PL 35 · cols. 2385–2415

Pseudo-Augustinus, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti post vulgatas, cum admonitione

Editors' preface

IN QUAESTIONES VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI POST VULGATAS

On the Questions on the Old and New Testament after those published

ADMONITIO.

Admonition.

Habes praefixum superiori libro elenchum duplicem : unum quo illa praecedentium centum viginti septem Quaestionum exhibetur collectio, quae ab Augustino Ratisponensi, ab Joanne Amerbachio et a Desiderio Erasmo fuit primum vulgata ; alterum, qui collectionem non tantum disparem Quaestionum ordine, sed etiam earum numero auctiorem longe repraesentat. Hujus porro alterius collectionis exemplar cum e Victorina Bibliotheca adeptus fuisset Jacobus Haemer, curavit ut subsequentes hic Quaestiones, quas videlicet aut nondum vulgatas, aut certe aliis verbis tractatas esse animadvertebat, prodirent in lucem. Fecit vero ipse tres earum classes, quarum prima in editis inscribitur, Quaesti⟨o⟩num ex Veteri Testamento pars secunda ; aliae similiter, Quaestionum sive ex Novo Testamento, sive ex utroque mixtim, pars secunda dici solent : cum tamen Victorinus codex aliique inspecti a nobis Mss., in una et altera classe Quaestiones omnes, nec alia quam in excuso superius elencho cernitur, ratione et ordine digestas complectantur. Nihil nos in constituta per Haemeream, perque posteriores editiones jam confirmata distributione mutandum duximus : nisi quod aliquod inde Quaestiones transferre visum est in superiorem librum collectionis primo vulgatae ; ut quae de eodem argumento agunt, juxta se collocatis, quid inter illas intercedat varietatis primo conspectu deprehendas ; tum etiam utra collectio in Mss. antiquior et sincerior sit, vel potius an utraque interpolatoris inepti manum referat, dijudicare possis. Caeterum de subsequenti opere idem quod de priore sentiri volunt Lovanienses Theologi : quod varia, inquiunt, contineat et Augustino indigna, et a veritate aliena.

You have prefixed to the preceding book a twofold list: one in which is displayed that collection of the preceding one hundred and twenty-seven Questions which was first published by Augustine of Regensburg, by Johann Amerbach and by Desiderius Erasmus; the other, which presents a collection not only different in the order of the Questions, but also far larger in their number. Moreover, when Jacobus Haemer had obtained a copy of this second collection from the Library of Saint-Victor, he took care that the Questions following here, namely those which he noticed either had not yet been published or had certainly been treated in other words, should come to light. He himself made three classes of them, of which the first is entitled in the editions, Second part of the Questions from the Old Testament; the others likewise are usually called Second part of the Questions either from the New Testament or from both mixed together: although the Victorine codex and the other manuscripts inspected by us contain all the Questions in the one and the other class arranged in no other plan and order than is seen in the list printed above. We have thought that nothing should be changed in the distribution established by Haemer and already confirmed by the later editions: except that it seemed good to transfer some Questions from here into the preceding book of the collection first published; so that, those which treat of the same subject being placed side by side, you may detect at first sight what variation there is between them; and also that you may be able to judge which collection in the manuscripts is the older and more genuine, or rather whether both show the hand of an inept interpolator. For the rest, the theologians of Louvain wish the same judgement to be held of the following work as of the former: that it contains, they say, various things both unworthy of Augustine and foreign to the truth.

QUAESTIONUM EX VETERI TESTAMENTO PARS SECUNDA.

Second Part of the Questions from the Old Testament.

ADVERSUM EOS QUI NEGANT AD DEUM ALIQUID PERTINERE.

Against those who deny that anything pertains to God.

QUAEST. PRIMA.— Multis, quos saecularis ista caligo caecavit, plurimum displicemus, si solliciti Dei praecepta servemus, si occasiones delinquendi fugiamus, si bona omnia salutari studio implere conemur, si illecebrarum, vitiorumque blandimenta seductoria negligamus, si nulla nos saeculari dulcedine capi patiamur, si sponte pro Dei nomine cruciatus poenasque subeamus, si mortem ipsam virtute spiritus contemnamus. Illis nimirum quibus omne quod geritur, sensus iste mortalis nec laude nec vituperatione dignum esse persuasit. Nolunt enim ad Deum horum aliquid pertinere. Nonnulli adeo scelera sua criminaque defendere cupientes, Nihil, inquiunt, prodest, bene an male vivas. Neque enim ista nunc Deo cura est, ut te diversa pro instituto proprio morboque gerentem sollicite festinet aspicere, et foedis aliquando tuis actibus oculos permiscere. Vana sunt omnia, quae ut libitum fuerit celebrantur : is qui ad Deum pertinet, secretus est et remotus ab istis rebus humanis, et ideo nec irascitur, nec movetur ; nulla illi humanarum rerum, nulla nostri actus est contemplatio ; totus rotati saeculi cursus, et quaedam mundani orbis inexplicabilis volutatio, ita correptu⟨m⟩ rapit et projicit, ut stultus credatur quisquis se ad curam Dei

Question One.— To many whom this worldly darkness has blinded we are most displeasing if we carefully keep the precepts of God, if we flee the occasions of sinning, if we strive to fulfil all good things with saving zeal, if we disregard the seductive allurements of enticements and vices, if we allow ourselves to be captured by no worldly sweetness, if we willingly undergo tortures and punishments for the name of God, if we despise death itself by the strength of the spirit. To those, that is, whom this mortal sense has persuaded that everything which is done is worthy neither of praise nor of blame. For they will not have any of these things pertain to God. Some, wishing to defend their sins and crimes, go so far as to say: It profits nothing whether you live well or ill. For it is not now God's concern to hasten anxiously to watch you doing various things according to your own purpose and disease, and to mingle His eyes with your sometimes foul deeds. All things are vain which are performed as one pleases: he who pertains to God is set apart and removed from these human affairs, and therefore he is neither angered nor moved; he has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our action; the whole course of the revolving age, and a certain inexplicable rolling of the world's orb, so sweeps along and casts down the one caught up in it, that anyone is believed a fool who, to the care of God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2385

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: Quaest. prima› · call in col 2385

(printed under page 541) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 541)

Editors' prose

- The ADMONITIO IN QUAESTIONES VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI POST VULGATAS (Habes praefixum ... a veritate aliena) is the Maurist editors' matter, not the work's, set in layer 1 in its place (Ray 2026-10-17).

