam. Conferamus nunc tenorem legum. Pagani deos deasque colere se etiam litteris profitentur: et verum est quod dicunt, quia et masculos colunt et feminas. Janus enim et Saturnus, Jovis et Mercurius, et Apollo et caeteri, item Minerva, et Isis, et Fruxilla, et Venus, et Flora meretrix cum caeteris, dii deaeque sunt, sicut historiae tam Graecorum quam Romanorum testantur. Christiani autem utpote pauperes, quos stultos vocant, unum Deum colunt in mysterio, ex quo sunt omnia: nec aliquid quod ab eo conditum est venerantur. Ipsum enim solum sufficere sibi et abundare sciunt ad salutem, non ignorantes quia si gloriam et nomen ejus aliis deputaverint, offendant eum; quia nullus imperator permittit ut cum nomine ejus tribuni et comites adorentur. Conferantur nunc leges, ut videatur ubi sit prudentia, qui Creatorem colit, an qui creaturam; qui Dominum, an qui servos? Potest fieri in aliqua domo ut praeter unum alius dominus appelletur, ut pagani litteris forensibus instructi, qui sibi prudentes videntur, in uno mundo ab uno Deo condito multos deos deasque venerantur? Procuratores enim et auctores mundi deos et Dei nomine nuncupant, cum improvidi detegantur. Illud autem asserere quod perniciem pariat, improvidi est et stulti. Quoniam necesse est Deum injuriam suam vindicare in eos qui conservis suis Domini Dei nomen et gloriam impertierunt. Dehinc considerentur praecepta. Lex nostra quos stultos vocant, antistites et ministros idoneos, sine crimine, sanctos et irreprehensibiles praecipit ordinari: e contra autem Paganorum traditio antistites et ministros idoneos sibi esse non posse, nisi ex viris transfigurentur in feminas, ut licenter et publice muliebria patiantur, et discussis in aqua inhoneste crinibus mollem quassatamque vocem et turpem emittant. Quod si publice facerent, ab omni populo lapidarentur. Et Cynocephalus ille, qui mutabundus per omnia se circumfert loca, quaerens membra adulteri Osiris viri Isidis. Ecce quibus ministris sive magistris Pagani prudentiae sibi nomen adsciscunt, cum non solum non prudentiae sit, sed et criminis. Obscoena enim et probrosa diligere funestum est. Illud autem quale est quod in spelaeo velatis oculis illuduntur? Ne enim horreant turpiter dehonestari se, oculi illis velantur: alii autem sicut ales alas percutiunt, vocem coracis imitantes; alteri vero leonum more fremunt; alii autem ligatis manibus intestinis pullinis, projiciuntur super foveas aqua plenas, accedente quodam cum gladio, et irrumpente intestina supra dicta, qui se liberatorem appellet. Sunt et caetera inhonestiora. Ecce quantis modis turpiter illuduntur, qui se sapientes appellant. Sed quia haec in tenebris patiuntur, putant posse nesciri. Ista enim omnia, quae a malis et turpibus inventa et ordinata sunt in occulto, sancta fides christiana prodidit et detexit. Praedicata enim fide, considerantes qui audiebant, quid boni et sanctitatis publice promitteretur, contulerunt se ad fidem, occulta illa inhonesta et turpia relinquentes, et quomodo per ignorantiam illusi sint confitentes. Tunc enim jampridem omnes prope in hoc vertebantur errore et idcirco sibi

foolish. This indeed seems to have been cleverly and craftily contrived by them. For this reason they apply the name of prudence to their own law, so as to cover up its reprehensible features; since where there is prudence, there is no reproach. But our law they call foolish, so as to keep [people] away from it. But with the names of prudence and folly removed, and with all the ill-will set aside which the defence of either side produces, let the laws themselves contend with each other, so that it may appear where prudence is, and where folly. But in the presence of the sign of the cross Paganism falls silent. And if that which they call folly is present, that prudence of theirs, their sacred rites dare not answer. For their entrails are held in check and are hidden out of reverence for the Christian majesty. It is a great thing that the one which they call prudence should fear the one which they name folly. Let us now compare the tenor of the laws. The pagans profess even in writing that they worship gods and goddesses: and what they say is true, since they worship both males and females. For Janus and Saturn, Jove and Mercury, and Apollo and the rest, likewise Minerva, and Isis, and Fruxilla, and Venus, and Flora the harlot with the rest, are gods and goddesses, as the histories both of the Greeks and of the Romans testify. But the Christians, being poor men, whom they call foolish, worship one God in mystery, from Whom are all things: nor do they venerate anything that has been made by Him. For they know that He alone suffices them and abounds unto salvation, not unaware that if they assign His glory and name to others, they offend Him; since no emperor permits tribunes and counts to be adored with his name. Let the laws now be compared, so that it may be seen where prudence is: with him who worships the Creator, or with him who worships the creature; with him who worships the Lord, or with him who worships servants? Can it happen in any household that besides the one another is called master, as the pagans, schooled in forensic letters, who seem to themselves prudent, in one world founded by one God venerate many gods and goddesses? For they call the administrators and authors of the world gods and by the name of God, whereby they are exposed as improvident. But to assert what brings forth ruin is the part of an improvident and foolish man. For it is necessary that God avenge the injury done to Him upon those who have imparted the name and glory of the Lord God to their fellow servants. Next let the precepts be considered. Our law, [the law of those] whom they call foolish, prescribes that suitable bishops and ministers, without crime, holy and irreproachable, be ordained: but on the contrary the tradition of the pagans [holds] that they cannot have suitable priests and ministers unless these are transformed from men into women, so that they may licentiously and publicly undergo what women undergo, and, having indecently shaken out their hair in the water, may utter a soft, quavering and shameful voice. If they did this in public, they would be stoned by the whole people. And that Dog-head, who, changing his shape, carries himself about through all places, seeking the members of the adulterer Osiris, husband of Isis. Behold with what ministers or masters the pagans arrogate to themselves the name of prudence, when this belongs not only not to prudence but even to crime. For to love obscene and shameful things is deadly. And what sort of thing is this, that in a cave they are mocked with their eyes veiled? For lest they shudder at being shamefully dishonoured, their eyes are veiled: and some flap their wings like birds, imitating the voice of a raven; others again roar after the manner of lions; and others, their hands bound with chickens' intestines, are thrown over pits full of water, while someone comes up with a sword and bursts the aforesaid intestines, who is to call himself liberator. There are also other things more shameful. Behold in how many ways they are shamefully mocked who call themselves wise. But because they undergo these things in darkness, they think they can remain unknown. For all these things, which were devised and ordered in secret by wicked and shameful men, the holy Christian faith has betrayed and uncovered. For when the faith was preached, those who heard, considering what good and holiness was publicly promised, betook themselves to the faith, abandoning those hidden indecent and shameful things, and confessing how they had been deluded through ignorance. For then long ago almost all were turning about in this error, and therefore to themselves

Editors' notes and page, col. 2343

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: et auctores› · call in col 2343

Ms. Colbertinus, actores.

The Colbert manuscript: actores ("agents, managers").

(printed under page 520)

(2) ‹anchor: qui mutabundus› · call in col 2343

Ms. Colbertinus, natabundus.

The Colbert manuscript: natabundus ("swimming about").

(printed under page 520)

(a) ‹anchor: quod in spelaeo› · call in col 2343

Id est, spelunca.

That is, spelunca ("in a cave").

(printed under page 520)

Page

running head: 2343 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[E ...] (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2344

prudentes videbantur, quia qui reprehenderet non erat. Nam quanquam omnes errarent sub uno fallacis nomine idololatriae, unusquisque tamen juxta mores suos et conversationem ordinavit culturam, ut unus error diversitatem haberet ex turpitudine et conversatione auctorum. Denique sacra, quae Liberi vocant, inhonesta et vanissima sunt et plena furoris. Difficile enim impurus non iracundus est: denique ubique cum Priapo depictus invenitur, cum quo inhoneste vivebat. Hoc modo sunt et caetera sacra eorum: sed ut posteri his inventionibus caperentur, subtilitate et astutia factum est satanae: quanquam non sine illius consilio ista inventa sunt; inventis tamen singulis, aspersit quaedam praestigia, per quae illiceret homines ad errorem. Et sic factum est ut per traducem antiquitatis commendaretur fallacia, et excusaretur turpis inventio. Per consuetudinem enim coepit non turpe videri, quod turpe erat. Nam cum dehonestantur aliqui; primo erubescunt, postea blandiente consuetudine, recedit pudor mutata fronte, praecipue si multos videant tales. Nam quaestus turpitudinis tunc est, quando ii qui nobiles dicuntur, dehonestari videntur: facile enim imitatores invenit honestata nobilitas. Si ergo jam porro pridem propter hoc prudentes sibi videbantur, quia cui foeda inventio haec displiceret, non erat; nunc quia Dei misericordia illustratum est genus humanum, et declaratum crimen esse quod pro lege credebatur, stultum autem quod putabatur prudentia inventum; vel ab hac appellatione cessare deberent, permanere nolentes in detecto crimine, cognoscentes nomen sapientiae a se alienum esse. Sed ut addant ad cumulum confessionis suae stultitiam, in stultitia deprehensi vocant fatuos, a quibus convincuntur. Sed fidem nostram et posteritatem accusant; in praeceptis autem non negant nihil posse reprehendi. Qui fidem nostram accusant, non magis contra nos, quam contra auctorem nostrum suscipiunt. Nos enim stultos, qui quasi rei fatuae fidem dederimus: illum autem mendacem et circumventorem, necnon et malitiosum pronuntiant, qui fidem traderet per quam deciperemur. Credentes ergo prius non nos stulte credidisse probemus; deinde causam acturi auctoris. Cum in errore degeremus in quo nunc manent Pagani, nullis virtutum signis attracti, sed nudis verbis quae sacra vocant percepimus, prodesse putantes, non quod divinitas commendaverat, sed quod vetus consuetudo tradiderat: in qua (quod non latet) diversis illusi vanitatibus, nullam spem salutis cognovimus. Quid enim poterat prodesse res ab hominibus inventa? Ut autem ad fidem Dei accederemus, et Filium ejus incarnatum et crucifixum crederemus, non verbis suasum est nobis, sed rebus. Vidimus enim mortuos suscitatos, leprosos mundatos, caeco nato oculos restitutos, daemonia ejecta, et simul omnes infirmitates curatas. Nunc quando stulti fuimus judicetur; cum nudis verbis credidimus, aut cum rebus? Sine dubio enim res ante verba sunt; quippe cum ad res significandas inventa sint. Si ergo traditioni humanae, nulla suadente virtute, quae ad illudendas mentes hominum inventa est, fidem dedimus; quanto magis huic, quam divinam et deificam omnia signa quae Deum invocant, contestantur? Nonne digne stulti judicaremur, si virtutibus non crederemus, qui sermonibus credideramus? Nonne rationabiliter improvidi et inconsulti notaremur, si advocantem spem non sequeremur, qui desperationi fueramus obnoxii? Sed, aiunt e contra, stultum est quod creditur. Non enim rationi subsistit, Deum habere Filium; neque emortua et dissoluta corpora rursus reparari posse ad vitam. Omnes philosophi et sectarum inventores diversis disputationibus invicem se confoderunt, nullus ad alterum transiens; quia unusquisque in quo imbutus fuerat, permanebat. Per id enim quod verba contradictioni obnoxia sunt, nullus alterum superabat. Non enim erat unde se quis victorem ostenderet, sed invicem contradictionibus se fatigantes, minime alter alteri persuadebat. Hinc factum est ut Dei providentia,

they seemed prudent, because there was no one to reprove them. For although all went astray under the one name of deceitful idolatry, yet each arranged his worship according to his own morals and manner of life, so that the one error had diversity from the baseness and manner of life of its originators. Thus the rites which they call those of Liber are dishonourable and utterly vain and full of frenzy. For an impure man is hardly ever free of anger: thus he is everywhere found depicted with Priapus, with whom he lived dishonourably. In this way are the rest of their rites too: but that posterity should be caught by these inventions was brought about by the subtlety and cunning of Satan: although these things were not invented without his counsel; yet upon each of the inventions he sprinkled certain illusions, by which he might entice men into error. And so it came about that through the transmission of antiquity the deceit was commended, and the base invention excused. For through custom what was base began not to seem base. For when some are dishonoured, at first they blush; afterwards, as custom flatters them, shame retreats with a changed countenance, especially if they see many such. For the profit of baseness comes then, when those who are called noble are seen to be dishonoured: for nobility thus honoured easily finds imitators. If, then, long ago they seemed prudent to themselves for this reason, because there was no one whom this foul invention displeased; now, since the human race has been enlightened by the mercy of God, and it has been made plain that what was believed in as law is a crime, and that what was thought prudence has been found folly, they ought at least to desist from this appellation, being unwilling to remain in a crime detected, recognizing that the name of wisdom is foreign to them. But, to add folly to the heap of their confession, caught in folly they call foolish those by whom they are refuted. But they accuse our faith and its lateness; in the precepts, however, they do not deny that nothing can be found to reprove. Those who accuse our faith take up [the case] not more against us than against our Author. For they pronounce us foolish, as having given faith to a foolish thing, but Him a liar and a deceiver, and malicious as well, as one who handed down a faith by which we might be deceived. Let us then, who believe, first prove that we did not believe foolishly; and then [we shall be] about to plead the cause of the Author. When we were living in the error in which the pagans now remain, drawn by no signs of mighty works, but by bare words we received what they call sacred rites, thinking them profitable, not what divinity had commended, but what old custom had handed down: in which (as is no secret), deluded by diverse vanities, we knew no hope of salvation. For what could a thing invented by men profit? But that we should come to faith in God, and believe His Son incarnate and crucified, we were persuaded not by words, but by deeds. For we saw the dead raised, lepers cleansed, eyes restored to one born blind, demons cast out, and all infirmities together cured. Now let it be judged when we were foolish: when we believed bare words, or when [we believed] deeds? For without doubt things come before words, since words were invented for signifying things. If, then, we gave faith to human tradition, with no mighty work persuading us, a tradition which was invented for mocking the minds of men, how much more to this one, which all the signs that call upon God attest to be divine and deifying? Would we not deservedly be judged foolish if we did not believe mighty works, we who had believed speeches? Would we not reasonably be marked as improvident and ill-advised if we did not follow a hope calling us, we who had been liable to despair? But, they say on the contrary, what is believed is foolish. For it does not stand to reason that God has a Son, nor that dead and dissolved bodies can be restored again to life. All the philosophers and inventors of sects have stabbed at one another with diverse disputations, none going over to another; because each remained in that in which he had been steeped. For since words are liable to contradiction, no one overcame another. For there was nothing by which anyone could show himself victor, but wearying themselves with mutual contradictions, not at all did one persuade the other. Hence it came about that God's providence

Editors' notes and page, col. 2344

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge]S EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2344
marginal letters: (none legible); small marks in the gutter beside ‹versitatem haberet›, ‹stultitiam, in stultitia› and ‹providi et inconsulti› may be marginal letters but cannot be read
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence (prudentes) and ends with providen- split at the column break; running head cut off at the image edge; ‹non iracundus› printed with damaged spacing/capital-like I; ‹Non enim rationi› final n of Non damaged; ‹ejecta› faintly printed, e like c; no paragraph break visible in the column; no editors' matter; no full-width line
other: the word providentia, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2345

PL 35:2345

cujus sensus investigari non potest, praedicationi suae virtutem adjungeret, ut veritas praedicationis virtutis testimonio probaretur; ut qui verbis contradicere parati erant, videntes virtutem contradicere non auderent. Quae enim major poterit esse testificatio veritatis, quam est operatio virtutis? Si quis autem opera virtutum deneget accusans Scripturas, quomodo poterit stultam fidem nostram dicere denegans Scripturas? Ubi enim scriptum est de Christo quod Filius Dei credendus est, eodem loco virtus testis invenitur. Et si cui absurdum videtur legenti Christum Dei Filium crucifixum, revolvat, et inveniet resurrexisse eum a mortuis, et intelligat non otiose eum mortuum esse, neque invitum, qui potuit resurgere, sed esse mysterium. Quicumque ergo est ille, aut tacebit de cruce; quia si dixerit stultam crucem, non poterit stultam dicere resurrectionem, excusat enim resurrectio crucem; aut si locutus fuerit de cruce, non poterit negare providentiam esse in ea quam videt testimonio resurrectionis firmari: aut utrumque enim accipitur, aut utrumque refellitur, ut qui non defendat, nec audeat accusare. Quare autem crucifigi se permiserit, cognatis mysterium reservandum est. Mortem autem hanc in tantum commendavit, ut clarificari se per eam testatus sit. Nam ait: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam (Joan. X, 18). Non ergo coactus est mori; quia potestatem habuit et mori et resurgere. Hanc qui abnuit, non poterit dicere violenter illi mortem illatam. Si enim istam negat, nec mortuum illum poterit asseverare, quia haec illic continetur, ubi morti traditus legitur. Nemo enim ex superioribus postrema, aut ex postremis superiora condemnat; quia contrarium non est quod unius corporis est. De mortuis autem quod resurgant, dolo dicunt stultum credere. Vident enim exempla quibus credibile judicetur. Omnia enim semina usibus necessaria, nisi resoluta fuerint, renasci rursus non poterunt. Si hoc in mundo hominum causa Deus decrevit, cur illorum ipsorum corporibus si hoc praestaturus credatur, stultum putatur? Nisi quia ipsi stulti sunt, qui Deo non dant, quam potest mundus, virtutem; cum gestarum nunc usque appareat umbra, quia jam tempus non est faciendarum virtutum. Initio enim fieri oportuit, ut semen fidei per hanc crementum faceret. Tamen et modo daemonia nominata cruce Christi terrentur; et si impensius fiat, fugantur; et dii Paganorum formidine et metu nominatae crucis responsa dare non possunt. Si opprobrium est mors Christi, quare terrori est? Res enim quae ex crimine venit, non timeri debet, sed contemni. Quis enim timeat hominem pro crimine suo occisum? At si innocens fuerit, timeri tamen non potest, sed doleri. Itaque nisi sentirent daemonia, vel dii Paganorum, sacramentum esse crucem Christi, nominata ea non terrerentur; et ut expressius dicam, nisi rei essent, non timerent. Illi etenim omnes, qui ex parte diaboli sunt, consenserunt in mortem Christi. Unde cuncta daemonia sive dii Gentium, nominata cruce Christi, terrore concutiuntur. Omnis enim qui in alicujus innocentis morte reus est, cum nomen ejus fuerit memoratum, timor apprehendit cor ejus. Recordatione enim habita delicti reum se videt. Quanto magis daemonia, vel dii Gentium, qui rei sunt necis Domini et Salvatoris mundi? Sed Pagani antiquitatis causa verum se tenere contendunt, quia quod anterius est, inquiunt, falsum esse non potest. Quasi antiquitas aut vetus consuetudo praejudicet veritati. Possent enim homicidae, aut molles, aut adulteri, vel caeteri criminosi per hoc illicita sua defendere, quia antiqua sunt, et ab ipso mundi initio coepta; cum hinc magis intelligere deberent errorem suum; quia quod reprehensibile et turpe est, male coeptum probatur; quod autem honestum et sanctum est, digne colitur: nec posse turpe et reprehensibile ante factum esse honestum et irreprehensibile. Et ad extremum, Paganorum traditio ab homine inventa negari non potest: quia autem nostra Lex a Deo

whose sense cannot be searched out, should join power to His preaching, so that the truth of the preaching might be proved by the testimony of power; so that those who were ready to contradict with words, seeing the power, should not dare to contradict. For what greater attestation of truth can there be than the working of power? But if anyone, accusing the Scriptures, denies the works of power, how will he be able to call our faith foolish while denying the Scriptures? For where it is written of Christ that He is to be believed the Son of God, in the same place power is found as witness. And if it seems absurd to anyone reading that Christ the Son of God was crucified, let him turn the pages further, and he will find that He rose from the dead, and let him understand that He, Who was able to rise again, died neither idly nor unwillingly, but that it is a mystery. Whoever, then, that man is, either he will be silent about the cross, because if he calls the cross foolish he will not be able to call the resurrection foolish, for the resurrection excuses the cross; or, if he speaks about the cross, he will not be able to deny that there is providence in that which he sees confirmed by the testimony of the resurrection: for either both are accepted or both are refuted, so that he who does not defend should not dare to accuse either. But why He allowed Himself to be crucified is a mystery to be reserved for His kin. This death, moreover, He commended so far as to testify that He was glorified through it. For He says: I have power to lay down My soul, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18). He was not, therefore, forced to die, for He had power both to die and to rise again. He who rejects this cannot say that death was brought upon Him by violence. For if he denies this, neither will he be able to assert that He died, because this is contained in the place where He is read to have been delivered to death. For no one condemns the last things from the earlier, or the earlier from the last, because what belongs to one body is not contrary [to itself]. But concerning the dead, that they rise again, they say with guile that it is foolish to believe it. For they see examples by which it may be judged credible. For all seeds necessary for use cannot be born again unless they have been dissolved. If God decreed this in the world for the sake of men, why is it thought foolish if He is believed to be going to grant this to the very bodies of those same men? Unless it is because they themselves are foolish, who do not grant to God the power which the world has; since even now a shadow of the mighty works once done appears, because it is no longer the time for doing mighty works. For it was necessary that they be done at the beginning, so that the seed of faith might grow through this. Yet even now demons are terrified when the cross of Christ is named; and if it is done more earnestly, they are put to flight; and the gods of the pagans, from dread and fear of the named cross, cannot give responses. If the death of Christ is a disgrace, why is it a terror? For a thing that comes from crime ought not to be feared but despised. For who would fear a man killed for his crime? But if he was innocent, still he cannot be feared, but only grieved for. Therefore, unless the demons, or the gods of the pagans, perceived that the cross of Christ is a sacrament, they would not be terrified when it is named; and, to speak more expressly, unless they were guilty, they would not be afraid. For all those who are of the devil's party consented to the death of Christ. Hence all the demons or gods of the Gentiles are shaken with terror when the cross of Christ is named. For everyone who is guilty in the death of some innocent person, when that person's name is mentioned, has his heart seized by fear. For, calling the offence to mind, he sees himself guilty. How much more the demons, or gods of the Gentiles, who are guilty of the slaying of the Lord and Saviour of the world? But the pagans contend that they hold the truth by reason of antiquity, because what is earlier, they say, cannot be false. As if antiquity or old custom prejudged the truth. For murderers, or the effeminate, or adulterers, or other criminals could by this argument defend their unlawful deeds, because they are ancient and were begun at the very beginning of the world; whereas from this they ought rather to understand their error, because what is reprehensible and shameful is proved to have been begun badly, but what is honourable and holy is worthily practised: nor can what is shameful and reprehensible be honourable and irreprehensible because it was done earlier. And finally, it cannot be denied that the tradition of the pagans was invented by man: but that our Law

Editors' notes and page, col. 2345

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "tia," of a word broken from the column before; "crucę" (cruce Christi terrentur) printed with what looks like a tail or speck under the e, set as cruce; "cognatis mysterium" set as printed, possibly for cognitis, UNSURE; printer's signature PATROL. XXXV. not set; right-hand column (2346) not set; no full-width lines; no editors' matter.

PL 35:2346

data est, evidens res est. In monte enim apparuit majestas Dei ad dandam Legem hominibus. Et ut huic fides possit haberi, praemisit signa multa et prodigia facta in Aegypto, quod hodie quoque libri testantur a Ptolomaeo reconditi in bibliotheca Alexandrina. Sic ergo Legem dignatus est dare, ut nemo ambigeret Deum esse qui tradidit. Palam enim et manifeste visa est omnibus majestas Dei, tanto fulgore et terrore, ut etiam praeter eum nemo alius Deus crederetur, et quod jubebat omni observatione dignum haberetur. Et ut omnia deificae rationi conveniant, inspiciatur tradita Lex, si quid in ipsa injustum, si quid inhonestum, si quid ridiculosum. Sic oportuit Deum innotescere; non ut in angulo per imposturam appareret, qui claudi non potest; neque in speculo, ubi aliud est quam cernitur operante illecebrosa fallacia: neque ea servanda traderet, quae propterea quod inhonesta essent, in tenebris gererentur. Cum enim unius Dei notitia oblitterata esset in mundo consuetudine delinquendi, quia mendacium velamen praestiterat veritati, clemens et misericors Deus, nolens opus suum perditioni obnoxium fieri, visitare dignatus est genus humanum. Non sic apparens sicut hi qui falso dii appellari voluerunt; sed sicut est Veritas Dei, ita se manifestavit, ut errorem adimeret, qui falsorum deorum praedicatione mundi sensum corruperat. Denique supra sexcenta millia hominum egressa de Aegypto, videntes et cognoscentes Dominum hunc esse supra omnes ex apparentia ineffabilis gloriae, proximare ad eum timuerunt, sed longe curvato genu eum adoraverunt (Exod. XX, 18). Postea prosequentibus aliis signis quam quae fecerat in Aegypto, in omnibus mirabilibus manifestatus est unus esse Deus. Haec omnibus prope innotuerunt linguis, haec vicinis gentibus terrori fuerunt. Quid tale in diis Gentium? Cui genti, cui populo gloriam suam ostenderunt? quae signa aut virtutes ad divinitatis suae testimonium fecerunt? ubi vel quando locuti probantur? Sed irrationale vulgus aut apparentes umbras, aut daemonia, aut simulacra mortuorum, ut deos colere coeperunt: quae res in consuetudinem vetustatis deducta, arbitratur rationis sibi veritatem posse defendi; cum veritatis ratio non ex consuetudine, quae est ex vetustate, sed ex Deo sit, qui non vetustate Deus probatur, sed aeternitate. Quamobrem fides non coepta res, sed sine initio est. In Deum enim credere, nostrum incipere est. Nam quod creditur, aeternum est. Quomodo ergo anteriores se putant Pagani, quando quod colunt, post Deum est? Numquid non opus post opificem est? Pagani colunt opera, nos opificem; illi creaturam, nos Creatorem. Certe Deus fecit mundum, facto notitiam suam non ostendit? Aut fecit hominem, et noluit se ab eo coli quem fecit? Sed absurdum est. Factus ergo homo coepit venerari suum Conditorem; quia dignum est, et causa hoc exegit. Quod cum per desidiam hominum obsolevisset, reparavit istud Deus in Abraham, ut cognitio Dei quae fuerat in Adam, inciperet rursum in Abraham: ut ab eo geniti, sub ejus cognitione educarentur, et per traducem non deficeret, neque deesset qui coleret Deum; advocatis etiam exterae gentis hominibus ad istam Dei cognitionem. Qui ergo cognovit, sub initio est: qui autem cognoscitur, supra initium est. Qua igitur ratione Pagani legem suam ante dicunt fuisse quam nostram? Si mundus ante Deum est, quod absit, sic poterit et Paganitas anteponi Christianitati. Nemo miretur de nomine Christianitatis. Est enim colere unum Deum in mysterio Trinitatis. Quod si nomen Christi putatur ex chrismate, nominis tamen ratio ante chrisma est. Apud majores enim nostros, qui in reges ungebantur, christi vocabantur, habentes imaginem Christi venturi, qui natus de Deo Patre in regem non immerito Christus appellatur;

was given by God is an evident matter. For on the mountain the majesty of God appeared in order to give the Law to men. And so that faith could be placed in it, He sent before it many signs and prodigies done in Egypt, to which even today the books stored by Ptolemy in the Alexandrian library bear witness. Thus, therefore, He deigned to give the Law, so that no one should doubt that it was God Who delivered it. For openly and manifestly the majesty of God was seen by all, with such brilliance and terror that no other besides Him would be believed to be God, and that what He commanded would be held worthy of all observance. And so that all things may accord with divine reason, let the Law that was delivered be examined, whether there is anything unjust in it, anything dishonourable, anything ridiculous. Thus it behoved God to make Himself known: not so as to appear in a corner by imposture, He Who cannot be shut in; nor in a mirror, where what is there is other than what is seen, through the working of an alluring deceit; nor so as to deliver things to be observed which, because they were dishonourable, would be performed in darkness. For since the knowledge of the one God had been effaced in the world by the habit of sinning, because falsehood had drawn a veil over the truth, the clement and merciful God, unwilling that His work should be made liable to perdition, deigned to visit the human race. He did not appear in the manner of those who falsely wished to be called gods; but as He is the Truth of God, so He manifested Himself, in order to take away the error which, through the preaching of false gods, had corrupted the mind of the world. Then more than six hundred thousand men who had gone out of Egypt, seeing and recognizing from the appearance of His ineffable glory that this was the Lord above all, feared to draw near to Him, but from afar adored Him on bent knee (Exod. 20:18). Afterwards, as further signs followed beyond those which He had done in Egypt, He was manifested in all the wonders to be the one God. These things became known in almost every tongue; these things were a terror to the neighbouring nations. What is there of the kind among the gods of the Gentiles? To what nation, to what people did they show their glory? What signs or mighty works did they perform in testimony of their divinity? Where or when are they proved to have spoken? But the irrational crowd began to worship as gods either apparent shadows, or demons, or images of the dead: and this practice, once drawn into a custom of long standing, supposes that the truth of reason can be defended for itself; whereas the reason of truth comes not from custom, which arises from long standing, but from God, Who is proved to be God not by long standing but by eternity. Wherefore faith is not a thing that was begun, but is without beginning. For to believe in God is our beginning; for what is believed is eternal. How then do the pagans think themselves earlier, when what they worship comes after God? Does not the work come after the maker? The pagans worship the works, we the Maker; they the creature, we the Creator. Surely God made the world: having made it, did He not show knowledge of Himself? Or did He make man, and not wish to be worshipped by him whom He made? But that is absurd. Man, therefore, once made, began to venerate his Founder, because it is fitting, and the cause demanded it. And when this had fallen into disuse through the sloth of men, God restored it in Abraham, so that the knowledge of God which had been in Adam might begin again in Abraham: so that those begotten of him might be brought up under his knowledge, and it might not fail through the line of descent, nor might there be lacking one to worship God; men of a foreign nation also being called to this knowledge of God. He therefore who came to know is under a beginning; but He Who is known is above beginning. By what reasoning, then, do the pagans say that their law was before ours? If the world is before God, which God forbid, then paganism too could be placed before Christianity. Let no one wonder at the name of Christianity. For it is the worship of one God in the mystery of the Trinity. But if the name of Christ is thought to come from chrism, the reason for the name is nevertheless before chrism. For among our forefathers, those who were anointed as kings were called christs, bearing the image of the Christ to come, Who, born of God the Father, is not undeservedly called Christ as king

Editors' notes and page, col. 2346

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2346

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, celaret.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions read celaret ("would conceal").

(printed under page 521)

(2) ‹anchor: aliis signis› · call in col 2346

Editi hic interponunt, tam illis quae fecit in deserto. Redundat, et abest a Ms. Colbert.

The printed editions insert here tam illis quae fecit in deserto ("both those which he did in the desert"). It is superfluous, and is absent from the Colbert manuscript.

(printed under page 521)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word appellatur; was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2347

PL 35:2347

quia quod istis chrisma, illi dedit nativitas: quem quamdiu ignorant Pagani, reprobant; cum autem cognoverint, diligentius excolunt, gaudentes quia de malo transierunt ad bonum. Qui enim in re tam frivola et inepta pertinaces fuerunt, quando fortiores et vehementiores erunt cognita veritate? Qualis ergo Christus noster est, qui cum nescitur, oditur; cum cognoscitur, amatur? Nam omnis malus cum nescitur, amatur, cognitus oditur. Quanti retro oderunt Christum, qui nunc amant, quique doleat odisse se, quod nescierunt? Inprudentis enim est odisse quem nescias, quia probandum est an odio digna sit res. Denique qui hodie adversantur, crastino defendent, poenitentiam agentes, tarde se cognovisse quod verum est. Quod si odio digna res esset, aut aliquid haberet fallaciae, quotidie ex christianis fierent pagani. Porro autem, quoniam haec veritas est, quotidie omni hora sine intermissione deserentes Jovem, inter quos sophistae et nobiles mundi, qui eum Deum confessi erant, confugiunt ad Christum, cui est honor et gloria in saeculorum saecula.

because what chrism gave to these, birth gave to that one: which, as long as the pagans do not know it, they reject; but when they have come to know it, they cultivate it the more diligently, rejoicing that they have passed over from evil to good. For those who were obstinate in so frivolous and foolish a matter, how much stronger and more vehement will they be once the truth is known? What kind, then, is our Christ, Who when He is not known is hated, when He is known is loved? For every bad man, when he is not known, is loved; once known, he is hated. How many in times past hated Christ who now love Him, and grieve that they hated, because they did not know Him? For it is the part of an imprudent man to hate one whom you do not know, since it must be tested whether the thing is worthy of hatred. In short, those who oppose today will defend tomorrow, doing penance that they came late to know what is true. But if the thing were worthy of hatred, or held anything of deceit, every day pagans would be made out of Christians. But in fact, since this is the truth, every day, every hour, without intermission, men forsaking Jupiter, among them sophists and nobles of the world who had confessed him as god, take refuge in Christ, to Whom be honour and glory for ages of ages.

DE FATO.

On Fate.

CXV. — Nihil tam contrarium christiano, quam si arti matheseos adhibeat curam. Haec enim inimica dignoscitur Dei legi. Si enim nascuntur qui mali sint, et e contra qui boni sint; frustra lex data dicitur: et non solum hoc, sed et injustus habebitur Legislator. Qui enim lege data cogit homines contra id quod nati sunt facere, sciens non posse mutari naturam, ad hoc utique legem videtur dedisse, ut haberet occasionem qua crudelitatem suam de nece hominis satiaret. Utquid enim prohibet quod scit averti non posse? Aut quemadmodum damnat hominem qui non fecit quod facere non potuit? Si autem injustum videtur, ut est, quia istud de Deo sentire nefarium est; recte et salutari ratione legem dedit, sciens posse hominem continere se ab eo quod prohibet lex. Ergo quia juste legem dedit, non est utique iniquus cum vindicat. Itaque si legi Dei fides commodanda est, quia juste probatur data; ars matheseos evitanda et fugienda est. Hanc enim astutia et subtilitas invenit diaboli. Quia enim aperte repugnare non audet auctori, tergiversatione id agit, ut et Deo injuriam faciat, et hominem legi inimicum constituens, morte mulctet secunda. Qui ergo Dei auctoritati cedit, et factum ejus retractari nefarium ducit, legi ab illo datae obtemperat, die noctuque studiis ejus insistens, nec aliquid adversum respicit, non dubitans quia potens est homo praecepta ejus servare. Nam hi qui peccare gestiunt, occasionem quaerunt quomodo peccata sua a se faciant aliena; ut dum naturae quasi imputanda peccata sint, immunis esse a poena videatur peccator. Hoc propositum horum est qui desperatione promissae futurae vitae, praesenti desiderant frui voluptate. At hi qui freti fiducia fidei, spem futurorum exspectant, hoc implere contendunt, quod in primordio renascibilitatis polliciti sunt, ut abrenuntiarent pompis et voluptatibus satanae. Quanta ergo subtilitate usus est satanas, nt promptiorem hominem ad peccandum faceret, per quod invidiae suae expleret nequitiam? Dum enim audit sic se natum esse ut peccet, et Deum non ignorat esse justissimum, credit se impune peccare; quia qui justus est judex, non damnat eum qui imperante natura peccavit. Nec quidem ejus peccatum dicendum est, quod alius egit per illum. Sic deceptus est homo: peccatis enim pressus, factus est morti obnoxius. Igitur tollit omne hominis bonum, qui tollit et malum. Si enim peccator non habet poenam, nec justus coronam. Utquid laudantur boni, et reprehenduntur mali? Si enim hujus naturae est ut peccare non possit, quid laudas in illo quod non est ejus? Et utquid condemnas in peccatore delictum, cum scias non ejus esse quod peccat? Quid nisi injustus erit qui bonum laudat,

115. — Nothing is so contrary to a Christian as if he devotes care to the art of astrology. For this is recognized as hostile to the law of God. For if men are born who are to be bad, and on the contrary men who are to be good, the law is said to have been given in vain; and not only this, but the Lawgiver too will be held unjust. For He who, by giving a law, compels men to act against that for which they were born, knowing that nature cannot be changed, would certainly seem to have given the law for this purpose, that He might have an occasion by which to sate His cruelty with the death of man. For why does He forbid what He knows cannot be averted? Or how does He condemn a man who did not do what he could not do? But if this seems unjust, as it is, since it is wicked to think this of God, then He gave the law rightly and on a salutary principle, knowing that man is able to restrain himself from what the law forbids. Therefore, since He gave the law justly, He is certainly not unjust when He punishes. Accordingly, if faith is to be given to the law of God, since it is proved to have been given justly, the art of astrology is to be avoided and fled from. For the cunning and subtlety of the devil invented it. For since he does not dare to resist the Author openly, he goes about it by evasion, so as both to do injury to God and, by setting man up as an enemy of the law, to punish him with the second death. He, then, who yields to the authority of God, and holds it wicked for His deed to be called into question, obeys the law given by Him, applying himself to its pursuits day and night, and pays no regard to anything contrary, not doubting that man is able to keep His precepts. For those who are eager to sin seek an occasion by which they may make their sins foreign to themselves, so that, while the sins are to be imputed as it were to nature, the sinner may seem to be immune from punishment. This is the purpose of those who, in despair of the promised future life, desire to enjoy present pleasure. But those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of things to come, strive to fulfil what they promised at the beginning of their rebirth, that they would renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. With how great subtlety, then, has Satan acted, to make man readier for sinning, by which he might fulfil the wickedness of his envy? For when a man hears that he was born so as to sin, and is not unaware that God is most just, he believes that he sins with impunity; because He Who is a just judge does not condemn one who sinned at the command of nature. Nor indeed is that to be called his sin which another did through him. Thus man was deceived: for, weighed down by sins, he became liable to death. Therefore he who takes away evil takes away also every good of man. For if the sinner has no punishment, neither does the just man have a crown. Why are the good praised, and the bad reproved? For if it is of the nature of this man that he cannot sin, what do you praise in him that is not his? And why do you condemn the offence in the sinner, when you know that what he sins is not his? What will he be but unjust who praises the good

Editors' notes and page, col. 2347

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2347

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 522)

Page

running head: 2347 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none) (no marginal letters visible beside this column in the images)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2348

et malum accusat? Sed forte dicatur e contra, Bonam naturam in homine laudo, et malam condemno: quia et vinum bonum laudatur, cum per naturam bonum sit; et malum recusatur, cum illud aeque natura hoc praestet. Si ita esset, nihil erat reprehensionis causa, ut sic laudaretur justus, nec corona dignus judicaretur: neque ita accusaretur injustus, ut poena dignus diceretur. Porro autem et in praesenti et in futuro justos remunerari scimus et legimus, et injustos poenis subditos concremari: quod injustum utique videretur, si iste qui naturae suae rem gesserat, igne ultore poenas pateretur; aut alius qui aeque naturae suae rem exsequitur, praemiis afficeretur. Si autem laudandus est bonus, quia quod naturae suae erat fecit; laudari debet et malus, quia et ipse similiter quod naturae suae erat, gessit, ut unusquisque permanens in eo quod factus est, laudetur. Quia si in quo factus est manens vituperabilis habetur, auctorem tangit vituperatio, qui talem nasci fecit qui displiceret. Quod si jure remunerandus est justus, et condemnandus injustus, jam non naturae respondetur, sed voluntati: quia natura libera est, voluntas autem in causa est, quae sensibus accessus patitur et recessus; ut injustus videns coronari justum, se autem damnari, sibi imputet, qui contra legem sensibus credens malum fecit, cum potuit facere bonum. Numquid poterit accusari sol, quia urit; aut aqua, quia infrigidat? Aut numquid remuneranda est aqua, quia siti affectos homines recreat; vel praemiis afficietur sol, quia reficit homines calore suo post frigus? Quod enim naturae suae est, faciunt: unde nec damnantur, nec laudantur; aliud enim facere nesciunt. Sed quoniam non ita est ut aestimant stellarum speculatores, ratio actuum probat Non enim inveniri potest qui bene faciat semper; aut male. Tunc enim videretur sic natus ut bene ageret, si irreprehensibilis permaneret; et ita digne aestimaretur ut esset malus, si in eo duraret ut male faceret semper: at cum et illum, quem bonum putas natum, aliquoties videas male agere; et hunc, quem malum natum dicis, nonnunquam cernas facere bonum, quomodo hoc verum probas, ut malus malus sit, et bonus bonus, nisi quia hoc magis certissimum est, quia ubi animum quis dederit, in eo proficit? Nam et causae sunt, quae generant peccata, ut aut invidia quis litiget, aut inimicus existat. Illa autem quae a lege prohibentur, non palam neque manifeste, sed occulte admittunt. Quare, nisi quia reverentur legem? Sin vero, ita ut asserunt, ad hoc nati essent ut male facerent, non quaererent latibula, neque aliquam legi reverentiam exhiberent; sed passim ea facerent quae cogeret natura. Sed cum videas procurari peccatis, et excogitari ut possint latenter admitti; et loca enim et personas et tempora eligunt, ut mali propositi impleant voluntatem; simili modo etiam boni judicio quodam et bona opera sua discernunt, ut pro tempore et causa alicujus bonum suum distribuant: quod utique non jam naturae imputandum est, sed quae in natura est voluntati. Si autem naturale esset, cessaret judicium. Nam si rem plenius discutiamus, qui nunc justi sunt, injustos illos prius fuisse ostendemus: data autem opera immutati sunt. Ipse etenim Abraham per fidem justificatus legitur (Jacobi II, 23, et Rom. IV, 3). Ante ergo non fuit, quippe cum patre suo duce idola coluisse intelligatur. Et Zachaeus utique, cui post vulgarem vitam testimonium perhibet Dominus (Luc. XIX, 9). Et vas electionis, qui istud etiam fatetur, dicens, Eramus et nos natura filii irae, sicut et caeteri (Ephes. II, 3): quia cedit voluntas pro natura. Ex voluntate enim quis judicatur, non ex natura. Sine dubio et omnes martyres et justi facti sunt boni; quia non fideles nati, sed renati sunt. Et quantos scimus turpis vitae fuisse, et prodigos cultores luxuriae, qui nunc continentes et sancti sunt? Accedente enim timore Dei, vincuntur vitia, quae prius dominabantur. Quantum autem possit timor legis, hinc advertamus. Ante Juliani

and accuses the bad? But perhaps it may be said in reply: I praise a good nature in a man, and I condemn a bad one; for good wine too is praised, since it is good by nature, and bad wine is rejected, though nature equally brings this about in it. If that were so, there would be no ground for blame, such that the just man should thus be praised and judged worthy of a crown, nor the unjust man thus accused, such that he should be declared worthy of punishment. But further, we know and read that the just are rewarded both in the present and in the future, and that the unjust, made subject to punishments, are burned up: which would surely seem unjust, if this man, who had done what belonged to his nature, were to suffer punishment by avenging fire, or that other, who equally carries out what belongs to his nature, were to be rewarded with prizes. But if the good man is to be praised because he did what belonged to his nature, the bad man too ought to be praised, because he likewise did what belonged to his nature, so that each one, remaining in that which he was made, should be praised. For if one who remains in that in which he was made is held blameworthy, the blame touches the maker, who caused to be born such a one as would displease. But if the just man is rightly to be rewarded and the unjust condemned, then the answer is made not to nature but to the will: for nature is free, but the will is the cause, which suffers approaches and withdrawals through the senses; so that the unjust man, seeing the just crowned and himself condemned, should impute it to himself, who, trusting his senses against the law, did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be accused because it burns, or water because it chills? Or is water to be rewarded because it refreshes men afflicted with thirst, or will the sun be presented with prizes because it restores men with its heat after the cold? For they do what belongs to their nature: hence they are neither condemned nor praised, for they do not know how to do otherwise. But since it is not as the watchers of the stars suppose, the reckoning of actions proves it For no one can be found who always does good, or evil. For a man would then seem to have been born so as to act well, if he remained irreproachable; and he would justly be supposed to be bad, if he persisted in always doing evil: but since you sometimes see that one, whom you think born good, act badly, and sometimes perceive this one, whom you call born bad, do good, how do you prove this true, that the bad man is bad and the good man good, except that this is more most certain, that where someone has set his mind, in that he makes progress? For there are also causes which give rise to sins, so that someone either quarrels out of envy or becomes an enemy. But those things which are forbidden by the law they commit not openly nor manifestly, but in secret. Why, unless because they revere the law? But if, as they assert, they were born for this, to do evil, they would not seek hiding places, nor show any reverence to the law, but would do everywhere the things which nature compelled. But since you see provision made for sins, and devices thought out so that they may be committed secretly, for they choose places and persons and times so as to fulfil the will of their evil purpose; in like manner the good too distinguish their good works by a certain judgement, so as to distribute their good according to the time and the cause of someone: which surely is now to be imputed not to nature, but to the will which is in nature. But if it were natural, judgement would cease. For if we discuss the matter more fully, we shall show that those who are now just were formerly unjust, but were changed by effort applied. For Abraham himself is read to have been justified by faith (Jas. 2:23 and Rom. 4:3). Before, then, he was not, since he is understood to have worshipped idols under the lead of his father. And Zacchaeus too, to whom, after a common life, the Lord bears witness (Luke 19:9). And the vessel of election, who also confesses this, saying, We too were by nature children of wrath, as also the rest (Eph. 2:3): because the will is reckoned in place of nature. For a man is judged from his will, not from his nature. Without doubt all the martyrs and the just too were made good, because they were not born faithful but reborn. And how many do we know to have been of shameful life, and lavish devotees of luxury, who are now continent and holy? For when the fear of God draws near, the vices which formerly held sway are overcome. But how much the fear of the law can do, let us observe from this. Before Julian's

Editors' notes and page, col. 2348

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2348
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: first word "dat" is the tail of "laudat", which stands whole at the end of col. 2347, so it is not restored here; the column's last word "Ju-" continues as "liani" at the top of col. 2349 and stands whole here as "Juliani" (joined on receipt); running head cut off at its left edge (probably QUAESTIONES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM.); "probat Non enim" printed without punctuation, set as printed; "procurari peccatis" set as printed; no marginal letters visible in the images; Augustine Appendix, Quaestiones ex utroque mixtim
other: the word Juliani was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt). Q1d: the English now ends "Before Julian's"; col. 2349's English still opens with "lian's edict" and should open with "edict" (fix in col. 2349, not written here).