Page

other: col 2386 is the right-hand number of a full-width page, set whole under col 2385 (corpus full_width rule); nothing of its own: pointer only

PL 35:2387

revocare posse putaret. Nec martyrum quidem probandus est animus, qui Deum suum, quem misericordem esse pronuntiant, effusione sui sanguinis aestimant delectari. Nihil illi charum in nobis, nihil est odiosum; nulla mortis nostrae conditione, nulla sanitatis integritate laetatur; nec quid ubi geratur scire desiderat: non quod impossibile sit majestati divinae omnium fere quae gesta sunt vel geruntur habere notitiam, sed quod scire nolit miserias hominum vanitatesque mundanas. Sic denique scriptum est: Vanitas vanitantium, universa vanitas (Eccle. I, 2). Quorum sententia desperatione firmata, ut divini sensus auctoritate dissolvitur, sic ipsorum sacro sermone vulgari, qui maximus habetur in usu, convincitur expugnata. Nam cum inter negotia diversorumque contractus fides perfidiaque contendunt, ut testis divinitas adhibetur, quae aliquando quid agamus scire negatur. Testis est, inquiunt, Deus: Deus videat, Deus judicet, Deus faciat, Deus reddat. Et cum ad necessitatem jurisjurandi venitur, et jurantis animus metuit ne sibi aliquid obveniat ⟨p⟩ejeranti; et jusjurandum exigit, et reddi ei posse confidit, qui sibi male juravit. Et cum sanitas exoptata et bona valetudo fuerit consecuta, divinitati gratiae referuntur. Et cum aliqua decidente materia casus proximus illaesus evaserit, Deus bonus dicitur praestitisse. Et cum adverso ventorum flatu commoti aequoris fluctus insurgunt, et navis undique caesa quassatur, navigantium turbae ad coelum manus extendunt, Deum voce supplici deprecantur, et exaudiri se et liberari posse confidunt. Unde haec si Deo nulla nostri est cura, si quid agamus ignorat? Inanis est igitur ista persuasio. Omnia Deo sunt cognita. Nullus sibi de impunitate commissorum scelerum blandiatur. Bonae vitae maximus fructus est, malae perpetua poena et aeterni cruciatus. Igitur nobis qui Deum omnia nosse credimus, qui devote ad martyrium festinamus, inaestimabilis fructus, perpetua vita praestabitur: impiis vero, qui Deum scelera sua, criminumque nescire docuerunt arcana, ignis flamma consumens, incendiumque semper indeficiens ministrabitur.

should think he could call himself back. Nor indeed is the mind of the martyrs to be approved, who suppose that their God, Whom they declare to be merciful, is delighted by the shedding of their own blood. Nothing in us is dear to Him, nothing is hateful; He rejoices in no condition of our death, in no soundness of health; nor does He desire to know what is being done where: not because it is impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of almost all things that have been done or are being done, but because He does not wish to know the miseries of men and the vanities of the world. Thus, in short, it is written: Vanity of the vain, all is vanity (Eccl. 1:2). Their opinion, made firm by despair, just as it is dissolved by the authority of the divine sense, so is shown to be overthrown by their own sacred common speech, which is held to be in the greatest use. For when, amid business dealings and the contracts of various people, good faith and bad faith contend, the divinity is brought in as witness, the very divinity which is said at times not to know what we do. "God is witness," they say: "May God see, may God judge, may God act, may God repay." And when it comes to the necessity of an oath, the mind of the one swearing fears that something may befall him if he swears falsely; and the man to whom another has sworn falsely demands the oath, and trusts that requital can be made to him. And when longed-for health and good wellbeing have been obtained, thanks are rendered to the divinity. And when, as some material falls, the one nearest the mishap has escaped unharmed, the good God is said to have granted it. And when, with the blast of the winds against them, the waves of the stirred-up sea rise, and the ship, struck on every side, is shaken, the crowds of those sailing stretch out their hands to heaven, they entreat God with suppliant voice, and trust that they can be heard and delivered. Whence these things, if God has no care for us, if He does not know what we do? Empty, therefore, is that persuasion. All things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself about impunity for crimes committed. Of a good life the fruit is very great; of an evil one, perpetual punishment and eternal torments. Therefore to us, who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly hasten to martyrdom, an inestimable fruit, perpetual life, will be granted; but to the impious, who have taught that God does not know their crimes and the secrets of their misdeeds, a consuming flame of fire and a burning that never fails will be supplied.

II. — An Spiritus qui super aquas ferebatur, Spiritus sanctus intelligatur; quia dictum est, Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas (Gen. I, 2)?

II. — Whether the Spirit Who was borne over the waters is to be understood as the Holy Spirit; since it is said, The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters (Gen. 1:2)?

Si ideo a quibusdam Spiritus sanctus putatur, quia Dei esse spiritus legitur, etc.

If He is thought by some to be the Holy Spirit for this reason, that He is read to be the spirit of God, etc.

III. — Si Adam factus a Deo et animatus, Spiritum sanctum accepit; quia scriptum est, Inspiravit Deus in faciem ejus spiritum vitae (Gen. II, 7).

III. — Whether Adam, made by God and given life, received the Holy Spirit; since it is written, God breathed into his face the spirit of life (Gen. 2:7).

Non erat ordinis ut acciperet Spiritum sanctum; quia hoc in posterum reservatum est a Deo, ut in novissimis diebus cum mysterium unius Dei manifestatum est, daretur credentibus. A principio quidem praedicata est Trinitas, sed quasi sub velamine erat intelligentia ejus. Dei enim Patris primum persona sine cunctatione et figura praedicata et manifestata est, quia ab ipso sunt omnia. Filii autem ejus, Domini nostri Jesu Christi et Spiritus sancti personae non tacebantur, sed neque manifestabantur. Denique de Domino fit a perfidis quaestio, et de Spiritu sancto. Quidam enim dementes Spiritum sanctum ipsum Patrem dicunt, sicut et Sabellius ipsum dicit Patrem quem et Filium. De Dei autem Patris persona nemo dubitat. Cum ergo Trinitatis fit manifestatio, tunc demum Spiritus sanctus datur credentibus, ut et persona ejus manifesta sit, et accipientes illum, signum habeant, quia filii sunt Dei, per id quod Spiritum Dei, qui de Deo utique est, habent in se. Perfectionis enim significatio haec est, cum scitur et Pater esse et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Haec perfectio hoc tribuit donum. Adveniens enim Filius Dei, et haec adaperiens ac manifestans,

It was not in the order of things that he should receive the Holy Spirit; for this was reserved by God for later times, so that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God had been made manifest, He might be given to believers. From the beginning, indeed, the Trinity was proclaimed, but the understanding of it was as if under a veil. For first the person of God the Father was proclaimed and made manifest without hesitation or figure, because from Him are all things. But the persons of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not passed over in silence, yet neither were they made manifest. Accordingly a question is raised by the faithless about the Lord, and about the Holy Spirit. For certain madmen say that the Holy Spirit is the Father Himself, just as Sabellius too says that the Father is the very same as the Son. But concerning the person of God the Father no one doubts. When, therefore, the manifestation of the Trinity takes place, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that His person too may be manifest, and those who receive Him may have a sign that they are sons of God, through the fact that they have in themselves the Spirit of God, Who is assuredly from God. For this is the signification of perfection, when it is known that there is both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This perfection bestows this gift. For the Son of God, coming and opening up these things and manifesting,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2387

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2387

¹ Editi, vanitatum; et paulo post, Dei jussus auctoritate. At Mss., van.tantium; et, divini sensus auctoritate.

The editions read "vanitatum" (of vanities); and a little later, "Dei jussus auctoritate" (by the authority of God's command). But the manuscripts read "van.tantium" [as printed]; and "divini sensus auctoritate" (by the authority of the divine mind).

(printed under page 542)

(a) ‹anchor: II› · call in col 2387

(printed under page 542) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 41.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 41.

(printed under page 542)

(b) ‹anchor: III› · call in col 2387

(printed under page 542) (b) Idem argumentum tractatur in Mss. primi generis, quaest. 123, sed alia prorsus ratione.

The same subject is treated in the manuscripts of the first class, Question 123, but in an altogether different way.

(printed under page 542) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 542) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 542) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 542)

Page

running head: 2387 QUAESTIONUM EX VETERI TEST[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2388

plus aliquid debuit dare, et dignum fuit tribuere perfectionem hanc credentibus; quia nec in Filio, nec in Patre solo perfectio est vel salus, sed in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Unde dicit Joannes evangelista, quia de plenitudine ejus nos omnes accepimus, gratiam pro gratia: quia Lex per Moysen data est, gratia autem et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est (Joan. I, 16, 17). Apertum est, adveniente Salvatore plenitudinem factam veritatis. Quae enim latebant, et quod promissum est dum revelatur, et manifestatur, plenitudo fit veritatis: tunc credentes accepto Spiritu sancto fiunt filii Dei. Nam inspiratio quae dicitur facta a Deo in Adam, animae traditio est: Spiritus enim frequenter pro anima ponitur, dicente Evangelio inter caetera, Et reversus est, inquit, spiritus ejus ad illam (Luc. VIII, 55). Et in Psalmo: Spiritum, ait, contribulatum, et cor contritum Deus non spernit (Psal. L, 19). Frequenter tamen aliqui codices non sic habent, quia inspiravit Deus; sed, insufflavit Deus in faciem ejus spiritum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem. Non quia dixit, spiritum vitae, ideo Spiritum sanctum significavit. Nam et de animalibus ita ait: In quibus erat spiritus vitae (Gen. VII, 22). Spiritus vitae dicitur, quia animat corpora ad vitam.

had to give something more, and it was fitting to bestow this perfection on believers; for neither in the Son nor in the Father alone is there perfection or salvation, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Hence John the evangelist says that of His fullness we have all received, grace for grace: for the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ (John 1:16–17). It is plain that at the coming of the Saviour the fullness of truth was brought about. For the things that lay hidden, and what was promised, when it is revealed and made manifest, becomes the fullness of truth: then believers, having received the Holy Spirit, become sons of God. For the inbreathing which is said to have been done by God in Adam is the bestowal of the soul: for spirit is frequently put for soul, as the Gospel says among other things, And her spirit, it says, returned to her (Luke 8:55). And in the Psalm: A troubled spirit, it says, and a contrite heart God does not despise (Ps. 50:19). Yet some manuscripts frequently do not have it thus, that God inbreathed, but, God breathed into his face the spirit of life, and man was made into a living soul. It is not because it said the spirit of life that it therefore signified the Holy Spirit. For it speaks thus of the animals also: In which was the spirit of life (Gen. 7:22). It is called the spirit of life because it animates bodies unto life.

IV. — Cur Adam in mundo positus mandatum vel legem accepit, cum ipse dominium caeterorum haberet.

IV. — Why Adam, placed in the world, received a commandment or law, when he himself had dominion over the rest.

Quamvis in mundo dominus positus sit Adam, tamen quia non utique ex se, sed a Deo id accepit, debuit hujus rei significationem ex lege accipere; ut ipse qui dominus videtur, per legem subjectus ei esset qui illi hanc dederat potestatem; ut auctoritas Creatoris reverentiam illi faceret per legem, ne dominatio tanta extolleret illum, et immemor fieret Dei conditoris sui.

Although Adam was placed as lord in the world, yet because he certainly did not receive this from himself but from God, he had to receive an indication of this fact from the law; so that he who appears to be lord might, through the law, be subject to Him Who had given him this power; so that the authority of the Creator might, through the law, instil reverence in him, lest so great a dominion should puff him up and he should become forgetful of God his maker.

V. — Cur Deus dicat, Non permanebit Spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia sunt caro: anni illorum centum viginti, etc. (Gen. VI, 3).

V. — Why God says, My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh: their years [shall be] a hundred and twenty, etc. (Gen. 6:3).

Cum gigantes essent illis diebus super terram, pestiferi et superbi, a magnitudinis statura elati, post desideria carnis euntes, nati apostatae; tunc cum displiceret Deo, promisit genus humanum diluvio deleturum, et tempus statuit; ut si quis forte ira Dei audita et indignatione, super hoc vellet se corrigere, haberet spatium emendandi se. Denique centum annis arca hac ratione videtur fabricata. Ante arcae autem inchoationem viginti anni fuisse perhibentur. Sed narratio istud quod postquam de numero annorum Noe dixit, subjecit, obscurare videtur. Nam haec sententia antequam quingentorum annorum esset Noe, dignoscitur lata. Quid enim dicit? Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis: propterea et subjecit, Quia malitia increvit super terram, delebo hominem a facie terrae usque ad pecus; quod utique diluvio facto impletum est. Nam et post diluvium multis annis homines vixisse meminimus: et Aaron frater Moysi centum viginti tres annos vixisse memoratur (Num. XXXIII, 38, 39). Ipse autem Moyses ut centum et viginti annos transire non posset, fecit quod Deum in contradictione aquae non clarificavit. Nam intraturus erat in terram promissionis, si non obstetisset peccatum (Deut. XXXIV, 7, et XXXII, 48-52). Videtur enim hoc quibusdam dictum ad tempus Moysi pertinere, cum inveniatur Joiada sacerdos centum triginta annos vixisse (II Paral. XXIV, 15).

When there were giants in those days upon the earth, pestilent and proud, exalted by the stature of their size, going after the desires of the flesh, born apostates; then, since this displeased God, He promised that He would destroy the human race by a flood, and He fixed a time, so that if anyone perhaps, having heard of the wrath and indignation of God, wished to correct himself on this account, he might have space to amend himself. Accordingly the ark appears to have been built over a hundred years for this reason. But twenty years are said to have passed before the beginning of the ark. But the narrative seems to obscure this point, since it added it after it had spoken of the number of Noah's years. For this sentence is recognized to have been pronounced before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say? My spirit shall not remain in these men: and for that reason it also added, Because wickedness has increased upon the earth, I will destroy man from the face of the earth even to the cattle; which was indeed fulfilled when the flood came about. For we recall that men lived many years even after the flood: and Aaron the brother of Moses is recorded to have lived a hundred and twenty-three years (Num. 33:38–39). Moses himself, moreover, brought it about that he could not pass beyond a hundred and twenty years, in that he did not glorify God at the water of contradiction. For he would have entered the land of promise, had sin not stood in the way (Deut. 34:7, and 32:48–52). For to some this seems to have been said as pertaining to the time of Moses, since Jehoiada the priest is found to have lived a hundred and thirty years (2 Chron. 24:15).