PL 35:2349

edictum, mulieres viros suos dimittere nequibant. Accepta autem potestate, coeperunt facere quod prius facere non poterant; coeperunt enim quotidie viros suos licenter dimittere. Ubi latuit fatum tantis temporibus? Timore credo legis occultabat se. Illud autem quomodo subintravit, quod tradidit Moyses? Dormientibus credo fatis. Tanta enim tradita sunt illis servanda, et talia qualia nulla gens habet praecepta. Et ne hoc aliquis ad plagam coeli referendum putet, in omnem prope orbem dispersi mandata legis suae custodiunt. Haec praecepta contra fata sunt. Non enim forte fuerunt tribus millibus annis et supra a constitutione mundi: postea autem data, permanent usque in finem. Quod ergo tot millibus annis non fuit, quomodo coepit? Stellarum enim cursus a constitutione mundi est. Et quid illud est, cum tanta multitudo Judaeorum sit per totum mundum, nemo immutetur ex his ut fiat gentilis, cum videamus ex Paganis, licet raro, fieri Judaeos? Ecce quantum pertinet ad ritum Judaeorum, exclusum est fatum; quia et extra fatum esse coeperunt, et in eo permanent. Quid videtur de Sodoma et Gomorra, quorum qualis fuerit exitus, vindicta obtutibus adjacet (Gen. XIX, 24)? Sic fuit ut omnes spurcitiae infamia aspersi, divino igne consumerentur. In cataclysmo omnes unius fati fuerunt, ut omnes una morte et eodem tempore cuncti perirent, excepta domo Noe (Id. VII). Et omnis exercitus Pharaonis uno decreto natus dicitur, ut ineptus error matheseos vindicetur, quia demersi sunt in Rubro mari cum suo rege (Exod. XIV, 24). Et alia quanta exempla sunt quae praetermittimus, quia ad satisfactionem sufficiunt duo exempla; quanto magis tot mysteria? Nam et cunctae gentes diversa habent instituta: et quod alibi licet, hic non licet; et iterum, quod hic licet, alibi non licet. Hic enim in urbe Roma et finibus ejus, quae sacratissima appellatur, licet mulieribus viros suos dimittere, cum cautum sit in lege divina, ut ne viri quidem hac potestate uterentur, excepta fornicationis causa (Matth. V, 32). Ecce in hac re meliores sunt Barbari. Quod et hic servari posse non impossibile est, quia prius servatum docetur. Mutatum est ergo fatum, quia coepit licere quod ante prohibitum erat. Et eunuchos in regno Romano fieri non licet, apud alios licet: quia autem et hic possent fieri, in absoluto est; nam factum licet occulte probatur; si autem cessaret timor, publice fieret. Metus ergo prohibet fatum; vincitur enim, si quod vult facere non facit. Et Persae mulierum more inaures habent, quod hic inhonestum et illicitum est: quia autem et hic fieri possit, attestantur antistites Matris, quae appellatur magna; et revera magna fuit, sed meretrix: sed in eo distat, quia isti cinaedi sunt, illi viri. Et quid dicemus? In omni orbe terrarum hi soli hoc fato nascuntur, ut abscisi in mulieres transformentur, ut toto mundo isti pauculi inveniantur; quos constat minis circumveniri, et promissis praemiis ad hunc dolorem et dedecus cogi: si autem ad hoc nati essent, non cogerentur. Persae licitum habent cum filiabus suis convenire, quod et hic fieri posse ostenditur per id quod a quibusdam factum probatur. Sed quia vindicta intervenit, metu correpti sunt, ne facerent quod potest fieri, sed non licet. Omne enim quod prohibetur, ideo prohibetur, ne, quia potest fieri, fiat: si autem fati esset, non posset fieri, neque prohiberetur. Nam si non esset fati et prohiberetur, posse fieri quod fati non est significaretur. Et quae prudentia est prohibere quod non potest fieri, ac si aliquis prohibeat, ne quis de urbe Romana transvolet in Hispaniam, aut ne quis humeris montem transferat? Illa autem quae possunt fieri cum non debeant, prohibentur. Mos Maurorum est ut inaures etiam in naribus habeant feminae; numquid

edict, women were not able to dismiss their husbands. But once they had received the power, they began to do what before they could not do; for they began daily to dismiss their husbands at will. Where was fate hiding for so long a time? It kept itself hidden, I suppose, out of fear of the law. And how did that which Moses handed down slip in? While the fates were asleep, I suppose. For so many things were handed down to them to be observed, and precepts such as no nation has. And lest anyone think this is to be referred to a region of the sky, they keep the commandments of their law though scattered over almost the whole world. These precepts are against the fates. For they did not, perhaps, exist for three thousand years and more from the foundation of the world; but, given afterwards, they remain until the end. That, then, which did not exist for so many thousands of years, how did it begin? For the course of the stars dates from the foundation of the world. And what is this, that, while so great a multitude of Jews is spread through the whole world, none of them is changed so as to become a gentile, whereas we see Pagans, though rarely, become Jews? See, so far as the rite of the Jews is concerned, fate is excluded; for they both began to be outside fate and remain in that state. What is to be thought of Sodom and Gomorrah, of which the punishment lies before our eyes to show what their end was (Gen. 19:24)? It came about that all, besmirched with the infamy of filth, were consumed by divine fire. In the cataclysm all were of one fate, so that all perished together by one death and at the same time, except the house of Noah (ibid. 7). And the whole army of Pharaoh is said to have been born under one decree, so that the foolish error of astrology may be punished, since they were drowned in the Red Sea with their king (Exod. 14:24). And how many other examples there are which we pass over, since two examples suffice for satisfaction; how much more do so many mysteries? For all nations too have different institutions: and what is lawful elsewhere is not lawful here; and again, what is lawful here is not lawful elsewhere. For here in the city of Rome and its territory, which is called most sacred, it is lawful for women to dismiss their husbands, although it is provided in the divine law that not even husbands should use this power, except for the cause of fornication (Matt. 5:32). See, in this matter the Barbarians are better. That this could be observed here too is not impossible, since it is shown to have been observed before. Fate, therefore, has been changed, since what was formerly prohibited began to be lawful. And it is not lawful for eunuchs to be made in the Roman realm, while among others it is lawful: but that they could be made here too is plain; for it is proved to be done, though secretly; and if fear ceased, it would be done publicly. Fear, therefore, prohibits fate; for it is overcome if it does not do what it wishes to do. And the Persians wear earrings after the manner of women, which here is dishonourable and unlawful: but that it can be done here too, the priests of the Mother who is called great attest; and indeed she was great, but a harlot: but there is this difference, that these are effeminates, those are men. And what shall we say? In the whole world these alone are born to this fate, that, castrated, they are transformed into women, so that in the whole world these few are found; and it is established that they are beset with threats and driven by promised rewards to this pain and disgrace: but if they had been born for this, they would not be driven. The Persians hold it lawful to have intercourse with their daughters, which is shown to be possible here too by the fact that it is proved to have been done by some. But because punishment intervened, they were seized with fear, so as not to do what can be done but is not lawful. For everything that is prohibited is prohibited for this reason, lest, because it can be done, it be done: but if it were of fate, it could not be done, nor would it be prohibited. For if it were not of fate and were prohibited, it would be signified that what is not of fate can be done. And what prudence is it to prohibit what cannot be done, as if someone were to prohibit anyone from flying across from the city of Rome to Spain, or anyone from carrying a mountain across on his shoulders? But those things which can be done although they ought not to be, are prohibited. It is the custom of the Moors that women wear earrings even in their nostrils; is it

Editors' notes and page, col. 2349

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2349

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, damnatus dicitur.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions read damnatus dicitur ("is said to be condemned").

(printed under page 523)

(a) ‹anchor: in urbe Roma› · call in col 2349

Romae haec scribuntur: cum alio in loco scripta sit quaest. 84.

These things are written at Rome, whereas question 84 was written in another place.

(printed under page 523)

Page

running head: 2349 APPENDIX. (facing column number cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2350

fati est? Si fati esset, huc translati sic manerent; quia si fatum est, unusquisque secum habet fatum suum: sed quia non est fati, omnes inde venientes, hic immutantur, videntes turpe istic videri quod illic decorum putatur. Certe apud omnes gentes numerus, numerus est; terra, terra est; et aqua, aqua est; et aer, aer est; et ignis, ignis est. Numquid potest alicubi reperiri terra quae non arida sit, aut aer qui palpabilis sit, aut aqua quae non fluxa et frigida sit, vel ignis qui frigidus sit? Sic ubique Jupiter, Jupiter est; et Saturnus, Saturnus est; et Venus, Venus est. Eodem modo et caetera signa. Ars enim ista una ratione tractatur ubique: sed quia apud omnes gentes instituta manent, non fatorum ratione quae ubique una est, sicut tractant, sed hominum excogitatione. Quidquid enim alicui qui primus putatus est apud suos, quod ratione dignum visum est et aptum decori, statuit quibus praeerat. Inde unaquaeque regio vel gens propria habet quae servet. Sicut Solon et Lycurgus multa statuerunt quae a Graecis legis more servarentur, quae paulatim deficiente regno eorum oblitterata sunt. Nam regibus Judaeorum mulae placuerunt ad sessum; Romanorum autem non mulae, sed equi; Garamantum autem, qui supra Tripolim Afrorum sunt, regibus tauri placuerunt ad sessum: Persarum vero reges vehiculis feruntur; nam veteres reges Persarum, nec videbantur a populis: et reges Madian camelis delectantur ad sessum, ita ut et colla eorum aureis exornentur torquibus: et per Africam asinis magis volunt insidere quam equis. Cum omnia ubique sint, non tamen omnia omnibus gratiosa sunt; quia unusquisque eligit quod magis apud illum habeat gratiam. Nam et nobis ipsis diversa voluntas est, et in vestibus, et in cibis, et in caetero usu, et in ipsa sententia. Quod ne fati dicant qui multorum diversa asserunt fata, haec res probat, quia frequenter mutatur nobis voluntas. Quod enim diu amavimus, postea displicet; et diligere incipimus quod prius libenter non habebamus, et facta consuetudine immutati manemus. Ordinem autem si dicunt esse fatorum, ut sit quid quibus efficiant temporibus per intervalla recurrentia pristina, ut puta quod hodie faciunt, iterum faciant post tempus: non enim in uno dicuntur manere. Nam per disciplinam et consuetudinem vincuntur. Mulieribus etenim Romanorum multis temporibus vini usus incognitus fuit. Disciplina enim facta consuetudine confirmavit sensum suum, ut retineret quod prodesse didicerat. Numquid illis temporibus haec fata fuerunt, et postea mortua sunt, ut cessaret res bene inventa? Sed non fata haec, sed disciplina invenerat. At ubi recessum est a consuetudine, periit disciplina. Et veteres Romanorum tantae continentiae fuerunt, ut etiam oblata munera refutarent, bonam famam divitias arbitrantes, et virtutem voluptatibus praeponentes: et his fatis successum est, aut obierunt; sed non fati fuit, sed disciplinae, quae etiam ipsius fati paedagogus est. Quomodo enim potest fati esse quod neque ante tempus habuit, neque nunc habet? Et quidem nescio utquid tantam invidiam fato faciant, ut in omnibus gestis ipsum dicant auctorem, cum sit et non sit. Ubi enim disciplina est, non est; et ubi consuetudo est, non est; et ubi casus est, non est: ubi autem videtur esse, timore legis vincitur; et libido enim metu compescitur, et quaestus pecuniae propter Deum promerendum repudiatur. In hac ergo parte negari non potest, quia non potest non esse quod vincitur: et tamen recte potest dici et in eo ipso non esse, quia caret auctoritate quod vincitur. Itaque Dei legem qui sequitur, et consuetudinem tenet bonae vitae, huic cedunt omnia quae dicuntur fata. Tantum enim potest consuetudo, ut etiam bestias mitiget. Nam male vivere volentes, ipsi sibi fata constituunt. Per luxuriam enim et voluptatem fit intemperantia et inquietudo, quae parit incontinentiam et iracundiam. Et scientes istud

of fate? If it were of fate, those brought over here would remain as they were; for if there is fate, each person has his own fate with him: but because it is not of fate, all who come from there are changed here, seeing that what is reckoned becoming there is regarded as shameful here. Certainly among all nations number is number; earth is earth; and water is water; and air is air; and fire is fire. Can earth be found anywhere that is not dry, or air that is palpable, or water that is not flowing and cold, or fire that is cold? So everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter; and Saturn is Saturn; and Venus is Venus. In the same way the other signs also. For that art is handled everywhere by one method: but [it is] because among all nations institutions remain, not by the method of the fates, which is one everywhere, as they treat it, but by the devising of men. For whatever seemed, to someone who was reckoned first among his own people, worthy of reason and fitting for propriety, he established for those over whom he presided. Hence each region or nation has its own things which it observes. Just as Solon and Lycurgus established many things which were to be observed by the Greeks in the manner of law, which, as their kingdom gradually failed, were wiped out. For the kings of the Jews were pleased to ride on mules; those of the Romans, however, not on mules, but on horses; while the kings of the Garamantes, who live beyond Tripolis of the Africans, were pleased to ride on bulls: the kings of the Persians, indeed, are carried in vehicles; for the ancient kings of the Persians were not even seen by the peoples: and the kings of Midian delight to ride on camels, so that even their necks are adorned with golden collars: and throughout Africa they prefer to sit on asses rather than on horses. Although all things exist everywhere, yet not all things are pleasing to all; for each person chooses what finds more favour with him. For even in ourselves there is a differing will, both in clothing and in foods, and in the rest of our usage, and in opinion itself. That those who assert the differing fates of many may not say that this is of fate, this fact proves, namely that our will is frequently changed. For what we have long loved afterwards displeases us; and we begin to love what previously we did not willingly have, and once a habit has been formed we remain changed. But if they say that there is an order of the fates, so that there is something which they bring about at certain times, former things recurring at intervals, so that, for example, what they do today they do again after a time: for they are not said to remain in one [state]. For they are overcome by discipline and habit. For indeed to the women of the Romans the use of wine was for a long time unknown. For discipline, once habit had been formed, confirmed its sense, so as to retain what it had learned to be profitable. Were these fates in those times, and did they afterwards die, so that a thing well discovered ceased? But not fates, but discipline had discovered these things. But when there was a departure from habit, discipline perished. And the ancients of the Romans were of such great continence that they even refused gifts offered to them, reckoning a good name as riches, and preferring virtue to pleasures: and it went well with these fates, or they passed away; but it was not of fate, but of discipline, which is even the tutor of fate itself. For how can that be of fate which it neither had before that time nor has now? And indeed I do not know why they cast such great odium upon fate as to call it the author in all deeds, though it both is and is not. For where there is discipline, it is not; and where there is habit, it is not; and where there is chance, it is not: but where it seems to be, it is overcome by fear of the law; for both lust is restrained by fear, and the gain of money is rejected for the sake of earning merit with God. In this respect, then, it cannot be denied, since what is overcome cannot not exist: and yet it can rightly be said not to exist even in that very thing, because what is overcome lacks authority. Therefore he who follows the law of God and keeps the habit of a good life, to him all things that are called fates give way. For habit has such power that it tames even beasts. For those who wish to live badly appoint fates for themselves. For through luxury and pleasure arise intemperance and restlessness, which beget incontinence and wrath. And knowing this

Editors' notes and page, col. 2350

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2350
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2351

poena dignum, ut immunes se faciant, pudorem passi fatis adscribunt, cum de hac re cogitantibus adjutorium faciant daemones: quia et hoc statuunt, ut male cogitantibus tribuant effectum: istos fata appellant, non intelligentes quia sunt hominis inimici. Nam si per sensus non subintrarent peccata ad animam, sed de intus nascerentur, recte omne quod delinquitur, fatorum esse videretur: cum autem videant, per visum et auditum et per reliquos sensus nasci concupiscentiam peccatorum (adjuvantibus inimicis qui suggesserunt faciendum quod contrarium est; et non putatur quamdiu fiat: dulce enim videtur cum fit, aut antequam fiat; perfectum autem apparet esse amarum), quid fatis imputant? Quia autem potest vinci, hinc advertimus. Cogitantibus etenim nobis et de aliqua re sollicitis, silent inimici, et conquiescit libido: non enim possunt suggerere occupatis nobis. Numquid aliquis ad aliquam rem alicui dedito aliud suggerit? Non facit, sciens aut se non audiri, aut aporiari quasi importune suggerentem. Ita et inimici quos constat esse daemones; ii sunt enim dii Paganorum, qui si viderint divinis rebus nos occupatos, non se ingerunt ad contraria suggerenda, sed in insidiis sunt quaerentes occasionem qua se ingerant. Munimenta ergo sunt animorum meditatio assidua legis Dei et operatio; quia si otiosos nos viderint a rebus divinis, excitantur ad sollicitandos nos. Ipsi enim sunt qui per carnem et sanguinem seminant concupiscentias. Quamvis enim habeat caro proprium motum originis suae, quia non est otiosa carnalis nativitas; tamen in hac re accedit ad necem hominum adjutorium daemonum. Diversa enim sunt daemonia, et disparem habentia voluntatem. Quaedam enim sunt quae cum perturbant animos, elidunt corpora: quaedam vero admiscentia se sanguini, generant animis desideria: alia autem cordi hominis se copulantia, suggerunt cum blanditiis contraria: nonnulla autem sunt, quae sola corpora obligant infirmitatibus; sicut et illam filiam Abrahae, quam Dominus curavit (Luc. XIII, 11-16). Haec omnia ignorantes Pagani, fatum appellant; cum diversae sint causae, et ista ab inimicis procurentur, ut quacumque ex causa irritetur homo, et subjiciatur passionibus. Sed fatum bonum appellant, cum bene temperata sunt corpora, aut affabilitate commendantur, habentia gratiam quamdam: malum autem fatum esse, si plus caloris habeant, aut humoris; aut si quis non sit aspersus gratia, sed magis ad detrimenta paratus, quos infortunatos vocant. Fac vera esse. Videmus enim haec etiam in animalibus, ut plus habeant caloris: sed animalia non sunt rationalia sicut homo, ut possint adhibita cura corpus suum temperare. Ideo enim imperator est corporis animus, ut gubernet illud retinaculis legis divinae. Ea enim quae sive impulsu carnis, sive ab inimico suggeruntur, non esse utilia lex ostendit divina. Quam ideo adjutorio dedit Deus, ut dictantem inimicum mala, quasi bona respicientes legis praecepta, illum intelligamus esse seductorem, quia aliud suadet quam docet lex. Sic ergo frenatur corpus, ut quia fervet, minus illi detur, et a deliciis retineatur. Sicut enim corpus febricitans si accipit escam aut potum, increscit illi calor; ita et hujusmodi corpora quae sanguinis fervore uruntur, vehementius exardescent, nisi fuerint gubernata. Igni enim si deest esca, sopitur. Animi est ducere corpus. Si autem dimiserit illud ut eat quo vult, praecipitabit ipsum, sicut equus furiosus negl⟨i⟩gentem sessorem. Et quia corporis fervor plus exardescit, agentibus inimicis ad deceptionem animae; quia non corpus desiderat, sed calore suo generat animae desideria; Dei nostri assistentia imploranda est ad tutelam, ut prohibeat eos: quia non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus principes et potestates (Ephes. VI, 12); quibus amotis, facile erit carnis et sanguinis motum comprimere.

worthy of punishment, in order to make themselves exempt, having suffered shame, they ascribe it to the fates, since demons give help to those who are thinking about this matter: for they also determine this, that they grant effect to those who think evil: these they call fates, not understanding that they are the enemies of man. For if sins did not enter the soul through the senses, but were born from within, everything in which wrong is done would rightly seem to belong to the fates: but since they see that the desire for sins is born through sight and hearing and through the other senses (the enemies helping, who have suggested that what is contrary be done; and it is not considered while it is being done: for it seems sweet while it is done, or before it is done; but once accomplished it appears to be bitter), what do they impute to the fates? That it can be overcome, however, we observe from this. For when we are thinking and anxious about some matter, the enemies are silent, and lust subsides: for they cannot make suggestions to us when we are occupied. Does anyone suggest something else to a person devoted to some matter? He does not do so, knowing either that he is not heard, or that he is put out of countenance as one making suggestions inopportunely. So too the enemies, who are certainly demons; for they are the gods of the pagans, who, if they see us occupied with divine things, do not thrust themselves in to suggest contrary things, but lie in ambush seeking an occasion to thrust themselves in. The bulwarks of souls, therefore, are assiduous meditation on the law of God and the practice of it; for if they see us idle from divine things, they are roused to tempt us. For it is they who sow desires through flesh and blood. For although the flesh has its own motion from its origin, because carnal birth is not idle, nevertheless in this matter the help of the demons comes in for the destruction of men. For demons are of different kinds, and have unlike wills. For there are some which, when they disturb minds, dash bodies down; others, mingling themselves with the blood, beget desires in souls; others, joining themselves to the heart of man, suggest contrary things with blandishments; and there are some which only bind bodies with infirmities, as also that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord healed (Luke 13:11–16). The pagans, ignorant of all these things, call it fate; whereas the causes are diverse, and these things are contrived by the enemies, so that from whatever cause man may be provoked and made subject to passions. But they call it good fate when bodies are well tempered, or are commended by affability, having a certain grace; but that it is bad fate if they have more heat, or more moisture; or if someone is not sprinkled with grace, but is rather prepared for harm, those whom they call unfortunate. Suppose these things to be true. For we see these things also in animals, that they have more heat: but animals are not rational as man is, so that they could temper their body by applying care. For the soul is the commander of the body for this reason, that it may govern it with the reins of the divine law. For the divine law shows that the things which are suggested either by the impulse of the flesh or by the enemy are not profitable. God gave it as a help for this reason, that when the enemy dictates evil things as if good, we, looking to the precepts of the law, may understand him to be a seducer, because he urges something other than what the law teaches. Thus, therefore, the body is bridled, so that, because it is hot, less is given to it, and it is held back from delights. For just as, if a feverish body takes food or drink, its heat increases, so too bodies of this kind, which are burned by the heat of the blood, will blaze up the more vehemently unless they are governed. For a fire, if fuel is lacking, dies down. It belongs to the soul to lead the body. But if it lets it go to go where it will, it will hurl it headlong, as a furious horse does a careless rider. And since the heat of the body blazes up the more when the enemies are at work for the deception of the soul (because it is not the body that desires, but by its heat it begets desires in the soul), the assistance of our God must be implored for protection, that He may restrain them: because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers (Eph. 6:12); and once these are removed, it will be easy to repress the motion of flesh and blood.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2351

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: est otiosa› · call in col 2351

Ita Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, caecisa [print unclear; perhaps excisa].

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions read caecisa (as the scan shows it; perhaps excisa, "cut off").

(printed under page 524)

(2) ‹anchor: nostri assistentia› · call in col 2351

Ms. Colbertinus, ductio.

The Colbert manuscript: ductio ("leading").

(printed under page 524)

Page

running head: 2351 QUAESTIONES EX UTROQU[E …] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2352

Exstinguitur enim incendium, si desit materia per quam urat. Illis autem eveniunt quae a mathematicis dicuntur, qui credunt futurum quod dicunt. Illud enim agitur subtilitate daemoniorum, ut ea efficiant quae antistites illorum dixerint futura, ne falsi detecti credantur. Circa eos vero qui responsis illorum non commodant fidem, non praevalet effectus eorum: quia neque ipsi tam intenti sunt, ut satisfaciant eis qui illis non credunt; neque patitur Deus facere illos per quod seducantur fidentes de Deo, et non credentes diabolo. Omnia enim sic Deus instituit, ut secundum uniuscujusque fidem eveniat, ut arbitrium liberum maneat voluntatis: ac per hoc qui Deo credit ad auxilium ejus confugiens, nihil ei poterit praevalere; certus est enim in potestate ejus esse quae fecit, et non audere contra eum quem videt Deum communem habere propitium. Certe fecit Deus mundum, et solem et stellas creavit, constituens eis cursus quibus gubernatur genus humanum: numquid non habet potestatem imperare illis, ut aliquando aliud faciant, quam decretum habent? Sic enim ea condidit, ut voluntati subjaceant, tunc demum cursus decretos exsequantur, si aliud minime fuerit praeceptum: ut si rogatus ab iis fuerit quibus ministrant, per id quod aut importunae sint pluviae, aut nimia siccitate steriles fructus appareant, jubeat temperari tempus: aut si forte, ut assolet, irato Deo vivant homines, dum per luxuriam et vanitatem oberrantes non faciunt quod placet Deo, diutissime suspensa pluvia, ut factum legimus sub Elia et Elisaeo, famem excitet super terram, satisfactione placatus annuat ut imbres irrigeat aridam (III Reg. XVIII, 43). Eodem enim modo ratio mundi est, ut imperium saeculare. Quomodo enim quidam pressi a rectoribus provinciarum, ad auxilium Imperatorum recurrunt ut erigantur; ita et homines si adversa sibi viderint tempora, supplices se praebeant Deo, in cujus potestate sunt omnia. Sed hoc mathematicis non videtur. Aliud enim inquiunt fieri non posse, quam ut sidera decretas sibi impleant causas: et neque revocari, neque ad aliud impelli possunt, sed semel statuta servant officia. Haec mathematicorum asseveratio est, ut dicant fata immutari non posse, neque precibus aliquid impetrari; quia semel Deum dicunt statuisse totius mundi rationem, et ministris sideribus tradidisse, quae neque retro neque ante fieri possunt. Hic est error mathematicorum, quo et Deum pulsant. Per hanc enim asseverationem negant aliquid posse fieri extra ordinem mundi, ut omnia quae in mundo a Deo facta leguntur, si a mundi lege discordant, negent credenda: illa autem asseverant quae juxta mundi statuta facta dicuntur, ut neque virgo peperisse dicatur, neque virga Aaron floruisse et fructum attulisse (Num. XVII, 8), neque Sara anus peperisse (Gen. XXI, 2). Haec enim mundi ratio non habet, quia extra mundi ordinem a Deo facta leguntur. Et quid mirum, si auctor mundi fecit quod non potest mundus? Sed transgressus videretur, aiunt, rationem quam statuit, si aliter ipse fecisse dicatur, quam mundo decrevit. Age vero, mundo legem statuit faciendi, aut generandi; numquid sibi? Et humilitas ejus erat, si sic faceret, sicut ab eo conditus est mundus? Et unde ab eo factum intelligeretur, si mundi lege fecisset quod fecit? Ut autem intelligeretur a Deo factum, non a mundo, alio ordine factum est. Certe soli decrevit ut incessabiliter impleat statuta spatia, nec habeat licentiam standi; numquid qui hanc legem ei statuit, non ipsi licebit statuere illum? Certe judicibus statutum est ne liceat in reum datam sententiam revocare; numquid et ipse imperator sub hac erit lege? Nam ipsi soli licet revocare sententiam, et reum mortis absolvere, et ipsi ignoscere: quanto magis Deo licere debet quod mundo concedi non debuit, quia Creatoris sui est famulus? Denique mundus per legem sibi traditam, occidere potest, vivificare non potest; per intemperantiam caecum creare potest, oculos illi reformare non potest; imbecillem et aegrum facere potest, curare illum non

For a fire is extinguished if the material by which it may burn is lacking. But the things which are spoken by the astrologers happen to those who believe that what they say will come to pass. For this is brought about by the subtlety of the demons, so that they effect what their priests have said would come to pass, lest they be believed to have been exposed as false. But with regard to those who do not lend credence to their responses, their effect does not prevail: because neither are they themselves so intent as to satisfy those who do not believe them; nor does God allow them to do anything by which those who trust in God and do not believe the devil might be led astray. For God has so ordered all things that it turns out according to the faith of each one, so that the free choice of the will may remain: and by this means nothing will be able to prevail against him who believes God, taking refuge in His help; for he is certain that the things He made are in His power, and that they do not dare to act against him whom they see to have God, the common [Lord], propitious. Certainly God made the world, and created the sun and the stars, establishing for them courses by which the human race is governed: has He not the power to command them that they sometimes do something other than what they have been decreed? For He so founded them that they are subject to His will, and only then carry out their decreed courses if nothing else at all has been commanded: so that if He has been entreated by those whom they serve, because either the rains are untimely, or crops appear barren from excessive drought, He orders the season to be tempered: or if perhaps, as usually happens, men live with God angered, while, straying through luxury and vanity, they do not do what pleases God, and, the rain having been held back for a very long time, as we read was done under Elijah and Elisha, He stirs up famine upon the earth, then, appeased by satisfaction, He consents that showers should water the dry land (1 Kgs. 18:43). For the order of the world is in the same manner as secular rule. For just as certain people, oppressed by the governors of provinces, have recourse to the help of the Emperors so that they may be raised up; so also men, if they see adverse times befalling them, should present themselves as suppliants to God, in Whose power are all things. But this does not seem so to the astrologers. For they say that nothing else can happen than that the stars fulfil the causes decreed for them: and they can neither be called back nor driven to something else, but keep the duties once established. This is the assertion of the astrologers, so that they say the fates cannot be changed, nor anything be obtained by prayers; because they say that God once established the order of the whole world, and handed it over to the stars as His ministers, which can be done neither backwards nor ahead. This is the error of the astrologers, by which they also assail God. For by this assertion they deny that anything can be done outside the order of the world, so that all the things which are read to have been done in the world by God, if they disagree with the law of the world, they deny are to be believed: but they affirm those things which are said to have been done according to the statutes of the world, so that it is not said that a virgin gave birth, nor that the rod of Aaron blossomed and bore fruit (Num. 17:8), nor that Sarah gave birth as an old woman (Gen. 21:2). For the order of the world does not hold these things, because they are read to have been done by God outside the order of the world. And what wonder is it, if the author of the world did what the world cannot do? But He would seem, they say, to have transgressed the order which He established, if He is said to have acted otherwise than He decreed for the world. Come now, He established for the world a law of making, or of begetting; did He establish it for Himself? And would it be His lowliness, if He acted thus, just as the world was founded by Him? And whence would it be understood to have been done by Him, if He had done what He did by the law of the world? But so that it might be understood to have been done by God, not by the world, it was done in another order. Certainly He decreed for the sun that it should ceaselessly fulfil its appointed spaces, and not have licence to stand still; will He Who established this law for it not be permitted to make it stand still? Certainly it has been established for judges that it is not permitted to revoke a sentence given against a defendant; will the emperor himself also be under this law? For to him alone it is permitted to revoke a sentence, and to absolve a defendant from death, and to pardon him: how much more ought that to be permitted to God which ought not to have been granted to the world, because it is the servant of its Creator? Finally, the world, by the law handed to it, can kill, cannot give life; through intemperance it can make a man blind, cannot restore his eyes to him; it can make him weak and sick, cannot cure him

Editors' notes and page, col. 2352

Page

running head: …ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2352
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: running head cut off at the left edge of the image (only "…ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM." visible); fragments of the neighbouring column (2351) at the left of all three images not set; column ends mid-sentence ("curare illum non"); "Deum communem habere propitium" set as printed; reference printed as "XVIII, 43" (rain itself is at v. 45), set as printed; "irrigeat" read from a low-resolution image, UNSURE; no editors' matter; no full-width lines

PL 35:2353

potest: hoc enim sibi Deus reservavit, unde appareat eum Dominum omnium esse. Ad subruendum enim fatum pertinet, quia mortui surrexerunt; caeco nato oculi reformati sunt, aegri et paralytici confirmati sunt, et caetera quae facta sunt alia, ut confugientibus ad Deum, si quid fati esse potest, impedimentum afferre non possit. Dicit enim Joannes apostolus: Major est, inquit, qui in nobis est, quam qui in hoc mundo (I Joan. IV, 4). Rogatus enim Deus, etiam quae statuit amovet. Nam utique statuit in peccatores vindicandum, et tamen deprecantibus ignoscit; quia ipsi soli licet ligare et solvere. Unde cum soli statio concessa non sit, sub Jesu Nave jussus est stare, et obedivit ejus imperio (Josue X, 12, 13), contra id quod sibi in ratione mundi fuerat praeceptum. Sub Ezechia autem amplius factum legitur; quia ut Ezechias, quod sibi promissum erat, verum esse non dubitaret, signum tale accepit, quod novum esset, et humanis auribus inauditum. Non enim sicut prius soli jussum est ut staret, sed ut reverteretur retro (IV Reg. XX, 11): quod videns Ezechias certum haberet eum posse sibi quindecim annos addere ad vitam, qui de hora nona fecerat sextam. Et quia contra mathematicos est quod Ezechiae concessum est, negant enim posse addi ad vitam; signum iterum in hac re quod contra mathematicos esset, accipit. Impossibile enim asserunt aliud astra facere quam habet constitutum. Certe fati esse dicunt servum habere, aut non habere. Esto. Ab initio mundi haec fata ubi fuerunt? Usque ad diluvium enim et infra multa serie annorum transacta, non fuit haec conditio servitutis. Aut numquid ex Nini regis temporibus haec fata coeperunt, qui primus dicitur finitimis bella inferre coepisse, et captos facere servituti obnoxios? Vides ergo postea hoc esse inventum, et non es⟨s⟩e fati, sed actus daemonum; quia si fati esset, ab initio mundi fuisset. Ipsa enim sunt sidera quae facta sunt in initio, et nunc manet cursus eorum. Et antea vita hominum agrestis erat, nec divitiis studebatur: quomodo nunc astrologi per astra dicunt divites et pauperes fieri? Numquid mutata sunt astra? At versutia et praestigium est Satanae, ut ea per stellas dicat fieri, quae angelis suis ministris operatur. Accedente enim tempore quo interitus ei appropinquat, majora adinvenit per quae peccetur. Ecce scimus laborasse fame Italiam, et Africam, et Siciliam, et Sardiniam; dicant mathematici, si omnes hi unum fatum habuerunt, cum inter centum ne quidem duorum fata sibi convenire posse dicantur Erubescant, et taceant; et Deo supplices manus tendant, in cujus potestate sunt omnia. Sed in hoc forte subreptum est fatis? Quid dicamus esse de Pannonia, quae sic erasa est, ut remedium habere non possit? O infirmitas eorum! quia fide pendula christianos sese profitentur. Dum enim de promissis dubitant, nec de iis quae facta sunt, cogitant. Si enim ea quae a Prophetis et Apostolis gesta sunt, considerarent, nunquam fabulas mathematicorum admitterent. Scirent enim omnia in Dei esse potestate, nec terrerentur quando bonis mala accidunt; quia in futuro judicio remunerabuntur, memores Apostoli dicentis, Quia per tribulationes, inquit, oportet nos intrare in regnum Dei (Act. XIV, 21). Contentus enim, et Dei sui exspectans judicium, remuneratus etiam vindicabitur. Si enim in praesenti vindicari desiderat, aut omni aviditate praesentibus frui copiis, dubitat de promissa vita; ac per hoc in futuro inter perfidos deputatus poena dignus habebitur. Mundum enim Deus propter exercitium fecit, et omnibus copiis honestavit, duas causas proponens, praesentem et futuram, coelestem et terrenam, ut ad probationem esset homini: ut qui spreta futura vita praesentem eligeret, carni deputaretur; qui vero praesenti futuram anteponeret, spiritualibus dignus haberetur; et qui injuste pressus potentia injustorum, querelas Deo deponeret vel resignaret, in futuro judicio relevatus spirituali

for God has reserved this to Himself, so that it may be apparent that He is the Lord of all. For it serves to overthrow fate that the dead rose again; eyes were restored to the man born blind, the sick and the paralytics were made strong, and the other things that were done, so that, if anything of fate can exist, it cannot bring any hindrance to those who take refuge in God. For John the apostle says: Greater, he says, is He Who is in us than he who is in this world (1 John 4:4). For God, when He is entreated, removes even the things He has decreed. For He has indeed decreed that punishment be exacted upon sinners, and yet He pardons those who beseech Him; because to Him alone it is permitted to bind and to loose. Hence, though standing still has not been granted to the sun, under Jesus son of Nave it was commanded to stand, and it obeyed his command (Josh. 10:12–13), contrary to what had been prescribed for it in the order of the world. Under Hezekiah, moreover, something greater is read to have been done; for so that Hezekiah might not doubt that what had been promised him was true, he received such a sign as would be new and unheard of by human ears. For it was not commanded of the sun, as before, that it should stand, but that it should turn back (2 Kgs. 20:11): so that, seeing this, Hezekiah might hold it certain that He Who had made the ninth hour into the sixth could add fifteen years to his life. And because what was granted to Hezekiah is contrary to the astrologers, for they deny that anything can be added to life, he receives once more in this matter a sign that would be contrary to the astrologers. For they assert that it is impossible for the stars to do anything other than what has been established. Certainly they say that to have a slave, or not to have one, is a matter of fate. So be it. From the beginning of the world, where were these fates? For up to the flood, and beyond it, when a long series of years had passed, this condition of servitude did not exist. Or did these fates perhaps begin from the times of King Ninus, who is said to have been the first to begin to wage wars on his neighbours, and to make captives subject to servitude? You see, then, that this was devised later, and is not a matter of fate, but the doing of demons; for if it were of fate, it would have been from the beginning of the world. For the stars are the very same that were made in the beginning, and their course remains now. And formerly the life of men was rustic, and riches were not pursued: how then do astrologers now say that men become rich and poor by the stars? Have the stars been changed? But it is the cunning and trickery of Satan, that he says those things come about through the stars which he works through his angels, his ministers. For as the time draws on in which his destruction approaches him, he devises greater things through which sin may be committed. Behold, we know that Italy, and Africa, and Sicily, and Sardinia have suffered from famine; let the astrologers say whether all these had one fate, when among a hundred not even two people's fates are said to be able to agree with each other Let them blush, and be silent; and let them stretch out suppliant hands to God, in Whose power are all things. But perhaps in this something slipped past the fates? What are we to say of Pannonia, which has been so razed that it can have no remedy? O their weakness! for with wavering faith they profess themselves Christians. For while they doubt about the promises, they do not think either about the things that have been done. For if they considered the things that were accomplished by the Prophets and Apostles, they would never admit the fables of the astrologers. For they would know that all things are in the power of God, and they would not be terrified when evils befall the good; for these will be rewarded in the future judgement, mindful of the Apostle saying, That through tribulations, he says, we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). For one who is content, and awaits the judgement of his God, having been rewarded, will also be avenged. For if he desires to be avenged in the present, or to enjoy present abundance with all greed, he doubts about the promised life; and therefore in the future, counted among the faithless, he will be held worthy of punishment. For God made the world for the sake of exercise, and adorned it with all abundance, setting forth two causes, the present and the future, the heavenly and the earthly, so that it might be for man's testing: so that he who, spurning the future life, chose the present, would be assigned to the flesh; but he who set the future before the present would be held worthy of spiritual things; and he who, unjustly oppressed by the power of the unjust, laid his complaints before God or resigned them, being relieved in the future judgement,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2353

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: vel resignaret› · call in col 2353

Ms. Colbertinus, reservaret.