VI. — Quid continet benedictio Jacob, quam dedit filiis suis (Gen. XLVIII, XLIX).

VI. — What the blessing of Jacob contains, which he gave to his sons (Gen. 48, 49).

Non solum ex praesentibus causis futura uniuscujusque tribus praedixit, sed et de futuris futura, quorum adhuc umbra non erat, in populo Judaico significavit. Quales enim futurae essent singulae tribus moribus, fide, disciplina, luxuria, petulantia, contemptu fidei, ut cum de uno erant, et tamen unum non servarent,

Not only did he foretell, from present causes, the future of each tribe, but he also signified among the Jewish people, concerning future things, things to come of which there was as yet not even a shadow. For [he signified] what each tribe would be like in morals, faith, discipline, luxury, wantonness, contempt of faith, so that although they were from one, and yet did not keep to one,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2388

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: super terram, delebo› · call in col 2388

¹ Mss., deleam.

The manuscripts read "deleam" (let me blot out).

(printed under page 542)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (IV)› · call in col 2388

(printed under page 542)

(b) ‹anchor: V› · call in col 2388

(printed under page 542)

Page

running head: [EX] VETERI TEST. PARS SECUNDA. 2388 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word servarent, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2389

PL 35:2389

ostendit. Aliqui enim profecerunt in melius, alii deterioraverunt, alii permanserunt: ut per hoc non sibi praerogativam generis vindicarent, cum ab eo ipso praedictum esset, quosdam ex his, qui utique ex ejus essent origine, reprobos futuros, imo multos perituros, ita ut alii significarentur subintrare, qui ad eorum dedecus et damnationem insererentur in naturam, ex qua illi exciderunt. Promiscuum ergo populum in omnibus tribubus futurum declaravit: qua varietate tam boni sed pauci, quam mali sed multi intelligerentur. Et quamvis sceptrum dederit filio suo Joseph ad tempus, Judam tamen praefecit omnibus. Non quod omnes ex Juda idonei essent futuri, sed quia Salvator, qui vere rex est, ex ea tribu oriundus erat secundum carnem.

this he showed. For some advanced for the better, others grew worse, others remained [as they were]: so that by this they might not claim for themselves the prerogative of their race, since it had been foretold by him himself that some of these, who were indeed of his stock, would be reprobate, indeed that many would perish, so that others were signified as entering in, who to their shame and condemnation would be grafted into the nature from which those had fallen away. He declared therefore that the people would be mixed in all the tribes: by which diversity both the good, but few, and the bad, but many, might be understood. And although he gave the sceptre to his son Joseph for a time, he nevertheless set Judah over all. Not that all from Judah would be fit, but because the Saviour, Who is truly king, was sprung from that tribe according to the flesh.

VII. — Cur angelus missus loqui ad Moysen in igne et rubo apparuit?

VII. — Why did the angel sent to speak to Moses appear in fire and a bush?

Natura angelica secundum se simplex est, cujus substantia superiora appetit, etc.

The angelic nature is simple in itself, and its substance seeks higher things, etc.

VIII. — Non fuit aliud signum quod fieret a Moyse palam Pharaoni, nisi serpens (Exod. VII, 10)?

VIII. — Was there no other sign to be performed by Moses openly before Pharaoh except a serpent (Exod. 7:10)?

Qui hoc reprehensibile putat, dicat quid aliud fieri debuit. Nam utique serpentem fecit, qui et terrorem incuteret, non tamen obesset, per id quod stupore quodam ad nocendum tardior est. Si enim leonem fecisset, aut ursum, aut aliud tale, quomodo evaderent qui aderant? Nec enim occidere voluit quemquam, sed solum timorem ponere, et ostendere virtutem; ut quia prima praevaricatio per serpentem coepit, similiter et recordatio cognitionis Dei et morum emendatio serpentis signo proveniret, ut quomodo peccatum est, sic et emendaretur: sicut et per mulierem peccatum factum, per mulierem sublatum est, Mariam matrem scilic⟨e⟩t Domini, ex qua Christus natus damnavit peccatum. Eva virgo adhuc praevaricavit, sicut et Maria virgo erat. Hoc ergo modo ad statum pristinum revocata sunt, quae perierant: quia et regnum per ligni gustum amissum erat, et iterum per lignum quaesitum est. Dominus enim, ait, regnavit a ligno (Psal. XCV, 10). Simili modo et mundus in quo factus est, in eo et reformandus est, id est in principio mensis primi, quod est Pascha. Nulla ergo mala erit natura nisi sola praevaricatio; quando peccatum per id emendatum est, per quod et admissum est.

Let whoever thinks this blameworthy say what else ought to have been done. For he made a serpent precisely because it would both strike terror and yet do no harm, in that through a certain sluggishness it is slower to injure. For had he made a lion, or a bear, or some other such thing, how would those who were present have escaped? For he did not wish to kill anyone, but only to instil fear and to show power; so that, since the first transgression began through a serpent, likewise the recollection of the knowledge of God and the amendment of conduct might come about by the sign of a serpent, so that as sin was committed, so too it might be amended: just as sin was also brought about through a woman and was taken away through a woman, namely Mary the mother of the Lord, from whom Christ was born and condemned sin. Eve, while still a virgin, transgressed, just as Mary too was a virgin. In this way, therefore, the things that had perished were called back to their original state: for the kingdom too had been lost through the tasting of a tree, and again it was won back through a tree. For the Lord, it says, has reigned from the tree (Ps. 95:10). In like manner the world too is to be reformed at the same time at which it was made, that is, at the beginning of the first month, which is the Pasch. Nothing, therefore, will be an evil nature except transgression alone, since sin has been amended through that same means through which it was also committed.

IX. — Si unus Deus est, cur in tribus spes salutis est, et non in duobus, aut quatuor, aut certe in uno; et quare prius non est Trinitas praedicata?

IX. — If God is one, why is the hope of salvation in three, and not in two, or four, or indeed in one; and why was the Trinity not preached earlier?

Unus quidem est Deus, sed non singularis est, etc.

God is indeed one, but He is not solitary, etc.

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

X. — To what end were circumcision and precepts given to the people, which did not exist before and are not held in authority now?