The Colbert manuscript: reservaret ("should reserve").

(printed under page 525)

Page

running head: 2353 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2354

gloria honoraretur. Unde nullus sanctorum in mundo gloriosus apparuit, neque praesentes dilexit delicias. Hinc Apostolus: Habentes, inquit, victum et vestitum, his contenti simus (I Tim. VI, 8). Sed qui est christianus, etiam dolet, si felix videatur in saeculo, cum Christianorum dignitas et felicitas non in terris promissa sit, sed in coelis. Quomodo christianum se dicit, qui non illic gloriari vult ubi promissum est, sed hic ubi prohibitum est? Si enim expediret praesentibus frui, non utique haec contemnentibus coelestia promitterentur. Qua ergo spe Christiani mathematicis aures commodant, cum audiant Joannem apostolum clamantem et dicentem: Nolite diligere hunc mundum, neque ea quae in hoc mundo sunt (I Joan. II, 15)? Itaque si haec sunt fidei vel legis nostrae praecepta, ne mundus diligatur, neque ea quae in mundo sunt; quid est ut quidam nostrum querantur contristati de aliorum felicitate quae est in mundo, quae apud Deum forte infelicitas est; cum magis gaudere deberent, quia non illis mundus praestat per quae obligati teneantur humanis rebus obnoxii? Felicitas enim ista, securitatis facultate accepta, divinorum caret sollicitudine. Indiligens enim sit necesse est circa divina oracula, qui omnibus necessariis refertus, unde sit sollicitus non habet. Alia enim sollicitudine incipere solent laborare hujusmodi, ut amplificentur in saeculo, quod sine peccato non potest fieri. Si propius autem aspiciatur, videbitur inimicus magis illorum esse mundus, quos beatos dicitur facere. Vix enim aliquis illorum coelestia cogitat. Gaudendum ergo Christianis est, dum recte conversantes premuntur in hoc saeculo. Hic enim vincit saeculum, qui contentus quomodo illi evenerit in hoc saeculo, Deo gratias agit, a quo si qua hic denegata videntur temporalia, reddi speret aeterna. Utquid enim Deus futurum judicium statuit, nisi ut qui injuste deprimuntur ad tempus, vita aeterna donentur, depressis iis qui per potentiam contemnentes, aut non credentes futurum Dei judicium, impunitatem esse scelerum arbitrati sunt? Sed fatorum assertores negant futurum judicium. Si enim nascuntur qui boni sint, et e contra qui mali sint; quid laudas aut accusas, quando neque bonus congressus laboravit ut vinceret, neque malus negl⟨i⟩gens fuit ut perderet? Quid enim inter privatos fabulas venditant? Nam judicibus oblati peccatores, nunquam ausi sunt crimina sua fatis excusare; sed semetipsos reos confitentes, jure se sententiam excipere non negant. Itaque legis auctoritas rationem calcat fatorum, ita ut ne nominari quidem possint, cum se commoverit lex. Quomodo autem evasuros se in perpetuum credunt, qui nequiter versati legis divinae severitatem studio quodam ad tempus fugiunt, non cogitantes auctorem legis hinc dissimulare non posse? Nam hic imago legis est, illic veritas: et qui illudit imaginem, veritatem illudere non potest. Numquid est aliquis locus sine Deo, aut aliquis manus ejus effugiat? Putant autem blandientes sibi, quia qui hic evadit, jam securus sit. Et quomodo hoc justum aestimant, ut aliis punitis in talibus causis isti evadant? Certe Deus mundum constituit, et qua lege uteretur, ostendit. Diligens enim opus suum ostendit ei viam, qua itur ad vitam, ordinans quibus ducibus uteretur; quia est et via quae ducit ad mortem. Numquid non ergo requirere debet, si ii quos ministros regni sui posuit, eo jure quo constituit populum ejus gubernarunt; aut si populus edictum ejus suscepit, aut administri fideles inventi laude digni sint, aut infideles poenis subditi? Similiter et populus lege servata laudatur, aut contempta damnatur. Hoc jus suum, hoc causa exposcit. Quomodo ergo quibusdam displicet futurum judicium credere? Sed hoc mathematicorum invenit amentia. Quomodo enim possunt futurum accipere judicium, qui praesenti repugnant; quia judicium in nativitate esse contendunt? Et quia nativitati imputatur praemium, desipiunt ipsi qui cum quodam judicio naturali bonos et malos non fieri, sed asserunt nasci, peccantibus retribuunt, nec patiuntur

should be honoured with spiritual glory. Hence none of the saints appeared glorious in the world, nor loved present delights. Hence the Apostle: Having, he says, food and clothing, let us be content with these (1 Tim. 6:8). But he who is a Christian even grieves if he seems fortunate in the world, since the dignity and felicity of Christians have been promised not on earth but in the heavens. How does he call himself a Christian who does not wish to glory there where it has been promised, but here where it has been forbidden? For if it were expedient to enjoy present things, heavenly things would surely not be promised to those who despise these. With what hope, then, do Christians lend their ears to astrologers, when they hear John the apostle crying out and saying: Do not love this world, nor the things that are in this world (1 John 2:15)? Therefore, if these are the precepts of our faith or law, that the world is not to be loved, nor the things that are in the world, how is it that some of us complain, saddened, about the felicity of others which is in the world, which before God is perhaps infelicity, when they ought rather to rejoice that the world does not furnish them with the things by which, bound, they would be held subject to human affairs? For this felicity, having received the means of security, lacks solicitude for divine things. For he who, filled with all necessities, has nothing to be anxious about must needs be negligent concerning the divine oracles. For people of this kind usually begin to labour with another anxiety, namely that they may be enlarged in the world, which cannot be done without sin. But if it is looked at more closely, the world will be seen to be rather the enemy of those whom it is said to make blessed. For scarcely any of them thinks of heavenly things. Christians, therefore, ought to rejoice while, living rightly, they are oppressed in this world. For he conquers the world who, content with however things have turned out for him in this world, gives thanks to God, from Whom, if any temporal things seem to be denied here, he may hope that eternal things will be rendered. For why has God appointed a future judgement, unless so that those who are unjustly oppressed for a time may be granted eternal life, while those are cast down who, despising through their power, or not believing in the future judgement of God, have reckoned that there is impunity for crimes? But the assertors of the fates deny the future judgement. For if those who are good are born so, and contrariwise those who are evil, why do you praise or accuse, when neither did the good man labour in the contest so as to conquer, nor was the bad man negligent so as to lose? For why do they peddle tales among private persons? For sinners brought before judges have never dared to excuse their crimes by the fates; but confessing themselves guilty, they do not deny that they receive the sentence justly. Thus the authority of the law tramples on the reasoning of the fates, so that they cannot even be named once the law has bestirred itself. But how do they believe they will escape for ever, who, having behaved wickedly, flee the severity of the divine law for a time by a certain effort, not reflecting that the Author of the law cannot overlook this? For here is the image of the law, there the truth: and he who mocks the image cannot mock the truth. Is there any place without God, or does anyone escape His hands? But flattering themselves, they think that whoever escapes here is now safe. And how do they reckon this just, that, when others have been punished in such cases, these should escape? Certainly God established the world, and showed by what law it should be governed. For, being careful of His work, He showed it the way by which one goes to life, appointing what guides it should use; since there is also a way that leads to death. Ought He not, then, to inquire whether those whom He set as ministers of His kingdom have governed His people by the law by which He constituted it; or whether the people have received His edict, or whether the administrators, found faithful, are worthy of praise, or, found unfaithful, are subject to punishments? Likewise the people too is praised when the law is kept, or condemned when it is despised. This His right, this the case demands. How then does it displease some to believe in the future judgement? But this the madness of the astrologers devised. For how can they accept a future judgement who resist the present one, since they contend that the judgement lies in the nativity? And since the reward is imputed to the nativity, they themselves are foolish who, while asserting that by a certain natural judgement the good and the bad are not made but born, requite those who sin, nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 2354

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2354
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence ("gloria honoraretur") and ends with "pa-" split across the column break; overlapping lines between images set once; left column (col. 2353) partly visible, not set; column number in head blurred but legible as 2354; "negl⟨i⟩gens": the i is damaged/missing in type; "ausi sunt" printed faintly (n blurred, could be read as "suat"), set as sunt; no full-width line; no editors' matter in this column
other: the word patiuntur was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2355

PL 35:2355

inulta esse peccata. Virgis enim malos et vinculis intus corripiunt, quos foris inemendabiles asserunt natos. An quis prudentum corripit quos scit emendari non posse? quod quidem aut stulti esset, aut iniqui. Sed ne hoc ipsum fato dicant fieri; qui sub fato est, non facit quod vult, ut et ipsi naturale habeant ut vindicent in eos quos sciunt inconvertibiles manere naturaliter; et vere quia sic dicendum est, ut quidquid fati esse dicitur, stultitiae deputetur. Quam enim stultum est ut cum dicant aliquem malum natum, nec illum bonum probent quem asserunt bonum natum? Quomodo enim potest bonus judicari, qui rem iniquam facere deprehenditur? Quid enim tam iniquum, quam ut iniquus credatur, qui negatur aliud potuisse facere quam fecit? Et si omnia sub fato sunt, quomodo lex subintravit quae non sinat fieri quod fati est? Si enim tollatur lex, passim publice illicita fient, nec potentes poterunt ferri, nec erit libertas; quia et qui nunc non cogitat malum, sublato timore incipiet malus esse. Denique legimus legem malorum causa datam. Sed et hoc ipsum fati forte fuit, ut lex daretur? Et qua ratione fata subsistunt, si generant a quo destruantur? Quidquid fati est, contradicit lex fieri debere. Carent ergo ratione, si contraria sibi generant. Et iniqua sunt, quia nasci faciunt homines ad damnationem: et si iniqua sunt, auctoritatem habere non debent; quia omne iniquum punitioni obnoxium est. Aut ne forte legem nihil prodesse dicant, quia qui sic natus est ut malus sit, per legem non potest immutari; quod si est, lex superflue data est: et quomodo fata rem superfluam fecerunt nasci? quia nihil sine fato. Itaque fata et pro se et contra se faciunt: quod si ita est, stare non potest quod per inconstantiam rationis non tenet firmitatem. Sed ne propter hoc legem fata esse voluerunt, ut quos malos fata faciunt nasci, a lege damnentur, ut conveniat fatis ex lege adhibere punitionem? Ad hoc quid erit quod dicatur, nisi quia et leges et fata proprio judicio condemnari merentur, si pari injustitia hoc elaborant, ut occidantur qui non sponte, sed fatis agentibus mala fecerunt? Ad hoc lex contradicit, quia fata propria professione damnanda sunt. Non enim negant eos qui mali sunt, fati esse quod mali sunt. Lex autem usque adeo adversa est ipsis fatis, ut neget malos fati esse quod mali sunt, sed voluntatis illorum: quamobrem illos puniendos rite constituit. Nihil ergo legi et fatis commune est, quando a lege negatur quod a fatis asseritur. Qua autem ratione nati dicentur, qui mathematicos urbe Roma prohibuerunt? quod diu servatum non ignoratur, et certe pagani fuerunt. Quomodo fato fiunt quae contra fatum sunt? Sed si est fatum, non facit contra se. Isti non habent fatum, qui faciunt contra fatum; et si hi non habent fatum, non est fatum. Sed est, inquiunt, fatum unicuique praestans qua morte moriatur. Quod si ita est, non est accusandus homicida. Nam et duplici genere se defendet; quia et ipse fatis agentibus hoc fecit, et ille agentibus fatis occisus est. Sed inter haec lex pulsatur, quia punit oblatum homicidam. Simili quoque modo nascitur qui adulter sit, et quae adultera, et cui fiat adulterium. Quod si et hoc sic se habet; etiam nunc lex tangitur, quae punit adulteros: quod si vere fati esset, etiam ille puniendus erat, qui tale habet fatum, ut adulterium patiatur. Et ipse enim particeps invenitur, quia fatum ejus admisit ut fieret adulterium.

allow sins to go unpunished. For with rods and chains they chastise within doors the wicked whom out of doors they assert were born incorrigible. Or does any prudent man chastise those whom he knows cannot be corrected? which indeed would be the part either of a fool or of an unjust man. But let them not say that this very thing happens by fate; he who is under fate does not do what he wills, so that they too would have it by nature to take vengeance on those whom they know remain unconvertible by nature; and truly, since it must be put thus, let whatever is said to be of fate be set down to folly. For how foolish it is that, while they say someone was born evil, they do not prove that man good whom they assert was born good? For how can he be judged good who is caught doing an unjust thing? For what is so unjust as that he should be believed unjust who is denied to have been able to do other than he did? And if all things are under fate, how did the law come in, which does not allow what is of fate to be done? For if the law is taken away, unlawful things will be done everywhere in public, and the powerful will not be bearable, nor will there be liberty; because even he who does not now think of evil will begin to be evil once fear is removed. Finally, we read that the law was given because of the wicked. But was this very thing perhaps also of fate, that the law should be given? And on what reasoning do the fates stand, if they beget that by which they are destroyed? Whatever is of fate, the law declares ought not to be done. They lack reason, therefore, if they beget things contrary to themselves. And they are unjust, because they cause men to be born for damnation: and if they are unjust, they ought not to have authority; because everything unjust is liable to punishment. Or perhaps they may say that the law is of no profit, because he who was so born as to be evil cannot be changed by the law; but if this is so, the law was given superfluously: and how did the fates cause a superfluous thing to be born? since nothing is without fate. And so the fates act both for themselves and against themselves: and if this is so, that cannot stand which through the inconstancy of its reasoning holds no firmness. Or did the fates perhaps will the law to exist for this reason, that those whom the fates cause to be born evil should be condemned by the law, so that it may suit the fates to apply punishment by means of the law? To this what will there be to say, except that both the laws and the fates deserve to be condemned by their own judgement, if with equal injustice they labour at this, that those should be put to death who did evil not of their own accord but with the fates acting? To this the law objects, because the fates are to be condemned by their own profession. For they do not deny that it is of fate that those who are evil are evil. But the law is so far opposed to the fates themselves that it denies that it is of fate that the evil are evil, but rather of their own will: for which reason it has duly established that they are to be punished. Nothing, therefore, is common to the law and the fates, since what is asserted by the fates is denied by the law. And on what reasoning will those be said to have been born so, who banned the astrologers from the city of Rome? which, as is well known, was long observed, and they were certainly pagans. How are things done by fate which are against fate? But if there is fate, it does not act against itself. Those men do not have fate who act against fate; and if these do not have fate, there is no fate. But there is, they say, a fate that determines for each man by what death he shall die. But if this is so, the murderer is not to be accused. For he will defend himself in two ways: because both he himself did this with the fates acting, and the other was killed with the fates acting. But amid these things the law is assailed, because it punishes the murderer brought before it. In like manner too is born he who is to be an adulterer, and she who is to be an adulteress, and he against whom adultery is to be committed. And if this too is so, then again the law is touched, which punishes adulterers: for if it were truly of fate, he too would have to be punished who has such a fate as to suffer adultery. For he himself also is found to be a partaker, because his fate admitted that adultery should be done.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2355

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2355

Ms. Colbertinus, sic legit hunc locum: Et quia veritas computatur praemii resurgit, ipsi qui cum quodam judicio naturali bonos et malos non fieri, sed asserunt nasci, peccantibus retribuunt, nec patiuntur inulta esse peccata. — Hanc lectionem admittit Morel, et sic corrigendam judicat: pro, Et quia veritas computatur praemii resurgit, legendum est: Et quia veritas cum putatur premi, resurgit. Nemo inficiari audeat correctionem istam esse sensui, si non genuino, at saltem naturali accommodatissimam. M.

The Colbert manuscript reads this passage thus: And because truth is reckoned of reward rises again, those very men who, with a kind of natural judgement, assert that the good and the bad are not made but born, repay sinners, and do not suffer sins to go unpunished. — Morel accepts this reading, and judges that it should be corrected thus: for Et quia veritas computatur praemii resurgit read Et quia veritas cum putatur premi, resurgit ("and because truth, when it is thought to be crushed, rises again"). No one would dare deny that this correction suits the sense extremely well, if not the genuine sense, at least the natural one. M.

(printed under page 526)

(2) ‹anchor: nihil sine fato› · call in col 2355

Ita Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, nihil prodesset fato.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions read nihil prodesset fato ("nothing would profit by fate").

(printed under page 526)

(3) ‹anchor: rite constituit› · call in col 2355

Ms. Colbertinus, reos illos rite constituit.

The Colbert manuscript: reos illos rite constituit ("duly declared them guilty").

(printed under page 526)

Page

running head: 2355 QUAESTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2356

Aequum ergo erat ut aut simul condemnarentur, aut simul absolverentur. Inter haec injusta lex videtur. Ideo si a Deo sunt fata, lex non erit Dei; quia hoc non solum Deo, sed nec prudenti convenit id damnare quod fecit. Sed quoniam nemo unquam contra legem ausus est dicere, vel a Deo hanc esse negare, fata a Deo dici esse non poterunt, quia ista Deus punit per legem. Quando enim damnatur quod fit impellentibus fatis, sine dubio fata damnantur. Sed animae, aiunt, malae ad hoc nascuntur ut male faciant. Esto. Sed non deberent malae fato nasci, ut innocentes ab his possent occidi. Si enim illae malae animae essent, nasci non deberent, sed puniri, ne occiderent innocentes. Sed non animae, quas malas fingunt, innocentes occidunt; sed fata, quae sic faciunt nasci homines, ut occidantur. Ac per hoc non animae, sed iniqua sunt fata; et si iniqua sunt, a Deo non sunt: ergo a diabolo sunt; et si a diabolo sunt, simul damnanda sunt cum illo. Et quoniam discernere dicuntur singulis, quomodo moriantur, aut ferro, aut laqueo, aut praecipitio, aut naufragio, vel aliter, multis modis eadem praestant. Nemo enim potest solus ab omnium fatis discrepare. Quod si quis inventus fuerit discrepare, jam non est fati, sed eventus. Et si in unius morte eventus est, erit et in multorum; et jam non erit fati. Anaxagoras in pilam conjectus jussu regis contusus expiravit, quod non contigit ulli hominum. Et Sisarae regi Allophylorum mulier palum in tempora fixit, et ita reddidit spiritum (Judic. IV, 21). Hoc modo nemo est mortuus. Et antea cruci homines figebantur, quod postea edicto prohibitum manet. Si fati erat, quomodo desiit? Quando enim quod fati est prohibetur et non fit, vincitur fatum. Aut si non erat fati, non fato homines crucifigebantur, sed judicio legis. Et ita est ut non fato homines damnentur, sed convicti a malis suis operibus. Apud Thuscos natus dicitur quidam tam formosus facie, quam nemo unquam fuit: et quia vir bonus erat, ne cui in suspicionem veniret, quia etiam honestarum mulierum oculos illiciebat, faciem sibi septem plagis vulneravit, ut pulchritudinem quae ab omnibus desiderabatur, damnaret (Valer. Max. lib. 4, cap. 5). Ecce quomodo si fata sunt, superata sunt. Sed forte dicatur, Naturae fuit ut formosus nasceretur; fati vero, ut facies ejus vulneraretur. Quod si ita est, jam non nascitur fatum, sed accidens causa est. Et si accidens est, non erit fati, sed consilii, aut forte eventus, quantum ad reliquas pertinet partes. Nam quid aliud est vincere fatum, nisi immutare naturam? Quod si adeo utique esset, nec immutari posset, nec vinci. Legitur namque cautum in quodam juris libello, aliquando mulierem quinque peperisse: quomodo subreptum est fatis, ut huic soli hoc natura decreverit, quod non erat fati? Quod si fati fuisset, aliquantae hac sorte oneratae fuissent. Et cum quidam ad peregrina loca proficisceretur, uxorem suam amico quem fidelem sciret, commendavit, non utique puero, sed maturae aetatis. Qui ut diligentior custos ejus esset, abscidit se ille, ut cum ea sine cujusquam suspicione caute dormiret. Quid putamus, fati fuisse, an consilii? Sed quomodo fati fuerit quod contrarium est? Qui vincit enim quod natum in eo est, hic exinanit fatum. Et in studiis certe fatorum vertitur causa, ut sciat quis aliquid, aut non possit comprehendere. Omnes ergo senatores unum habent fatum; nullus enim senatorum sine litteris est: et gentes quae sine litteris sunt, unum habent, et omnes servi unius sunt fati; nemo enim servorum est senator. Sed si quod nascitur dicitur fatum, quidquid accesserit, extra fatum erit. Aut si quod accidit, ex fato venit, quare per laborem venit? Tunc enim diceretur fati, si invito homini eveniret. Quod enim evenit sine providentia, fatorum dicitur: quod vero excogitatur, et diu pensatur, et exercitiis mediis acquiritur, cur fati asse

It would therefore have been fair that they should either be condemned together or acquitted together. In these circumstances the law seems unjust. Therefore, if the fates are from God, the law will not be God's; for it befits neither God nor even a prudent man to condemn what he has made. But since no one has ever dared to speak against the law, or to deny that it is from God, the fates cannot be said to be from God, because God punishes these things through the law. For when what is done under the impulse of the fates is condemned, without doubt the fates are condemned. But, they say, evil souls are born for this purpose, that they may do evil. Let it be so. But evil souls ought not to be born by fate, so that innocent people could be killed by them. For if those souls were evil, they ought not to be born, but punished, lest they kill the innocent. But it is not the souls, which they imagine to be evil, that kill the innocent; it is the fates, which cause men to be born in such a way that they are killed. And for this reason it is not the souls but the fates that are wicked; and if they are wicked, they are not from God: therefore they are from the devil; and if they are from the devil, they are to be condemned together with him. And since they are said to determine for each individual how they shall die, whether by the sword, or by the noose, or by a fall from a height, or by shipwreck, or otherwise, they grant the same things in many ways. For no one can by himself differ from the fates of all. But if anyone is found to differ, it is no longer a matter of fate but of chance. And if there is chance in the death of one, there will be in that of many too; and then it will not be a matter of fate. Anaxagoras, thrown into a mortar at the king's command, died pounded to pieces, which happened to no other man. And a woman drove a stake into the temples of Sisera, king of the Philistines, and so he gave up his spirit (Judg. 4:21). No one has died in this way. And formerly men were fastened to the cross, which afterwards remains forbidden by edict. If it was a matter of fate, how did it cease? For when what is of fate is forbidden and is not done, fate is overcome. Or if it was not a matter of fate, men were not crucified by fate but by the judgement of the law. And so it is that men are condemned not by fate, but convicted by their own evil works. Among the Tuscans a certain man is said to have been born so handsome of face as no one ever was: and because he was a good man, lest he should come under anyone's suspicion, since he attracted the eyes even of respectable women, he wounded his own face with seven cuts, so as to condemn the beauty which was desired by all (Valer. Max. book 4, ch. 5). See how, if there are fates, they are overcome. But perhaps it may be said: It was of nature that he was born handsome, but of fate that his face was wounded. But if that is so, fate is no longer born [with a man], but the cause is accidental. And if it is accidental, it will not be of fate but of deliberate choice, or perhaps of chance, as far as the remaining parts are concerned. For what else is it to overcome fate than to change nature? But if it were indeed so, it could neither be changed nor overcome. For it is read as recorded in a certain little book of law that once a woman gave birth to five: how was it stolen from the fates, that nature decreed this to her alone, which was not of fate? For if it had been of fate, a good number of women would have been burdened with this lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign parts, he entrusted his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful, not indeed a boy, but of mature age. And he, so that he might be a more careful guardian of her, castrated himself, so that he might safely sleep with her without anyone's suspicion. What do we think, was it of fate, or of deliberate choice? But how could that be of fate which is contrary [to it]? For he who overcomes what was born in him, he empties fate of force. And certainly in studies the cause is turned to the fates, that someone knows something or cannot grasp it. All senators, then, have one fate; for none of the senators is without letters: and the nations which are without letters have one, and all slaves are of one fate; for none of the slaves is a senator. But if what is born is called fate, whatever has been added will be outside fate. Or if what happens comes from fate, why does it come through labour? For it would then be called of fate, if it befell a man against his will. For what happens without foresight is said to be of the fates: but what is thought out, and long pondered, and acquired by means of exercises, why is it said to be of fate?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2356

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Apud Thuscos› · call in col 2356

Ms. Colbertinus, Etruscos.

The Colbert manuscript: "Etruscos" ("the Etruscans").

(printed under page 526)

(2) ‹anchor: Quod enim evenit› · call in col 2356

Ms. Colbertinus, imminet.

The Colbert manuscript: "imminet" ("impends").

(printed under page 526)

Page

running head: ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2356 (head cut off at left edge; column number partly blurred in the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: "asse" (for "esse"), last line of the column ("cur fati asse", continued "dicitur?" at the top of col 2357)

PL 35:2357

dicitur? Eunuchus aliquis natus est, alii fiunt, ubi erit fatum? In illo credo qui natus est: qui fiunt, quid dicendum de his est? Diversum est enim nasci et fieri. Aut si hi fato facti eunuchi sunt, ille contra fatum natus est eunuchus. Et quare tam raro eunuchus nascitur, ut incredibile videatur? Quaedam mulier fuit in urbe Roma, quam constat undecim maritos habuisse; et alius vir qui duodecim habuit uxores; quae fata sunt quae his haec decreverunt? Nam tempore imperatoris Constantini manifestum est puellam in parte Campaniae immutatam in masculum, et Romam perductam: quae hoc fata fecerunt? Alia ut opinor quae vos nescitis. O si de hoc nomine taceretis, et aliqua eventui et casibus remitteretis, quaedam providentiae concederetis! Nam tantum potest virtus et industria animorum, ut non solum naturae resistat, verum et seipsam emendet aut inemendet, quia habet judicium sui. Traduntur enim mulieres Scytharum, quae Amazones dictae sunt, cum viri earum occupati bello longinquo diu abessent, propter sobolem se miscuisse servis, et omnem marem natum necavisse relictis feminis, ita ut nulla lanificio operam daret, sed ab ineunte aetate palaestra et armis imbuerentur. Harum tanta virtus in rebus gerendis fuit, ut per multam seriem annorum regnantes, nonnullas gentes subigerent, Asiamque omnem sub tributo ponerent. Quid ad hoc poterit dici? numquid haec fati fuerunt, quae per tot annos sic gesta sunt, ut omnia quae fati putantur esse, exinanirent? Primum, ut contra naturam mulieres spretis viris regnarent; deinde quod servis mixtae sunt propriis; tertio, ut omnes nati masculi necarentur, feminae vivificarentur. Tanta eas prosperitas est secuta, ut sine viris regnum coeptum magnis copiis, magnis temporibus propagarent. Certe hoc factum a constitutione mundi nunquam factum est, nisi in Scythia tantum: ne forte dicerent, quia cum mundus innovatur post annos mille quadringentos sexaginta, sic haec veniunt; quippe cum mundus jam sexto millesimo anno agitur, quamdiu quod imitatus quis fuerit, facit. Nam Crassus Agelastus dictus est, quia semel traditur in vita risisse. Cur Junius, Brutus est cognominatus? Quia sagaci consilio stultum se simulavit, ne a superbo rege propter pecuniae suae magnitudinem occideretur. Tempore Constantini morionem se triginta annis finxit quidam, qui Samatius vocabatur, ut imperatorem, sicut ipse postea dixit, a taediis suis avocaret. Ubi est ratio fatorum, quando unusquisque quod vult facit? Exclusa est. Illud autem quale est, quod fatorum assertores supplicationibus sunt devoti, cum sint his adversae? Nam et annos suos his commendant, et de nuptiis, et de profectione quaerunt, et de emptionibus, et de dignitatibus. Quod si fati est, quid oras, quid supplicas, quod etiam te invito futurum est? Sed quaero, inquit, an debeam emere. Ergo non in fato consistit quod tunc facere debere te dicis, si didiceris expedire. Nam si fati est, frustra quaeris, quod velis nolis, quaeras non quaeras, facturus es. Quod autem nec apud eos ipsos fixa est ista asseveratio, idcirco incerta tentant, ne aliud verum inveniant quam tractant. Sed prudentiores qui inter eos videntur, non propter fata, inquiunt, supplicamus, cum ea minime immutari sciamus, sed horum causa quae juxta fata sunt, ne faciant nobis aliquid adversum. Age vero, si nescio quis bonum ⟨f⟩atum habeat, et juxta se sit aliquid quod videatur contrarium, quid poterit esse, cum fatum bonum immutari negetur, sicut et malum? Certe hoc quod juxta fatum est, ne noceat supplicatur; nocebit enim nisi fuerit supplicatum: quomodo ergo illud fatum immutari negatur, quando hoc quod vicinum est, timetur? nec enim timeretur, nisi illud immutari posse crederetur. Sed quia in eo magis causa consistit, ne fatum mutari dicatis, sine dubio, sine causa supplicatis. Videte autem ne hoc fati sit quod supplicatis, quia sine malo solet esse

A certain eunuch was born, others are made: where will fate be? In the one who was born, I suppose; as for those who are made, what is to be said of them? For to be born and to be made are different things. Or if these were made eunuchs by fate, that one was born a eunuch against fate. And why is a eunuch born so rarely that it seems incredible? There was a certain woman in the city of Rome who, it is established, had eleven husbands; and another man who had twelve wives: what fates are these that decreed these things for them? For in the time of the emperor Constantine it is well known that a girl in a part of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates did this? Others, I suppose, which you do not know. Oh, if you would be silent about this name, and assign some things to chance and accidents, and grant some to providence! For the virtue and industry of minds can do so much that it not only resists nature but also corrects or corrupts itself, because it has judgement of itself. For it is related that the women of the Scythians, who were called Amazons, when their husbands, occupied in a distant war, were long absent, joined themselves with slaves for the sake of offspring, and killed every male that was born, leaving the females, so that none applied herself to wool-working, but from earliest age they were trained in the wrestling-ground and in arms. So great was their valour in deeds that, reigning through a long series of years, they subdued several nations and put all Asia under tribute. What can be said to this? Were these things of fate, which were done in this way for so many years that they emptied out everything that is thought to be of fate? First, that contrary to nature women reigned, scorning men; next, that they mingled with their own slaves; third, that all males born were killed and the females kept alive. Such prosperity followed them that without men they extended the kingdom they had begun with great forces over great spans of time. Certainly this deed was never done from the founding of the world except in Scythia alone: lest perhaps they should say that these things come about thus because the world is renewed after one thousand four hundred and sixty years; since indeed the world is now passing its six thousandth year, as long as anyone has imitated something, he does it. For Crassus was called Agelastus, because he is said to have laughed once in his life. Why was Junius, Brutus surnamed? Because by shrewd counsel he feigned himself a fool, lest he be killed by the proud king on account of the size of his wealth. In the time of Constantine a certain man, who was called Samatius, feigned himself a fool for thirty years, so that, as he himself afterwards said, he might divert the emperor from his weariness. Where is the reasoning of the fates, when each one does what he wishes? It is shut out. But what sort of thing is this, that the champions of the fates are devoted to supplications, though these are opposed to them? For they both commend their years to them, and make inquiries about marriages, and about a journey, and about purchases, and about dignities. But if it is of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate for what will come about even against your will? But I ask, he says, whether I ought to buy. Therefore what you say you ought to do then, if you have learned that it is expedient, does not rest on fate. For if it is of fate, you ask in vain, since, willing or not, asking or not, you are going to do it. But because not even among themselves is this assertion fixed, they therefore attempt uncertain things, lest they find some truth other than what they treat. But those among them who seem more prudent say: We do not supplicate on account of the fates, since we know that they are by no means changed, but on account of those things that are next to the fates, lest they do us some harm. Come now, if someone or other has a good fate, and next to him there is something that seems contrary, what can it be, since a good fate is said not to be changed, just as a bad one? Certainly supplication is made that this which is next to the fate should not harm; for it will harm unless supplication has been made: how then is that fate said not to be changed, when this which is near it is feared? For it would not be feared unless it were believed that that could be changed. But since the reason lies rather in this, that you may not say that fate is changed, without doubt you supplicate without reason. But beware lest this too be of fate, that you supplicate, since it is usually without harm

Editors' notes and page, col. 2357

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2357

Ms. Colbertinus, undecim.

The Colbert manuscript: undecim ("eleven").

(printed under page 527)

(2) ‹anchor: qui Samatius› · call in col 2357

Ms. Colbertinus, Samsucius.

The Colbert manuscript: Samsucius.

(printed under page 527)

Page

running head: 2357 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2358

quidquid fato assignatis. Certe non mala res est supplicare: cur ergo non fati esse dicatur? Si ergo fati erit quod supplicat, cujus erit supplicare, et non impetrare? quia si fati erat, impetrare deberet quod supplicat. Si autem fati est supplicare et non impetrare, stultum est fatum; quia supplicare facit hominem, quem scit non impetrare. Quod si nescit an possit impetrare, quod illum facit supplicare; improvidum erit fatum, et carens ratione: quia omnis ignorantia insipientia est, insipientia vero stultitia est. In hanc partem cadit omnis tractatus Paganorum. Viderint Pagani, qui circumfusa caligine non vident lumen. Antiquo enim errore circumventi, veritati quae prius latebat, aures accommodare detrectant. Quid de quibusdam christianis dicemus, qui in Salvatore, ceu solo nomine mutati, pristini erroris vindicant vanitatem, in tantum hebetati, ut ipsum Deum sub fato egisse contendant, dicentes, Ipse dixit, Nondum venit hora mea (Joan. II, 4): ut hora haec non voluntatis, sed fatalis conditionis fuisset necessitas, cum ille voluntatis suae horam significaverit, qua se tradi permiserit. Denique ait: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam (Id. X, 18). Cessat ergo fatalis necessitas, ubi potestas est voluntatis. Et quomodo Salvator appellatur a nobis, si fati sunt quae agimus, vel accidunt nobis? Quia ideo Salvator dicitur, quoniam ostendit nobis viam salutis: itaque si ab hoc ostensa est, non fati fuit quia prius latuit. Et quod fati esse dicitur, ex improviso evenire contendunt. Hoc enim fidei meritum est, quae non potest dici ex fato, quia quod creditur, aliis saeculis auditum non fuit. Fata enim hoc dicunt praestare, quod in conversatione hominum vertitur. Hoc autem qua ratione praestare posse dicuntur, quod ignorare deprehenduntur? Hinc est unde Apostolus ait, Quem nemo principum hujus saeculi cognovit (I Cor. II, 8). Hi sunt principes et potestates, malos angelos sub se habentes, qui sub nomine fatorum voluptates suas efficiunt, prout eis libitum fuerit, sicut et assolent malefici confiteri. Sunt enim quos diligunt, alios non amant, quosdam oderunt. Et unicuique hoc suggerit unusquisque quod diligit, quia et ipsi diversas habent voluptates; aliis libidinem diversi stupri, aliis munera, aliis voluptatem, aliis petulantiam, aliis iram, quibusdam avaritiam, aliis lucra, aliis damna procurant, aliis charisma, aliis odia, necnon et impedimenta. Et aliquando certis temporibus satiati quiescunt in otio: aliquando vero ratione, aliquando occupatae menti non se ingerunt; quia non dominantur, sed subrepunt opportunitatem quaerentes qua capiant. Igitur voluntatis arbitrium liberum est, sed dum quodam desiderio negligentes circa nos ipsos efficimur, sollicitantes suadent nobis adversa: maxime si cogitare nos aliquid quod legis divinae non est invenerint, veniunt in eo ipso adjuvantes ut impleamus quod prohibet lex. Nam si timor Dei in animo sit, nec caro, nec sanguis, nec principes, nec potestates praevalent; quia Dei adminiculis sic eos persequuntur, ut non cum labore vincantur. Si autem potestatis nostrae non essemus, quomodo diceret Dominus, Petite, et dabitur vobis: omnis enim qui petit, accipiet (Matth. VII, 7, 8)? Si ergo qui vult petere, accipiet, jam non est illud quod solet dici, Non quae volumus, sed quae data sunt habemus: quia voluntas a Salvatore incitatur ut petat, et accipiat quod petierit. Fati autem hoc esse dicunt, ut sive petat, sive non petat, fato tamen quod aut malum aut bonum est, consequatur. Dominus autem hoc excludens, ait: Filia, fides tua salvam te fecit (Id. IX, 22). Non jam fati sit, quando fides percipit beneficium. Et iterum, Si credis, ait, omnia possibilia sunt credenti (Marc. IX, 22): in voluntate utique posuit meritum; quia fidei bonum est, non naturae. Fides autem res accedens est, quae excitat ad exercitium voluntatem; ut quia in natura non est, voluntas quae in natura est, suscepta fide, meritum ei collocet apud Deum. Ita

whatever you assign to fate. Certainly to supplicate is not a bad thing: why then should it not be said to be of fate? If, then, the fact that he supplicates is to be of fate, whose will it be to supplicate and not to obtain? For if it were of fate, he ought to obtain what he supplicates for. But if it is of fate to supplicate and not to obtain, fate is foolish; for it makes a man supplicate whom it knows will not obtain. But if it does not know whether he can obtain what it makes him supplicate for, fate will be improvident and lacking reason: for all ignorance is unwisdom, and unwisdom indeed is foolishness. Into this part falls the whole treatise of the Pagans. Let the Pagans see to it, who, with darkness poured around them, do not see the light. For, beguiled by ancient error, they refuse to lend their ears to the truth which formerly lay hidden. What shall we say of certain Christians, who, changed in the Saviour as it were in name only, lay claim to the vanity of their former error, dulled to such a degree that they contend that God Himself acted under fate, saying, He Himself said, My hour has not yet come (John 2:4): as though this hour had been a necessity not of will but of a fated condition, when He signified the hour of His will, in which He permitted Himself to be handed over. Finally He says: I have power to lay down My soul, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18). Fated necessity therefore ceases where there is the power of the will. And how is He called Saviour by us, if the things we do, or which befall us, are of fate? For He is called Saviour for this reason, that He showed us the way of salvation: and so, if it was shown by Him, it was not of fate, since formerly it lay hidden. And they contend that what is said to be of fate comes about unforeseen. For this is the merit of faith, which cannot be said to come from fate, because what is believed was not heard in other ages. For they say that the fates provide that which turns upon the dealings of men. But by what reasoning are they said to be able to provide that of which they are found to be ignorant? Hence it is that the Apostle says, Whom none of the princes of this age knew (1 Cor. 2:8). These are the princes and powers, having evil angels under them, who under the name of the fates carry out their own pleasures, as it has pleased them, just as sorcerers too are wont to confess. For there are those whom they love, others they do not love, some they hate. And each one suggests to each person what he loves, since they too have diverse pleasures; for some they procure the lust of various debaucheries, for others gifts, for others pleasure, for others wantonness, for others anger, for some avarice, for others gains, for others losses, for others favour, for others hatreds, and also hindrances. And sometimes, sated at certain times, they rest in idleness: sometimes indeed by reason, sometimes they do not thrust themselves upon an occupied mind; for they do not rule, but creep in, seeking an opportunity by which to seize. The choice of the will, then, is free, but while through some desire we become negligent about ourselves, they solicit us and urge adverse things upon us: above all, if they have found us thinking something which is not of the divine law, they come in that very thing, helping us to fulfil what the law forbids. For if the fear of God is in the mind, neither flesh, nor blood, nor princes, nor powers prevail; for by the aids of God they are so pursued that they are overcome without toil. But if we were not in our own power, how would the Lord say, Ask, and it will be given to you: for everyone who asks will receive (Matt. 7:7–8)? If, then, he who wishes to ask will receive, that no longer holds which is commonly said, We have not what we wish, but what has been given: for the will is stirred by the Saviour to ask, and to receive what it has asked. But they say that this is of fate, that whether one asks or does not ask, one nevertheless obtains by fate what is either evil or good. But the Lord, excluding this, says: Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). It is no longer of fate, when faith receives a benefit. And again, If you believe, He says, all things are possible to him who believes (Mark 9:22): He certainly placed merit in the will; since it is a good of faith, not of nature. But faith is a thing that comes upon [us], which rouses the will to exercise; so that, since it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, having taken up faith, may lay up merit for it with God. Thus

Editors' notes and page, col. 2358

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: se tradi› · call in col 2358

Ms. Colbertinus, pati.