Circumcisio signum est fidei Abrahae, ut cum in filiis ejus hoc signum videretur, scirentur ejus filii esse, qui Deo credens hoc signum acceperit (Gen. XVII, 10, 11). Praecepta autem sabbatorum, et praeteritorum testimonio data sunt, et futurorum quae haberent figuram (Exod. XX, 9-11). Futuri enim sabbati, quod in aeternis dabit requiem, figura est hoc sabbatum quod in hebdomadam impletam factum est. Escarum autem lex non in primordio Legis data est, sed cum duce perfidia, Dei verbis et promissis fidem nollent dare, ad duritiam cordis sui acceperunt praecepta non b⟨o⟩na, sicut dicit propheta Jeremias (Ezech. XX, 25). Id enim actum est, ut cervix eorum premeretur, ad profectum illorum. Superbis enim hominibus et contumacibus, non debuit tota creatura subjici. Postea autem misericordia Dei veniente, reddita est libertas edendi. Unde dicit Petrus apostolus: Quid imponitis jugum super cervicem fratrum, quod neque nos neque patres nostri portare potuimus (Act. XV, 10)?

Circumcision is the sign of the faith of Abraham, so that when this sign was seen in his sons, they might be known to be the sons of him who, believing God, received this sign (Gen. 17:10–11). But the precepts of the sabbaths were given both as a testimony of things past and so as to bear a figure of things to come (Exod. 20:9–11). For this sabbath, which was made upon the completion of the week, is a figure of the future sabbath, which will give rest in eternity. The law of foods, however, was not given at the beginning of the Law, but when, with faithlessness as their leader, they were unwilling to put faith in the words and promises of God, they received, in keeping with the hardness of their heart, precepts that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says (Ezek. 20:25). For this was done so that their neck might be pressed down, for their advancement. For to proud and stubborn men the whole creation ought not to have been subjected. But afterwards, when the mercy of God came, the freedom to eat was restored. Hence the apostle Peter says: Why do you put a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10)?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2389

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2389

(printed under page 543) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 42.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 42.

(printed under page 543)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2389

(printed under page 543) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 543)

(printed under page 543) (c) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 87.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 87.

(printed under page 543)

(d) ‹anchor: X› · call in col 2389

(printed under page 543) (d) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 543) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 543) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 543) (c) Habetur inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 37.

It is found among those first published, next to Question 37.

(printed under page 543) (d) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 36

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 36.

(printed under page 543) (e) Ibid., quaest. 40.

Ibid., Question 40.

(printed under page 543) (f) Ibid., quaest. 38.

Ibid., Question 38.

(printed under page 543) (g) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 543)

Page

running head: 2389 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2390

XI. — Si propter diffidentiam et detractiones dura acceperant Judaei mandata; quid peccaverant filii eorum, ut etiam ipsi his mandatis astringerentur?

XI. — If it was because of distrust and disparagements that the Jews had received harsh commandments, in what had their sons sinned, that they too should be bound by these commandments?

Patribus data lex est, quae filiis similibus oneri esset. Nam postea non minus, sed forte amplius in Deum peccaverunt quam patres illorum. Praescius enim Deus, filiis magis hanc legem dedit; quia illi omnes in eremo obierunt.

The law was given to the fathers, to be a burden to sons like them. For afterwards they sinned against God not less, but perhaps more, than their fathers. For God, foreknowing this, gave this law rather to the sons; because those all perished in the desert.

XII. — Cur in Lege etiam ipsi Aaron dictum est, ut pro peccatis suis holocausta offerret, cum dicat David, Pro delictis holocaustum non postulasti (Psal. XXXIX, 7); et in subjectis, Holocaustis non delectaberis (Psal. L, 18)? Quomodo offerri praecepit, quo non delectatur?

XII. — Why in the Law was it said even to Aaron himself that he should offer holocausts for his sins, when David says, For offences Thou hast not demanded a holocaust (Ps. 39:7); and in what follows, In holocausts Thou wilt not take delight (Ps. 50:18)? How did He command to be offered that in which He does not take delight?

Manifestum est holocaustis Deum non delectari, sed pro satisfactione peccati gemitu et dolore cordis veniam posse mereri. Sacrificium autem testimonium peccati voluit esse, ut se peccator per oblationem sacrificii confiteretur peccasse. Remissio autem quomodo obtineretur, ipse alio loco ostendit, dicens, Frange esurienti panem tuum: si videris nudum, vesti, et domesticos seminis tui ne despicias (Isai. LVIII, 7): aut certe, Cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit (Psal. L, 19). Primum ergo confitendum delictum monuit; deinde quomodo ignosci possit, ostendit. Nam nunquam pro manifesto delicto sacrificium mandavit, sed pro ignoratis; quia etiam cum nescit homo peccat, et cum se putat recte agere, intentione quadam delinquit. Tale peccatum dixit per sacrificium posse purgari.

It is manifest that God does not take delight in holocausts, but that, as satisfaction for sin, pardon can be merited by groaning and sorrow of heart. But He willed the sacrifice to be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner, through the offering of the sacrifice, might confess that he had sinned. And how remission might be obtained He Himself showed in another place, saying, Break your bread to the hungry: if you see one naked, clothe him, and do not despise those of the household of your seed (Isa. 58:7): or certainly, A contrite and humbled heart God does not spurn (Ps. 50:19). First, then, He admonished that the offence must be confessed; then He showed how it can be pardoned. For He never commanded a sacrifice for a manifest offence, but for things unknown; because even when a man does not know it, he sins, and when he thinks he is acting rightly, he offends by a certain intention. Such a sin He said could be purged by sacrifice.

XIII. — Quid est ut missa mors in Jacob, venerit in Israel; cum Jacob ipse sit Israel?

XIII. — What does it mean that death, sent into Jacob, came into Israel, when Jacob himself is Israel?

Unius populi duo nomina posuit. Nam utique qui prius Jacob dicebatur, etc.

He set down two names of one people. For indeed he who was formerly called Jacob, etc.

XIV. — Si anima quae peccat ipsa morietur, quid est ut Charmi peccante triginta sex viri occisi videantur causa ejus?

XIV. — If the soul that sins, it shall die, how is it that, when Charmi sinned, thirty-six men are seen to have been slain because of him?

Charmi quidem peccavit, et mortuus est lapidibus. Illi autem triginta sex viri, etc.

Charmi indeed sinned, and died by stones. But those thirty-six men, etc.

XV. — Quid est quod dicit propheta, Laetare, sterilis quae non paris; erumpe et clama, quae non parturis: quia multi filii desertae magis quam ejus quae habet virum?

XV. — What is it that the prophet says, Rejoice, barren one, who do not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labour: for many are the sons of the deserted one, more than of her who has a husband?

Duas matres hoc in loco intelligimus, coelestem et terrestrem, id est, Jerusalem liberam, etc.

We understand two mothers in this place, the heavenly and the earthly, that is, the free Jerusalem, etc.

XVI. — Benedicat terra Dominum, ait, hoc est laudet et confiteatur virtutem tuam: quomodo ergo in Psalmis, Numquid confitebitur tibi, inquit, pulvis, aut annuntiabit virtutem tuam?