The Colbert manuscript: pati ("to suffer").

(printed under page 527)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2358
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2359

enim est natura hominum sicut lapis, qui cum ignem non habet in substantia, habet tamen in potentia, ut opere creet quod non videtur habere, quia non existit, sed quasi in semine; ita est in potentia ut per exercitium generetur, et si defuerit exercitium, non fit; quia et semen nisi exerceatur non generat, sed ipsum solum manet. Accessio ergo facit ut generet. Ita et homo fidem non habet in natura, sed semen fidei habet, quod nisi fuerit provocatum et excitatum, fructum non dabit, id est, fidem non habebit. Mathematicorum enim fatis credentes, fidei semen exterminant, quod et Creatori et justitiae ejus testimonium perhibet. Opus enim opificem cognoscit, et aequo jure amoreque et facto testatur. Fugiendum omnibus modis ab hac arte monemus. Curiosi etenim ejus, inimici Dei sunt, et sine sollicitudine nunquam sunt: semper enim suspensi exspectant quod minime certum sciunt. Nos autem qui de Deo omnia prospera credimus, et si qua adversa exstiterint, ejus nutu comprimi, suppliciter vivamus securi de ejus protectione; nec tamen nescii quia et si quid adversum bene nobis agentibus evenerit, toleratum proficiet ad coronam.

for the nature of men is like a stone, which, though it does not have fire in its substance, nevertheless has it in potency, so that by action it produces what it does not seem to have, because it does not exist [there] except as it were in seed; so it is in potency in such a way that it is brought forth by exercise, and if exercise is lacking, it does not come to be; for a seed too, unless it is worked, does not generate, but remains just by itself. It is therefore the addition that makes it generate. So too man does not have faith in his nature, but he has the seed of faith, which, unless it has been called forth and stirred up, will yield no fruit, that is, he will not have faith. For those who believe in the fates of the astrologers root out the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the Creator and to His justice. For the work recognizes its maker, and bears witness to Him with equal right both by love and by deed. We warn that this art is to be shunned by every means. For those who are curious about it are enemies of God, and are never without anxiety: for they are always in suspense, waiting for what they know to be least certain. But let us, who believe that all prosperous things come from God, and that if any adversities have arisen they are held in check by His nod, live as suppliants, secure in His protection; yet not unaware that, even if something adverse befalls us while we are acting well, once endured it will advance us towards the crown.

DE RATIONE PASCHAE.

On the Reason for the Pasch.

CXVI. —Pascha, dilectissimi fratres, a passione appellatum est, sicut docet nos traditionis hujus praefiguratio, quae perfecta est in Aegypto per famulum Dei Moysen, dicente Scriptura, Immolationis Pascha hoc Domini est (Exod. XII, 11). Quae ergo ratio est ut mysticum sacramentum per sanguinem sit celebratum, et reparatio vitae per mortem; ut cum mors augmentum facere se putaret, accepto sanguine Salvatoris minorata deflueret; et cum virtute operatam se hoc existimaret, infirmata rueret? Morti enim mors per opus ejus divina procuratione inventa est: ut quia semper mala vult, cederetur illi ad tempus, ut injustitiae suae opere destructa, regnum sibi ablatum queri non posset. Quamvis enim omnia possit Deus, nihil tamen facit quod sit rationi absurdum. Justitiam enim quam exigit, hanc et facit, non praesumens de potestate. Magna est ergo providentia erga genus humanum, ut justitiam servans, sic ea quae juste decreta erant, solveret, et hominem a morte erueret: quanquam non immerito teneretur. Sed quia invidia deceptus fuerat diaboli, justum fuit huic subveniri. Dei enim sententia tenebatur, sed haec operatus fuerat satanas. Unde sicut justum visum est hunc eruere, ita et injustum erat per potentiam hoc facere, neglecta justitia. Victus enim homo suadente diabolo, ut misericordiam acciperet, quasi accusator diabolus contradicebat. Unde id actum est, ut iste qui in peccato hominis gloriabatur, peccans deprehenderetur, ut tunc demum reus factus, contradicere non auderet. Sic factum est ut Dei Filius homo nasceretur, et justitiam praedicans diabolum incitaret, propter quod homines a vitiis ejus prohiberet; ita ut et occideret eum qui peccatum nesciebat. Tunc peccasse, et gravius quidem quam homo quem accusabat, inventus est. Cum enim ex Dei decreto propter peccatum hominem sibi vindicaret, quia qui peccat, ex parte diaboli est; inventus est plus peccasse, cum eum qui non peccaverat interfecit, ut sibi usurparet. Per mortem ergo morti interitus subintravit; ut sanguis recuperaretur, sanguis effusus est: quia, ut dixi, mortis auctor, qui est diabolus, quoniam peccasse in morte Salvatoris inventus est, sanguinem ejus cum omnium nostrum amisit: quia sicut per unum Adam peccantem, omnes in morte tenebat; ita per unum non peccantem omnes amisit. Ergo sanguis

CXVI. —The Pasch, dearly beloved brethren, is named from the passion, as the prefiguration of this tradition teaches us, which was accomplished in Egypt through God's servant Moses, as Scripture says, It is the Pasch of sacrifice of the Lord (Exod. 12:11). What then is the reason that the mystic sacrament was celebrated through blood, and the restoration of life through death, so that, when death thought it was making an increase for itself, having received the blood of the Saviour it might waste away diminished, and when it supposed it had accomplished this by its strength, it might collapse weakened? For death was found for death through its own work by divine providence: so that, because it always wills evil things, it might be yielded to for a time, so that, destroyed by the work of its own injustice, it could not complain that its kingdom had been taken from it. For although God can do all things, yet He does nothing that is contrary to reason. For the justice that He demands, this He also performs, not presuming upon His power. Great therefore is His providence towards the human race, that, preserving justice, He should thus loose the things that had been justly decreed and rescue man from death: although he was held not undeservedly. But because he had been deceived by the envy of the devil, it was just that he should be helped. For he was held by the sentence of God, but Satan had brought this about. Hence, just as it seemed just to rescue him, so too it was unjust to do this by power, with justice disregarded. For when man had been overcome at the devil's persuasion, the devil, as accuser, spoke against his receiving mercy. Hence it was brought about that he who gloried in man's sin should be caught sinning, so that, having at last become guilty, he would not dare to speak against it. Thus it came about that the Son of God was born a man, and by preaching justice provoked the devil, because He was keeping men from his vices; so much so that he even killed Him who knew no sin. Then he was found to have sinned, and indeed more gravely than the man whom he was accusing. For since by God's decree he was claiming man for himself on account of sin, because he who sins is of the devil's party, he was found to have sinned more, when he killed Him who had not sinned, in order to usurp Him for himself. Through death, therefore, destruction crept in upon death; so that blood might be recovered, blood was shed: because, as I have said, the author of death, who is the devil, since he was found to have sinned in the death of the Saviour, lost His blood together with that of all of us: because, just as through the one Adam sinning he held all in death, so through the one not sinning he lost all. Therefore the blood

Editors' notes and page, col. 2359

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2359

Ms. Colbertinus, fabulis.

The Colbert manuscript: fabulis ("by fables").

(printed under page 528)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2359

Ita Mss., et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae vero editiones addunt: Unde Pascha dictum sit, et quomodo per sanguinem mystice celebretur.

So the manuscripts and the Ratisbon edition. The other editions add: Whence the Pasch is so called, and how it is mystically celebrated through blood.

(printed under page 528)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2359

Ms. Colbertinus, immolatio.

The Colbert manuscript: immolatio ("sacrifice").

(printed under page 528)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2359

Ms. Colbertinus, mysterium sacrum.

The Colbert manuscript: mysterium sacrum ("a sacred mystery").

(printed under page 528)

(5) ‹anchor: opere destructa› · call in col 2359

Ms. Colbertinus, ut in justitia opere suo destructa.

The Colbert manuscript: ut in justitia opere suo destructa ("so that, destroyed in justice by his own work").

(printed under page 528)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2359

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 528)

Page

running head: 2359 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[E ...] (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2360

Salvatoris fusus injuste, hoc praemium consecutus est, ut originis suae sanguinem cum triumpho recuperans ad pristinum statum revocaret meliorata substantia. Victa enim mors, ei qui illam vicerat, non potuit contradicere. Beatum itaque Paschae mysterium, quod per sanguinem nos redemit, morte per mortem devicta, sicut solet venenum veneno superari.

of the Saviour, unjustly shed, obtained this reward: that, recovering in triumph the blood of its origin, it recalled it to its former state with its substance bettered. For death, once conquered, could not gainsay the one who had conquered it. Blessed, therefore, is the mystery of the Pasch, which redeemed us through blood, death having been vanquished by death, just as poison is wont to be overcome by poison.

DE ABRAHAM.

On Abraham.

CXVII. — Hujus patriarchae fides tam praecipua et admirabilis fuit, ut caeteri omnes justi patrem hunc credulitatis Dei judicio fateantur; nec sit aliquis Deo dignus et charus, nisi ejus filius fuerit appellatus. Praerogativa enim honoris ejus ac meriti fides est, quam cum rebus incredibilibus dare non ambigit, inter caetera etiam Salvatorem videre dignus exstitit in spe tunc futurae Incarnationis, dicente et probante Domino ad Judaeos, Abraham pater vester cupivit ut videret diem meum; et vidit, et gavisus est (Joan. VIII, 56). Qui enim merito fidei pater factus est, dignum fuit ut futurorum filiorum suorum spem praevideret, quae propitio et provido Deo haereditatis gratia ab humano et pio patre in filios obsequentes redundaret. Videamus nunc quid credidit fides haec, ut ad tantum honorem et gloriam divino judicio perveniret. Fidem laudavimus, sed quid credidit, nondum diximus. Educens etenim hunc Dominus ostendit ei stellas coeli, et dixit: Si potes numerare eas? Sic erit semen tuum. Et credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam (Gen. XV, 5, 6). Non magnum esset credidisse Deo, nisi quia quod credidit, mundus non credendum et stultum judicat; quia istud in spe rerum naturae non est. Unde Abraham unus e mundo quia hoc credidit, segregatus a mundanis, justificatus est. Hoc ergo credidisse perfidia mundanae sapientiae magnum facit, contra cujus spem hoc credidisse, maximi meriti est. Desperatio enim mundanorum, meritum est et spes Christianorum. Bonorum enim praemium, causa facit malorum: fortior namque et plenior fides est, cum se incredibilibus magis committit. Homo enim jam aridus et de uxore anicula semen se credidit habiturum, quod prae copia numerari non posset: non hoc magis respiciens quod ostensum est, sed illum qui ostendit, mentiri posse non aestimans. Ideoque deputatum ei est ad justitiam. Nam rem absurdam, et quae impossibilis scitur, hebetis est credere, nisi persona sit quae credi istud suadet. Unde Abraham et admirabilis fidei est, et cordis periti, dum et illud credit quod incredibile est, et huic se committit cui non credere et stultum est et periculosum. Fidem enim nostram hoc probat rationabilem, quia non de alio quam de Deo credit, posse ipsum quod promittit. Hoc ergo fidei propugnaculum est, hic triumphus. Quod perspicientes quidam mundi sapientes, quia rerum natura hoc non potest, stultum aiunt credere. Ignorantes quia secundum Apostolum, quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus (I Cor. I, 25). Juste enim stultos nos judicarent si hoc de rerum natura crederemus, quod probatur non posse. Porro autem ea quae rerum natura non potest, nos Deum credimus posse facturum si promiserit. Quae in hac re potest stultitia deprehendi? Si autem indignum Deo est opus quod posse creditur, recte fides hebetudini comparatur: quod si dignum est, per id quod creaturae impossibile est; cur non laudanda fides est, quae tantum dat Creatori, quan⟨t⟩um creatura posse negatur? Magnus ergo et admirabilis Abraham, qui contra mundi sententiam Deo credere non dubitavit, quia facere potest quod promittit. Natura Chaldaeus, magister credulitatis apparuit: quamvis astrologiae peritus, Deum tamen praeposuit humano consilio, dignum aestimans si hoc credatur de Deo, quod quomodo fiat, investigari non possit. Infirmitatem enim suam

117. — The faith of this patriarch was so outstanding and admirable that all the other just confess him, by the judgement of God, to be the father of belief; nor is anyone worthy of God and dear to Him unless he has been called his son. For the prerogative of his honour and merit is faith, and since he did not hesitate to give it to things incredible, among other things he was also found worthy to see the Saviour in the hope of the Incarnation then to come, as the Lord said and attested to the Jews: Abraham your father longed to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56). For it was fitting that he who by the merit of faith was made a father should foresee the hope of his future sons, which, God being gracious and provident, would by the grace of inheritance flow over from a humane and devout father to obedient sons. Let us see now what this faith believed, that it should attain by divine judgement to such honour and glory. We have praised the faith, but we have not yet said what it believed. For the Lord, leading him out, showed him the stars of heaven, and said: Can you number them? So shall your seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:5–6). It would not be a great thing to have believed God, were it not that what he believed the world judges not to be believed and foolish, since it does not lie within the hope of the nature of things. Hence Abraham, the one man out of the world who believed this, was set apart from the worldly and justified. It is the faithlessness of worldly wisdom, then, that makes it great to have believed this; to have believed this against its hope is of the greatest merit. For the despair of the worldly is the merit and the hope of Christians. For the cause of the wicked produces the reward of the good: for faith is stronger and fuller when it commits itself the more to things incredible. For a man already withered believed that he would have from his aged little wife a seed that could not be numbered for its abundance, not regarding so much what was shown as Him who showed it, not supposing that He could lie. And therefore it was reckoned to him for righteousness. For to believe an absurd thing, and one known to be impossible, is the part of a dullard, unless there is a person who urges that it be believed. Hence Abraham is both of admirable faith and of a skilled heart, since he both believes what is incredible and commits himself to Him Whom it is both foolish and dangerous not to believe. For this proves our faith reasonable, that it believes of none other than God that He can do what He promises. This, then, is the bulwark of faith, this its triumph. Perceiving this, certain wise men of the world say that it is foolish to believe, because the nature of things cannot do this; not knowing that, according to the Apostle, the foolishness of God is wiser than men (1 Cor. 1:25). For they would justly judge us foolish if we believed of the nature of things what is proved to be impossible for it. But the things that the nature of things cannot do, we believe God will be able to do if He has promised. What folly can be detected in this matter? If, however, the work which He is believed able to do is unworthy of God, faith is rightly likened to dullness; but if it is worthy, through the very fact that it is impossible for the creature, why is that faith not to be praised which gives as much to the Creator as is denied that the creature can do? Great, therefore, and admirable is Abraham, who against the opinion of the world did not hesitate to believe God, that He can do what He promises. A Chaldean by birth, he showed himself a master of belief: although skilled in astrology, he nevertheless set God before human counsel, judging it worthy that this be believed of God, which cannot be investigated as to how it comes about. For his own weakness

Editors' notes and page, col. 2360

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2360

Ms. Colbertinus, praemii nomine [final letter damaged in the print].

The Colbert manuscript: praemii nomine ("under the name of reward").

(printed under page 528)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2360

Addunt quaedam editiones, et ejus fide qua meruit fidelium pater appellari.

Some editions add: and by his faith, by which he deserved to be called the father of the faithful.

(printed under page 528)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2360

Ms. Colbertinus, in specie.

The Colbert manuscript: in specie ("in appearance").

(printed under page 528)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2360

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 528)

Page

running head: S EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (cut off at left edge) 2360
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2361

Dei potentia confirmavit, quia ad majestatis suae unicam magnitudinem protestandam, facere disponeret quae impossibilia et inaudita sunt mundo, quo facto ostenderet se Dominum creaturae, et creatura subjiceret se ei, cujus opus caeteris omnibus impossibile videretur; quorum incredulitate plus sublimatur fidelissimus Abraham. Fides enim ejus, incredulorum poena est: incredulorum perfidia, gloria ejus est. Nam fidelium est pater, et infidelium est judex. Hujus enim exemplo et boni aeterna vita donantur, et malis aeterna dabuntur supplicia. Illo enim tempore quo mundus adhuc scientia parvulus erat, nec signis ac prodigiis quae ad fidem attraherent illustratus, Deo contra scientiam suam fidem non denegavit. Sanctus igitur Abraham exemplum generi humano datus est fidelissimus. In ipso enim praefiguratae sunt omnes gentes ad salutem venire per fidem; cujus ut superabundans incrementum fidei nosceretur, tentatur, ac jubetur filium suum Deo immolare; quod factum non erat unquam (et nec rei novitate turbatur, nec disputat an fieri deberet Deo jubente parricidium, qui homicidium ne fieret comminatus est. Sic de Dei voluntate intrepidus et securus, non cunctatur providum esse quod jubet Deus): et hunc filium quem duo senes ex promissione susceperant, praemium fidei, meritorum indicem, et in quo omnis spes ex promissione futuri seminis habebatur. Quod ut omni devotione impleret, matri ejus non indicavit, ne quod dicationi ejus impedimentum afferret, sciens circa affectum filiorum procliviores in amore esse matres; ideoque celavit eam, non ambigens impleri debere quod jubet Deus, ut hoc exemplo doceremur, omni cura Dei facere mandata. Si enim fidelissimus Abraham in re tam gravi et aspera obediens invenitur: quanto magis nos, quibus illa praecipiuntur quae possunt portari? O fides Deo dicata, et spes in Domino firma, quae tam chara et suavis est, ut parentum ac filiorum affectibus praeponatur, dicente Scriptura, Gustate et videte, quoniam suavis est Dominus (Psal. XXXIII, 9)! Patriarcha autem noster fidelissimus Abraham quia propheta erat, scivit quid sequi deberet. Ideo secundum quod Dominus nunc dixit, tunc ille fecit, ut filio quamvis charissimo Deum in dilectione praeferret dicente Domino, Si quis diligit patrem et matrem, aut filios supra me, non est me dignus (Matth. X, 37). Unde Patriarcha ut Domino prae caeteris dignus existeret, etiam occidere filium non recusavit.

he strengthened by the power of God, because, in order to proclaim the unique greatness of His majesty, He was disposed to do things which are impossible and unheard of to the world, so that by this deed He might show Himself to be Lord of creation, and creation might submit itself to Him whose work would seem impossible to all others; and by their unbelief the most faithful Abraham is exalted the more. For his faith is the punishment of the unbelieving; the faithlessness of the unbelieving is his glory. For he is the father of the faithful and the judge of the faithless. For by his example both the good are granted eternal life and to the wicked eternal punishments will be given. For at that time, when the world was still small in knowledge and had not been made illustrious by signs and prodigies that might draw it to faith, he did not withhold faith from God against his own knowledge. Holy Abraham, therefore, was given to the human race as a most faithful example. For in him all the nations were prefigured as coming to salvation through faith; and so that the superabundant increase of his faith might be known, he is tested and is commanded to sacrifice his son to God, a thing that had never been done (and he is neither troubled by the novelty of the matter, nor does he dispute whether parricide ought to be committed at the command of God, Who had threatened lest murder be committed. Thus, fearless and secure concerning the will of God, he does not hesitate [to hold] that what God commands is provident): and this son, whom two old people had received by promise, the reward of faith, the token of merits, and in whom all hope from the promise of the future seed was held. So that he might fulfil this with all devotion, he did not tell the boy's mother, lest she bring any hindrance to his dedication, knowing that mothers are more inclined in love where affection for their sons is concerned; and therefore he concealed it from her, not doubting that what God commands ought to be fulfilled, so that by this example we might be taught to do the commandments of God with all care. For if the most faithful Abraham is found obedient in so grave and harsh a matter, how much more [ought] we [to be], to whom those things are commanded which can be borne? O faith dedicated to God, and hope firm in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet that it is preferred to the affections of parents and children, as Scripture says, Taste and see that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 33:9)! But our patriarch, the most faithful Abraham, because he was a prophet, knew what he ought to follow. Therefore what the Lord has now said, he did then, so as to prefer God in love to his son, however very dear, since the Lord says, If anyone loves father and mother, or sons, above Me, he is not worthy of Me (Matt. 10:37). Hence the patriarch, so that he might stand worthy of the Lord before the rest, did not refuse even to kill his son.

DE JOB.

On Job.

CXVIII. — Magna dilectio est, fratres dilectissimi, omnipotentis Dei erga genus humanum: quae intellecta quidem perducit ad regna coelestia; non intellecta autem deducit ad inferos. Deus enim beneficium suum gratum vult esse et fructiferum, ut et nobis proficiat, et illum misereri delectet. Igitur quoniam bonus est, et omnes homines salvos vult fieri, exemplum nobis justitiae in Job famulo suo demonstravit, sicut praesens lectio testatur, quod secuti et malo carere et ad bonum venire poterimus, et non solum a poena liberari, sed et remunerari. Quam ergo admirabilis est sanctissimus Job, qui ante legem litteris editam, in operibus suis exemplar legis ostendit; nulla in hac causa alicujus documenta addicens, sed natura ipsa duce, cui Deus justitiae semina naturaliter inesse decrevit, Creatori reverentiam pia devotione servavit? Quanta ergo laude dignus est, et quibus verbis facta ejus debeant extolli, cui non ante Legem, neque post Legem parem possumus invenire? Quamvis enim quis posset gesta ejus imitari, non tamen cum eo conferendus est, neque ei similis jure dicetur. Non enim suum esset quod talis exstitisset, quia exemplum secutus est alienum. Sanctus autem Job cum nihil tale vidisset, neque in voluminibus lectitasset, talem se praestitit, ut nullius aliquid in se

CXVIII. — Great is the love, dearest brethren, of almighty God towards the human race: which, when understood, leads through to the heavenly kingdoms; but, when not understood, leads down to the underworld. For God wishes His benefit to be welcome and fruitful, so that it may both profit us and delight Him to show mercy. Therefore, since He is good and wishes all men to be saved, He has shown us an example of justice in Job His servant, as the present reading testifies, following which we shall be able both to be free of evil and to come to good, and not only to be delivered from punishment but also to be rewarded. How admirable, then, is the most holy Job, who, before the law was published in writing, showed in his works the pattern of the law; adducing in this matter the teachings of no one, but with nature itself as guide, in which God decreed that the seeds of justice should be naturally present, he preserved reverence towards the Creator with pious devotion? With how great praise, then, is he worthy, and with what words ought his deeds to be extolled, whose equal we can find neither before the Law nor after the Law? For although someone might imitate his deeds, he is nevertheless not to be compared with him, nor will he rightly be called like him. For it would not be his own that he had become such, since he followed another's example. But holy Job, though he had seen nothing of the kind, nor read it in books, showed himself such that nothing of anyone in himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 2361

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2361

Ms. Colbertinus, et mali aeterna dabunt supplicia.

The Colbert manuscript: et mali aeterna dabunt supplicia ("and the wicked will pay eternal punishments").

(printed under page 529)

(2) ‹anchor: justitiae semina› · call in col 2361

Editi, semen. Mss., semina.

The printed editions read semen ("seed"); the manuscripts, semina ("seeds").

(printed under page 529)

(a) ‹anchor: CXVIII› · call in col 2361

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 529)

Page

running head: APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2362

collatum haberet, sed ipse caeteris conferret, formam praebens mirabilium gestorum ad Deum promerendum. Quare et Domini testimonio commendatur dicentis : Animadvertisti ad puerum meum Job? Non est enim similis ei quisquam in terris verus Dei cultor (Job I, 8). Quis tantum potuit promereri, cui tale testimonium Dominus perhiberet, nisi hic qui non imitator invenitur, sed auctor eorum quae gessit? Unde et verus Dei cultor asseritur. Nulla enim potest simulatio commentitiae veritatis in eo videri, qui ante se non habet talem. Omnis enim qui fingit, hoc fingit quod cernitur imitari. Et his tamen omnibus potiora sunt quae dicuntur. In his enim laudibus nulla probamenta tribulationum fuerunt, sed propositum Deo dicatum in exercitio et observationibus constitutum : quod quia ad coronam meritorum tentatori non visum est plenum, petiit ut permitteretur ei diversis tentationibus probare ejus justitiam; ut in multis constrictus alicubi haereret, et posset modum excedere. Quia ad hoc solent peccantibus diversae poenae inferri, ut quia nemo omnia potest ferre tormenta, aliquid illorum eliciat ei veritatis confessionem. Itaque permissum est tentatori omnia ejus exterminare, et perdere, usque ad mortem filiorum : ut si damnum ferret boum, ovium non ferret; aut si et ovium ferret, camelorum amissionem non ferret, neque servorum aut totius substantiae; aut si, quia grandis animi erat et satis merae devotionis, his omnibus non vinceretur, certe vel affectu charitatis, cogente frangeretur morte simul omnium filiorum. Sed quia ante legem editam, legem in corde suo scriptam habebat, nulla damna, neque orbitates minorem illum in Dei devotione fecerunt, ut formam daret ad Deum ex toto corde super omnia diligendum. Quanta ergo dignus est gloria, qui ante Legem, Legem servavit, ut Lex quae futura erat, quomodo custodienda erat, demonstraret, non in verbis, sed auctor in factis? Et quia tentator irreverens est, nec haec gloria satis ei visa est ad probationem viri justi, nisi aliud adversus eum machinaretur, quod sciret ab homine ferri non posse; petiit iterum, ut illum ipsum saevo vulnere percuteret a capite usque ad pedum ungues. Et cum hoc permissum esset, quia fides ei haberi non debet, praeceptum est ei, ut animam ejus servaret propter arbitrium, et ne quid violenter auderet in eum, quem rationis jure superare non poterat. Accepta igitur potestate, recrudescente in se crudelitatis saevitia, percussit virum justum plaga magna nimis, ut nihil esset in corpore quod immune esset a vulnere, quod nemo hominum tolerare posset, nisi solus Job, qui vincere potuit satanam. Et cum nec sic nequitia diaboli aliquod murmur contra Deum viro justo eliceret, memor pristinae calliditatis suae, qua decepit Adam, sategit si posset et istum per mulierem decipere; quia facilius quis decipitur per domesticum. Et in his omnibus nihil proficiens, imo detrimentum faciens impudentissimus satanas, non solum immobilem invenit Dei servum, sed etiam magistrum. In ipsa enim necessitate positus, non tantum in Dei timore duravit, verum etiam uxorem contraria suggerentem increpans, docuit, omnia quae Deo permittente accidunt, fortiter toleranda (Job II, 1-10) : quod ad duplicem poenam pertinet improvidi satanae, quia nec suasit quod voluit, et cum huic invidit, alios fecit discere quod nec hunc scire volebat. Quantum enim prosit tentatio Dei servis, et obsit diabolo, hac lectione plenius edocemur. Cum enim putat se nocere eis, promovet eos; et cum unum persequitur, multos ad virtutem provocat. Videntes enim auxiliis Dei hunc protegi, multi imitatores ejus existunt. Lucrum ergo volens facere perdidit. Semper enim furor ejus damnosus est ei. Nam cum persequitur justos ne munerentur, digniores eos facit : et cum zelatur sanctum Job, duplicavit ei meritum in coelo et in terra; quia et hic auctus est, et in coelis cum Salvatore receptus;

was conferred [by another], but he himself conferred on others, offering a pattern of wonderful deeds for meriting God. Therefore he is also commended by the testimony of the Lord, Who says: Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on earth, a true worshipper of God (Job 1:8). Who could have merited so much that the Lord should bear such testimony to him, except this man who is found to be not an imitator but the author of the things he did? Hence he is also declared a true worshipper of God. For no pretence of a feigned truth can be seen in one who has no such man before him. For everyone who feigns, feigns what he is seen to imitate. And yet the things that are said are weightier than all these. For in these praises there were no proofs by tribulations, but a purpose dedicated to God, established in exercise and observances: and because this did not seem to the tempter full enough for the crown of merits, he asked that he be permitted to test his righteousness with various temptations, so that, hemmed in by many things, he might stick fast somewhere and could exceed the measure. For to this end various punishments are customarily inflicted on wrongdoers, that, since no one can bear all torments, some one of them may draw from him a confession of the truth. Accordingly the tempter was permitted to destroy all his possessions and ruin them, even to the death of his sons: so that if he bore the loss of oxen, he would not bear that of sheep; or if he bore that of sheep too, he would not bear the loss of camels, nor of servants or of his whole substance; or if, because he was of great spirit and of quite pure devotion, he was not overcome by all these, surely he would be broken at least through the affection of love, compelled by the death of all his sons together. But because before the law was given he had the law written in his heart, no losses nor bereavements made him less in devotion to God, so that he gave a pattern for loving God with the whole heart above all things. Of how great glory, then, is he worthy who before the Law kept the Law, so as to show how the Law that was to come was to be kept, not in words, but as its author in deeds? And because the tempter is irreverent, not even this glory seemed to him sufficient for the proving of the just man, unless he contrived something else against him which he knew could not be borne by a man; he asked again that he might strike that same man with a cruel wound from the head to the nails of the feet. And when this had been permitted, since no trust ought to be placed in him, he was commanded to preserve his soul for the sake of [his] free choice, and not to dare anything by violence against one whom he could not overcome by right of reason. Having received the power, therefore, with the savagery of cruelty breaking out afresh in him, he struck the just man with an exceedingly great plague, so that there was nothing in his body that was free of a wound, which no man could endure except Job alone, who was able to conquer Satan. And when not even thus did the wickedness of the devil draw from the just man any murmur against God, mindful of his former cunning, by which he deceived Adam, he busied himself to see whether he might deceive this man too through a woman; because one is more easily deceived through a member of one's household. And making no progress in all these things, nay rather incurring loss, the most shameless Satan found the servant of God not only immovable but also a teacher. For, placed in that very necessity, he not only persevered in the fear of God, but also, rebuking his wife who suggested contrary things, taught that all things that happen by God's permission are to be borne bravely (Job 2:1–10): which amounts to a double punishment for the improvident Satan, since he neither persuaded what he wished, and, while he envied this man, he made others learn what he did not wish even this man to know. For how much temptation benefits the servants of God and harms the devil, we are more fully taught by this reading. For when he thinks he is harming them, he advances them; and when he persecutes one, he provokes many to virtue. For seeing this man protected by the aids of God, many become his imitators. Wishing therefore to make a gain, he lost. For his fury is always damaging to himself. For when he persecutes the just lest they be rewarded, he makes them more worthy: and when he is jealous of holy Job, he doubled his merit in heaven and on earth; since he was both increased here, and was received in the heavens with the Saviour;

Editors' notes and page, col. 2362

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: nisi solus Job› · call in col 2362

In editis deest, Job, quod restituitur ex Ms. Colbertino.

Job is lacking in the printed editions; it is restored from the Colbert manuscript.

(printed under page 529)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2362
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2363

ut ista omnia ad sanctorum proficiant gloriam, ad diaboli vero poenam.

so that all these things may advance to the glory of the saints, but to the punishment of the devil.

DE TOBIA.

On Tobias.

CXIX. — Tanta providentia est Domini Dei circa nos, ut errare nos nolens, et legem et exempla bonorum operum daret, quibus modesta et tranquilla agi possit vita cum Dei timore. Qui enim auctor vitae est, non vult utique opus suum morti esse obnoxium. Quamvis natura ipsa legis non expers sit; tamen quia Dominus bonus et misericors est, ut major notitia eorum esset quae sequenda, et illorum quae vitanda sunt, litteris et exemplis ostendit, sicut praesens lectio testatur. Dei ergo famulus sanctus Tobias post legem exemplum nobis datus est, ut quae legimus, quomodo fiant, sciamus; et si tentationes advenerint, a Dei timore non recedamus, neque auxilium aliunde quam ab eo speremus, memores scriptum esse, Pusillus fui, etenim senui, et nunquam vidi justum derelictum, nec semen ejus quaerens panem (Psal. XXXVI, 25). Nunquam ergo decipi potest, qui tota mente sperat in Deum. Licet ad tempus tribulationes ortae fuerint per insidias satanae, exempla nos docent sanctorum virorum, non haec a Deo permitti, nisi ad incrementum meritorum nostrorum: quia si aequo animo fuerint bajulatae, hic nobis dabitur consolatio cum effectu, et in futuro vita aeterna cum gloria. Deus enim noster quia justus est, et personarum acceptio apud illum non est (Rom. II, 11), tentari nos permittit, quia nos diligit, ut post laborem possit nobis praemia dare amplissima. Denique Apostolo, ut tentationes ab eo cessarent, deprecanti, Dominus ait, Sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur. Hinc subsecutus ait, Cum infirmior, tunc fortior sum; et, Gaudeo, inquit, in tribulationibus meis, ut inhabitet in me virtus Christi (II Cor. XII, 9, 10). Quam ergo laudabilis sit sanctus Tobias, Scriptura docemur; cujus devotionem nec captivitas minuit, nec oculorum amissio quominus Deum benediceret, persuasit, neque exhausta substantia a via justitiae et veritatis avertit (Tob. I-III). Necessitas enim probat justum; et in egestate aequitatem servare, vera ac perfecta justitia est. Unde enim quorumdam devotio minuitur, inde augmentum fecit laude dignus Tobias. Inopia enim, inquit, humiliat virum; et qui humiliatur, non potest servare justitiam. Sancti autem Tobiae erectus ad Deum animus, nec captivitate fractus est, nec inopia humiliatus: quia et contra interdictum, occisorum corpora sepulturae mandabat, et de Dei largitione securus, de ipso exiguo misericors erat, sciens hanc magis placere Deo misericordiam quae de exiguo fit; sicut et vidua illa fecit, quam Dominus in Evangelio collaudavit (Luc. XXI, 2-4). Hic enim vere fidelis est, hic non dubitat de promissis Dei, qui de parvo largitur. Spe ergo futurorum animum suum consolans, Deo dicatus Tobias in tentatione robustus et fortis inventus est, ostendens in necessitate plus in Dei timore vigilandum; quia si necessitas ad Dei auxilium non impellit, quanto magis securitas? Certi ergo sancti viri quod Deus judicium sibi eorum omnium quae in hoc mundo fiunt, exceperit, tribulationes et damna et reliqua exilia vel contumelias, non tantum non aegre tulerunt, sed et gratanter acceperunt: sicut et nostri apostoli, qui caesi gavisi sunt, quia digni habiti sunt pro nomine Christi contumeliam pati (Act. V, 41). Indicia enim meritorum futurorum exitia sunt, quae injuste fiunt fidelibus, sive in tribulationibus sive in contumeliis. Itaque in tantum Deo placuit justus Tobias, ut duplici genere meritorum suorum consequeretur mercedem: et in praesenti enim quod amiserat, ministro angelo recuperavit lumen, ac ditatus est etiam copiis quae ad praesentem pertinent vitam; et in futuro haeres regni coelorum est factus: ut in hoc doceremur quia qui toto corde Dei legi obtemperat, nec de promissis dubitat, et in hoc saeculo copias ejus saepe auget

CXIX. — So great is the providence of the Lord God concerning us that, not wishing us to go astray, He gave both a law and examples of good works, by which a modest and tranquil life might be led in the fear of God. For He Who is the author of life certainly does not wish His work to be subject to death. Although nature itself is not without a share of law, yet because the Lord is good and merciful, so that there might be a greater knowledge of the things that are to be followed and of those that are to be avoided, He showed them by writings and examples, as the present reading testifies. So the holy servant of God Tobias was given to us after the law as an example, so that we may know how the things we read come about; and that, if temptations come, we may not withdraw from the fear of God, nor hope for help from anywhere other than from Him, mindful that it is written: I was small, and indeed I have grown old, and I have never seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread (Ps. 36:25). He therefore can never be deceived who hopes in God with his whole mind. Although tribulations may for a time have arisen through the snares of Satan, the examples of holy men teach us that these things are not permitted by God except for the increase of our merits: because if they have been borne with an even mind, here consolation will be given to us in effect, and in the future eternal life with glory. For our God, because He is just and there is no respect of persons with Him (Rom. 2:11), permits us to be tempted because He loves us, so that after labour He may give us most ample rewards. Finally, to the Apostle, when he prayed that temptations might cease from him, the Lord said: My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is perfected in weakness. Hence he went on to say: When I am weaker, then I am stronger; and, I rejoice, he says, in my tribulations, that the strength of Christ may dwell in me (2 Cor. 12:9–10). How praiseworthy, then, holy Tobias is, we are taught by Scripture; whose devotion captivity did not diminish, nor did the loss of his eyes persuade him not to bless God, nor did his exhausted substance turn him from the way of justice and truth (Tob. 1-3). For necessity proves the just man; and to keep equity in want is true and perfect justice. For from that by which the devotion of some is diminished, Tobias, worthy of praise, made increase. For poverty, it says, humbles a man; and he who is humbled cannot keep justice. But the mind of holy Tobias, raised towards God, was neither broken by captivity nor humbled by poverty: for even against the prohibition he committed the bodies of the slain to burial, and, secure of God's bounty, he was merciful out of his very little, knowing that that mercy pleases God more which is done out of little; just as that widow also did, whom the Lord praised in the Gospel (Luke 21:2–4). For he is truly faithful, he does not doubt the promises of God, who gives generously out of little. So, consoling his mind with the hope of things to come, Tobias, dedicated to God, was found robust and strong in temptation, showing that in necessity one must be the more watchful in the fear of God; for if necessity does not drive one to the help of God, how much more [will] security [not]? Being certain, then, that God has reserved to Himself the judgement of all things that happen in this world, holy men not only did not take tribulations and losses and the other exiles or insults ill, but even accepted them gladly: just as our apostles too, who when beaten rejoiced because they had been held worthy to suffer insult for the name of Christ (Acts 5:41). For the ruins which are inflicted unjustly on the faithful, whether in tribulations or in insults, are signs of future merits. And so the just Tobias pleased God so much that he obtained the reward of his merits in a twofold kind: for both in the present, by the ministry of an angel, he recovered the light which he had lost, and he was enriched also with the resources that pertain to the present life; and in the future he was made heir of the kingdom of heaven: so that in this we might be taught that whoever obeys the law of God with his whole heart and does not doubt the promises, [God] both in this age often increases his resources

Editors' notes and page, col. 2363

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2363

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 530)

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQ (cut off at the image edge; column number 2363 not set)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2364

Deus, et in futuro donat illum vita aeterna. Est etiam aliud quod nos invitat ad divina obsequia. Sanctus enim Tobias non solum justitiae suae merita consecutus est; quia accedit ad cumulum gloriae ejus, etiam ex eorum bonis qui imitatores ejus existunt. In imitatoribus enim exempla laudantur. Quod nobis quoque poterit provenire, si sic vixerimus, ut dignum sit et nos imitatores habere.

and in the future presents him with eternal life. There is also something else which invites us to divine services. For holy Tobias did not only attain the merits of his own righteousness; for there is added to the heap of his glory also something from the good deeds of those who are his imitators. For in the imitators the examples are praised. And this will be able to come to us too, if we live in such a way that it is fitting that we also have imitators.

DE JEJUNIO.

On fasting.