XVI. — Let the earth bless the Lord, it says, that is, let it praise and confess Thy power: how then in the Psalms does it say, Shall dust confess to Thee, or shall it announce Thy power?

Non est sic intelligendum, ut legitur, et sonant verba, etc.

It is not to be understood thus, as it is read and as the words sound, etc.

XVII. — In sole, inquit, posuit tabernaculum suum (Psal. XVIII, 6), 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 (Psal. XC, 10)? quippe cum templum corpus suum dixerit.

XVII. — In the sun, it says, He has placed His tabernacle (Ps. 18:6), 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 (Ps. 90:10)? since indeed He called His body a temple.

Et filii hominis, et Dei Filii corpus templum esse intelligitur. Deus tamen, id est, Dei Filius, quamvis in carne venerit, in anima tamen habitavit. Ergo tam anima quam corpus tabernaculum est Filii Dei, licet unus sit Deus et homo, Filius Dei, et filius hominis. Ergo ex hac parte flagellum non appropinquasse dicitur tabernaculo ejus; id est, anima ejus, in qua habitat divinitas ejus, immunis fuit a poena inferni vel principum ejus. Ne quia hic quasi peccator, cum sit innocens, crucifixus est, et passa est caro, aliquid moestitiae apud inferos anima ejus passa putaretur, ostendit Scriptura non potuisse animam ejus turbari apud inferos, quia ad hoc descendit, hoc est pati se

The body both of the Son of Man and of the Son of God is understood to be a temple. Yet God, that is, the Son of God, though He came in the flesh, nevertheless dwelt in the soul. Therefore both soul and body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, although God and man is one, the Son of God and the Son of Man. Therefore in this respect the scourge is said not to have come near His tabernacle; that is, His soul, in which His divinity dwells, was immune from the punishment of hell or of its princes. Lest, because He was crucified here as if a sinner, although He is innocent, and the flesh suffered, His soul should be thought to have suffered some sorrow among those below, Scripture shows that His soul could not be troubled among those below, because He descended for this, that is, He allowed Himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 2390

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

(d) ‹anchor: XIV› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

(e) ‹anchor: XV› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

(f) ‹anchor: XVI› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

(g) ‹anchor: XVII› · call in col 2390

(printed under page 543)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2390
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2391

permisit, ut confunderet tenebras, et principes earum remitteret hebetes. Unde et ipse Dominus ait: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem (Matth. XXVI, 38). Permissa est enim, quod naturae su⟨ae⟩ erat, ut tristaretur, tropaeum protinus referens, et spolia eorum a quibus contristata fuerat usque ad mortem, post mortem jam in aeterno gaudio constituta. Potest et de toto homine intelligi; quia qui peccatum nesciit, a lege flagellari non potuit.

to suffer, that it might confound the darkness and send back its princes dulled. Hence the Lord Himself also says: My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Matt. 26:38). For it was permitted, as belonged to its nature, to be sorrowful, at once bringing back a trophy and the spoils of those by whom it had been made sorrowful unto death, being after death now established in eternal joy. It can also be understood of the whole man; because He who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law.

XVIII. — Cur Salomon spiritum sapientiae habuit (III Reg. III), cum vitam mundam non habuit? valde enim mulieribus delectabatur, ac per hoc peccabat (Id. XI).

XVIII. Why did Solomon have the spirit of wisdom (1 Kgs. 3), when he did not have a clean life? For he took great delight in women, and through this he sinned (ibid. 11).

Primum merito suo accepit spiritum prudentiae: postea vero quam mulieribus nimium coepit uti, et per hoc peccare, si habuit spiritum sapientiae, regni merito habuit; sicut et Nabuchodonosor regni merito in camino Christum vidit.

At first he received the spirit of prudence by his own merit; but after he began to make excessive use of women, and through this to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by the merit of the kingship; just as Nebuchadnezzar too, by the merit of the kingship, saw Christ in the furnace.

QUAESTIONUM EX NOVO TESTAMENTO PARS SECUNDA.

Questions from the New Testament, Second Part.

QUAESTIO PRIMA. — Cur facta et dicta dominica quatuor voluminibus a quatuor scriptoribus sunt in scripturam digesta?

First Question. Why have the Lord's deeds and words been set down in writing in four volumes by four writers?

Congruum fuit annum Domini acceptabilem, sicut dicit propheta (Isai. LXI, 2), a quatuor voluminibus veluti quatuor vicibus contineri. Sicut enim annus quatuor temporibus evolvitur, ita ut invicem sui egeant; ita et gesta et dicta Domini quatuor libris definita sunt, ita ut alter alterius indigeat: simul autem plenitudine perfecta sunt. Ut autem a quatuor scriptoribus ordinarentur, haec fuit causa, ut quia temporum diversa sunt nomina, Evangeliorum quoque essent diversa vocabula. Et si qua videntur in verbis contraria, sensu tamen non discrepant, per interpretationem aptam causae: sicut tempora cum videantur utique diversa nomine, aere, et cursu siderum, in effectu tamen eorum quae gignuntur non discrepant.

It was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says (Isa. 61:2), should be contained in four volumes as if in four seasons. For just as the year unfolds through four seasons, in such a way that they need one another, so also the deeds and words of the Lord have been set out in four books, in such a way that one needs the other, but together they are perfect in fullness. And that they should be arranged by four writers, this was the reason: that since the seasons have different names, the Gospels too should have different titles. And if some things seem contrary in the words, yet they do not disagree in sense, through an interpretation fitting to the matter: just as the seasons, though they certainly appear different in name, in air, and in the course of the stars, yet do not disagree in the effect of the things that are brought forth.

II. — Quoniam constat quatuor libros rite conscriptos gestorum et dictorum Domini, sciendum quis ordo eorum sit.

II. Since it is established that four books of the deeds and words of the Lord were duly written, we must know what their order is.

Evangelium ordinatione colligitur magis quam tempore. Matthaeus ergo primus ponendus est, quia ab ipsa promissione sumpsit initium, id est ab Abraham, cui facta promissio est incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Post hunc Lucas, quia incarnationem hanc quomodo facta est, narrat. Tertius Marcus, qui Evangelium quod praedicatum est a Christo, testatur in Lege promissum. Quartus autem Joannes, quia hunc qui promissus est Abrahae incarnandus, et a Luca quemadmodum incarnatus est dictum est, et a Marco Evangelium ejus juxta Isaiam prophetam praedicatum ostensum est, aperta voce ostendit Deum dicens, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. I, 1).

The Gospel is gathered by arrangement rather than by time. Matthew, therefore, is to be placed first, because he took his beginning from the promise itself, that is, from Abraham, to whom the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him Luke, because he narrates how this incarnation was accomplished. Third Mark, who testifies that the Gospel which was preached by Christ was promised in the Law. And fourth John, because He who was promised to Abraham as one to become incarnate, and of whom it was told by Luke how He became incarnate, and whose Gospel was shown by Mark to have been foretold according to the prophet Isaiah, John shows with open voice to be God, saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

III. — Quare Matthaeus Evangelium Christi describens dicit, Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David (Matth. I, 1); cum prior sit Abraham?