CXX. — Congruum est, fratres charissimi, devotissime Dei sacerdotem et praepositum plebis Christi, exhortari populum sub cura sua positum in doctrina sana, sicut mandat Apostolus (Tit. I, 9), ut opus fidei, pro temporis observatione, omni cura diligentiaque, alacri et devoto animo faciamus. Jejunia etenim, quae nunc imminente die festo Paschae celebranda sunt, quid proficiant, quamvis non lateat, taceri tamen non debet. Incitatur enim devotio, quando ea quae licet non ignorentur, recensentur tamen. Tale enim est ingenium naturae nostrae, ut torpescat, si usus destiterit lectionis. Quia sicut ferrum, nisi usum fuerit, aeruginem generat; ita et anima nisi frequentius divinis exerceatur lectionibus, nascentur illi peccata. Hinc est unde in Psalmo hunc dicit beatum, qui die noctuque legem Domini meditatur (Psal. I, 2). Denique quamvis nota sint divina eloquia, tamen cum fuerint sacris voluminibus memorata, sic ill⟨a⟩ devotum pectus suscipit quasi nova. Excitatur enim desiderium animae erga opera salutaria. Unde Apostolus ad Timotheum inter caetera: Ut resuscites, inquit, gratiam Dei quae est in te (II Tim. I, 6). Igitur necessaria sunt nobis jejunia, sicut in vulneribus medicina. Medelam enim conferunt vitae perpetuae; ita tamen ut duarum rerum testimonio commendentur, id est, oratione et misericordia. Jejunia ergo intemperantiam corporis mitigant, motus adversos reprimunt, pressuram animae auferunt, sicut ait Dominus: Nolite dediti esse in esca et crapula, ne graventur corda vestra (Luc. XXI, 34). Cum enim anima ab esu et potu nimio fuerit liberata, tunc se melius recognoscit. Sicut enim in speculo sordido non se talem homo aspicit qualis est; ita et si esca et crapula fuerit gravatus, alterum se sentit quam est. Tunc exsuscitatur libido, accenditur ira, inflammatur superbia, generatur luxuria. Unde Apostolus: Nolite, ait, inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria (Ephes. V, 18). Quod si temperatum fuerit corpus interposito jejunio, cognitione sui recepta anima intelligit qua devotione obsequi debeat Redemptori. Magna ergo ex parte jejunia sunt necessaria. Sub Esther etenim regina cum Judaicus populus in periculo positus esset, jejuniis suffragantibus liberatus est (Esther. IV, 16). Et Ninivitae cum eversionis suae praescriptum diem a propheta audissent, jejunio indicto evadere meruerunt (Jonae III, 7). Et justi ac Prophetae nostri, quando a Deo aliquid impetrare volebant, jejunio se humiliabant, dicente David, In jejunio humiliabam animam meam (Psal. XXXIV, 13). Nam et Salvator, cui opus non erat, ut nobis exemplum daret, jejunavit (Matth. IV, 2). Itaque nulli dubium est prodesse jejunia: sic etenim ostendit se homo velle impetrare quod postulat, cum se affligit jejunio. Unde dictum est, Bona est oratio cum jejunio (Tob. XII, 8). Ut accepta ergo possit esse oratio, consortium vult secum habere jejunii. Et quia nihil horum sine pietate firmum est, adjecit, Et eleemosyna cum justitia: ut eleemosyna servata justitia, commendet orationem cum jejunio. Denique orationem et jejunium Cornelii misericordia commendavit. Ipse enim abundans copiis, jejunabat; sed et non habentes pascebat, ut illorum saturitas jejunium ejus faceret acceptabile. Nonnullis ergo indiget,

120. — It is fitting, most dear brothers, that a priest of God and one set over the people of Christ should most devoutly exhort the people placed under his care in sound doctrine, as the Apostle commands (Titus 1:9), so that we may perform the work of faith, in keeping with the observance of the season, with all care and diligence, with an eager and devout mind. For what the fasts which are now to be celebrated, as the feast-day of Easter draws near, achieve, although it is not hidden, ought nevertheless not to be passed over in silence. For devotion is stirred up when those things, though they are not unknown, are nevertheless recounted. For such is the disposition of our nature that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading has ceased. For just as iron, unless it has been used, generates rust, so too the soul, unless it is exercised rather frequently in divine readings, sins will spring up in it. Hence it is that in the Psalm he calls that man blessed who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night (Ps. 1:2). Again, although the divine utterances are known, yet when they have been recalled from the sacred volumes, the devout breast receives them as if new. For the desire of the soul towards saving works is aroused. Hence the Apostle says to Timothy, among other things: That you may rekindle, he says, the grace of God which is in you (2 Tim. 1:6). Therefore fasts are necessary for us, as medicine is for wounds. For they confer a remedy for life everlasting; yet in such a way that they are commended by the testimony of two things, that is, by prayer and mercy. Fasts, then, temper the intemperance of the body, check hostile impulses, take away the oppression of the soul, as the Lord says: Do not be given over to food and drunkenness, lest your hearts be weighed down (Luke 21:34). For when the soul has been freed from excessive eating and drinking, then it recognizes itself better. For just as in a dirty mirror a man does not see himself such as he is, so too, if he has been weighed down by food and drunkenness, he feels himself to be other than he is. Then lust is roused, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, wantonness is engendered. Hence the Apostle: Do not, he says, become drunk with wine, in which is wantonness (Eph. 5:18). But if the body has been tempered by fasting being interposed, the soul, having recovered knowledge of itself, understands with what devotion it ought to obey the Redeemer. Fasts, then, are in great part necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people had been placed in danger, it was set free with the support of fasts (Esth. 4:16). And the Ninevites, when they had heard from the prophet the day fixed for their overthrow, deserved to escape by proclaiming a fast (Jonah 3:7). And our righteous men and Prophets, when they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves with fasting, as David says, In fasting I humbled my soul (Ps. 34:13). For the Saviour too, Who had no need, fasted in order to give us an example (Matt. 4:2). Therefore no one doubts that fasts are profitable: for thus a man shows that he wishes to obtain what he asks for, when he afflicts himself with fasting. Hence it was said, Prayer is good with fasting (Tob. 12:8). So that prayer, then, may be acceptable, it wishes to have the companionship of fasting with it. And because none of these is firm without piety, he added, And almsgiving with righteousness: so that almsgiving, with righteousness preserved, may commend prayer with fasting. Again, mercy commended the prayer and fasting of Cornelius. For he himself, abounding in resources, fasted; but he also fed those who had nothing, so that their being filled might make his fast acceptable. Fasting, therefore, needs some things

Editors' notes and page, col. 2364

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2364

Ms. Colbertinus, curam ejus agit Deus,

The Colbert manuscript: curam ejus agit Deus ("God takes care of him").

(printed under page 530)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2364

Ms. Colbertinus, fecerit.

The Colbert manuscript: fecerit ("shall have done").

(printed under page 530)

(3) ‹anchor: habere jejunii› · call in col 2364

Ms. Colbertinus, solatium vult eum habere jejunii.

The Colbert manuscript: solatium vult eum habere jejunii ("it wants to have the solace of fasting").

(printed under page 530)

(4) ‹anchor: abundans copiis› · call in col 2364

Er. Ven. et Lov., abundans opibus, seu copiis, jejunabat. Lugd., abundans opibus jejunabat. M.

Erasmus, the Venice and Louvain editions: abundans opibus, seu copiis, jejunabat ("abounding in wealth, or in resources, he fasted"). The Lyons edition: abundans opibus jejunabat ("abounding in wealth he fasted"). M.

(printed under page 530)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2364

Deest Mss. secundi generis.

Lacking in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 530)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2364
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word indiget, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2365

PL 35:2365

et nonnullis carere debet jejunium, ut possit mereri quod postulat.

and must go without some things, so that it may merit what it asks.

LAUS ET GLORIA PASCHAE.

The Praise and Glory of Easter.

CXXI. — O sanctum et salutarem diem Paschae, et omni laude praedicandum, quo mors devicta est, diabolo regnum ablatum, sacramentum Dei manifestatum, decretum quod adversum nos erat, evacuatum; tartari januae confractae, vincti soluti, clausi remissi, caeci illuminati, imperiti scientia donati, impii facti misericordes, iniquis et injustis peccatorum data remissio, inimicorum reconciliatio, erroris emendatio, veritatis declaratio; Deo filii ex perditis acquisiti, superbia depressa, humilitas exaltata; pauperes ditati, divites exhausti; montes deplanati, valles repletae, colles prostrati; impudentia calcata, verecundia compta, animabus ad coelum data facultas, libertas reddita, disrupta ac resoluta captivitas: torpuerunt tenebrae, confusa est malitia, purificatus squalor, satanas dejectus; inanitus infernus: Dominus noster Jesus Christus verus Dei Filius approbatus, caro ad confusionem prudentium mundi in coelos sublata, coelestia, terrestria et inferna unus Dei et Domini demonstrata! Itaque, fratres charissimi, hunc diem festum colere et venerari debemus, devoti Deo cum modestia vitae et animae laetitia, turpia et inhonesta vitantes, ut ad fructum Paschae venire mereamur per Christum Dominum nostrum, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum.

CXXI. — O holy and saving day of Easter, worthy to be proclaimed with every praise, on which death was vanquished, the kingdom taken from the devil, the mystery of God made manifest, the decree that was against us made void; the gates of the underworld were broken open, the bound loosed, the shut-in released, the blind enlightened, the ignorant endowed with knowledge, the impious made merciful; to the wicked and unjust remission of sins was given, to enemies reconciliation, correction of error, declaration of the truth; sons were gained for God out of the lost, pride was brought low, humility exalted; the poor were enriched, the rich emptied; the mountains were levelled, the valleys filled, the hills laid low; shamelessness was trampled, modesty adorned, to souls access to heaven was given, liberty restored, captivity broken and undone: darkness grew numb, malice was confounded, filth was purified, Satan cast down; hell emptied: our Lord Jesus Christ was proved the true Son of God, the flesh was raised into the heavens to the confusion of the wise of the world, things heavenly, earthly and infernal were shown to belong to the one God and Lord! Therefore, dearest brethren, we ought to celebrate and venerate this festal day, devoted to God with modesty of life and gladness of soul, avoiding things base and dishonourable, so that we may deserve to come to the fruit of Easter through Christ our Lord, to Whom is honour and glory for ages of ages.

DE PRINCIPIO.

On the Beginning.

CXXII. — In principio erat Verbum (Joan. I, 1). Quid est in principio? Quoniam legimus et in veteribus Libris, In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram (Gen. I, 1). Et in Epistola ejus, cujus Evangelium est, de cujus principio aliquid conamur edicere, eodem sensu significatum est: ait enim, Quod erat ab initio. Epistola ergo et Evangelium unum habent sensum. Aliud enim est quod in veteri ait, In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram; et aliud cum dicit, In principio erat Verbum; et, Quod erat ab initio (I Joan. I, 1). In principio enim esse, et ab initio esse, unum significat, qui ab initio quod erat, non coepit esse. Quod enim incipit esse, ab initio non erat: et ideo subjicitur initio, id est, ut inter caetera in ordine primus sit, quia ipse initio factus, alios coepit post se habere, qui post illum sunt facti. Sicut legimus, quia in principio fecit Deus coelum et terram: non dixit, In principio erat coelum et terra; quia cum non essent, et disponeret Deus facere mundum, in principio, hoc est inter caetera quae ad mundi fabricam proficerent, primum fecit Deus coelum et terram; quia principium initium est inchoantis aliquid, quod sit primum in ordine. Illud autem quod dicitur, quia in principio erat, id est, Verbum, ante inchoationem creaturae supernae et infernae significatur fuisse: ut non utique inter haec quae creata sunt, prius factum intelligeretur; quia in principio erat cum Deus disponeret facere creaturam. Ergo si in principio erat, id est, ante omnia erat, semper erat. Ideoque et Verbum erat. Ubi? Apud Deum, inquit, ut non indigne initio subjectum minime aestimaretur, quod semper erat apud Deum. Convenit enim ut quod ante omnia apud Deum erat, nulli subjiciatur initio. Unde adjecit: Et Deus erat Verbum. Nunc ostendit aperte quia quae supra dicta sunt, congruunt Verbo; quia Deus est, inquit, Verbum: et de Deo aliter non oportet sentiri, quam ut semper dicatur fuisse. Si enim coepit esse, creatura est; si creatura est, Deus non est. Quidquid enim est, aut Deus est, aut creatura est: ac per hoc Dei nomen non competit creaturae. Sed quia non coepit esse (erat enim), digne dicitur Deus. Apud

CXXII. — In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1). What is "in the beginning"? For we read also in the old Books, In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). And in the Epistle of him whose Gospel it is, of whose beginning we are trying to set forth something, it is signified in the same sense: for he says, That which was from the beginning. The Epistle, then, and the Gospel have one sense. For it is one thing that it says in the old [Book], In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and another when he says, In the beginning was the Word; and, That which was from the beginning (1 John 1:1). For to be in the beginning and to be from the beginning signify one thing, since that which was from the beginning did not begin to be. For what begins to be was not from the beginning: and therefore it is subject to a beginning, that is, so that among the other things it may be first in order, because, having itself been made at the beginning, it began to have others after it, which were made after it. As we read that in the beginning God made heaven and earth: he did not say, In the beginning was heaven and earth; because, since they did not exist and God was arranging to make the world, in the beginning, that is, among the other things that were to serve for the building of the world, God first made heaven and earth; for a beginning is the start of one who begins something, which is first in order. But what is said, that in the beginning was, that is, the Word, signifies that He existed before the commencement of the creation above and below: so that He should by no means be understood to have been made first among these things that were created; for He was in the beginning when God was arranging to make the creation. Therefore if He was in the beginning, that is, was before all things, He always was. And therefore the Word too was. Where? With God, he says, so that, not without reason, what always was with God should by no means be reckoned subject to a beginning. For it is fitting that what was with God before all things be subject to no beginning. Whence he added: And the Word was God. Now he shows openly that the things said above befit the Word; for the Word, he says, is God: and concerning God one must not think otherwise than that He is said always to have been. For if He began to be, He is a creature; if He is a creature, He is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature: and for this reason the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because He did not begin to be (for He was), He is fittingly called God.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2365

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2365

Sic Mss. et editio Ratisponensis. Aliae autem editiones: De Paschate, quam laudabilis et gloriosa sit solemnitas.

So the manuscripts and the Ratisbon edition. The other editions, however: On Easter, how praiseworthy and glorious a solemnity it is.

(printed under page 531)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2365

Ms. Colbertinus, consola.

The Colbert manuscript: consola.

(printed under page 531)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2365

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Wanting in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 531)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2365

Deest in iisdem Mss.

Wanting in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 531)

Page

running head: 2365 APPENDIX. 2366 (right column number cut off)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2366

Deum autem ideo dicitur semper fuisse, quia non ex se, sed ex Deo Deus est. Quamobrem et nomen ejus dicitur Verbum Dei, sicut fides ejusdem evangelistae in revelatione sua demonstrat. Ait enim inter caetera: Et nomen ejus est Verbum Dei (Apoc. XIX, 13). Ut enim non ipse ex quo sunt omnia significaretur, sed per quem sunt omnia, id est non Pater, sed Filius, Verbum D⟨e⟩i appellatus est: ut quia Deus sine Verbo esse non potest, hic qui Verbum Dei dicitur, semper apud Deum fuisse credatur; et quia Verbum non est extra eum cujus Verbum est, hoc verbum quod apud Deum erat, non aliunde, sed de Deo esse significatum intelligatur: et quia de Deo est, non absurde Deus dicatur. Itaque non duos deos facit, Deum fuisse apud Deum. Si enim essent duo, diversi essent natura, nec unius voluntatis. Si enim nos homines cum unius sumus naturae, diversae tamen sumus voluntatis; quanto magis ubi diversae et naturae? et nec Deus apud Deum esse diceretur. Deus enim qui apud Deum erat et est, non ex se habet quod Deus est: si quominus, nec apud Deum Deus esse diceretur, neque Dei Verbum Deus Verbum appellaretur; sed quia quod de Deo est, non aliud significat esse quam Deus est, Verbum Dei Deus est nuncupatus, ut quia Verbum Dei dicitur, ad alterum Deum non referatur. Quod autem Deus vocatur, ideo fit, ne ad injuriam Dei proficeret, si quod de Deo erat, Deus minime diceretur. Igitur et unitas Dei servata est, et debita honorificentia reddita; quando non in propria gloria receptus est hic qui de Deo Deus est, sed in ejus de quo Deus est. Propterea de Verbo incipit loqui Evangelium priusquam loquatur de Deo patre; quia quaestiones non de Deo fiunt, sed de Verbo Dei. Nemo enim dubitat de Deo, sed de eo qui est de Deo Deus. Omnis enim lingua coelestium et terrestrium fatetur unum Deum; sed in sacramento unius Dei turbatur. Trepidat enim audiens Deum dici Verbum Dei; corporalibus enim modis pulsatur, quia verbum hominis homo dici non potest: cum utique Deus natura sit simplex, non membris compositus, neque qui intus habeat et foris, neque ante et post, aut summum et imum; sed si potest dici, totus per omnia idem, nusquam varius vel absimilis: una autem claritas ejus est immensa. Nam si ignis non habet anteriora et posteriora, aut intus et foris, quanto magis Creator ejus? Itaque quia omne quod Deus est, totum unum est, non discrepat cum quid de Deo est, dicitur Deus. Ex parte ergo humano exemplo, et ex parte non humano, Dei Filius qui est Verbum Dei, Deus est. Ea enim ratione qua filii hominum homines sunt, Dei Filius Deus est: sed quia ex commixtione filii hominum homines sunt, non hoc exemplo Filius Dei Deus est; quia ex simplici Deo simpliciter natus est. Et quemadmodum verbum nostrum ex nobis est, hoc exemplo intelligitur Verbum Dei esse de eo: sed quia verbum nostrum non est hoc quod nos sumus, non hac ratione Verbum Dei de Deo est; quia Verbum Dei res est, non sonus qui deperit. Nec enim quia communia vocabula nobis et Deo sunt, una ratio erit nobis et Deo in rerum effectu. Nam legimus, In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Quomodo fecit? Numquid sicut nos manu facimus opera? Et in subjectis: Et dixit, inquit, Deus, Fiat lux; et facta est lux (Gen. I, 3). Cui putamus locutum esse Deum? Quia non utique homini locutus est, sed ei qui posset facere, qui etiam hominem facturus erat, sicut et fecit. Sed quomodo locutus est? numquid, sicut nos loquimur, organo corporali? Absit. Vides ergo quod vocabula quidem nobis et Deo communia sunt, sed discrepant in effectu: aliter enim Deus facit quam facimus nos; et loqui dicitur, sed non more nostro. Sic et Verbum Dei non tale

And He is said always to have been with God for this reason, that He is God not from Himself but from God. Wherefore His name too is said to be the Word of God, as the faith of the same evangelist shows in his Revelation. For he says among other things: And His name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). For so that it should be signified not that He from whom are all things, but He through whom are all things, that is, not the Father but the Son, He was called the Word of God: so that, since God cannot be without the Word, He who is called the Word of God may be believed always to have been with God; and since the Word is not outside Him whose Word it is, this Word which was with God may be understood to be signified as being not from elsewhere but from God; and since He is from God, He may not absurdly be called God. Therefore it does not make two gods that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be diverse in nature and not of one will. For if we men, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of diverse wills, how much more where the natures too are diverse? And neither would God be said to be with God. For God who was and is with God does not have from Himself that He is God: if it were otherwise, neither would God be said to be with God, nor would the Word of God be called God the Word; but since what is from God signifies nothing other than to be what God is, the Word of God has been named God, so that, since He is called the Word of God, He may not be referred to another God. And that He is called God comes about for this reason, lest it should tend to the injury of God if what was from God were not called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved and due honour rendered, since He who is God from God has been received not in His own glory but in that of Him from whom He is God. For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father; because questions arise not about God but about the Word of God. For no one has doubts about God, but about Him who is God from God. For every tongue of those in heaven and those on earth confesses one God; but in the mystery of the one God it is thrown into confusion. For it trembles on hearing God called the Word of God; for it is assailed by bodily ways of thinking, since a man's word cannot be called a man: whereas God is surely simple in nature, not composed of members, nor such as to have an inside and an outside, nor a before and an after, or a highest and a lowest; but, if it can be said, wholly the same throughout all, nowhere varied or unlike: His one brightness, moreover, is immeasurable. For if fire does not have front and back parts, or inside and outside, how much more its Creator? Therefore, since all that God is is wholly one, there is no discrepancy when what is from God is called God. Partly, then, by a human example, and partly not by a human one, the Son of God, who is the Word of God, is God. For by the same reason by which the sons of men are men, the Son of God is God: but since the sons of men are men from a commingling, it is not by this example that the Son of God is God; for He was born simply from the simple God. And just as our word is from us, by this example the Word of God is understood to be from Him: but since our word is not what we are, it is not in this way that the Word of God is from God; for the Word of God is a reality, not a sound that perishes. For it is not because words are common to us and to God that there will be one manner for us and for God in the bringing about of things. For we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. How did He make it? Surely not as we make works by hand? And in what follows: And God said, it says, Let there be light; and light was made (Gen. 1:3). To whom do we think God spoke? For He certainly did not speak to a man, but to Him who could make, who was also to make man, as indeed He did. But how did He speak? Surely not, as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, therefore, that the words are indeed common to us and to God, but differ in effect: for God makes otherwise than we make; and He is said to speak, but not in our manner. So too the Word of God is not such

Editors' notes and page, col. 2366

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2366

Ms. Colbertinus, post quem.

The Colbert manuscript: post quem ("after whom").

(printed under page 531)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2366

Sic Mss. At editi, ubi diversitas non est naturae neque voluntatis, Deus apud Deum diceretur.

So the manuscripts. But the printed editions: where there is no diversity of nature or of will, God would be said to be with God.

(printed under page 531)

(3) ‹anchor: manu facimus opera› · call in col 2366

Ms. Colbertinus, facimus manu, opere.

The Colbert manuscript: facimus manu, opere ("we make with the hand, by work").

(printed under page 531)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2366
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2367

verbum est, sicut nostrum, quod postquam fit, non est; illud autem manet; quia tale Verbum est, quod et audit, et loquitur, et operatur. Non solum autem Verbum Dei est, sed et Virtus et Sapientia Dei, hic est Filius Dei: qui quantum ad effectum pertinet, Filius dicitur Dei; quantum autem ad locutionem, qua nos alloquitur Deus per ipsum, Verbum dicitur Dei; quantum vero ad sapientiam, qua nos Deus per ipsum docet sacramentum suum, Sapientia dicitur Dei; quantum autem ad operationem, qua per ipsum omnia fecit et facit Deus, Virtus dicitur Dei. Haec nulli alii possent competere nisi Filio Dei. Propterea enim quod ex Deo Deus est, omnia Dei habere dicitur. Nascendo enim omnia consecutus est Dei. Nec enim conveniens erat degener dici Verbum Dei, et Virtutem et Sapientiam Dei: hoc est enim Deus Verbum, Virtus et Sapientia. Christus autem quia totus de toto e⟨s⟩t Deo Deus; et Sapientia dicitur Dei, et Virtus, et Verbum: hoc est, Deum esse de Deo, et apud Deum. Propter quod ait, Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Ad evincendas enim incredulorum mentes coacta Scriptura erupit, ut ostenderet Christum esse Deum, cum ompi loco propter unitatem Dei, intelligi vult Christum esse Deum. Nunc autem aperta voce dixit eum esse Deum, et semper fuisse apud Deum, sacramentum patefaciens Dei, ne Deus omnino solitarius putaretur, declaravit non propterea unum dici Deum, ut solitarius aestimetur, sed licet duo vel tres, ex uno tamen, non praejudicare unitati quia quod de uno est ad illud ipsum refertur, quia unus est, quamvis omnia dicantur ex Deo. Sed aliud est quod proprie exstitit de Deo, et aliud quod nutu deforis creatum est Dei: hoc est, aliud est quod de substantia ejus processit, et aliud quod cum nullo modo esset, voluntate ejus creatum est. Quia quod de substantia Dei processit, nunquam fuit post ejus substantiam; quod vero creatum est, tunc coepit esse substantia cum creatum est: ac per hoc initium non habet Trinitas sola. Declaratio igitur mysterii merita fidei minoravit: quia quanto occultius est quod creditur, tanto magis propensior credentis est merces, et minor poena diffidentis. Declaratio autem mysterii sicut minora fecit merita credentibus; ita majores exsuscitavit diffidentibus poenas. Manifestior enim lex plus facit reum. Nam suffecerat testimonium Salvatoris, quo sibi proprium Patrem dixerat Deum. Quis enim credentium dubitaret nihil a Patre differre in substantia Filium? Sed quia haereticorum perversitas infidelitatis commentis fidei jura pulsare coeperat, aliter accipiendo Filium Dei quam praedicatur, additum est, ad faciendam manifestationem, hunc ante omnia apud Deum fuisse et Deum esse; ut declararet quod filii veri ratio mystice continebat: per quod divina clementia humanae infirmitati providisse videtur, ut aperiret quod clausum potioris fidei meritis reservaverat: unde adjecit, dicens, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ut si quis ex superioribus in aliquo ambigeret, quia angusta est intelligentia hominum ad divinas res capiendas, ex his capax fieret, cum audit, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: ut non utique facturam ipsum putaret, quia omnia per ipsum audit facta a Deo; si autem et ipse esset factura, non omnia per ipsum facta a Deo dixisset: nec enim ipse per se fiebat. Quod ut adhuc absolutius traderet, adjecit, Et sine ipso, inquit, factum est nihil: hoc dicens, exclusit omnem controversiam et argumenta terrena. Quamvis non desint qui diffidant; tamen quando sine ipso nihil factum ostendit, nullo modo illum facturam esse suspicari debere edocuit. Quomodo enim dici potest ipse esse factura, cum nihil d⟨i⟩catur Deus sine ipso fecisse? Si enim fecit, mentitur

word, as ours is, which once it has come to be, is not; but that one abides; for it is such a Word as both hears, and speaks, and works. Now He is not only the Word of God, but also the Power and Wisdom of God; this is the Son of God: Who, as far as pertains to effect, is called Son of God; but as far as pertains to speech, by which God addresses us through Him, He is called Word of God; and as far as pertains to wisdom, by which God through Him teaches us His mystery, He is called Wisdom of God; but as far as pertains to working, by which God through Him made and makes all things, He is called Power of God. These things could befit no other but the Son of God. For because He is God from God, He is said to have all that is God's. For by being born He obtained all that is God's. For it was not fitting that the Word of God, and the Power and Wisdom of God, should be called degenerate: for this is God the Word, Power and Wisdom. But Christ, because He is wholly God from God wholly, is called both Wisdom of God, and Power, and Word: that is, that He is God from God, and with God. On which account it says, This was in the beginning with God. For to overcome the minds of unbelievers Scripture, under compulsion, broke out so as to show that Christ is God, whereas in every place, on account of the unity of God, it wishes Christ to be understood to be God. But now it has said with open voice that He is God, and has always been with God; disclosing the mystery of God, lest God should be thought altogether solitary, it declared that God is not called one for this reason, that He should be reckoned solitary, but that, though two or three, yet being from one, they do not prejudice the unity, because what is from one is referred back to that very one, since He is one, although all things are said to be from God. But it is one thing which has properly come forth from God, and another which has been created outside by the nod of God: that is, it is one thing which proceeded from His substance, and another which, when it in no way existed, was created by His will. For what proceeded from the substance of God was never after His substance; but what was created began to be a substance only when it was created: and for this reason the Trinity alone has no beginning. The declaration of the mystery, therefore, lessened the merits of faith: for the more hidden what is believed, the more abundant is the reward of the one who believes, and the smaller the penalty of the one who distrusts. But just as the declaration of the mystery made the merits smaller for believers, so it roused greater penalties for those who distrust. For a plainer law makes a man more guilty. For the testimony of the Saviour had sufficed, by which He had said that God was His own Father. For which of the believers would doubt that the Son differs in nothing from the Father in substance? But because the perversity of heretics had begun to assail the rights of the faith with the fabrications of unbelief, taking the Son of God otherwise than He is proclaimed, it was added, to make it manifest, that He was before all things with God and is God; so as to declare what the notion of a true son contained mystically: whereby the divine clemency is seen to have provided for human weakness, so as to open what it had kept closed for the merits of a stronger faith: whence it added, saying, All things were made through Him, so that, if anyone were in doubt on any point of what precedes, since the understanding of men is narrow for grasping divine things, he might from these words become capable, when he hears, All things were made through Him: so that he would certainly not think Him a thing made, since he hears that all things were made by God through Him; but if He Himself also were a thing made, it would not have said that all things were made by God through Him: for He Himself was not being made through Himself. And to hand this on still more completely, it added, And without Him, it says, nothing was made: in saying this, it shut out every controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are not lacking those who distrust, yet when it shows that nothing was made without Him, it taught that He ought by no means to be suspected of being a thing made. For how can He Himself be said to be a thing made, when God is said to have made nothing without Him? For if He made [Him], Scripture lies.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2367

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2367

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, licet duae vel tres personae essent, tamen non praejudicaretur unitati, quia quod Deus est, etc.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: although there were two or three persons, yet no prejudice would be done to the unity, because what God is, etc.

(printed under page 532)

(2) ‹anchor: nunquam fuit post› · call in col 2367

Editi, praeter. Mss., post.

The printed editions: praeter ("besides"). The manuscripts: post ("after").

(printed under page 532)

(3) ‹anchor: merita credentibus› · call in col 2367

Ms. Colbertinus, mereri credentes.

The Colbert manuscript: mereri credentes ("that believers merit").

(printed under page 532)

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[...] (cut off at image edge); column number 2367
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word mentitur was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2368

PL 35:2368

Scriptura. Sed absit. Fidelis enim est Scriptura, quae ut errorem amputet, quanta potest utitur manifestatione ad salutem hominum redimendam. Denique subjecit, Quod factum est in ipso vita est (Joan. I, 2-4): in ipso, id est in Verbo, quod factum est, vitam esse significat. Sicut et ipse Dominus ait: Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, ita dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso (Id. V, 26). Non quia Verbum sine vita erat, et postea aut data aut facta est in illo vita; sed ipsum Verbum vitam vult intelligi esse. Si de Patre Deo potest dici quod aliud ipse est, et aliud in se habet; ita etiam de Filio ejus: quia sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, ita dedit Filio vitam habere in semetipso. Humana enim eloquia non sunt idonea ad res explicandas divinas. Ideo vitiosum videtur quod dicitur, ut cum factura non sit Dei Filius, in ipso dicatur factum quod est. Et si dixisset, quod genitum est in ipso, etiam sic vitiosum videbatur. Sed ut substantivam generationem ejus ostenderet, opus in ea factum quali uti potuit sermone, per quod existeret, demonstravit, quia generatio ejus vitam in se habet. Nos enim vivimus quidem, sed non possumus aliis dare vitam: quippe cum nec in potestate nostra sit eadem vita. Ille autem ideo dicitur vitam in se habere, quia potens est vivificare, et creare quae vult ut sint et vivant. Ad hoc enim natus dicitur, ut omnia possit facere quae facit Pater; quia sic habet vitam in se, sicut habet et Pater. Hoc enim est, omnia per ipsum et in ipso fecisse, sic eum genuisse, ut haberet in se vitam, per quam omnia possit facere: non quia ipse aliud est quam vita, sed dum hoc potest vita ejus, ut et vivat, et alia possit creare quae vivant, vitam dicitur habere in semetipso. Nos enim vivimus, sed non habemus sic in nobis vitam ipsam, ut etiam aliis demus vitam. Quem sensum et apostolus Paulus memorat inter caetera dicens: Qui est imago invisibilis D⟨e⟩i, primogenitus ante omnem creaturam: quoniam in ipso condita sunt omnia in coelis et in terra: visibilia et invisibilia, sive Sedes, sive Dominationes, sive Principatus, sive Potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt (Coloss. I, 15, 16). Conveniunt autem Evangelia in hoc duorum Apostolorum Joannis et Pauli: eadem enim dicunt, quia Filius Dei ante omnem creaturam genitus est, ut crearet potentias spirituales, et mundum, et quae in eo sunt visibilia. Quod enim dixit Joannes, quia quod factum est, in ipso vita est, hoc idem significavit et Paulus dicens, quia in ipso condita sunt omnia in coelis et in terra. Et in subjectis, Omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt. Per ipsum creavit, quia in substantia idem Deus est, hoc est Pater in Filio: In ipso vero, quoniam sic generavit Filium, ut haberet potentiam faciendi omnia visibilia et invisibilia. Hoc fuit fecisse in illo vitam, ut et viveret, et vitam aliis praestaret vivendi, intelligendi, agendi, et caeteris animantibus secundum quod voluit, quasi imago Dei. Dum enim imago dicitur Dei, ad utrumque refertur; quia et per expressam nativitatem, plenam habet in se similitudinem Patris, et potest quidquid potest et Pater, ut verum sit Patrem videri in Filio, qui est imago invisibilis Dei. Numquid quia Patrem invisibilem dixit, Filium visibilem fecit, cum hoc utique sit Filius per naturam quod et Pater? Et cum creatura coelestis sit invisibilis, quanto magis Creator ejus? Sed hoc significavit quod in coelis est, non quod in terra; quia quamvis Filius invisibilis sit, illic tamen, id est, in coelestibus videtur ab Apostolis vel caeteris talibus, de quibus dixit: Pater, volo ut ubi ego sum, et isti sint mecum, et videant claritatem meum (Joan. XVII, 24). Et alibi: Beati, inquit, mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matth. V, 8): hoc est, Patrem in Filio, Deum imagine; quod est Deum in Deo. Sicut corporalis

But far from it. For Scripture is faithful, and in order to cut away error it uses as much plainness as it can for the redeeming of the salvation of men. Finally it added, What was made, in Him is life (John 1:2–4): in Him, that is, in the Word, it signifies that what was made is life. Just as the Lord Himself also says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26). Not that the Word was without life, and afterwards life was either given or made in Him; but it wants the Word itself to be understood to be life. If of God the Father it can be said that He Himself is one thing and has another thing in Himself, so also of His Son: for as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself. For human speech is not fit for explaining divine things. Therefore what is said seems faulty, namely that, although the Son of God is not a thing made, it is said that what is made is in Him. And if it had said, what was begotten in Him, even so it would seem faulty. But in order to show His substantive generation, by such speech as it could use it showed a work made in it, through which it might exist, namely that His generation has life in itself. For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that same life is not in our power. But He is said to have life in Himself for this reason, that He is able to give life, and to create what He wills, that they may be and may live. For He is said to have been born for this, that He may be able to do all things that the Father does; for He has life in Himself thus, just as the Father also has. For this is what it means that He made all things through Him and in Him: that He so begot Him that He should have life in Himself, through which He might be able to do all things; not because He Himself is something other than life, but since His life is able to do this, both to live and to be able to create other things that live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we live, but we do not have life itself in us in such a way that we may also give life to others. This sense the apostle Paul also mentions, saying among other things: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature: for in Him were founded all things in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers; all things were created through Him and in Him (Col. 1:15–16). And the Gospels of the two Apostles John and Paul agree in this: for they say the same things, namely that the Son of God was begotten before every creature in order to create the spiritual powers, and the world, and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that what was made, in Him is life, Paul also signified the same in saying that in Him were founded all things in the heavens and on earth. And in what follows: All things were created through Him and in Him. Through Him He created, because in substance He is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but in Him, because He so begot the Son that He should have the power of making all things visible and invisible. This was to have made life in Him: that He should both live and furnish to others the life of living, understanding and acting, and to the other living creatures according as He willed, as the image of God. For when He is called the image of God, it refers to both; for both through His express birth He has in Himself the full likeness of the Father, and He can do whatever the Father also can do, so that it is true that the Father is seen in the Son, Who is the image of the invisible God. Surely, because he called the Father invisible, he did not make the Son visible, since the Son is by nature precisely what the Father also is? And since the heavenly creation is invisible, how much more its Creator? But he signified this as being in the heavens, not on earth; for although the Son is invisible, yet there, that is, in the heavenly places, He is seen by the Apostles and others such as they, of whom He said: Father, I will that where I am, these also may be with Me, and may see My glory (John 17:24). And elsewhere: Blessed, He says, are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matt. 5:8): that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image; which is God in God. Just as of a bodily

Editors' notes and page, col. 2368

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: factum quod est› · call in col 2368

Ms. Colbertinus, omittit, quod est.

The Colbert manuscript omits quod est ("which is").

(printed under page 532)

(2) ‹anchor: substantivam generationem› · call in col 2368

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, substantiam generationis.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: substantiam generationis ("the substance of the generation").

(printed under page 532)

Page

running head: ...ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. (left part cut off at the image edge; column number 2368)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprint kept as printed: "claritatem meum" (for meam). "D i" in Coloss. I, 15 is printed with the e failed; set D⟨e⟩i.
other: the page opens with "tur", the tail of "mentitur", which stands whole at the end of col. 2367 and is not restored here. Q1d: the English now opens "Scripture is lying." (the sentence "Si enim fecit, mentitur Scriptura" spans the break); col. 2367's English still ends "it would be ly-" and should end "For if He made [Him]," (fix in col. 2367, not written here).

PL 35:2369

rei corpus imago est, ita et Dei Deus imago est: quia exemplum Pater, Filius vero exemplum de exemplo, quod communicat Spiritui sancto; Quia de me, inquit, accipiet (Joan. XVI, 14). Ideoque in Filio videtur Deus quasi in sua imagine. Sicut enim nemo dignus inventus est aperire librum, et signacula ejus, nisi Verbum Dei (Apoc. V, 4-8); ita et Deum Patrem nemo videre dignus est, neque natura, neque meritis, nisi verus Filius ejus. Nihil etenim medium est, quod obstet inter Patrem et Filium, ipso nobis teste qui ait: Neque enim Patrem vidit quisquam, nisi qui est a Deo, hic vidit Deum (Joan. VI, 46). Sed si in Filio videtur Pater, quare nemo dignus dicitur videre Deum; cum videatur in Filio, quia nihil differt a Patre Filius? Nihil plane differt in substantia, quia verus Filius est; differt autem in causalitatis gradu, quia omnis potentia a Patre in Filio est: et in substantia minor non est Filius, auctoritate tamen major est Pater, ipso Domino testante et dicente, Si diligeretis me, gauderetis utique, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est (Joan. XIV, 28). Quem etiam modum custodiens apostolus Paulus, Unus, inquit, Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso; et unus Dominus Jesus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor. VIII, 6): ut primus gradus sit, ex quo sunt omnia; secundus, per quem omnia; tertius, in quo omnia. Et quia nullus ex his degener est, in unitate Dei significati sunt, dicente Apostolo, Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum (Rom. XI, 36).

thing the body is the image, so too God is the image of God: because the Father is the exemplar, while the Son is the exemplar from the exemplar, which He communicates to the Holy Spirit; Because He shall receive of Me, He says (John 16:14). And therefore God is seen in the Son as in His own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4–8), so too no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except His true Son. For there is nothing in between that stands as an obstacle between the Father and the Son, as He Himself bears witness to us, Who says: For no one has seen the Father, except He Who is from God; He has seen God (John 6:46). But if the Father is seen in the Son, why is no one said to be worthy to see God, since He is seen in the Son, because the Son differs in nothing from the Father? He plainly differs in nothing in substance, because He is the true Son; but He differs in the degree of causality, because all power is in the Son from the Father: and in substance the Son is not less, yet in authority the Father is greater, as the Lord Himself testifies and says, If you loved Me, you would surely rejoice, because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Keeping this measure too, the apostle Paul says, One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus, through Whom are all things, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:6): so that the first degree is He from Whom are all things; the second, He through Whom are all things; the third, He in Whom are all things. And because none of these is degenerate, they are signified in the unity of God, as the Apostle says, For from Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things; to Him be glory unto the ages of ages (Rom. 11:36).

CXXIII. — Utrum Adam Spiritum sanctum habuerit?

123. Whether Adam had the Holy Spirit?

Comperi quosdam ex fratribus nostris, non plene discussisse Scripturas; sed simplicitate animi asseverare quod Adam factus, sanctum accepit Spiritum, quem peccans amisit, sicut nunc datur credentibus. Hac ducti ratione, qua solet asseverari a plurimis quia per fidem instauratus est homo, ita ut ad pristinum redditus statum, hoc omne acciperet quod inter initia Adam fuerat consecutus; et quia perfectus homo factus dicebatur, qui si non habuit, inquiunt, Spiritum sanctum, imperfectus fuit. Ego autem non solum hominem, sed et cuncta quae fecit Deus, quae non possunt dici accepisse Spiritum sanctum, dico perfecta. Omnia enim genera animalium in suo perfecta sunt, ut impleant id ad quod sunt facta: ita et homo in suo genere perfectus est, ut potens sit discernere mala a bonis, prava a rectis. Est enim animal intelligibile, perfectum ad id ad quod factum est. Capax est enim dicendi, excogitandi et faciendi, ut quae virtute non potest, impleat sensu. Et quomodo ausi sunt dicere, hominem perfectum nasci debere et totum scire, quem vident nihil ultra nosse quam hic discat? Quod enim hic non discit, nescit. Denique quoniam hic non discit, qualis sit, nescit: qui se ergo nescit qualis sit, quomodo omnia novit, cum minus sit se nosse, quam caetera? Sed quia de caeteris discit, de se autem non discit, de aliis novit, de se nescit, neque qualis sit, neque an ante corpus an post corpus sit. Nam si sic perfectus factus esset ut nullius egeret, non fuerat homo, sed Deus; neque circumventus praevaricasset. Spiritum autem sanctum habere, ultra naturam et perfectionem hominis est, ut possit quae Dei sunt. Numquid non, quia asina locuta est ad Balaam, ultra perfectionem ejus est (Num. XXII, 28)? Accepit enim ut posset quod naturae suae non erat, sed nostrae. Itaque quia praestantior est homo caeteris animalibus, idcirco illa imperfecta dicenda sunt? aut quia sancti Angeli non sunt quod est Deus, imperfecti sunt? vel quia luminaria et stellae imperfectiores sunt supernis Angelis, vel quia nubila velamine suo obscurant solem et lunam, minus perfecta sunt? Et quia membra invicem egent (non enim possunt pedes quod possunt manus), imperfecta dicentur? Absit. Omnia enim pro

I have found that some of our brethren have not fully examined the Scriptures, but in simplicity of mind assert that Adam, when he was made, received the Holy Spirit, Whom he lost by sinning, just as He is now given to believers. They are led by this reasoning, by which it is commonly asserted by very many that man has been restored through faith, so that, returned to his original state, he would receive all that Adam had obtained at the beginning; and because man was said to have been made perfect, if he did not have the Holy Spirit, they say, he was imperfect. But I say that not only man, but also all things that God made, which cannot be said to have received the Holy Spirit, are perfect. For all kinds of living creatures are perfect in their own kind, so as to fulfil that for which they were made: so too man is perfect in his own kind, so that he is able to distinguish evil from good, crooked from straight. For he is an intelligent living creature, perfect for that for which he was made. For he is capable of speaking, devising and doing, so that what he cannot do by strength, he may accomplish by understanding. And how have they dared to say that man ought to be born perfect and to know everything, when they see that he knows nothing beyond what he learns here? For what he does not learn here, he does not know. Indeed, since he does not learn here what he is, he does not know it: so he who does not know what he himself is, how does he know all things, when knowing oneself is a lesser thing than knowing the rest? But because he learns about other things, but does not learn about himself, he knows about others, he does not know about himself, neither what he is, nor whether he exists before the body or after the body. For if he had been made so perfect as to need nothing, he would not have been man, but God; nor would he have transgressed through being deceived. But to have the Holy Spirit is beyond the nature and perfection of man, so that he may be capable of the things that are God's. Was it not beyond the she-ass's perfection that she spoke to Balaam (Num. 22:28)? For she received the ability to do what was not of her own nature, but of ours. So, because man is more excellent than the other living creatures, are they therefore to be called imperfect? Or because the holy Angels are not what God is, are they imperfect? Or because the luminaries and stars are less perfect than the Angels on high, or because the clouds obscure the sun and moon with their veil, are they less perfect? And because the members need one another (for the feet cannot do what the hands can), will they be called imperfect? Far from it. For all things according to

Editors' notes and page, col. 2369

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2369

Ms. Colbert., in causa vel gradu.