III. Why does Matthew, in writing the Gospel of Christ, say, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David (Matt. 1:1), when Abraham is earlier?

Propterea sic coepit, ut prius de ipso diceret a promissione incarnationis ejus genealogiam describens, sicut dicit Apostolus, Quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem (Rom. IX, 5). Ideo dixit, Liber

He began thus for this reason, that he might first speak of Him, describing His genealogy from the promise of His incarnation, as the Apostle says, Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5). Therefore he said, The book

Editors' notes and page, col. 2391

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: XVIII› · call in col 2391

(printed under page 544, upper half of col. 2391, above the part title) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 544, upper half of col. 2391, above the part title)

(a) ‹anchor: Quaestio prima› · call in col 2391

(printed under page 544) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 544)

(b) ‹anchor: II› · call in col 2391

(printed under page 544) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 544)

(printed under page 544) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 544)

Editors' prose

- The part title printed across page 544 at mid-page (QUAESTIONUM EX NOVO TESTAMENTO PARS SECUNDA) is set in layer 1 in c2391 above QUAESTIO PRIMA.

Page

running head: 2391 QUÆSTIONUM EX NOVO TEST. (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2392

XIX. — In Salomone, Spes est, inquit, in tenebris, et melior est canis vivus et leone mortuo.

XIX. — In Solomon: Hope is, he says, in darkness, and a living dog is better than a dead lion.

Tenebrae ignorantiam significant et gentilitatem: quia spes est in gentili potius quam in apostata, etc.

Darkness signifies ignorance and heathenism: because there is hope in a heathen rather than in an apostate, etc.

XX. — In Sapientia, Qui creavit, inquit, orbem ex materia invisa: et contra, quia ex nihilo facti sumus (S⟨a⟩p. XI, 18, et II, 2).

XX. — In Wisdom: Who created, he says, the world out of unseen matter: and on the other hand, that we were made out of nothing (Wis. 11:18, and 2:2).

Deum simul confusas substantias creasse, Scripturarum sensus declarat, permixtis utique tenebris. Hanc confusionem rerum, id est, aera, ignem, aquam, terram, tenebras, materiam dixit invisam, sicut in Genesi legitur: Terra autem erat, inquit, invisibilis et incomposita (Gen. I, 2). Ex hac ergo confusione creavit orbem instituto firmamento, ut intra ipsum aquis congregatis in unum habitatio fieret generi humano. Distinctis enim et discretis substantiis, in concavo domum habitabilem fecit.

That God created the substances all at once in confusion, the sense of the Scriptures declares, with darkness indeed mixed in. This confusion of things, that is, air, fire, water, earth, darkness, he called unseen matter, as is read in Genesis: But the earth was, it says, invisible and unformed (Gen. 1:2). Out of this confusion, therefore, He created the world by setting up the firmament, so that, the waters having been gathered into one within it, a dwelling might come to be for the human race. For when the substances had been distinguished and separated, He made a habitable home in the hollow.

generationis; quia ex multis et diversis incarnatio Christi consistit, ut quia ex uno diversi esse coeperunt, de omnibus corpulentiam traheret. De Judaeis et Gentibus et de dignis et indignis: quia Ruth Moabitida fuit, et Bersabee ex moecha facta uxor est; ut omnium carnem ad se trahens, ad unitatem illos genuinam revocaret. Idcirco, Jesu Christi filii, ait, David, cum prior sit Abraham; quia specialiter Christus dicitur filius David, propter regnum: ut sicut Deus de Deo, ita et rex de rege ortum caperet juxta carnem. Sic enim dictum est ad David: De fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam (Psal. CXXXI, 11).

of the generation; because the incarnation of Christ is made up of many and diverse [persons], so that, since from one man diverse [peoples] began to exist, He might draw bodily substance from all. From Jews and Gentiles, and from worthy and unworthy: because Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba, from an adulteress, became a wife; so that, drawing to Himself the flesh of all, He might call them back to genuine unity. Therefore he says, Of Jesus Christ the son of David, although Abraham is earlier; because Christ is especially called the son of David on account of the kingdom: so that, just as God from God, so also as king from king He might take His origin according to the flesh. For thus it was said to David: Of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your seat (Ps. 131:11).

IV. — Quid est, ut generationes omnes in tres partes divideret supradictus Matthaeus apostolus (Matth. I, 17).

IV. — What does it mean that the aforesaid apostle Matthew divided all the generations into three parts (Matt. 1:17)?

Causae faciunt divisiones et tempora. Idcirco ab Abraham usque ad David distinxit. Prima enim pars causae ab Abraham usque ad David est; quia Abraham pater fidei est, et David pater regni. Saül enim indignus effectus, seipsum regno privavit. A David vero usque ad transmigrationem alia pars causae, in qua regnum amiserunt facti reprobi Judaei. Post transmigrationem autem Babylonis usque ad Christum tertia pars lamentationis et miseriae, captivitatis et dispersionis illorum: quia quamvis post transmigrationem Babylonis et septuaginta annorum tempus, quando a Cyro dimissi reversi sunt ad sua, nunquam tamen causam vel requiem habuerunt. Neque enim postea Judaea regnare potuit, sed solliciti semper et pervagantes fuerunt. Nam utique tempore nativitatis Christi captivi fuerunt, dicentes: Nos, non habemus regem nisi Caesarem (Joan. XIX, 15). Hac ergo causa Matthaeus tres gradus fecit generationis, ut etiam meritorum et causarum mutationes ostenderet a promissione facta usque ad Christum, anni autem tempora usque ad finem in unam gratiam permanere.

Causes make divisions and times. Therefore he marked off [a part] from Abraham as far as David. For the first part of the cause is from Abraham to David; because Abraham is the father of faith, and David the father of the kingdom. For Saul, having become unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom. From David, then, as far as the deportation is the second part of the cause, in which the Jews, having become reprobate, lost the kingdom. But after the deportation to Babylon as far as Christ is the third part, that of their lamentation and misery, captivity and dispersion: because although after the deportation to Babylon and the period of seventy years, when, released by Cyrus, they returned to their own land, they nevertheless never had cause or rest. For Judaea was not able to reign afterwards, but they were always anxious and wandering. For indeed at the time of the nativity of Christ they were captives, saying: We have no king but Caesar (John 19:15). For this reason, therefore, Matthew made three stages of the generation, so as to show also the changes of merits and of causes from the promise that was made as far as Christ, but the times of the year to remain in one grace until the end.

V. — Quare cum quadraginta et una sint generationes, Evangelista quadraginta duas numerasse videtur (Matth. I, 17)? Ter enim quatuordecim, qui faciunt, nisi quadraginta duo?