The Colbert manuscript: in causa vel gradu ("in cause or in rank").

(printed under page 533)

(a) ‹anchor: CXXIII› · call in col 2369

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Wanting in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 533)

Page

running head: 2369 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2370

locis et gradibus suis firma et perfecta sunt, ut impleant id ad quod facta sunt. Igitur omnia perfecta sunt, quia et Creator eorum perfectus est; sed ad comparationem ejus imperfecta sunt. Deus enim per omnia perfectus est, quasi fons et origo omnium. Nam quae facta sunt, perfecta quidem sunt, sed ad id quod facta sunt, ut in alia parte non sint perfecta; quia alter alterius eget: ut in eo quo non eget, perfectum sit, non in quo eget: ideoque perfecta et imperfecta sunt omnia. Manus indigent pedibus; quia nisi ambulaverint pedes, otiosae erunt manus. Iterum pedes indigent manibus; calceare enim se non possunt, neque curare. Cum ergo corpus perfectum sit membris, volare tamen non potest, neque ferre tantum quantum potest burdo. Cumque hi perfecti sint, gubernare tamen se nesciunt, nec adhibere sibi possunt medicinam. Unde dictum est, Nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus, in quibus non est intellectus (Psal. XXXI, 9). Et aqua et ignis cum repugnent invicem, in suo genere perfecta sunt; implent enim id ad quod facta sunt. Coquit enim ignis, et consumit; purgat et calefacit: aqua vero abluit, refrigerat, irrigat, sitientes recreat. Itaque cum omnia in suo genere perfecta sint, sine homine tamen nihil possunt, neque homo quamvis perfectior sit, sine his. Hinc Apostolus imperfectos et perfectos nos dicit. Ad comparationem enim infidelium nos perfecti sumus, quia Deum cognoscimus: sed quia quae promissa sunt, minus scimus quam debemus, quia in hac vita non tantum possumus comprehendere, quantum est quod creditur, imperfecti sumus. Igitur quoniam putant perfectionem Adae instaurari credentibus, videamus si haec instauratio nihil ultra doni habeat divini quam fuerat consecutus Adam. Factus enim Adam positus est in paradiso, ut operaretur ibi, et custodiret: hoc est, ut coleret terram, et custodiret praecepta Dei, per quae sciret sic se dominium cunctorum accepisse, ut ipse tamen sub lege viveret Creatoris, ne dominatio extolleret eum, et inflatus superbia immemor fieret sui Conditoris. Positus ergo est, ut cibis sustentaretur vita ejus: per Christum autem hoc concessum est, ut resurgentes non egeant cibo vel potu; quia quod mortale est hominis, convertitur in vitam. Factus est Adam ut habitaret in terra; fides autem largiri dignata est ut in coelis sit habitatio nostra. Scriptura ipsa testatur, quia factus est, inquit, primus homo Adam in animam viventem, secundus autem homo in spiritum vivificantem. Primus autem homo de terra, terrenus; secundus autem homo de coelo, coelestis. Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; et qualis coelestis, tales et coelestes (I Cor. XV, 45-48). Quid tam apertum quam quod Adam non habuit Spiritum sanctum? Factus est enim in animam viventem; per Christum autem in spiritum vivificantem, ut homo in aliquo similis sit Creatori, quem credit. Quia enim mysterium fidei, quod ad salutem datum est, trinum est, trinus fit, corpore, anima, et Spiritu sancto, per quem dicimur filii Dei: quod minime Adam probatur vocatus; terrenus enim factus est. Filii autem Dei non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter nati, coelestes dicuntur esse. Ecce absolutum est donum Dei multo plus gratiae concessisse homini tempore Sa⟨l⟩vatoris, quam acceperat Adam; quia non solum est instauratus, sed et melioratus: in eo instauratus, quia peccatis ablutus est; in caeteris melioratus. Hoc enim et justitia et ratio exigebat, ut tunc uberior esset clementia Dei in dandis beneficiis, quando mysterium divinitatis suae innotescere voluit creaturae: ut cognoscentes, quod incognitum fuit a saeculis et generationibus, Dei unius sacramentum in Trinitate consistere, pro ipsa novitatis quasi dedicatione peccatis abluti insuper justificentur, et adoptati a Deo Spiritum sanctum accipiant, per quem signum adoptionis habere videantur. Adoptio enim a Deo signum habere debet Dei Patris, ut non immerito filii

their places and ranks are firm and perfect, so that they fulfil that for which they were made. Therefore all things are perfect, because their Creator too is perfect; but in comparison with Him they are imperfect. For God is perfect in all things, as the fount and origin of all. For the things that have been made are indeed perfect, but with respect to that for which they were made, so that in another respect they are not perfect; because one needs the other: so that it is perfect in that in which it has no need, not in that in which it has need: and therefore all things are both perfect and imperfect. The hands need the feet; for unless the feet walk, the hands will be idle. Again, the feet need the hands; for they cannot shoe themselves, nor tend themselves. Although, then, the body is perfect in its members, it nevertheless cannot fly, nor carry as much as a mule can. And although these are perfect, they nevertheless do not know how to govern themselves, nor can they apply medicine to themselves. Whence it was said, Do not become like the horse and the mule, in which there is no understanding (Ps. 31:9). Both water and fire, though they oppose each other, are perfect in their own kind; for they fulfil that for which they were made. For fire cooks and consumes; it purifies and warms: water, on the other hand, washes, cools, irrigates, refreshes the thirsty. And so, although all things are perfect in their own kind, yet without man they can do nothing, nor can man, though he be more perfect, do anything without them. Hence the Apostle calls us both imperfect and perfect. For in comparison with unbelievers we are perfect, because we know God: but because we know less than we ought of the things that have been promised, since in this life we cannot comprehend as much as there is in what is believed, we are imperfect. Therefore, since they think that the perfection of Adam is restored to believers, let us see whether this restoration holds nothing more of divine gift than Adam had obtained. For Adam, once made, was placed in paradise to work there and to keep it: that is, to till the ground and to keep the precepts of God, through which he might know that he had received dominion over all things in such a way that he himself nevertheless lived under the law of the Creator, lest dominion should exalt him and, puffed up with pride, he should become forgetful of his Maker. He was placed, then, so that his life should be sustained by food: but through Christ this has been granted, that those who rise again do not need food or drink; because what is mortal in man is changed into life. Adam was made to dwell on the earth; but faith has deigned to bestow that our dwelling be in the heavens. Scripture itself testifies, for it says, The first man Adam was made into a living soul, but the second man into a life-giving spirit. But the first man is from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthly, such also are the earthly; and as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly (1 Cor. 15:45–48). What is so plain as that Adam did not have the Holy Spirit? For he was made into a living soul; but through Christ [man is made] into a life-giving spirit, so that man may in some respect be like the Creator in Whom he believes. For since the mystery of faith, which has been given for salvation, is threefold, [man] becomes threefold, in body, soul, and the Holy Spirit, through Whom we are called sons of God: which Adam is shown by no means to have been called; for he was made earthly. But the sons of God, born not carnally but spiritually, are said to be heavenly. See, it is settled that the gift of God granted much more grace to man in the time of the Saviour than Adam had received; for he has not only been restored, but also improved: restored in this, that he has been washed of sins; improved in the rest. For both justice and reason required this, that the mercy of God should be more abundant in the bestowing of benefits at the time when He willed the mystery of His divinity to become known to the creature: so that those who come to know what was unknown from ages and generations, that the sacrament of the one God consists in the Trinity, should, as a kind of dedication of this very newness, be washed of sins and moreover justified, and, adopted by God, receive the Holy Spirit, through Whom they may be seen to have the sign of adoption. For adoption by God must have the sign of God the Father, so that not undeservedly sons

Editors' notes and page, col. 2370

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quem credit› · call in col 2370

Ms. Colbert., et sit quod credit.

The Colbert manuscript: et sit quod credit ("and may be what he believes").

(printed under page 533)

Page

running head: [A]PPENDIX. 2370 (first letter cut off at the left edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2371

Dei appellentur. Hoc donum etiam per Prophetas promissum est, ut tunc daretur, quando mysterium Dei declarari deberet in triumpho devicta morte, ut sciret creatura Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unum esse Deum. Unde evangelista : Spiritus, inquit, nondum erat datus, quia Jesus non erat clarificatus (Joan. VII, 39). Clarificatio enim haec est, cum per virtutem suam cognoscitur esse quod testificatus est de se, quia clarificatio hoc donum dedit, quod per Joelem prophetam fuerat promissum. Ait enim Deus : In novissimis diebus effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem, etc. (Joel. II, 28). Et Apostolus inter alia : Cum autem benignitas, inquit, et humanitas apparuit Salvatoris Dei nostri; non ex operibus justitiae, quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis, per Spiritum sanctum, quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum : ut justificati gratia ipsius haeredes efficeremur secundum spem vitae aeternae (Tit. III, 4-7). Confirmavit Apostolus quod per Joelem prophetam fuerat promissum, quia hoc postquam clarificatus est Jesus, implevit Deus, ut Spiritum sanctum effunderet in illos qui credunt in Christum : et hoc est haeredem fieri vitae aeternae, Spiritum sanctum accipere; ut quia Spiritus aeternus est, aeternam habeat vitam qui accipit eum : pignus est enim immortalitatis. Qui enim accipit eum, et manet in ejus dilectione, transacta hac vita pergit in coelos ad eum cujus Spiritum habet. Incongruum est enim ut qui hinc exit habens Spiritum sanctum, apud inferos teneatur. Signum est enim in homine victoriae Christi, qua vicit mortem, Spiritus ejus, ut in quo fuerit Spiritus ejus ab inferis teneri non possit. Ac per hoc in veteribus sanctis non ita fuit Spiritus sanctus, sicut nunc est in fidelibus; quia exeuntes de saeculo, apud inferos erant : et non potest dici quia Spiritus sanctus causa peccati Adae, quod per traducem generis omne semen ejus subjectum fecit inferis, simili tenebatur sententia data Adae. Cum Prophetis ergo et justis viris sanctum fuisse Spiritum non est ambiguum : cum Prophetis, propter dispensationem; cum justis vero causa sanctitatis, sicut legitur de sancto Simeone, quia Spiritus sanctus, inquit, erat cum eo (Luc. II, 25); non ut signum esset adoptionis in eo, sed meritorum ejus gratia. Nam filii Dei credentes tunc esse coeperunt, quando manifestatus est Filius Dei, victa morte, cunctae creaturae. Si autem in Adam vel in caeteris sic dicatur fuisse Spiritus sanctus, sicut nunc est in fidelibus; quae nova dona dedit Deus, cum regnum Filii sui dedicavit in nobis? Et quomodo felix et beatum tempus prae caeteris dicitur Salvatoris adventus, si ea praestitit quae jam fuerant praestita? Et ubi est illud, quod dicit Salvator ad discipulos : Mu⟨lt⟩i, inquit, Prophetae et justi cupierunt videre quae videtis, et audire quae auditis, et non audierunt (Matth. XIII, 17)? Qua ratione ergo poterit dici quod beatitudo temporis hujus nihil amplius contulit doni, quam veteribus est collatum? Qu⟨o⟩d quidem ad injuriam proficit Salvatoris, ut nih⟨i⟩l habuerit novum quod in ortu imperii sui suscipientibus se donaret : cum tamen laborare soleant divites, ut in die festo natalis sui exquisita invitatis dent apophoreta. Quanta ergo injuria est, ut Deus iis quos ad novum et inauditum diem festum et omni laude dignum invitavit, non dicatur habuisse inexperta quae donaret? Et ubi est illud evangelistae Joannis, quod dicit : In sua venit, et sui eum non receperunt : quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri; iis qui credunt in nomine ejus, qui non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt (Joan. I, 11-13)? Igitur quomodo non inusitatum est quod donavit credentibus Deus in Christo, quando dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, id est, fratres Filii sui proprii, non ex voluntate carnis aut viri, sed ex Deo, ut spiritualiter nascerentur? Aut si prius gratia ista concessa probatur, tunc nihil novum adventus Christi contulisse dicatur. Adae certe carnalis et terrena fuit factura, non spiritualis Non

of God they may be called. This gift too was promised through the Prophets, that it should be given at the time when the mystery of God was to be declared in triumph, death having been vanquished, so that creation might know that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. Hence the evangelist: The Spirit, he says, had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39). For this is the glorification: when through His power He is recognized to be what He testified concerning Himself; for the glorification gave this gift, which had been promised through the prophet Joel. For God says: In the last days I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, etc. (Joel 2:28). And the Apostle, among other things: But when the kindness, he says, and humanity of God our Saviour appeared, not from works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal, through the Holy Spirit, Whom He poured out upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, justified by His grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4–7). The Apostle confirmed what had been promised through the prophet Joel, because God fulfilled this after Jesus was glorified, so that He poured out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Christ: and this is to become an heir of eternal life, to receive the Holy Spirit; so that, because the Spirit is eternal, he who receives Him may have eternal life: for He is the pledge of immortality. For he who receives Him and remains in His love, when this life has passed, goes into the heavens to Him Whose Spirit he has. For it is incongruous that one who departs hence having the Holy Spirit should be held in the underworld. For the sign in man of the victory of Christ, by which He conquered death, is His Spirit, so that the one in whom His Spirit has been cannot be held by the underworld. And for this reason the Holy Spirit was not in the ancient saints in the way He is now in the faithful; because on departing from the world they were in the underworld: and it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit, because of the sin of Adam, which through the propagation of the race made all his seed subject to the underworld, was held by a sentence like the one given to Adam. That the Holy Spirit was with the Prophets and with just men, then, is not doubtful: with the Prophets on account of the dispensation; with the just, however, by reason of holiness, as is read of holy Simeon, for the Holy Spirit, it says, was with him (Luke 2:25); not so that it should be a sign of adoption in him, but by reason of his merits. For believers began to be sons of God at the time when the Son of God was made manifest to all creation, death having been conquered. But if it is said that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or in the others in the same way as He is now in the faithful, what new gifts did God give when He dedicated the kingdom of His Son in us? And how is the coming of the Saviour called a happy and blessed time above others, if it bestowed what had already been bestowed? And where is that which the Saviour says to the disciples: Many, He says, prophets and just men desired to see what you see, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it (Matt. 13:17)? By what reasoning, then, could it be said that the blessedness of this time conferred no more of a gift than was conferred on the ancients? This indeed tends to the injury of the Saviour, as though He had nothing new to give to those who received Him at the rise of His rule: when even rich men are wont to take pains to give choice presents to their guests on the festal day of their birthday. How great an injury it is, then, that God should not be said to have had untried things to give to those whom He invited to a new and unheard-of feast day, worthy of all praise! And where is that saying of John the evangelist, where he says: He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him; but as many as received Him, He gave them power to become sons of God; to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:11–13)? How then is what God gave to believers in Christ not something unprecedented, when He gave them power to become sons of God, that is, brothers of His own Son, so that they should be born spiritually, not of the will of the flesh or of man, but of God? Or if it is proved that this grace was granted earlier, then let it be said that the coming of Christ conferred nothing new. Adam's making, certainly, was carnal and earthly, not spiritual.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2371

Page

running head: 2371 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[E] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2372

enim ex Deo sine carne et sanguine natus est, sed de terra a Deo factus est: ideoque non potuit Spiritum sanctum accipere, qui non erat spiritualis, et cui concessum non erat Patrem Deum vocare in oratione. Qui enim Spiritum sanctum accipiunt, his datur potestas ut per id quod Spiritum sanctum habent, patrem illum Christianorum in oratione appellent. Quod quia ante concessum non fuit, non possunt dici priores Spiritum sanctum habuisse. Ii ergo qui putant Adam vel caeteros habuisse Spiritum sanctum, nesciunt quale donum habeant Dei; nec gratias congruas possunt ei agere, qui plus caeteris accipientes nihil se dicunt amplius consecutos.

For he was not born of God without flesh and blood, but was made by God from earth: and therefore he could not receive the Holy Spirit, since he was not spiritual, and it had not been granted to him to call God Father in prayer. For to those who receive the Holy Spirit power is given that, by the fact that they have the Holy Spirit, they may address Him in prayer as the Father of Christians. Since this was not granted before, the men of earlier times cannot be said to have had the Holy Spirit. Those, therefore, who think that Adam or the others had the Holy Spirit do not know what kind of gift of God they have; nor can they give Him fitting thanks, since, though they receive more than the others, they say they have obtained nothing more.

UNUM OPUS DIFFERRE SECUNDUM PERSONAS IN LAUDEM SIVE CONDEMNATIONEM.

That one and the same work differs according to the persons, towards praise or condemnation.

CXXIV. — Una est misericordia in divite et paupere, sed aliter imputatur diviti, aliter pauperi: quia plus laudanda est in paupere quam in divite. Pauper enim de exiguitate sua largiri non timuit, sperans a Deo sibi retribui et in praesenti et in futuro. Credit enim Scripturae dicenti quia qui tribuit pauperibus, non egebit (Prov. XXVIII, 27). Unde et paupercula illa, divitibus multa mittentibus, sola meruit a Deo collaudari, quia de penuria sua largiri non timuit (Luc. XXI, 2⟨-⟩4). Divites vero securi de divitiis suis largiuntur, pauper autem securus de Domino. Bene igitur faciunt divites dum largiuntur egenis, sed multo melius pauperes. Ac per hoc alia remuneratio pauperis et alia divitis. Dives enim si hoc non fecerit, vapulabit: a paupere enim non exigitur tantum. Ideoque laudabilis est pauper misericors. Furtum in paupere et divite unum peccatum est, sed divitem plus facit reum: quia pauper per inopiam facit furtum, dives autem cum abundet non contentus suo, tollit aliena; et quod pejus est, solet pauperes exspoliare: ac per hoc differt poena utriusque. Et justitia pauperis, et divitis una est; sed laudabilis est in paupere magis. In egestate enim servare justitiam, magnifica res est. Dives autem ideo servare videtur justitiam, quia alienus est ab inopia. Ergo uterque justus est, sed majus est in necessitate servare justitiam. Superbia una est, sed plus damnanda in paupere est quam in divite: quia dives copia elatus est, pauper autem in egestate superbus, quod ad insaniam pertinet, ac per hoc plus reus est pauper. Humilitas una est, sed magis laudanda in divite est. Quid enim magnum est si pauper humilis videatur, quem ipsa inopia humilem facit? Magnificum autem si hic qui dignitate et copiis commendatur, inclinet se, non sibi vindicans quae mereri se novit. Ergo in omnibus humilitas bona est, sed multo magis in divite. Doctrinae et studii una est causa; sed laudabilior in divite est. Pauper enim cum nulla praerogativa commendaretur, operam dedit ut haberet unde posset requiri: Dives autem cum esset unde commendaretur, adhibito labore auxit se, ut duplici genere necessarius esset; non enim avocatus copiis retraxit animum, quo minus per se floreret. Et ideo hic magis laude dignus est quam pauper, qui si studiis operam minime dedisset, per omnia remanserat vilis. Illum ergo voluntas, hunc necessitas fecit studii cupidum. Libido in paupere et divite eadem est, sed damnabilior in paupere quam in divite est. Pauperem enim ipsa egestas revocare debet a cupiditate luxuriae: cogitare enim debet quia unde hoc impleat non habet, et dum hoc festinat adimplere, alia multa mala admittat necesse est, quibus forte nec ad praesens evadat; aut certe hoc ipsum quod habet insumens, mendicus remanebit cum nota. Divitem autem deliciarum copiae lacessunt ad voluptatem libidinis: praeterea quia divites securi sunt de impunitate, scientes venalia esse judicia, et nec redargui se ab aliquo. Quis enim dignitate fultum virum et divitem arguere audeat? Unde magis accenduntur, ut et violenter hoc agant. Non solum enim minime

124. — Mercy is one in the rich man and in the poor man, but it is reckoned one way to the rich man and another way to the poor: for it is more to be praised in the poor man than in the rich. For the poor man did not fear to give out of his scantiness, hoping to be repaid by God both in the present and in the future. For he believes Scripture, which says that he who gives to the poor shall not want (Prov. 28:27). Hence too that poor little woman, while the rich were putting in much, alone deserved to be praised by God, because she did not fear to give out of her penury (Luke 21:2–4). The rich, however, give secure in their riches, but the poor man secure in the Lord. The rich, then, do well when they give to the needy, but the poor do much better. And for this reason the reward of the poor man is one thing and that of the rich man another. For the rich man, if he does not do this, will be beaten: but so much is not required of the poor man. And therefore the merciful poor man is praiseworthy. Theft in the poor man and in the rich man is one sin, but it makes the rich man more guilty: for the poor man commits theft through want, but the rich man, though he abounds, not content with his own, takes what belongs to others; and, what is worse, he is wont to despoil the poor: and for this reason the punishment of each differs. Justice too, of the poor man and of the rich, is one; but it is more praiseworthy in the poor man. For to keep justice in poverty is a magnificent thing. But the rich man seems to keep justice for this reason, that he is a stranger to want. Therefore each is just, but it is a greater thing to keep justice in necessity. Pride is one, but it is more to be condemned in the poor man than in the rich: for the rich man is puffed up by abundance, but the poor man is proud in poverty, which belongs to madness, and for this reason the poor man is more guilty. Humility is one, but it is more to be praised in the rich man. For what great thing is it if a poor man appears humble, whom want itself makes humble? But it is magnificent if this man, who is commended by rank and wealth, bows himself down, not claiming for himself what he knows he deserves. Therefore humility is good in all, but much more in the rich man. The cause of learning and study is one; but it is more praiseworthy in the rich man. For the poor man, since he was commended by no privilege, applied his effort so that he might have something for which he could be sought out: but the rich man, though he had something for which to be commended, increased himself by applying labour, so as to be needed on two counts; for he did not, drawn away by his wealth, withdraw his mind so as to flourish the less through himself. And therefore this man is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, had he given no effort to study, would have remained mean in every respect. So the one was made eager for study by will, the other by necessity. Lust is the same in the poor man and the rich, but it is more damnable in the poor man than in the rich. For poverty itself ought to call the poor man back from the desire of luxury: for he ought to reflect that he does not have the means to satisfy it, and while he hastens to fulfil it, he must necessarily commit many other evils, from which he may perhaps not escape even for the present; or at any rate, spending on this the very thing he has, he will remain a beggar with a mark of disgrace. But the rich man is provoked to the pleasure of lust by an abundance of delights: besides, because the rich are secure of impunity, knowing that judgements are for sale, and that they are not reproved by anyone. For who would dare to reprove a man propped up by rank, and rich? Hence they are inflamed the more, so that they even do this with violence. For not only do they not at all

Editors' notes and page, col. 2372

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2372

Ms. Colbert., paupera.

The Colbert manuscript: paupera.

(printed under page 534)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2372

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Wanting in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 534)

Page

running head: [QUAESTION]ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2372 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2373

reprehenduntur, sed in magno honore sunt, et gloriari possunt, quia tales sunt. Quod si uterque, id est, pauper et dives pudicus sit, multum differt pudicitia divitis a pudicitia pauperis. Pauperem enim potest humilitas revocare, ne quod vult possit implere, aut timor legum: dives autem cum multis suffragantibus causis ad voluptatem possit allici, laudabilis est, si avertat hinc animum. Alia ergo remuneratione dignus est dives pudicus, et alia pauper pudicus. Quod si rex sit pudicus, multum est gloriosum, ut omnia in potestate habens non contingat, quod scit impune a se posse fieri. Hic vere Deum timet, hic vere praecepta ejus custodit, qui in potestate habens leges, futurum Dei judicium contemplatur. Itaque grandis res est ut qui in praesenti non habet quem timeat, vincat quod delectat; cum delectatio tantum possit, ut non solum futura, sed et praesentia minime vereatur. Unde multum merentur quicumque hanc superant, sed plus ii qui in praesenti legibus et hominibus dominantur. Caeteri enim et homines et leges verentur; quare et propositum custodiunt. Ne enim apud homines erubescant, servant quod diu tenuerunt; et ne condemnentur, a prohibitis se abstinent: hic autem qui dominatione nec leges timet, nec homines erubescit, magnae gloriae est si se abstinet.

get blamed, but are held in great honour, and can glory, because they are such. But if both, that is, the poor man and the rich man, are chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor man. For lowliness can hold the poor man back, so that he cannot fulfil what he wishes, or fear of the laws can; but the rich man, since he can be drawn to pleasure by many favouring causes, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from it. The chaste rich man, therefore, is worthy of one reward, and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king is chaste, it is very glorious that, having all things in his power, he does not touch what he knows could be done by him with impunity. This man truly fears God, this man truly keeps His commandments, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgement of God. And so it is a great thing that one who in the present has no one to fear should overcome what delights, since delight can do so much that it has no fear at all, not only of things to come, but even of things present. Hence whoever overcome it merit much, but more those who in the present are masters of laws and of men. For the rest fear both men and laws; and therefore they keep their resolve. For lest they be put to shame before men, they keep what they have long held; and lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things: but this man, who by his dominion neither fears the laws nor is put to shame before men, is of great glory if he abstains.

ADVERSUS EUSEBIUM.

Against Eusebius.

CXXV. — Memini me in quodam libello Eusebii quondam egregii in reliquis viri legisse, quia nec Spiritus sanctus sciat mysterium nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi; et admiror tantae doctrinae virum hanc maculam Spiritui sancto inflixisse. Hoc enim dicens degenerem illum significavit. Neque enim potest dici de Deo esse, si nescit quae Dei sunt: quia inferior natura quid in potiore sit, nescit. Sin vero substantiae est ejusdem et divinitatis, quomodo potest nescire quae sua sunt? Denique Filius Dei, quia, Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30), propter unitatem substantiae, non immerito adjecit, dicens, Omnia quae Patris sunt, mea sunt; et quae mea sunt, Patris sunt (Id. XVI, 15). Quamobrem si Spiritus sanctus ejusdem divinitatis est, qua ratione segregatur, ne sit ejusdem scientiae, cum ejusdem non negetur esse substantiae? Quod plus est concessit, quod minus est renuens. Creatura enim discit, et incipit aliquanta scire de auctore suo, et erunt ei quae didicerit cum auctore suo communia: substantia autem vel divinitas non potest Deo esse et creaturae communis. Nam Dei substantia non habet quod discat, quia nihil est quod ignoret: substantia vero hominum non habet in natura ut sciat, sed ut discat. Itaque naturae hominum accidit scientia: non tamen immutatur substantia; quia hominis natura dehabet scientiam: sic enim condita est, ut per exercitium acquirat scientiam. Igitur major est substantia quam scientia; quia non scientia acquirit substantiam, sed substantia scientiam: et substantia est sine scientia, non tamen scientia potest esse sine substantia. In Deo autem sicut est substantia, ita et scientia: substantia enim quae nihil habet quod discat, ipsa substantia est sibi scientia. Quamobrem omnia in Deo substantiva dicuntur. Substantia enim cui nihil deest, omnia substantialiter habet; quia nihil ei accessit post studium. Quomodo ergo dici potest de Spiritu sancto quia nescit nativitatem Filii Dei, si consubstantivus est ei? Numquid potest una eademque substantia, et scire, et nescire? Certe Filius Dei mysterium nativitatis suae non didicit; scit enim substantialiter, non per doctrinam: qua ergo ratione Spiritus sanctus dicitur nescire, cum similiter ipse nihil habeat quod discat, quia omnia novit per substantiam? Sicut enim Dei Filius, ita et Spiritus sanctus Dei substantia est, dicente Domino, Omnia quae Patris sunt mea sunt: per quod significavit substantiam Dei Patris suam esse substantiam.

CXXV. — I remember having read in a certain little book of Eusebius, once a man distinguished in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I wonder that a man of such learning inflicted this stain upon the Holy Spirit. For in saying this he signified that He is degenerate. For He cannot be said to be of God if He does not know the things that are God's: for an inferior nature does not know what is in a superior one. But if He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He not know the things that are His own? Indeed the Son of God, because He said, I and the Father are one (John 10:30), on account of the unity of substance not without reason added, saying, All things that are the Father's are Mine; and the things that are Mine are the Father's (ibid. 16:15). Wherefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what ground is He set apart, so as not to be of the same knowledge, when it is not denied that He is of the same substance? He granted what is greater, refusing what is less. For a creature learns, and begins to know some things about its maker, and the things it has learned will be common to it with its maker: but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and a creature. For the substance of God has nothing to learn, because there is nothing of which it is ignorant: but the substance of men does not have it in its nature to know, but to learn. And so knowledge befalls the nature of men: yet the substance is not changed; because the nature of man lacks knowledge: for it was so made as to acquire knowledge by exercise. Therefore substance is greater than knowledge; because knowledge does not acquire substance, but substance acquires knowledge: and substance exists without knowledge, yet knowledge cannot exist without substance. But in God, as there is substance, so too there is knowledge: for the substance which has nothing to learn is itself its own knowledge. Wherefore all things in God are called substantive. For the substance which lacks nothing has all things substantially; because nothing has come to it after study. How then can it be said of the Holy Spirit that He does not know the birth of the Son of God, if He is consubstantial with Him? Can one and the same substance both know and not know? Certainly the Son of God did not learn the mystery of His birth; for He knows it substantially, not through teaching: on what ground, then, is the Holy Spirit said not to know, since He likewise has nothing to learn, because He knows all things through His substance? For as the Son of God, so too the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, as the Lord says, All things that are the Father's are Mine: by which He signified that the substance of God the Father is His own substance.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2373

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: minus est renuens› · call in col 2373

Ms. Colbert., Quod plus est concedis, et quod minus est retines.

The Colbert manuscript: Quod plus est concedis, et quod minus est retines ("you grant what is greater, and withhold what is less").

(printed under page 535)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2373

Deest in Mss. secundi generis

Wanting in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 535)

Page

running head: 2373 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2374

Et Spiritum sanctum a Patre dicit procedere, et de suo accipere: Et ideo, inquit, dixi, de meo accipiet, quia omnia quae Patris sunt, mea sunt. Si a Patre procedit, et de Filio accipit, quomodo Filii nesciat nativitatem; quando substantia ejus substantia Filii est? Omnia enim quae Patris sunt, Filii sunt. Sine dubio ergo Patris substantia et in Spiritu sancto est. Adjecit enim Filius, dicens: Et omnia quae mea sunt, Patris sunt. Quid ergo ambigitur de Spiritu sancto, an ejusdem divinitatis sit, cum sit ejusdem substantiae? Nam sicut de se dixit Dominus quia a Deo processit, ita et de Spiritu sancto testatur. Et ne hoc aliter possit interpretari, A Patre, inquit, procedit (Joan. XV, 26); et, De meo accipiet (Id. XVI, 14): ut a Patre procedere, hoc sit de Christo accipere. Cum enim dicitur de Filio Dei accipere, non ambigitur etiam ipse esse de Deo, ut in sancto Spiritu Patris esse substantia et divinitas non ambigatur. Itaque qui hunc dicit nescire Filii Dei nativitatem, ipsi derogat cujus dicitur accepisse. Nec enim aliud accipit, quam ipse est de quo accipit; quia accepisse de Christo, de Deo processisse significavit: ideoque non potest nescire, quod hic sit de cujus accepit; neque ignorare dicendus est Dominum, quia a Deo processit. Certe Filius Dei, quia de Patre est Deo, scit omnia Dei: quare ergo Spiritus sanctus negetur scire quaecumque Christi sunt, cum de eo acceperit? Itaque si scit Filius Dei quae in Deo sunt, dubium non est etiam Spiritum sanctum non ignorare quae in Filio Dei sunt: et per id quod novit quae sunt in Filio, non nescire dicendus est quae in Deo sunt. De eo enim de quo accipit, Dei habet notitiam. Et quid laboramus, cum testis sit in hac re Apostolus, dicens: Nemo scit quae sunt in Deo, nisi Spiritus Dei (I Cor. II, 11)? Ecce in quo diu sudavimus, Apostolo adjuvante implevimus. Et numquid praejudicavit Filio Dei, quia neminem dixit scire quae in Deo sunt, nisi Spiritum Dei? Absit. Sic nec praejudicavit Spiritui sancto Filius, cum dixit: Nemo novit Patrem, nisi Filius. Neminem enim dixit scire quae in Deo sunt, praeter eum qui de Deo est: quia omne quod de Deo est, novit Deum, et quae in Deo sunt. Natura enim Dei, ipsa se novit; quam cum intelligis esse etiam in Spiritu sancto, per id quod a Patre processit, et de Filio accepit, tutum non est istum dicere nescire Patrem Deum, cujus naturam agnoscis in eo: et tamen Salvator sic dixit, neminem scire Deum Patrem nisi Filium, ut reservaret alii personae hujus cognitionem; statim enim subjecit, dicens: Et cui voluerit Filius revelare (Matth. XI, 27). Cui, putas, vult revelare Filius? Nulli enim charior esse potest quam Spiritui suo: quia si quis, inquit, Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ejus (Rom. VIII, 9). Quomodo ergo putas revelatum Deum Patrem a Filio Spiritui sancto, nisi quomodo ipse Dominus ait, de meo accipiet? Creaturae enim revelari non potest Pater Deus; quia Dei naturam ferre non potest, nisi fuerit ejusdem substantiae: lucem etenim habitat inaccessibilem creaturae duntaxat (I Tim. VI, 16). Sed quibusdam videtur ideo recte dici nescire mysterium nativitatis Filii Dei Spiritus sanctus, quia omnia dicitur scrutari (I Cor. II, 10), et qui scrutatur, inquiunt, nescit utique. Quod ex alio loco debet intelligi: Dei enim verba sunt inter caetera dicentis, Ego Deus qui scrutor renes et corda (Jerem. XVII, 10); et in Psalmo, Scrutans, ait, corda et renes Deus (Psal. VII, 10); et Apostolus, Qui scrutatur, inquit, corda, scit quid desideret Spiritus: quia secundum Dei voluntatem postulat pro sanctis. His exemplis cum scrutari dicitur Dei Spiritus, non ignorare significatur. Etiam alta Dei dicitur scrutari: et quae sunt alta Dei, quae dicitur pervidere? Scrutari enim occulta significat penetrare, ut per id nihil esse occultum ei credatur. Alta enim Dei mysteria interiora sunt Dei, quae scrutari a creatura non possunt. Nam et secundum Dei voluntatem pro sanctis legitur postulare, quod sancti utique nesciunt, dicente Apostolo: Nam quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus (Rom. VIII, 27, 26). Ergo

And He says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and receives of His own: And therefore, He says, I said, He will receive of Mine, because all things that are the Father's are Mine. If He proceeds from the Father, and receives of the Son, how should He be ignorant of the Son's birth, when His substance is the substance of the Son? For all things that are the Father's are the Son's. Without doubt, then, the substance of the Father is also in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: And all things that are Mine are the Father's. Why then is there doubt about the Holy Spirit, whether He is of the same divinity, since He is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of Himself that He proceeded from God, so too He bears witness concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this could be interpreted otherwise, He says, He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26); and, He will receive of Mine (John 16:14): so that to proceed from the Father is this, to receive of Christ. For when He is said to receive of the Son of God, there is no doubt that He Himself is also from God, so that there is no doubt that the substance and divinity of the Father are in the Holy Spirit. Therefore he who says that He does not know the birth of the Son of God disparages Him from Whom He is said to have received. For He receives nothing other than what He is from Whom He receives; for to have received of Christ signified to have proceeded from God: and therefore He cannot be ignorant of what He is of Whom He has received; nor is He to be said to be ignorant of the Lord, since He proceeded from God. Certainly the Son of God, because He is from God the Father, knows all the things of God: why then should the Holy Spirit be denied to know whatever things are Christ's, since He has received of Him? Therefore if the Son of God knows the things that are in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also is not ignorant of the things that are in the Son of God: and by the fact that He knows the things that are in the Son, He is not to be said to be ignorant of the things that are in God. For from Him of Whom He receives, He has knowledge of God. And why do we labour, when the Apostle is witness in this matter, saying: No one knows the things that are in God, except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11)? Behold, what we long sweated over, we have accomplished with the Apostle's help. And did he prejudge the Son of God because he said that no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God? Far from it. So neither did the Son prejudge the Holy Spirit when He said: No one knows the Father except the Son. For He said that no one knows the things that are in God except Him Who is from God: for everything that is from God knows God, and the things that are in God. For the nature of God knows itself; and since you understand that it is also in the Holy Spirit, through the fact that He proceeded from the Father and received of the Son, it is not safe to say that He does not know God the Father, Whose nature you recognize in Him: and yet the Saviour spoke thus, that no one knows God the Father except the Son, in order to reserve the knowledge of this to another Person; for He immediately added, saying: And he to whom the Son wills to reveal [Him] (Matt. 11:27). To whom, do you think, does the Son will to reveal [Him]? For no one can be dearer to Him than His own Spirit: for if anyone, he says, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Rom. 8:9). How then do you think God the Father is revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except as the Lord Himself says, He will receive of Mine? For God the Father cannot be revealed to a creature; for it cannot bear the nature of God unless it be of the same substance: for He dwells in light inaccessible, to the creature at least (1 Tim. 6:16). But to some it seems that the Holy Spirit is rightly said not to know the mystery of the birth of the Son of God for this reason, that He is said to search all things (1 Cor. 2:10), and he who searches, they say, certainly does not know. This must be understood from another place: for these are the words of God, saying among other things, I God, Who search the reins and the hearts (Jer. 17:10); and in the Psalm, God searching, it says, the hearts and the reins (Ps. 7:10); and the Apostle, He Who searches the hearts, he says, knows what the Spirit desires: for He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. By these examples, when the Spirit of God is said to search, it is signified that He is not ignorant. He is also said to search the deep things of God: and what are the deep things of God which He is said to see through? For to search means to penetrate hidden things, so that thereby nothing is believed to be hidden from Him. For the deep mysteries of God are the inner things of God, which cannot be searched by a creature. For He is also read to intercede for the saints according to the will of God, which the saints certainly do not know, as the Apostle says: For what we should pray for, as we ought, we do not know (Rom. 8:27, 26). Therefore

Editors' notes and page, col. 2374

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2374
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-word "stantiam" (from sub-stantiam in previous column) and ends mid-sentence with "Ergo"; line-ends of the neighbouring column at left not set; column numeral in head partly damaged (read 2374); "de meo" in first lines poorly printed (looks like "do"), read as de; "Omnia" with damaged type; stray mark after "Deum" ignored; no editors' matter, no full-width line

PL 35:2375

alta Dei scire, et voluntatem Dei non ignorare, unum significat. Quid enim tam altum mysterium, quam voluntas est Dei, quod cognitum est Spiritui sancto, caeteris vero incognitum est omnibus? Contuendum etenim est quomodo dictum sit, quia nemo scit quid sit in homine, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in eo est (I Cor. II, 11): spiritum animam significavit; quia nemo scit quid sit in animo hominis, nisi animus ejus qui est spiritus. Sic et in Deo nemo scit quae sunt Dei, nisi Spiritus Dei, hoc est, ipse Deus. Qui enim de Deo est, non aliud intelligitur esse quam Deus est. Ideo Spiritus Dei scit quid in Deo est, quia de Deo est. Nam si cogitationes hominum nemo novit nisi Deus; quanto magis Dei secreta et voluntatem nullus potest cognoscere nisi sit de Deo, hoc est idem ipse Deus? Ipse est enim sibi soli cognitus. Nam utique in Deo non sunt cogitationes. Nec enim tractat apud se quid faciat, aut quid non faciat, deliberans an expediat; quia omnia quae in Deo sunt sine dubitatione sunt non per accidentiam, sed per substantiam; nec per studium, sed per naturam; quia non immutatur. Ac per hoc non aliter novit Spiritus sanctus mysteria Dei, nisi per substantiam: una enim substantia unum habet sensum et voluntatem. De Deo loquitur, qui semper unus et immutabilis est, sive in Filio, sive in Spiritu sancto. Quod enim vult Pater, hoc vult et Filius; et quod vult Filius, eadem vult et Spiritus sanctus. Quamobrem aliquando dicitur Spiritus Dei, aliquando Spiritus Christi: Qui a Deo, inquit, procedit; et, de meo accipiet. Hinc est unde Joannes apostolus ait: Ex hoc scimus quia Deus in nobis manet, de Spiritu suo, quem dedit in nobis (I Joan. III, 24). Ergo si Spiritu Dei in nobis manente, manere dicitur in nobis Deus, Deus significatur esse Spiritus Dei. Denique, hoc est signum credentium, quod sint filii Dei, ut cum hunc accipiunt, Dei se filios audeant appellare. Nisi enim signum deitatis habuerint, Dei filii dici non poterunt. Quanquam aliquis verus Dei filius non est, ut sit totus de toto, sicut et Christus. Per adoptionem autem fiunt filii Dei, ut accipientes Spiritum Christi per ipsum filii Dei dicantur, per id quod de Deo est quem in se habent Spiritum. In filiis enim, quamvis adoptativi sint, patris tamen ex aliqua parte debet videri substantia. In mundo enim quia res imperfectae sunt, adoptati ab hominibus filii nullum pignus, sed solum nomen accipiunt. Deus autem quia perfectus est, plus facit, ut adoptatis Spiritum suum det, per quem aliquam veritatem adoptati ab eo videantur habere; quia vocabula sine rebus inania sunt, Apostolus noster hanc assertionem nostram adjuvat, dicens: O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei! quam inscrutabilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viae ejus (Rom. XI, 33)! Quid tamen sibi vult, quod cum alibi dicat scrutabilia esse alta Dei, id est secreta, hoc in loco deneget, dicens inscrutabilia esse? Sed in hoc loco de creatura dixit, quia inscrutabilia sunt ei secreta vel judicia Dei: Spiritui autem sancto, eo quod omnia Dei noverit, scrutabilia dixit esse cuncta quae in Deo sunt; ut quod creaturae incognitum est, Dei Spiritum asserat non ignorare. Dei ergo natura negari non potest, quae cognitum habet quod a creatura non potest comprehendi. Qui degenerem dicunt Spiritum sanctum Dei, pulsant propositum, qui totius creaturae salutem in Trinitatis divinitate consistere declaravit: quia si consubstantivus non est Deo et Christo, ineptum est ponere istum in numero Patris et Filii, ut sine hoc neque salus alicui sit, neque dignitas. Si enim non est ejusdem divinitatis, aut stulte, aut gratis effectum est; quod absit. Quis enim prudentium deneget Creatorem cum creatura connumerari non posse, neque aeternum cum eo qui sub initio sit comparari, neque Dominum cum servo aequari, neque potentem cum impotente conferri, neque

to know the deep things of God and not to be ignorant of the will of God signifies one [thing]. For what mystery is so deep as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit but unknown to all others? For one must consider how it was said that no one knows what is in a man except the spirit of the man which is in him (1 Cor. 2:11): by spirit he signified the soul; for no one knows what is in the mind of a man except his mind, which is spirit. So also in God no one knows the things that are God's except the Spirit of God, that is, God Himself. For what is from God is understood to be nothing other than God. Therefore the Spirit of God knows what is in God, because He is from God. For if no one knows the thoughts of men except God, how much more can no one know the secrets and the will of God unless he is from God, that is, God Himself? For He is known to Himself alone. For indeed in God there are no thoughts. For He does not discuss with Himself what He is to do or not to do, deliberating whether it is expedient; because all things that are in God are, without doubt, not by accident but by substance; not by effort but by nature; because He is not changed. And for this reason the Holy Spirit knows the mysteries of God in no other way than by substance: for one substance has one mind and will. He speaks of God, Who is always one and immutable, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, this the Son also wills; and what the Son wills, the same the Holy Spirit also wills. Therefore He is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ: Who proceeds from God, He says; and, He will receive of Mine. Hence it is that John the apostle says: By this we know that God abides in us, by His Spirit, Whom He has given in us (1 John 3:24). Therefore if, when the Spirit of God abides in us, God is said to abide in us, the Spirit of God is signified to be God. Finally, this is the sign of believers that they are sons of God, that when they receive Him they dare to call themselves sons of God. For unless they have the sign of deity, they will not be able to be called sons of God. Although such a one is not a true son of God, so as to be whole from whole, as Christ is. But they become sons of God by adoption, so that, receiving the Spirit of Christ, they are through Him called sons of God, through that which is from God, namely the Spirit Whom they have in themselves. For in sons, although they are adoptive, the father's substance ought to be seen in some part. For in the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by men receive no pledge but only a name. But God, because He is perfect, does more, in giving His Spirit to the adopted, through Whom those adopted by Him may be seen to possess some reality; for words without things are empty. Our Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are His judgements, and His ways unsearchable (Rom. 11:33)! Yet what does he mean, that while elsewhere he says the deep things of God, that is, the secret things, are searchable, in this place he denies it, saying they are inscrutable? But in this place he spoke of the creature, that to it the secrets or judgements of God are inscrutable; but of the Holy Spirit, because He knows all the things of God, he said that all things which are in God are searchable to Him; so that he asserts that what is unknown to the creature the Spirit of God is not ignorant of. Therefore it cannot be denied to be the nature of God, which has known what cannot be comprehended by the creature. Those who call the Holy Spirit degenerate from God assail the purpose of Him Who declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity: for if He is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is absurd to place Him in the number of the Father and the Son, so that without Him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if He is not of the same divinity, it was done either foolishly or for nothing; which God forbid. For who among the prudent would deny that the Creator cannot be numbered with the creature, nor the eternal compared with one who is under a beginning, nor the Lord made equal with the servant, nor the powerful set beside the powerless, nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 2375

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2375

Editi, in Deo. At Ms. Colbert., de Deo.

The printed editions: in Deo ("in God"). But the Colbert manuscript: de Deo ("from God").

(printed under page 536)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2375

Ms. Colbert., immutantur.

The Colbert manuscript: immutantur ("are changed").

(printed under page 536)

(3) ‹anchor: gratis effectum est› · call in col 2375

Ms. Colbert., aut gratiose factum est.

The Colbert manuscript: aut gratiose factum est ("or it was done as a favour").

(printed under page 536)

Page

running head: 2375 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[E ...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2376

scium cum inscio deputari? Sed jam cesset ⟨c⟩alumnia. Tertius enim ordine est, non natura; gradu, non divinitate; persona, non ignorantia. Sicut enim Filius Dei secundus a Patre est, et divinitate minor non est; ita et Spiritus sanctus sequens a Filio est, non impar, sed aequalis divinitate substantiae. Denique quae legimus de Filio Dei, eadem legimus et de Spiritu sancto, ipso nobis testante. Ait ⟨e⟩nim: Rogabo Patrem, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis, Spiritum veritatis (Joan. XIV, 16). Alium cum dixit, se Paracletum significavit. Quod Joannes declarat, dicens quia Filius Dei postulat pro peccatis nostris (I Joan. II, 2). Et Paulus apostolus: Ipse, inquit, Spiritus Dei postulat pro nobis. Ecce Scriptura ambos advocatos esse ostendit. Et cum veritatis illum dixit Spiritum, nihil illum a se differre ostendit, quia dixit: Ego sum veritas (Joan. XIV, 6.) Missum se a Patre dixit, et ipse mittere se Spiritum sanctum promisit. Si ipse a mittente impar non est, neque a mittente impar ab illo Spiritus sanctus est. Neque enim quia tres sunt singuli, alter alterius membra sunt, ut diversa possint. Una est enim trium potentia, ut nihil desit singulis. Hic finis sit. Jam enim in libello adversus Arianam impietatem digesto, reliqua plenius tractata sunt, quae Trinitatis complexa sunt indiscretam unitatem.

the knowing be reckoned with the unknowing? But now let the slander cease. For He is third in order, not in nature; in rank, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance. For just as the Son of God is second from the Father, and is not less in divinity, so also the Holy Spirit follows from the Son, not unequal, but equal in the divinity of the substance. Finally, what we read of the Son of God, the same we read also of the Holy Spirit, as He Himself bears witness to us. For He says: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16). When He said "another", He signified that He Himself is a Paraclete. This John makes clear, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins (1 John 2:2). And Paul the apostle: He Himself, he says, the Spirit of God, intercedes for us. Behold, Scripture shows that both are advocates. And when He called Him the Spirit of truth, He showed that He differs in nothing from Himself, since He said: I am the truth (John 14:6). He said that He had been sent by the Father, and He Himself promised that He would send the Holy Spirit. If He is not unequal to the One Who sends, neither is the Holy Spirit, [sent] by Him, unequal to the One Who sends. For it is not that, because they are three individually, they are members one of another, so that they might be capable of different things. For the power of the three is one, so that nothing is lacking to each. Let this be the end. For in the little book composed against the Arian impiety the remaining matters have been treated more fully, which have embraced the undivided unity of the Trinity.

DE EO QUI FIDEM CHRISTI PERCEPIT.

On him who has received the faith of Christ.

CXXVI. — Scriptum est, Quia justo nihil proderit justitia ejus, in qua die erraverit: et quia injusto nihil oberit injustitia sua, cum se converterit (Ezech. XVIII, 26, 27). Et Dominus in Evangelio, Qui non crediderit, inquit, jam judicatus est (Joan. III, 18): ut per hoc eum qui crediderit, non judicio subjectum ad sententiam excipiendam significaret, sed fidei merito laude dignum futurum. Ergo cognitio Dei hanc habet praerogativam, ut peccatorum consequatur remissam. Credens enim Dei esse Filium Jesum, dignus existit ab omnibus liberari peccatis. Diu enim errore devius, cum per diversa ignorantiae fluctibus jactaretur, illuminatus veritatis coruscationem nactus est, in qua post nimias tempestates requiescat securus: cui congruit, ut post cognitionem temperet se ab iis quae jam pridem in ignorantia positus agebat. Quid enim prodest cognitio, si manet pristina conversatio? Hinc etenim quis videtur cognovisse Deum, si vitam mutet, et conversationem suam corrigat. Cognitus enim Deus timeri debet, quia judicaturus praedicatur, ut et fideles justitiae suae percipiant fructum, et impii, id est increduli, perfidiae suae congruas poenas exsolvant. Convenit enim justos in futuro gaudere, ubi regnabit Christus cum suis: ut sicut in saeculo sunt opprobrio, et injuriis subjacent, in quo princeps est diabolus: ita et in regno Christi gloriosi appareant, propter quem contemptibiles judicati sunt a mundanis: injustos autem quia falso florere videntur, per mendacium repugnantes veritati, in poena tribulari; ut qui per fucum gloriosi visi sunt, per verum despecti et humiliati nimis appareant. Tunc enim justi se credidisse gaudebunt, cum perfidos viderint cruciari: et nec poenitebit perfidos non credidisse nisi viderint gloriam eorum et suam poenam, quos quia crediderunt stultos, et contemptibiles arbitrati sunt. Ergo ex eo quod profitetur se quis christianum esse, id studere debet ne peccet, et armare se contra vitia: et quia impossibile est semper vincere, si victus fuerit, dolere ne iterum vincatur; quia qui se dolet victum, reparat se. Qui ergo repugnat, habet unde se excuset, si victus fuerit. Ostendit enim se votum habuisse vincendi, sed minime praevaluisse. De hoc spes est quia potest se reparare, ut assidua meditatione in congressione peritior et fortior inveniatur. Nam qui ad hoc surgit, ut peccet, inexcusabilis effectus pergravem habet causam. Pejus est enim sub Dei vivere professione, et voluntatem habere peccandi, quam si ignoret quis Deum et turpiter et contaminate versetur.

126. — It is written: That his righteousness shall profit the righteous man nothing on the day on which he has gone astray; and that his unrighteousness shall do the unrighteous man no harm when he has turned (Ezek. 18:26–27). And the Lord in the Gospel: He who has not believed, He says, is already judged (John 3:18): so that by this He might signify that he who has believed is not subject to judgement to receive sentence, but by the merit of faith will be worthy of praise. Therefore the knowledge of God has this prerogative, that it obtains remission of sins. For believing Jesus to be the Son of God, he comes to be worthy to be freed from all sins. For having long wandered astray in error, while he was tossed through divers things by the waves of ignorance, he has been enlightened and has obtained the flashing light of truth, in which after excessive storms he may rest secure: and it befits him that after knowledge he restrain himself from those things which he did long ago when placed in ignorance. For what does knowledge profit, if the former way of life remains? For by this is someone seen to have known God, if he changes his life and corrects his way of living. For God, once known, ought to be feared, because He is proclaimed as One Who will judge, so that both the faithful may receive the fruit of their righteousness, and the impious, that is, the unbelieving, may pay the penalties befitting their faithlessness. For it is fitting that the righteous rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with His own: so that just as in the world, of which the devil is prince, they are a reproach and lie subject to injuries, so also in the kingdom of Christ they may appear glorious, on account of Whom they have been judged contemptible by the worldly; but that the unrighteous, because they seem falsely to flourish, resisting the truth through falsehood, be afflicted in punishment; so that those who through deceit seemed glorious may through the truth appear despised and exceedingly humbled. For then the righteous will rejoice that they believed, when they see the faithless tormented: and the faithless will not repent of not having believed unless they see the glory of those, and their own punishment, whom, because they believed, they judged foolish and contemptible. Therefore, from the fact that someone professes himself to be a Christian, he ought to strive for this, that he not sin, and to arm himself against vices: and since it is impossible always to conquer, if he has been conquered, he ought to grieve, lest he be conquered again; for he who grieves at being conquered restores himself. He, therefore, who fights back has whereby to excuse himself, if he has been conquered. For he shows that he had the wish to conquer, but did not prevail. Concerning him there is hope, because he can restore himself, so that by assiduous meditation he may be found more skilled and stronger in the encounter. For he who rises for this, that he may sin, having become inexcusable, has a very grave case. For it is worse to live under the profession of God and to have the will to sin than if someone does not know God and conducts himself basely and defiledly.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2376

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2376

Quidam editi addunt: quid praeeminentiae seu praerogativae habeat ad gratiam consequendam plus quam infideles.

Some printed editions add: what pre-eminence or prerogative he has, beyond unbelievers, for obtaining grace.

(printed under page 536)

Page

running head: [QUAESTION]ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2376 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word versetur. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2377

PL 35:2377

Hic enim nescit quem timere debeat, ille sciens contemnit. Credentes ergo accipiunt remissionem peccatorum; non tamen gloriosi erunt, nisi post acceptam fidem vixerint sub Dei timore, ut colluctati contra hostes christiani nominis victoriam faciant, ut possint praemium mereri dum plus vincunt quam vincuntur. Nam qui intelligit Deum, et non accedit ad fidem ejus ne vivat christianus, sed in fine vult fidem accipere, ut moriatur christianus, aut erubescit christianus vivere, aut peccatis operam dat, quae arbitratur posse sibi remitti cum crediderit; istum puto non bonam causam habere: quia ut quamdiu in saeculo est, peccet, non vult fieri, nec vivere christianus, aut confunditur fieri christianus. Qualem sperat Deum, cui cum militare erubescit, vult ab eo stipendium accipere? hujusmodi irrisor est. Sciens enim se jam non tempus habere ut peccet, morte imminente, tunc vult fieri christianus; ut quia jam non potest peccare, credere se dicat in Christum, qui exsecratur peccari, ut non jam nolit peccare, sed non possit praeveniente morte. Istis debet legi quia Deus non irridetur (Galat. VI, 7). Nam et solent hujusmodi talia dare mandata, ut jam defectis et alienis, tantum anhelantibus detur fides, timentes ne evadant, et confundantur, quia facti sunt christiani. Quibus recitanda sunt Evangelii verba: Qui, inquit Dominus, erubuerit me confiteri in hac generatione, et Filius hominis confundet eum, cum venerit in regno Patris sui (Matth. X, 33). Sed forte dicant, scientes fragile esse genus humanum, idcirco in fine vitae volumus fidem accipere, ne jam peccemus. Sed fides sic accipi debet, ut sciatur quid accipitur. Tunc enim beneficium ejus habebit, si cognoscat, et profiteatur eam. Corde enim creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem (Rom. X, 10). Ac per hoc, qui jam nescit ubi sit, quomodo potest dici accipere? Ille enim accepit, qui profitetur se accepisse, sciens quia accepit. Si enim credunt quia datur credentibus remissio peccatorum, scire debent quia hic credit, qui corde suo teste credit. Quia Deus, qui promisit, cordis inspector est: ipsum enim suscipit quem corde videt credere. Itaque cujus cor verba fidei non advertit, quomodo beneficium ejus habebit? Ergo hic potest videri non temere fieri christianus accepta fide, qui id agere cernitur, ne facile peccet. Nam qui peccare festinat, idcirco non vult accipere fidem, ne cogatur bene vivere, quod videtur nolle; sed in morte vult consequi, impunitatem sperans, et remissionem praeteritorum malorum, ut et de praeteritis securus sit, et de futuro; quia jam utique non poterit peccare moriturus. Sed hoc non bono fit consilio, neque munda conscientia, ut tunc velit accipere fidem, quando jam non possit, non nolit peccare. His convenit dictum illud, Faciamus mala, ut veniant bona; hoc est, modo peccemus, et in novissimo credamus, et remittetur nobis. Ideoque subjecit, Quorum damnatio justa est (Id. III, 8). Non est enim dignum ut his detur remissio peccatorum, qui jam scientes Deum qui nolit quemquam peccare, et odio habeat peccatores, peccare gestiunt; nolentes advertere, donum Dei his proficere, qui ignorantes Deum sic peccant, ut nesciant judicaturum Deum. Qui autem audivit et tractavit apud se, et votum habet peccandi, non ut vincatur aliqua cogente causa, sed velit peccare, durum est ignosci ei. Nam duae causae sunt quae habent peccatorum remissam: una doni, alia poenitentiae, ut qui post donum peccaverit, per poenitentiam reformetur. Quia enim in accepta gratia non permansit, ut in libertate duraret, sed iterum se subjecit peccato, lamentatione et gemitu impetrat oblitterari peccatum; sciens enim prudensque peccavit: non quod aliquis ignoret peccatum, sed qui nescit Deum judicaturum, impune putat futurum quod peccat. Ac per hoc gentilis si coeperit infirmari, et in ipsa vitae desperatione tractet apud se de fide et

For the one does not know whom he ought to fear, the other, knowing, despises [Him]. Believers therefore receive remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless, after receiving faith, they have lived under the fear of God, so that, having wrestled against the enemies of the Christian name, they may win the victory, so that they may be able to merit the reward while they conquer more than they are conquered. For he who understands God and does not come to His faith, so that he may not live as a Christian, but wishes to receive faith at the end, so that he may die a Christian, either is ashamed to live as a Christian, or devotes himself to sins which he thinks can be remitted to him when he has believed; this man I think does not have a good case: because, in order that he may sin as long as he is in the world, he does not wish to become or to live as a Christian, or he is ashamed to become a Christian. What kind of God does he hope for, from Whom he wishes to receive pay while he is ashamed to serve as a soldier for Him? Such a man is a mocker. For knowing that he no longer has time to sin, with death imminent, he then wishes to become a Christian; so that, because he can no longer sin, he says he believes in Christ, Who abhors sinning, so that he is not now unwilling to sin, but unable, death forestalling him. To these men it ought to be read that God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7). For such men are also accustomed to give instructions of this kind, that faith be given to them only when they are already failing and out of their senses, merely gasping for breath, fearing lest they recover and be put to shame because they have been made Christians. To them the words of the Gospel should be recited: Whoever, says the Lord, shall be ashamed to confess Me in this generation, the Son of Man too will put him to shame, when He comes in the kingdom of His Father (Matt. 10:33). But perhaps they may say, knowing the human race to be frail: For this reason we wish to receive faith at the end of life, so that we may no longer sin. But faith ought to be received in such a way that what is received is known. For then he will have its benefit, if he knows it and professes it. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10). And so, how can he who no longer knows where he is be said to receive? For he has received who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received. For if they believe that remission of sins is given to believers, they ought to know that he believes who believes with his own heart as witness. For God, Who promised, is the inspector of the heart: for He takes up the very one whom He sees believing in his heart. Therefore, how will he whose heart does not attend to the words of faith have its benefit? So he can be seen to become a Christian not rashly by accepting faith, who is seen to act so that he may not easily sin. For he who hastens to sin does not wish to receive faith for this reason, lest he be compelled to live well, which he evidently does not want; but he wishes to obtain it at death, hoping for impunity and the remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both about the past and about the future, since, being about to die, he will certainly no longer be able to sin. But this is not done with good counsel, nor with a clean conscience, that he should wish to receive faith at the time when he can no longer sin, not when he is unwilling to sin. To these the saying fits: Let us do evil, that good may come; that is, let us sin now, and at the last let us believe, and it will be remitted to us. And therefore he added: Whose condemnation is just (Rom. 3:8). For it is not fitting that remission of sins be given to those who, already knowing God, Who does not wish anyone to sin and holds sinners in hatred, are eager to sin; not wishing to observe that the gift of God benefits those who, not knowing God, sin in such a way that they do not know that God will judge. But he who has heard and considered it within himself, and has the wish to sin, not so as to be overcome by some compelling cause, but wills to sin, it is hard for him to be pardoned. For there are two causes which bring the remission of sins: one of the gift, the other of penance, so that he who has sinned after the gift may be restored through penance. For because he did not remain in the grace he received, so as to endure in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, he obtains by lamentation and groaning that the sin be blotted out; for he sinned knowingly and wittingly: not that anyone is ignorant of sin, but he who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he sins will go unpunished. And so a pagan, if he begins to fall ill, and in the very despair of life deliberates within himself about faith and

Editors' notes and page, col. 2377

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2377

Ms. Colbertinus: Qui enim me erubescit, inquit, et mea verba in hac, etc.

The Colbert manuscript: "For whoever is ashamed of me," he says, "and of my words in this," etc.

(printed under page 537)

Page

running head: 2377 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2378

spe promissa, integram habet causam, ut huic credenti remittantur peccata, nec teneatur in inferis, signum ferens secum evictae mortis ac spoliatae, licet non habeat dignitatem vel remunerationem. Quia debet aliquid interesse inter eum qui provocatus amore sui Domini contra hostes ejus dimicare non timuit, armans se continentia et observatione omnium vitiorum, ut possit resistere malo, semper sollicitus quomodo imperium Domini sui defendat; et inter eum qui cum inimicis Domini sui conveniens, et eis assistens, in fine vitae ad Dominum suum regressus est, non ut regnum Domini sui vindicaret, sed ut sibi soli prodesset esse civis antequam miles. Ille enim qui vivere vult christianus, ut post mortem remuneretur, scit quia non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis (Rom. VIII, 18). Ac per hoc suscepta armatura fidei non dubitat congredi contra principes et potestates, ut in saeculo existens victor, post saeculum coronetur. Dignum est enim ut qui inter perfidos et rebelles Domini sui regnum ad praesens testatur, hujus rei in futuro consequatur mercedem: ut videntes inimici Dei testem Christi propter confessionis suae veritatem sublimem apparere in regno Dei, doleant confusi falsum se aestimasse quod verum esse declaratum est; necnon et hi qui tarde crediderunt, non in vita, sed in morte confitentes Deum, videntes quanta eorum gloria est, qui sub armatura Christi militantes bella imperatoris sui devote et fideliter gesserunt, poeniteant non se vixisse, sed mortuos esse christianos. Potest enim videri minime idoneus mori christianus, qui votum non habuit vivere christianus: forte enim jam moriturus, idcirco voluit dici christianus, quia jam tempus peccandi non erat; Ne forte, inquit, verum sit quod creditur, volo fieri christianus, nihil amittens, si falsum est quod creditur: et quia jam in morte non voluntas peccandi, sed peccatum fieri desinit, tentat si prodesse poterit fides post mortem; cum hoc utique fuerat utile, ut hic vitia et peccata emendarentur, ubi fuerant admissa. Tunc enim aliquis condemnasse se praeterita probat, quando fidei lineam sequens, conversationem et vitam videtur mutare. Si enim prius ideo peccabat, quia nesciebat Deum, cum cognoscit eum, ultra non debet peccare, ne frustra sit cognovisse illum. Debet enim aliquis perfectus esse ex cognitione Dei. Christianus enim ante professionem debet intelligere operibus magis se probandum quam nomine. Nam propterea mandata data sunt caeteris legibus potiora, et ad sanctitatem pertinentia, ut ex his Dei cultura appareat: si quominus, audient, Quid me vocatis, Domine, Domine, et non facitis quae dico (Luc. VI, 46)? Per quod tunc significavit prodesse Dominum vocari Dominum, si mandata ejus serventur: irrisor enim videtur qui Dominum vocat eum cujus praecepta contemnit. Huic verba Legis recitanda sunt, quae dicunt quia ⟨D⟩eus non irridetur. Itaque verbis suis condemnabitur, quia Dominum vocat quem minime se timere operibus suis ostendit.

the promised hope, has a complete case for sins to be remitted to this believer and for him not to be held in the underworld, bearing with him the sign of death conquered and despoiled, although he does not have dignity or reward. For there must be some difference between him who, roused by love of his Lord, did not fear to fight against His enemies, arming himself with continence and watchfulness over all vices, so that he might be able to resist evil, ever anxious how he might defend the empire of his Lord; and him who, consorting with the enemies of his Lord and standing by them, at the end of his life returned to his Lord, not in order to vindicate the kingdom of his Lord, but so that it might profit himself alone to be a citizen before being a soldier. For he who wishes to live as a Christian, so that he may be rewarded after death, knows that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the future glory which will be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18). And therefore, having taken up the armour of faith, he does not hesitate to engage against principalities and powers, so that, being a victor while in the world, he may be crowned after the world. For it is fitting that he who amid the faithless and the rebellious bears witness at present to the kingdom of his Lord should obtain the reward of this in the future: so that the enemies of God, seeing the witness of Christ appear exalted in the kingdom of God on account of the truth of his confession, may grieve in confusion that they judged false what has been declared to be true; and also those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, seeing how great is the glory of those who, serving under the armour of Christ, waged the wars of their Commander devoutly and faithfully, may repent that they did not live, but died, as Christians. For he may be seen as hardly fit to die a Christian who had no wish to live a Christian: for perhaps, being already about to die, he wished to be called a Christian for this reason, that the time for sinning was now over; 'Lest perhaps', he says, 'what is believed be true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false': and because at death it is not the will to sin but the committing of sin that ceases, he tries whether faith will be able to profit after death; whereas this would certainly have been useful, that vices and sins be amended here, where they had been committed. For someone proves that he has condemned his past deeds at the time when, following the line of faith, he is seen to change his conduct and life. For if he previously sinned because he did not know God, when he knows Him he ought not to sin any further, lest it be in vain to have known Him. For one ought to be perfect from the knowledge of God. For a Christian ought, before his profession, to understand that he is to be proved by works rather than by name. For this reason commandments were given more powerful than the other laws, and pertaining to holiness, so that from them the worship of God might be manifest: if otherwise, they will hear, Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say (Luke 6:46)? By which He then signified that to call the Lord Lord is of profit if His commandments are kept: for he seems a mocker who calls Him Lord Whose precepts he despises. To him must be recited the words of the Law, which say that God is not mocked. Therefore he will be condemned by his own words, because he calls Him Lord Whom he shows by his works that he by no means fears.

DE PECCATO ADAE ET EVAE.

Of the Sin of Adam and Eve.

CXXVII.—Nulli dubium arbitror, mundum istum hominis causa esse fabricatum: qui cum diversis constet substantiis, unus est tamen multis membris aptatus, ut ex his invicem mutuis operibus, quae necessaria homini futura erant, gignerentur. Domus enim facta est homini cum annona, ita ut singula eorum secundum genus fierent super terram, id est, ut facta hanc haberent insitam potentiam in propagine uniuscujusque generis eorum quae crearentur in terris. Origines enim institutae sunt, quarum semen proficeret ad procreationem multiplicandorum generum

CXXVII.—I think it is doubtful to no one that this world was fashioned for the sake of man: which, though it consists of diverse substances, is nevertheless one, fitted together with many members, so that from them, by their mutual workings upon one another, the things which were going to be necessary for man might be produced. For a house was made for man along with its provision, so that the individual things might come to be upon the earth according to their kind, that is, so that the things made might have this power implanted in the propagation of each kind of those things which were to be created on the earth. For origins were established, whose seed would avail for the procreation of the kinds to be multiplied

Editors' notes and page, col. 2378

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: non voluntas› · call in col 2378

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, non est voluptas peccandi.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: non est voluptas peccandi ("there is no pleasure in sinning").

(printed under page 537)

(2) ‹anchor: legibus potiora› · call in col 2378

Ms. Colbertinus, puriora.

The Colbert manuscript: puriora ("purer").

(printed under page 537)

(3) ‹anchor: Adae et Evae› · call in col 2378

Quidam editi addunt, de eorum conditione et donis gratuitis.

Some printed editions add: on their condition and their free gifts.

(printed under page 537)

(4) ‹anchor: haberent insitam› · call in col 2378

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. Editi vero, hinc haberent infinitam.

So the Colbert manuscript. The printed editions, however: hinc haberent infinitam ("hence they would have an infinite [power]").

(printed under page 537)

(a) ‹anchor: CXXVII› · call in col 2378

Deest in Mss. secundi generis.

Wanting in the manuscripts of the second class.

(printed under page 537)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2378
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2379

super terram. Unde Scriptura testatur, Et benedixit illa Deus, dicens : Crescite, et multiplicamini super terram (Gen. I, 22, 28). Simili modo etiam hominum genus benedictum est : quem sensum contuemur in Lege. Cernimus enim scriptum esse, Crevit populus, et multiplicatus est in Aegypto (Act. VII, 17). Qua benedictione enim benedicta sunt, quae ad utilitatem creata sunt hominis, ea benedictione et homo est benedictus, ut similiter ex mare et femina propago generis humani cresceret et multiplicaretur super terram : et ut sicut per culturam melioranda erant semina, ita et hominum genus adhibita cura id studeret, ut Creatoris cognitione percepta, vitam suam frenaret ad promerendum eum, ut simul omnia proficerent ad laudem et gloriam Creatoris. Et quoniam non aliud haec dicta significant, res ipsae testantur. Omnia enim quae facta sunt, Dei nutu multiplicata et meliorata super terram. Nec enim aliter posset accidere, quam Dei voluntas et benedictio decrevit seminibus. Quomodo ergo dici potest male fieri, aut non licere quod ex Dei benedictione et ipso favente augmentum facit? Cujus rei traditio et in Synagoga mansit, et nunc in Ecclesia celebratur, ut Dei creatura sub Dei benedictione jungatur. Non utique per praesumptionem, quia ab ipso auctore data est forma. Sed si cessare debere putatur, tunc cessare debebit, quando cessatura et illa sunt, quae similiter benedicta sunt ut multiplicarentur : quia si generatio hominum cessat, ad quam utilitatem nascuntur, quae benedicta sunt super terram? Non potest enim mundus ex parte agere, et ex parte cessare. Aut totus enim operatur, aut totus pausat in otio. Numquid utile corpus est, cujus quaedam membra vigent, quaedam torpescunt? Quod ergo a Domino benedictum est, cur sordidum et contaminatum opus a quibusdam asseritur, nisi quia ipsi Deo manus quodammodo infertur? Non enim hoc reprehenderent, nisi de Deo hujus operis auctore male sentirent. Quia enim aperte Deo detrahere verentur, per opus tame⟨n⟩ ab eo inventum accusant eum. Quando enim displicet opus, reprehenditur auctor. Si hujusmodi homines legerent, aut potius acciperent Scripturas, memores essent Balaam dicentis, Quid maledicam quem benedixit Deus (Num. XXIII, 8)? Frustra enim accusatur qui a judice laudatur : imo ipse sui accusator est, qui reum dicit quem leges defendunt. Quis ergo tu es qui damnari censes quod a Deo benedictum legis, nisi aut Deum hunc negas esse, aut Scripturam falsam accusas? Sunt enim qui quasi nova accipientes, vetera repudianda putant. Sed non discrepant ab his nova per Christum praecepta populis intimata. Ipse enim rogatus ad nuptias ire non dedignatus est : et non solum praesentia sua illustravit eas, verum etiam contulit quod deerat ad laetitiam (Joan. II, 1-11). Scriptum est enim, Quia vinum laetificat cor hominis (Psal. CIII, 15, et Eccli. XL, 20). Et ut hoc secundum Dei Patris sui voluntatem fecisse se demonstraret, Judaeis interrogantibus an liceat homini dimittere uxorem suam, respondit inter caetera, dicens : Quoniam ab initio fecit Deus masculum et feminam, et dixit : Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo ⟨i⟩n carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet (Matth. XIX, 4-6). Hinc est unde rogatus ad nuptias iit libenter, ne factum Dei et Patris sui infirmare videretur. Magis autem Legis veteris et novae doctrinam concordare ostendens, nuptias non solum non prohibuit, sed et interesse dignatus est, testimonium eis tribuens quoniam Deus auctor earum est; et quod a Deo junctum est, neque prohiberi, neque separar⟨i⟩ debere salutari praecepto monstravit. Et quia nativitas prodest, cum jam relinqueret mundum, matrem suam Joanni discipulo suo commendavit (Joan. XIX, 26, 27). Quamobrem et nos per omnia Legis veteris et novae mandata servantes, parentes honorare docemur (Deut. V, 16, et Matth. XV, 4) : quod nisi fecerimus, maledictum nos incursuros cautum est Lege. Itaque quaenam

upon the earth. Whence Scripture testifies, And God blessed them, saying: Increase and be multiplied upon the earth (Gen. 1:22, 28). In like manner the race of men too was blessed: which sense we behold in the Law. For we see it written, The people increased and was multiplied in Egypt (Acts 7:17). For with the blessing with which the things created for the use of man were blessed, with that blessing man too was blessed, so that likewise from male and female the offspring of the human race might increase and be multiplied upon the earth; and so that, just as seeds were to be improved through cultivation, so too the race of men, with care applied, might strive for this, that, having gained knowledge of the Creator, it might rein in its life so as to merit Him, so that all things together might advance to the praise and glory of the Creator. And that these sayings mean nothing other, the things themselves testify. For all things that have been made have been multiplied and improved upon the earth at the nod of God. For it could not happen otherwise than as the will and blessing of God decreed for the seeds. How then can it be said that something is wrongly done, or is not permitted, which produces increase from the blessing of God and with His own favour? The tradition of this both remained in the Synagogue and is now celebrated in the Church, that God's creature should be joined under God's blessing. Not at all through presumption, since the form was given by the Author Himself. But if it is thought that it ought to cease, then it will have to cease when those things too are to cease which were likewise blessed that they might be multiplied: for if the generation of men ceases, for what use are the things that were blessed upon the earth born? For the world cannot act in part and in part cease. For either it works as a whole, or as a whole it rests in idleness. Is a body useful some of whose members are vigorous while some grow torpid? Why then is that which was blessed by the Lord asserted by certain people to be a sordid and defiled work, unless because a hand is in a manner laid upon God Himself? For they would not find fault with this unless they thought ill of God, the author of this work. For because they fear to disparage God openly, they nevertheless accuse Him through the work devised by Him. For when the work displeases, the author is censured. If men of this kind read, or rather accepted, the Scriptures, they would remember Balaam saying, Why should I curse him whom God has blessed? (Num. 23:8). For in vain is he accused who is praised by the judge; indeed he is his own accuser who calls guilty one whom the laws defend. Who then are you, who judge that what you read was blessed by God should be condemned, unless either you deny that this is God, or you accuse Scripture of being false? For there are those who, as if receiving new things, think the old are to be rejected. But the new precepts made known to the peoples through Christ do not disagree with these. For He Himself, when asked to a wedding, did not disdain to go; and not only did He make it illustrious by His presence, but He also supplied what was lacking for gladness (John 2:1–11). For it is written, For wine gladdens the heart of man (Ps. 103:15, and Sir. 40:20). And to show that He had done this according to the will of God His Father, when the Jews asked whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, He answered among other things, saying: Since from the beginning God made male and female, and said: For this reason a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be in one flesh. So now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined, let man not separate (Matt. 19:4–6). This is why, when asked to a wedding, He went willingly, lest He should seem to weaken the deed of God His Father. Rather, showing that the doctrine of the old and the new Law agree, He not only did not forbid weddings but even deigned to be present at them, bearing witness to them that God is their author; and by a saving precept He showed that what has been joined by God ought neither to be forbidden nor separated. And because birth is beneficial, when He was now leaving the world He commended His mother to John His disciple (John 19:26–27). Wherefore we too, keeping in all things the commands of the old and new Law, are taught to honour parents (Deut. 5:16, and Matt. 15:4): and if we do not do this, it is laid down by the Law that we shall incur a curse. Therefore what

Editors' notes and page, col. 2379

Page

running head: 2379 QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU[...]
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2380

est haec praesumptio, aut ex qua lege descendit, nuptiarum aditus intercludere, quando tam nova quam vetus Lex per omnia istis favere videatur? Sed illud est quod legimus, quia quod extra est, a malo est (Matth. V, 37). Unde Apostolus hujusmodi homines cauteriatam dicit habere conscientiam, qui prohibentes nubere, et a cibis quos Deus ad percipiendum creavit, abstinendum docent (I Tim. IV, 2, 3). Hoc enim in hypocrisi, inimicitiarum causa facere denotantur, ut Legem a Deo traditam criminentur. Alii ideo studentes praeceptis salutaribus obvias manus tendunt, ut pravae doctrinae mandata commendent: ac per hoc cauteriatam habere dicuntur conscientiam. Corrupta enim mente aliud scientes, aliud profitentur. Sicut et Judaei, qui non ignorantes gesta Salvatoris opera esse Spiritus sancti, invidentes dicebant quia in Beelzebub ejicit daemonia (Matth. XII, 24); ut populum a fide ejus averterent. Talis est etiam supra memoratorum versutia, quia ut sanctitatis et castimoniae amatores esse se simulent, nuptias esse dicunt damnandas, ut per hoc commendentur, et populum a veritate avertant: et ut abstinentiae se studere fingant, temperandum a cibis tradunt, ut per hoc se alienos a mundo ad coelestia regna festinare ostendant, per quod mentes hominum illicientes deinceps illicita doceant licere, et licita quasi inconcessa damnare. Haec sunt praestigia satanae, ut causas invertat, quasi novum insinuans aliquid, excludat veritatem, in qua nihil novum est, quia totum aeternum. Quis non advertat sensum istum ab adversariis esse aptatum? Quis enim audeat Dei inventum reprobare, et quod nunquam alicui obfuit, nisi adversario veritatis? Qui ut impuritatem suam tegat, sanctimoniam praedicat quam non amat, ut dum ex eo se quasi bonae voluntatis ostenderet, illicita suadeat quasi licita. Commendat enim se ut promptius fallat, ac per hoc captis imprudentibus suggerat, per quae plus eos faciat peccatores: quia ut causae suae aliquam conferat medicinam, granditer suadet homines peccare, magnum ex eo quaerens solatium, dum criminis sui socios multos ostendit, levem poenam aestimans, ac si minus gravis sit, si secum multos videat in gehenna. Caeci homines, dum vincuntur vitiis, aut per infirmitatem, aut per ignorantiam sese defendunt, non vindicando haec quae contraria d⟨e⟩cipit concupiscentia. Aut quae obstat caligo ut non quod verum est, videatur? Nam solent litterae aliud videri significare, dum aut non bene pronuntiantur, aut improprie distinguuntur. Cum autem legitur, Fecit Deus; et, Benedixit quod fecit: quis hinc disputet? quis dubitet? quis quod benedictum est, maledictum putet, nisi alio spiritu animetur? Quod quidem si hominis vox esse diceretur, forte aliqua fallacia crederetur: Deus dicitur loqui, et dubitas? Deus benedixit, et reprobas? Sed forte sub Dei nomine Moyses errorem induxit? Satis tibi faciant signa et prodigia per Moysen facta in Aegypto; suadeant tibi mirabilia quae in Rubro mari gesta sunt ad liberationem filiorum Israel. Audi magos confitentes quia digitus Dei est hic (Exod. VIII, 19). Consenti Apostolo dicenti, Nolo vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes per mare transierunt, et omnes per Moysen baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt. Bibebant autem de potu spirituali consequente eos petra: petra autem erat Christus (I Cor. X, 1-4). Et unde hoc Apostolus locutus est? Praesto est Scriptura, in qua legimus Christum Dominum nostrum dicentem Judaeis, Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi; quia de me scripsit Moyses (Joan. V, 46). Quis huic concordiae fidem deneget? quis audeat dicere, quod unum est discrepare? quis tam malae mentis est, ut individuam charitatem contendat videri inimicitiam?

is this presumption, or from what law does it derive, to bar the way to marriage, when both the new and the old Law seem in all things to favour these? But it is as we read, that what is beyond this is of evil (Matt. 5:37). Hence the Apostle says that men of this kind have a cauterized conscience, who, forbidding to marry, also teach abstinence from foods which God created to be received (1 Tim. 4:2–3). For they are shown to do this in hypocrisy, for the sake of enmity, so as to bring accusation against the Law handed down by God. Others hold out their hands to meet salutary precepts with zeal for this reason, that they may commend the commands of a depraved doctrine: and through this they are said to have a cauterized conscience. For with corrupted mind they know one thing and profess another. Just as the Jews also, who, not being ignorant that the deeds of the Saviour were works of the Holy Spirit, said out of envy that He casts out demons by Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24), so as to turn the people away from faith in Him. Such too is the cunning of those mentioned above: in order to feign that they are lovers of holiness and chastity, they say that marriage is to be condemned, so that through this they may be commended and may turn the people away from the truth; and in order to pretend that they are devoted to abstinence, they teach that one must refrain from foods, so that through this they may display themselves as strangers to the world hastening to the heavenly kingdom; by which, enticing the minds of men, they then teach that unlawful things are lawful, and that lawful things are to be condemned as if forbidden. These are the deceits of Satan, that he may invert the causes, and, as though insinuating something new, shut out the truth, in which nothing is new, because the whole is eternal. Who would not notice that this sense has been fitted by the adversaries? For who would dare to reject what God devised, and what has never harmed anyone except the adversary of the truth? He, to cover his own impurity, preaches a sanctity which he does not love, so that, while by it he might show himself as if of good will, he may urge unlawful things as though lawful. For he commends himself so as to deceive the more readily, and through this to suggest to the unwary whom he has caught things by which he may make them greater sinners: because, in order to bring some remedy to his own cause, he urges men mightily to sin, seeking great consolation from it, while he displays many partners of his crime, reckoning the punishment light, as if it were less heavy if he should see many with him in Gehenna. Blind men, when they are overcome by vices, defend themselves either through weakness or through ignorance, by not punishing those things which an opposing concupiscence deceives. Or what darkness stands in the way, so that what is true is not seen? For letters are wont to seem to signify something else, when they are either not well pronounced or improperly punctuated. But when it is read, God made; and, He blessed what He made: who would dispute this? who would doubt? who would think what is blessed to be cursed, unless he were animated by another spirit? If indeed this were said to be the voice of a man, perhaps some deceit might be believed in: God is said to speak, and do you doubt? God has blessed, and do you reject it? But perhaps Moses brought in error under the name of God? Let the signs and wonders done through Moses in Egypt satisfy you; let the marvels which were performed in the Red Sea for the liberation of the children of Israel persuade you. Hear the magicians confessing that the finger of God is here (Exod. 8:19). Agree with the Apostle, who says, I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. And they drank of the spiritual drink of the rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:1–4). And from where did the Apostle say this? Scripture is at hand, in which we read Christ our Lord saying to the Jews, If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also; for Moses wrote of Me (John 5:46). Who would deny faith to this concord? who would dare to say that what is one is at variance? who is of so evil a mind as to contend that undivided charity is seen as enmity?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2380

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: voluntatis ostenderet› · call in col 2380

Sic juxta Er. Lugd. Ven. et Lov. In B., ostendet. M.

So according to Erasmus and the Lyons, Venice and Louvain editions. In B.: ostendet ("will show"). M. [Maurists].

(printed under page 538)

(2) ‹anchor: Caeci homines› · call in col 2380

Ms. Colbertinus: si secum multos viderint in peccatis, nec caeteris homines dum vincuntur vitiis. Et paulo post, defendent non vindicanda hic.

The Colbert manuscript: "if they see many with them in sins, nor [the] other men while they are overcome by vices." And a little after: defendent non vindicanda hic ("they will defend, not punishing these things").

(printed under page 538)

Page

running head: ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2380 (left part of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2381

Ecce habes et verborum testimonia, et exempla virtutum, quae animum tuum subjugent veritati, ut non aliud putes verum quam quod Ecclesiae catholicae continent libri. Quoniam igitur probatum est eumdem Deum fuisse in Veteri Testamento, qui nunc noster est, et hunc multis virtutum indiciis verum esse, in tantum ejus auctoritas debet praeferri, ut etiam id quod asperum, et forte absurdum a nobis aestimatur, accepto ferri debeat, et aliter sentiri quam a nobis putatur, si Dei judicio commendetur; quia magis Deo credere debemus quam nobis. Infirmitas enim nostra et imperitia, utilia solet judicare quae nociva sunt, et aestimare falsa pro veris: quod de Deo vel suspicari nefas est. Non est enim natura, quae possit falli: quanto magis de conjugiis dubitari non debet, Deo dicente, Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet? Est enim res aperta et simplex. Certe omnis homo gaudet cum fuerit Dei dignationem adeptus, et meliorari se credit dum sacramentum Creatoris addiscit, quod utique non assequeretur, nisi natus. Cur ergo plangit quod gaudet, et quod gloriatur se didicisse, condemnat? Si enim gaudet quia didicit, non autem didicisset, nisi natus fuisset; sine dubio bonum est nasci, quia fructus nativitatis, cognitio est veritatis. Si autem malum est nasci, non erit bona cognitio. Cui enim rei proderit cognitio, si damnatur nativitas? Quia si non expedit nasci nec debet, inane est ut discat damnandus. Sed quia nemo tam hebes est, ut neget cognitionem Dei prodesse hominibus, et bona et utilis est. Per ipsam enim melioratur nativitas, ut meliorata nativitas plus mereatur quam fuerat collatum Adae: quia in coelo, non in terra regnabunt credentes, in paradiso Dei Patris, non in quo Adam corporaliter jussus fuerat operari. Nam si encaenia celebrabantur Jerosolymis, id est, dedicationis templi Dei agebatur festivitas; quanto magis ipsius hominis celebrandus natalis est, qui magis templum Dei est; cujus etiam, ad agendum Deo gratias, manibus templum est fabricatum. Melius est enim templum, corpus nostrum: quia hoc Dei opere, illud vero humano labore constructum est; et hoc sub spe aeternitatis est, illud perditionis. Itaque qui Deo instituente natum se novit, ut ei gratias agat, cognitum habens mysterium ejus, debet in natali suo gaudere, videns profectum esse nativitatis suae. Vere autem illi nasci non debuerunt, qui Creatorem suum relinquentes, gloriam ejus aliis deputant: horum enim nativitas proficit ad poenam: sed non nativitas crimen incurrit, sed voluntas. Sed quis es tu, qui nuptias prohibes? Forte Marcion, quia corpus non a Deo fabricatum putas, sed a diabolo: animam vero errore quodam lapsum passam, ut ad tenebrarum partes, in quibus nunc mundus est, veniret, contendis. Quomodo ergo posset hinc liberari, si prohiberetur generari? Natus enim cognovisti casum tuum, et data opera id egisti ut remeares ad patriam sedem, redditus sorti tuae. Denique gratias agere te dicis Christo, per quem hanc cognitionem assecutum te gratularis. Age vero, si natus non esses, cessaret cognitio, nec prosequeretur liberatio. Itaque si gaudes animam liberari, fave nativitati: nam si nativitati resistis, inimicus es animarum. Aut si Manichaeus es, qui nuptias quasi contrarias renuis, quaero a te, si corpora minime gignerentur, quomodo anima hinc, quam fusam in tenebrarum partem et haerentem hylicis rebus asseris, eriperetur? Nascendo enim liberari eam in libris vestris scriptum habetis, ut a luna susceptae animae et exeuntes de corporibus soli tradantur, quem Deum vestrarum asseritis animarum. Nam gaudetis, cum Manichaei vocamini. Per hoc enim nomen liberationem vestram flagitatis: quod utique nesciretis, nisi nati essetis. Longe itaque apparet per hypocrisim vos nuptias condemnare. Sanctimoniam enim profitentes, latenter immunditiae studetis; quod non solum privatum sed etiam edictis proditum est imperatorum.

See, you have both the testimonies of words and the examples of mighty works, which should subject your mind to the truth, so that you think nothing else true than what the books of the Catholic Church contain. Since, therefore, it has been proved that the same God was in the Old Testament Who is now ours, and that He is true by many signs of mighty works, His authority ought to be preferred to such a degree that even that which is reckoned harsh, and perhaps absurd, by us ought to be accepted with thanks, and understood otherwise than it is thought by us, if it is commended by the judgement of God; because we ought to believe God more than ourselves. For our weakness and inexperience is wont to judge useful things that are harmful, and to reckon false things as true: which it is impious even to suspect of God. For it is not [His] nature that could be deceived: how much more ought there to be no doubt about marriages, since God says, What God has joined, let man not separate? For it is a plain and simple matter. Certainly every man rejoices when he has obtained the favour of God, and believes himself improved while he learns the mystery of the Creator, which he would surely not attain unless born. Why then does he lament what he rejoices in, and condemn that which he boasts of having learned? For if he rejoices because he has learned, but would not have learned had he not been born, without doubt it is good to be born, because the fruit of birth is the knowledge of the truth. But if it is evil to be born, knowledge will not be good. For to what thing will knowledge be of profit, if birth is condemned? Because if it is not expedient to be born, nor ought one to be, it is vain that one who is to be condemned should learn. But since no one is so dull as to deny that the knowledge of God profits men, it is both good and useful. For through it birth is improved, so that improved birth may merit more than had been bestowed on Adam: because believers will reign in heaven, not on earth, in the paradise of God the Father, not in that in which Adam had been commanded to work bodily. For if the encaenia were celebrated at Jerusalem, that is, the festival of the dedication of the temple of God was kept, how much more is the birthday of man himself to be celebrated, who is more truly the temple of God; by whose hands, moreover, the temple was built for giving thanks to God. For the better temple is our body: because this was built by the work of God, but that by human labour; and this is under the hope of eternity, that of perdition. Therefore he who knows himself to have been born by God's ordaining, so that he may give Him thanks, having come to know His mystery, ought to rejoice on his birthday, seeing that there has been a profit from his birth. Truly, however, those ought not to have been born who, forsaking their Creator, ascribe His glory to others: for their birth profits them towards punishment: but it is not birth that incurs the charge, but the will. But who are you, who forbid marriages? Perhaps Marcion, because you think that the body was fashioned not by God but by the devil: but you contend that the soul suffered a fall through some error, so that it came to the regions of darkness in which the world now is. How then could it be freed from here, if it were forbidden to be begotten? For being born you have come to know your fall, and have deliberately acted so as to return to your fatherly seat, restored to your lot. Moreover you say that you give thanks to Christ, through Whom you congratulate yourself on having attained this knowledge. Come now, if you had not been born, knowledge would cease, nor would liberation follow. Therefore if you rejoice that the soul is freed, favour birth: for if you resist birth, you are an enemy of souls. Or if you are a Manichaean, who reject marriages as contrary, I ask of you, if bodies were not begotten at all, how would the soul be snatched from here, which you assert to have been poured into the region of darkness and to cling to material things? For you have it written in your books that it is freed by being born, so that souls received by the moon and going forth from bodies are handed over to the sun, which you assert to be the God of your souls. For you rejoice when you are called Manichaeans. For by this name you demand your liberation: which you surely would not know, unless you had been born. It is therefore plain from afar that you condemn marriages through hypocrisy. For professing holiness, you secretly devote yourselves to uncleanness; which has been exposed not only privately but also by the edicts of the emperors.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2381

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ad patriam› · call in col 2381

Ms. Colbertinus, patricam.

The Colbert manuscript: patricam.

(printed under page 539)

Page

running head: 2381 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2382

Audi nunc, catholice, et ex Evangelio disce, prodesse hominis nativitatem. Cum Simeon enim vir justus vellet exire de saeculo, sufficere sibi putans Creatoris sine mysterii ejus cognitione notitiam, non permissum est ei nisi incrementum faceret in Dei perceptione, ut plenam haberet fidei suae mercedem. Denique natum Salvatorem accipiens in manibus benedixit Deum, et dixit: Domine, nunc dimittis servum tuum, secundum verbum tuum in pace; quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum (Luc. II, 29, 30). Manifeste ostensum est Dei beneficium esse in hominis nativitate, quando viro justo de morte cogitanti responsum est quod non ante moreretur, quam Christum Domini vidisset: in tantum enim proficiebat in vita, ut dignus fieret etiam in praesenti videre quem liberatorem sperabat post mortem. Qui ergo reservatus in vita non permissus est mori, nisi spei suae fructum vidisset, ut securus esset quia de vita ad vitam transiret; quomodo potest dici non huic profuisse nativitas? Si enim malum est quod nascimur, non paradisus promitteretur, non vita aeterna, non regnum coelorum, sed poena et gehennae perditio, ut timeret alterum generare, qui se sciret natum ad perditionem; ut ille qui se illicite natum sciret, non affectaret generare. Sed forte dicatur: Regnum quidem coelorum promissum est, sed fidelibus et bene agentibus. Recte. Vides itaque non ideo reos fieri homines, quia nati sunt, sed quia male conversati sunt. Neque enim non natis promissum est regnum coelorum, ut nativitati imputent, quibus non dabitur: promissum est autem natis bene agentibus, ut neque nativitas prosit male agenti, neque obesse possit bene agenti. A fidelibus enim et bene agentibus melioratur nativitas: ab infidelibus autem et male agentibus deterioratur. Sic enim est nativitas, quasi arbor quae inseritur: quia si bono surculo inseritur, melior fiet et bona dicetur; si vero malo surculo inseratur, deterior erit, et non bona, sed mala vocabitur. Ita et nativitati si bona accedat doctrina, bonos faciet fructus; si autem mala, malos faciet fructus. Itaque sicut necessaria est arbor, ut sit ubi inseratur; ita etiam necessaria est nativitas, ut sit ubi proficiatur. Sed respondetur e contra: Si utilis est nativitas, cur renascimur? Non renasceremur nisi utilis esset nativitas. Renasci enim renovari est, et qui renovantur, instaurantur. Non ergo accusat renascibilitas nativitatem, sed reformat: et quod reformatur, bene ab initio institutum probatur. Igitur quod renascimur, consilio mutamur, corporis expiatione percepta, ut reddamur ad pristinum statum Adae. Animae autem peccato maculatum est corpus, quo reparato et meliorato per fidem, consilio abluitur: ut sicut per contemptum Dei fuerat pollutum, ita per obedientiam abluatur, ut effugiat sententiam datam Adae, et possit resurgere. Itaque si ab anima coepit peccatum, cur natura corporis accusatur; cum in causa peccati Adae non fuerit desiderium corporale, sed spe deitatis illecta anima transgressa sit Dei praeceptum, ut corpus suum subjugaret peccato, et nascerentur homines sub peccato? Quod quidem nihil obest homini, si tamen legi Dei obediat, nisi quod moritur: cui rei benevolentia Dei promisit mercedem, ut quoniam in Creatoris devotione fideles inveniuntur, per praevaricationem autem Adae corruptioni subjecti sunt et morti, pro hac re accipiant a judice Deo ultra quam fuerat concessum Adae, ut in futuro et gloriosi sint, et aeternam habeant vitam, et adoptati filii Dei vocentur; ut lucrum sit, quia nati sunt. Ex hoc jam revertar ad reliquam partem lectionis. Cum positus esset homo in paradiso, haec accepit mandata: Ex omni, inquit, ligno quod est in paradiso ad escam, edes. De ligno autem unde dignoscitur bonum et malum, non edetis ex eo.

Hear now, catholic, and learn from the Gospel that a man's birth is of profit. For when Simeon, a just man, wished to depart from the world, thinking that knowledge of the Creator sufficed him without knowledge of His mystery, it was not permitted him unless he made an increase in the perception of God, so that he might have the full reward of his faith. Then, receiving the newborn Saviour in his hands, he blessed God and said: Lord, now Thou dismissest Thy servant, according to Thy word, in peace; for my eyes have seen Thy salvation (Luke 2:29–30). It was manifestly shown that God's benefit lies in man's birth, when to a just man thinking about death the answer was given that he would not die before he had seen the Christ of the Lord: for so far did he advance in life that he became worthy to see even in the present Him Whom he hoped for as liberator after death. He, then, who was kept in life and not permitted to die unless he had seen the fruit of his hope, so that he might be secure that he was passing from life to life, how can it be said that birth did not profit him? For if it is an evil that we are born, paradise would not be promised, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven, but punishment and the perdition of Gehenna, so that one who knew himself born to perdition would fear to beget another; so that he who knew himself to have been born unlawfully would not aspire to beget. But perhaps it may be said: The kingdom of heaven has indeed been promised, but to the faithful and to those who act well. Rightly. You see, therefore, that men do not become guilty because they were born, but because they have lived badly. For the kingdom of heaven has not been promised to the unborn, so that those to whom it will not be given might impute it to birth: rather it has been promised to the born who act well, so that birth neither profits one who acts badly nor can harm one who acts well. For by the faithful and those who act well birth is improved; but by the unfaithful and those who act badly it is made worse. For birth is like a tree which is grafted: for if it is grafted with a good scion, it will become better and will be called good; but if it is grafted with a bad scion, it will be worse, and will be called not good but bad. So too, if good teaching is joined to birth, it will produce good fruits; but if bad, it will produce bad fruits. Therefore, just as the tree is necessary, so that there may be something on which to graft, so too birth is necessary, so that there may be something in which progress is made. But it is answered to the contrary: If birth is useful, why are we reborn? We would not be reborn unless birth were useful. For to be reborn is to be renewed, and those who are renewed are restored. Rebirth, therefore, does not accuse birth but reforms it: and what is reformed is proved to have been well established from the beginning. Therefore, in that we are reborn, we are changed by design, having received the expiation of the body, so that we may be restored to the original state of Adam. Now the body was stained by the sin of the soul; and when it has been repaired and improved through faith, it is washed by design: so that, just as it had been polluted through contempt of God, so it may be washed through obedience, that it may escape the sentence given to Adam and be able to rise again. Therefore, if sin began from the soul, why is the nature of the body accused, since in the cause of Adam's sin there was no bodily desire, but the soul, enticed by the hope of deity, transgressed God's precept, so that it subjected its body to sin and men were born under sin? This indeed does man no harm, provided that he obeys the law of God, except that he dies: for which the benevolence of God has promised a reward, that since they are found faithful in devotion to the Creator, but through the transgression of Adam have been subjected to corruption and death, for this they may receive from God the judge beyond what had been granted to Adam, so that in the future they may both be glorious and have eternal life and be called adopted sons of God; so that it is a gain that they were born. From this I shall now return to the remaining part of the reading. When man had been placed in paradise, he received these commands: Of every tree, He says, which is in paradise you shall eat for food. But of the tree by which good and evil are discerned, you shall not eat of it.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2382

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2382

Ms. Colbertinus, teste.

The Colbert manuscript: teste ("as witness").

(printed under page 539)

(2) ‹anchor: corporis accusatur› · call in col 2382

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi: cur non a corpore accusatur?

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: cur non a corpore accusatur? ("why is it not charged to the body?").

(printed under page 539)

(3) ‹anchor: a judice Deo› · call in col 2382

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi: ut qui in Creatoris devotione fideles inveniuntur, salventur. Per praevaricationem autem quia Adae corruptioni subjecti sunt et morti, pro hac re suscipient a judice Deo.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: that those who are found faithful in devotion to the Creator may be saved. But because through Adam's transgression they are subject to corruption and death, for this they will receive from God the judge.

(printed under page 539)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2382
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2383

Omnia ligna quae commemorat, fructus sunt ad esum creaturarum. Denique uno nomine ligna dicuntur, sed varia intelliguntur in fructibus. Omnia tamen ligna sunt, et edendi unum est genus, quamvis diversa sunt quae edantur. Cum enim mul⟨t⟩a fructuum ligna creasset homini ad edendum, sicut dixi, de uno ligno edi prohibuit; ut reverentiam Creatoris ex aliqua parte haberent, qui omnia in potestate acceperant, dum una reservata est arbor, cujus licentiam non haberent, ut memores essent conditionis legis. Quomodo autem ex sententia peccati genus intelligebatur? Et homicidae enim, et malefico, et adultero, et infami congruit haec sententia. Achar quoque filius Charmi cum peccasset, consumi cum omnibus suis adjudicatus est (Josue VII, 1). Quomodo ergo potest haec sententia peccati genus intelligi? Grande delictum fuisse potest cognosci, non tamen genus delicti intelligi. Scimus enim alios hac damnatos sententia, cum sciantur aliter deliquisse. Et Amorrhaei et Sodomitae cum omnibus suis periisse noscuntur. Ita enim fit ut et unius peccati rei diversa feriantur sententia, et diversi criminis peccatores uno atque eodem genere puniantur. Quamobrem Adae et Evae non ex data sententia peccati genus potest intelligi. Quamvis enim unum eorum peccatum sit, sed secundum personam suam vir et mulier sententiam acceperunt: necnon et serpens, ut non solum in eo quod facti sunt, non manerent, verum etiam adderetur eis labor ad poenam. Cum enim omnia pecora et animantia homini fuissent, sicut legimus, subjecta (Gen. I, 26); serpens contra hanc constitutionem erexit se, et dolo et fallacia circumventum hominem sibi subjecit. Sine dubio enim qui aliquem capit, infra se eum facit. Propter quod serpens ne astutiae suae effectum haberet, sententia Dei revocatur, et reprimitur ultra quam fuerat factus, ne supra hominem esset, ut calliditate sua non solum ad nihil se profecisse doleat, sed et deteriorasse. Cum enim prudentior legatur fuisse caeteris bestiis, postquam decepit hominem, maledictus factus est ab omnibus bestiis terrae. Post sententiam datam in hominem, datam in feminam, datam in serpentem, sequitur ut et mulier quam sibi sociaverat ad contemnendam Dei legem, excipiat sententiam. Ait ei: Replens replebo aerumnas tuas et gemitum tuum: in tristitia paries filios, et ad virum tuum conversio tua, et ipse tui dominabitur (Id. III, 16). Nemo quod reprehendit, ipse confirmat. Si ideo concessi sunt filii quia usurpaverat coitum, ergo plus usurpatio praestitit. Sed quia dixit, In tristitia paries filios; si inde putas generationem sumpsisse principium, ubi erat quod dictum est, Crescite et multiplicamini? Intelligite ergo hoc ad poenam tantum additum, ut cum per laetitiam sibi fuerat ante concessum, tristitia subderetur ad poenam: et ut deterior et multiplicata poena mulierem semp⟨e⟩r urgeret, additur conversio ad virum, ut esset unde ei dolor iterum innovaretur. Si coitum Dominus damnabat, cur in subjectis addebat, Et ad virum conversio tua? Nemo quod damnat, hoc pro poena constituit; cum utique poena sit damnationi contraria, nec unquam ex uno, sed contra proveniat. Quod si in uno essent, damnationem nemo metueret. Deinde aliquis in hoc addiceret, ex quo in legem commissum videret. Hoc est confirmasse, non punisse peccatum, si ideo conversio feminae ad virum, et ex eo quod colit, et non quod verum est, conversio simpliciter ante concessa cum ultima servitute, propter poenam eidem credatur imposita, quoniam per mulierem concessam subjectus factus fuerat vir. Et sine dubio superior videbatur, cujus consilio usus putavit prodesse quod suasit, ut factum Dei subtilitate serpentis destrui videretur: instauratur per sententiam Dei institutam, ut revertatur mulier ad conditionis subjectionem humiliata viro, sicut fuerat constitutum; ⟨e⟩t additum ei quod additur ad poenam, cum audit, Replens replebo moerores tuos, et gemitum tuum: in tristitia paries filios, et ad virum

All the trees which it mentions are fruits for the eating of creatures. In short, they are called trees by a single name, but they are understood as various in their fruits. Yet they are all trees, and there is one kind of eating, although the things that are eaten are diverse. For when He had created many fruit-bearing trees for man to eat, as I said, He forbade eating from one tree, so that they who had received all things into their power might in some part hold the Creator in reverence, while one tree was reserved for which they did not have licence, so that they might be mindful of the condition of the law. But how was the kind of sin understood from the sentence? For this sentence fits the murderer, the sorcerer, the adulterer and the infamous man alike. Achar too, the son of Charmi, when he had sinned, was adjudged to be consumed with all his own (Josh. 7:1). How then can the kind of sin be understood from this sentence? It can be recognized that the offence was great, but the kind of offence cannot be understood. For we know that others were condemned by this sentence, although they are known to have offended otherwise. And the Amorrhaeans and the Sodomites are known to have perished with all their own. For thus it comes about both that those guilty of one sin are struck by diverse sentences, and that sinners of diverse crimes are punished in one and the same manner. Wherefore the kind of sin of Adam and Eve cannot be understood from the sentence given. For although their sin is one, yet the man and the woman received sentence each according to his own person; and the serpent as well, so that they not only should not remain in that in which they had been made, but toil should also be added to them for punishment. For whereas all cattle and living things had been subjected to man, as we read (Gen. 1:26), the serpent raised itself up against this ordinance, and by guile and deceit subjected to itself the man it had circumvented. For without doubt he who captures someone makes him beneath himself. Because of this, lest the serpent should have the effect of its cunning, it is called back by the sentence of God, and is pressed down beyond what it had been made, lest it should be above man, so that it may grieve that by its craftiness it has not only profited nothing but has even become worse. For whereas it is read to have been more prudent than the other beasts, after it deceived man it was made accursed by all the beasts of the earth. After the sentence given against the man, given against the woman, given against the serpent, it follows that the woman too, whom it had associated with itself for despising the law of God, should receive sentence. He says to her: Filling I will fill up your hardships and your groaning: in sadness you will bear sons, and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16). No one himself confirms what he rebukes. If sons were granted for this reason, because she had usurped intercourse, then the usurpation bestowed more. But since He said, In sadness you will bear sons; if you think that generation took its beginning from that point, where was what was said, Increase and multiply? Understand therefore that this was added only for punishment, so that, whereas it had previously been granted to her through gladness, sadness should be subjoined for punishment: and so that a worse and multiplied punishment might always press upon the woman, the turning to the husband is added, so that there might be a source from which her pain should be renewed again. If the Lord condemned intercourse, why did He add among the things subjoined, And your turning to your husband? No one establishes as a punishment what he condemns; since punishment is surely contrary to condemnation, and never comes from the same thing, but from the opposite. For if they were in one, no one would fear condemnation. Then someone would give himself over to this, from which he saw an offence committed against the law. This is to have confirmed, not to have punished, the sin, if for that reason the turning of the woman to the husband, both from the fact that she cherishes him, and not what is true, a turning granted simply beforehand, with the utmost servitude, be believed to have been imposed on her for punishment, because through the woman granted to him the man had been made subject. And without doubt she seemed superior, whose counsel he followed, thinking that what she urged would profit, so that the work of God seemed to be destroyed by the subtlety of the serpent: it is restored through the sentence instituted by God, so that the woman returns to the subjection of her condition, humbled to the man, as had been established; and there is added to her what is added for punishment, when she hears, Filling I will fill up your sorrows, and your groaning: in sadness you will bear sons, and to your husband

Editors' notes and page, col. 2383

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2383

Ms. Colbertinus, et [?]man.

The Colbert manuscript: et [?]man. (The variant word is blurred in the scan; its first letter cannot be read.)

(printed under page 540)

(2) ‹anchor: in hoc addiceret› · call in col 2383

Sic Ms. Colbertinus. At editi, addisceret.

So the Colbert manuscript. But the printed editions: addisceret ("would learn in addition").

(printed under page 540)

Page

running head: QUÆSTIONES EX UTROQU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2384

tuum conversio tua, et ipse tui dominabitur. Numquid fuerat aliter decretum, quam ut mulier dominio viri esset subjecta? Hinc ergo apparet mulierem revocatam esse ad id quod fuerat cum additamento. Unde ait, Replens replebo moerores tuos et gemitum tuum. Quod replet, in eo quod minus est, addit non in eo quod non e⟨s⟩t, videtur operari. Hac ergo sententia quae ante processerat, Crescite et multiplicamini (Gen. I, 22, 28), non incipit ad creandum, sed ad creaturae, quae fuerat concessa, perniciem. Mulieri ad pariendum filios dolor additur, difficultas imponitur, non procreationis nova forma componitur: nam si ex hoc recte generatio speratur, magis intelligi potest arbitrio serpentis generationem extitisse, quam Domini; et est vere, ut ait ille, Progenies viperarum (Matth. III, 7). Si quis autem se existimat ita natum, quid mereatur, advertat, ut propter peccatum amplificaretur ei dolor partu, ut quae modicum doloris habitura erat, filiorum cresceret ei causa delicti: quia et cum gemitu et moerore pariuntur, nati autem sine tristitia non habentur. Nunc tertio promitur in virum sententia talis: Quoniam audisti, inquit, vocem mulieris tuae, et edisti de ligno, de quo praeceperam tibi ne ederes ex eo, maledicta terra in operibus tuis, et in moeroribus tuis edes ex ea omnibus diebus vitae tuae: spinas et tribulos germinabit tibi (Gen. III, 17, 18). Et hinc idem Adam ad hoc revocatur, ad quod fuerat factus, sed cum decremento. Ante enim positus erat ut operaretur terram simpliciter, ut sequeretur eum laboris effectus: at ubi autem sprevit praeceptum Dei, melius sibi procurari credens consilio serpentis quam fecerat Deus, ad institutum pristinum revocatur cum laboris dispendio; ut terra ei secundum laborem minime responderet, maledicta non sibi, sed operibus ejus; ut ostenderetur propositum Dei subverti non posse, neque melius posse quemquam providere quam Deum. Nemo enim potest alterius opus plus diligere, quam ipse qui fecit, dicente Apostolo, quia nemo, inquit, carnem suam odio habet; sed nutrit, et fovet eam, sicut et Christus Ecclesiam (Ephes. V, 29). Videamus nunc sequentia Legis, an concordent cum initiis ejus. Abraham cum placuisset Deo, inter caetera quae ad remunerationem fidei ejus pertinent, cum senior esset, unum filium generare dignus est judicatus (Gen. XVIII, 10). Quomodo ergo accusari potest quod pro merito concessum videtur, ut qui ipsius Dei voluntatem fecerat, Deus voluntatem ejus impleret? quae minime fuisset impleta, nisi innoxia esset; nec Deus impleret quod male vel imperite posci videbat, maxime ab eo qui sibi placeret: hoc enim nec homini convenit. Et Anna cum sterilis esset et Deum diligeret, petiit ut haberet filium et accepit (I Reg. I): quod si contrarium esset, moneri potuit ab eo quem diligebat, ne rem postularet adversam. Et natus ex ea sanctissimus Samuel, filios genuit, non tamen justitiae suae merita minuit. Prima enim aetate sua semper auctus est, ut in senectute propensiori Dei testimonio commendaretur. Et Zacharias sacerdos, vir justus, in senectute sua Dei nutu genuit filium: quo nondum nato, meruit prophetare (Luc. I, 5). Qua ergo ratione accusatur quod minime obesse probatur? Et quis neget bonum debere dici quod neminem laedit? Et ut hoc loco aliquid de Apostolis dicatur, quod ad robur pertinet causae, certe sanctus Joannes castimoniae fuit custos: condiscipulus autem ejus, id est sanctus Petrus, uxorem habuisse cognoscitur; et primatum ut acciperet inter Apostolos, non ei obstitit generatio filiorum. Quomodo ergo condemnandum putatur quod non impedit meritum? Hinc Apostolus eum qui uxorem habeat, si in caeteris servet mandata, sacerdotem fieri posse ac debere ostendit. Quod si illicitum esset, non poterat utique peccatorem dicere debere fieri sacerdotem. Et quid tam apertum? Ejusdem enim Apostoli vox est dicentis: De virginibus autem imperium Domini non habeo (I Cor. VII, 25). Cum enim Corinthii exagitarentur ab haereticis, qui in hyprocrisi nuptias damnandas docebant, consuluerunt Apostolum litteris, an liceret nubere, an uxorem remittere.

[shall be] your turning, and he shall rule over you. Had it been decreed otherwise than that the woman should be subject to the dominion of the man? Hence, therefore, it is evident that the woman was recalled to that which she had been, with an addition. Hence He says, Filling I will fill up your sorrows and your groaning. What He fills up, He is seen to work upon by adding to that which is less, not to that which is not. By this sentence, therefore, that which had gone forth before, Increase and multiply (Gen. 1:22, 28), begins [to serve] not for creating, but for the ruin of the creature which had been granted. Pain is added to the woman for bearing children, difficulty is imposed, no new form of procreation is put together: for if generation is rightly expected to come from this, it can rather be understood that generation came into being by the will of the serpent than by that of the Lord; and truly, as he says, it is a Brood of vipers (Matt. 3:7). But if anyone thinks that he was born thus, let him take note of what he deserves, namely that because of sin pain in childbirth was increased for her, so that she who was going to have a moderate amount of pain should have [the pain] of children increased for her by reason of the offence: since they are both borne with groaning and sorrow, and once born they are not kept without sadness. Now, thirdly, such a sentence is brought forth against the man: Because you listened, He says, to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree from which I had commanded you not to eat, cursed is the earth in your works, and in your sorrows you shall eat of it all the days of your life: thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you (Gen. 3:17–18). And hence the same Adam is recalled to that for which he had been made, but with a diminution. For previously he had been placed to work the earth simply, so that the effect of his labour might follow him: but when he despised the commandment of God, believing that better provision was made for him by the counsel of the serpent than God had made, he is recalled to his original appointment with loss of labour; so that the earth should answer him very little in proportion to his labour, being cursed not for itself, but in his works; so that it might be shown that the purpose of God cannot be overturned, nor can anyone provide better than God. For no one can love another's work more than he himself who made it, as the Apostle says: no one, he says, hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also [does] the Church (Eph. 5:29). Let us now see the sequel of the Law, whether it agrees with its beginnings. Abraham, since he had pleased God, among the other things which pertain to the reward of his faith, when he was rather old, was judged worthy to beget one son (Gen. 18:10). How then can that be accused which is seen to have been granted as a reward, so that God fulfilled the will of him who had done the will of God Himself? This would by no means have been fulfilled unless it were harmless; nor would God fulfil what He saw being asked wrongly or ignorantly, especially by one who was pleasing to Him: for this does not befit even a man. And Anna, since she was barren and loved God, asked that she might have a son, and received one (1 Sam. 1): but if this were contrary, she could have been warned by Him Whom she loved not to request a thing opposed [to Him]. And the most holy Samuel, born of her, begot sons, yet did not diminish the merits of his righteousness. For from his first age he always grew, so that in old age he was commended by a more favourable testimony of God. And Zacharias the priest, a righteous man, in his old age begot a son by the will of God: and while he was not yet born, he was found worthy to prophesy (Luke 1:5). For what reason, then, is that accused which is proved to do no harm at all? And who would deny that what harms no one ought to be called good? And that something may be said in this place about the apostles, which pertains to the strength of the case, certainly Saint John was a guardian of chastity: but his fellow disciple, that is, Saint Peter, is known to have had a wife; and the begetting of children did not prevent him from receiving the primacy among the apostles. How then is that thought worthy of condemnation which does not hinder merit? Hence the Apostle shows that he who has a wife, if in other respects he keeps the commandments, can and ought to be made a priest. But if it were unlawful, he certainly could not say that a sinner ought to be made a priest. And what is so plain? For it is the voice of the same Apostle saying: But concerning virgins I do not have a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25). For when the Corinthians were being harassed by heretics who in hypocrisy taught that marriage was to be condemned, they consulted the Apostle by letter, whether it was lawful to marry, whether to send away a wife.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2384

Page

running head: ...ES EX UTROQUE MIXTIM. 2384 (head cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-quotation of Gen. 3:16 with "tuum"; the letter s in "e⟨s⟩t" is damaged or faint (non est); "concessa" has a poorly struck s but is legible; "hyprocrisi" is read as printed, and the y might be a v (hvprocrisi), UNSURE; the left-hand column fragments belong to col. 2383 and are not set; the Google digitization mark at the foot is not set

PL 35:2385

Tunc praecepit Apostolus non debere uxorem a viro recedere : cum habuerit occasionem dicendi, si scisset sic docendum, non licere nubere; quomodo quod sibi non sit traditum, docere se non posse ostendit. Quis autem discipulorum doceret quod a magistro traditum non est? Vel quis non audiat praedicantem : Volo adolescentulas nubere, filios procreare (I Tim. V, 14)? Sed forte dicatur : Si licet et bonum est nubere, cur sacerdotibus non licet uxores habere? id est, ut ordinatis jam non liceat convenire? Quis nesciat unumquodque suam legem habere? Est enim quod omnino generaliter omnibus non liceat : est item quod aliis licet, et aliis non licet : et est quod aliquando licet, et aliquando non licet. Fornicari omnibus semper non licet : negotiari vero aliquando licet, aliquando non licet Antequam enim ecclesiasticus quis sit, licet ei negotiari : facto jam non licet. Et Christiano cum uxore sua convenire aliquando licet, aliquando vero non licet. Propter dies enim processionis aliquando non licet convenire ; quia etiam a licitis abstinendum est, ut facilius impetrari possit quod postulatur. Unde Apostolus, ex consensu ait abstinendum ad tempus, ut vacetur orationi (I Cor. VII, 5). Nam secundum Legem in jejunio caedi et jurgari non licet, postea licet : quia major reverentia debetur Dei causis. Numquid omne quod ante caeteros licet, ante imperatorem licet? Quanto magis in Dei causis? Ac per hoc antistitem ejus puriorem caeteris esse oportet : ipsius enim personam habere videtur, est enim vicarius ejus : ut quod caeteris licet, illi non liceat; quia necesse habeat quotidie Christi vicem agere, aut orare pro populo, aut offerre, aut tingere. Et non solum huic concubitus non licet, verum etiam ministro ejus : quia ipse mundior debet esse, quia sancta sunt quae ministrat. Nam sicut ad comparationem lucernae tenebrae non tantum obscurae, sed etiam sordidae sunt, ad comparationem autem stellarum lucerna caligo est, ad solis vero comparationem stellae nebulosae sunt, ad Dei autem claritatem sol nox est : ita et quae ad nos licita et munda sunt, ad Dei autem dignitatem quasi illicita et immunda sunt ; quanquam enim bona sunt, Dei tamen personae non competunt. Numquid non tunica mediocris hominis, quamvis munda, imperatori tamen sordida et illicita est? similiter et Saxonicia senatori? Ac per hoc antistites Dei puriores esse debent quam caeteri, quia et Christi habent personam, et ministros Dei mundiores esse oportet. Nemo enim imperatori ministrat non accuratus ; igitur vestimentis claris et mundis induti ministrant : Deus autem quia natura clarissimus est, ministros ejus natura magis quam vestibus mundos esse oportet; cui laus et gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Then the Apostle commanded that a wife ought not to depart from her husband: when he had the occasion to say, had he known that it should be so taught, that it is not lawful to marry; and so he shows that he cannot teach what has not been handed down to him. For which of the disciples would teach what has not been handed down by the master? Or who would not hear him preaching: I will that the young women marry, bear children (1 Tim. 5:14)? But perhaps it may be said: If it is lawful and good to marry, why is it not lawful for priests to have wives? that is, that those already ordained may not come together? Who does not know that each thing has its own law? For there is that which is altogether and generally not lawful for anyone: there is likewise that which is lawful for some, and not lawful for others: and there is that which is sometimes lawful, and sometimes not lawful. To commit fornication is never lawful for anyone: but to engage in trade is sometimes lawful, sometimes not lawful For before someone becomes a churchman, it is lawful for him to trade: once he has become one, it is no longer lawful. And for a Christian to come together with his wife is sometimes lawful, but sometimes not lawful. For on account of the days of procession it is sometimes not lawful to come together; because one must abstain even from lawful things, so that what is asked for may more easily be obtained. Whence the Apostle says that one should abstain by consent for a time, so as to be free for prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). For according to the Law, during a fast it is not lawful to strike and to quarrel, afterwards it is lawful: because greater reverence is owed to the things of God. Is everything that is lawful before others lawful before the emperor? How much more in the things of God? And for this reason His bishop must be purer than the rest: for he is seen to bear His person, since he is His vicar: so that what is lawful for the rest is not lawful for him; because he must daily act in the stead of Christ, either praying for the people, or offering, or baptizing. And not only is sexual intercourse not lawful for him, but also for his minister: because he too ought to be cleaner, because the things which he ministers are holy. For just as in comparison with a lamp darkness is not only obscure but also foul, while in comparison with the stars the lamp is gloom, and in comparison with the sun the stars are cloudy, and in comparison with the brightness of God the sun is night: so too the things which with respect to us are lawful and clean are, with respect to the dignity of God, as if unlawful and unclean; for although they are good, yet they do not befit the person of God. Is not the tunic of a man of middling rank, however clean, yet foul and unlawful for the emperor? and likewise a Saxon garment for a senator? And for this reason the bishops of God ought to be purer than the rest, because they also bear the person of Christ, and the ministers of God must be cleaner. For no one ministers to the emperor without being carefully attired; therefore they minister clothed in bright and clean garments: but since God is by nature most bright, His ministers must be clean by nature rather than by their garments; to Whom be praise and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2385

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: Quaest. prima› · call in col 2385

Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Wanting in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 541)