V. — Why, when there are forty-one generations, does the Evangelist seem to have counted forty-two (Matt. 1:17)? For three times fourteen, what do they make but forty-two?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2392

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: XIX› · call in col 2392

(a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 39.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 39.

(printed under page 544, upper half of col. 2392, above the part title)

(b) ‹anchor: XX› · call in col 2392

(b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 544, upper half of col. 2392, above the part title)

(1) ‹anchor: nunquam tamen causam› · call in col 2392

¹ Morel affirmat legendum, pausam, Vid. Element. Critic., pag. 321. M.

Morel asserts that "pausam" (rest) should be read; see the Elementa Critica, p. 321. M.

(printed under page 544)

(a) ‹anchor: IV› · call in col 2392

(a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 544)

(b) ‹anchor: V› · call in col 2392

(b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 544)

Page

running head: NOVO TEST. PARS SECUNDA. 2392 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2393

Secundum numerum, quadraginta et una generationes numerantur; juxta rationem autem, quadraginta duae probantur. Jechonias autem in transmigratione genitus, id est rex factus, sicut continetur in Paralipomenon, finem fecit secundae parti: et quia post transmigrationem remansit in regno permittente rege Nabuchodonosor, ab ipso incipit tertia pars, quae venit usque ad Christum. Ideoque bis computatur, ut et concludat secundam partem, et initiet tertiam Jechon⟨i⟩as. Sic enim habet: Et post transmigrationem Babylonis, Jechonias genuit Salathiel (Matth. I, 12). Usque ad istum autem Salathiel regnaverunt qui sunt ex Juda, scilicet quorum ex radice nascitur Joseph. Nam Jechonias primum filium habuit Assur nomine. Sed quoniam Joseph per radicem Salathiel originem trahit, praetermisso Assur Salathiel Jechoniae patri suo subjunctus est, ut veniretur ad Joseph, cui erat desponsata virgo Maria. Nam et post Josiam Jechonias sequitur. Sed quia per Joachim patrem Jechoniae venitur ad Joseph, praetermisso eo, id est Joachim, Jechoniam posuit, ut numerum quatuordecim generationum non egrederetur, et quia post Jechoniam Sa⟨l⟩athiel et filius ejus per quem oritur Joseph.

By number, forty-one generations are counted; but by reckoning, forty-two are proved. Now Jechonias, begotten in the deportation, that is, made king, as is contained in Chronicles, made the end of the second part: and because after the deportation he remained in the kingdom with King Nabuchodonosor's permission, the third part, which comes down to Christ, begins from him. And so Jechonias is counted twice, so that he both concludes the second part and begins the third. For thus it runs: And after the deportation to Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel (Matt. 1:12). Now up to this Salathiel those reigned who are of Judah, namely those from whose root Joseph is born. For Jechonias had as his first son one named Assur. But since Joseph draws his origin through the root of Salathiel, Assur was passed over and Salathiel was joined to Jechonias his father, so that one might come to Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed. For Jechonias also follows after Josias. But because one comes to Joseph through Joachim the father of Jechonias, he passed him over, that is Joachim, and set down Jechonias, so as not to exceed the number of fourteen generations, and because after Jechonias [comes] Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph arises.

VI. — Quare in Matthaeo pater Joseph Jacob scribitur, et in Luca Heli; ut aut duos patres habere imperite descriptus sit, aut certe qui vere pater sit nesciatur?

VI. — Why in Matthew is Joseph's father written as Jacob, and in Luke as Heli, so that either he has been unskilfully described as having two fathers, or at any rate it is not known who his true father is?

Non est ambiguum patrem Joseph Jacob fuisse. Ordo enim a David per Salomonem tramitem suum tenens, recto cursu pervenit ad Jacob, etc.

It is not doubtful that Jacob was Joseph's father. For the line, keeping its path from David through Solomon, arrives by a straight course at Jacob, etc.

VII. — Manifestum quia natus Salvator Dei Filius et Christus appellatus est: cur ergo post baptismum accessit ad eum tentator, dicens, Si Filius Dei es? etc. (Matth. IV, 3).

VII. — It is evident that the Saviour, when born, was called Son of God and Christ: why then after His baptism did the tempter approach Him, saying, If Thou art the Son of God? etc. (Matt. 4:3).

Sic natus Salvator ex Virgine est, ut et Christus esset et Filius Dei, non factura, sed ortu. Adhuc autem in minori aetate potentiam suam evacuans, hoc est a potestate sua dissimulans, impudentiam diaboli non provocavit. Baptizatus autem descendente in se Spiritu sancto, cum apparuisset hominibus testimonio Dei Patris, aemulatione zeli ductus est inimicus ad injuriam, videns hoc factum sibi obesse: intellexit enim ordinationem baptismatis ad salutem hominum procuratam. Ideoque accedit ad Salvatorem hujus rei principem, non ut approbet, sed ut locum inveniat evertendi. Tentatio enim aliquando ad probationem fit, aliquando sub dolo ad subversionem. Arbitratus est enim quasi Salvatori elicuisset secundum dolum voluntatis suae responsum, ut regnum suum totum haberet securus, quod duce Salvatoris doctrinae subjecto, nemo mortem ejus evaderet.

The Saviour was born of the Virgin in such a way that He was both Christ and Son of God, not by making but by birth. But while still of younger age, emptying His power, that is, concealing His might, He did not provoke the impudence of the devil. But when He had been baptized, the Holy Spirit descending upon Him, and had been manifested to men by the testimony of God the Father, the enemy, led by the rivalry of jealousy, was drawn to do injury, seeing that this deed was against him: for he understood that the ordinance of baptism had been provided for the salvation of men. And so he approaches the Saviour, the author of this thing, not to approve it, but to find an opening for overthrowing it. For temptation is sometimes made for testing, sometimes, under deceit, for subversion. For he supposed that he had, as it were, drawn from the Saviour an answer according to the deceit of his own will, so that he might hold his whole kingdom secure, because, with the leader of the Saviour's teaching made subject, no one would escape death at his hands.

VIII. — Cur Salvator tentanti se diabolo non aliter quam exemplis Legis resistit (Matth. IV, 4-10)?

VIII. — Why does the Saviour resist the devil tempting Him in no other way than with examples from the Law (Matt. 4:4–10)?

Salvator non solum diabolo tentanti respondit, sed et Judaeis per quos crudelitatis suae impietatem egit in Salvatorem. Praescius enim Judaeos se inimicum Legis dicturos, patris eorum impudentiam diaboli, testimoniis Legis compressit, ut patrem in filios, et filios in patrem condemnaret.

The Saviour answered not only the devil tempting Him, but also the Jews, through whom he carried out the impiety of his cruelty against the Saviour. For foreknowing that the Jews would call Him an enemy of the Law, He suppressed the impudence of their father the devil with testimonies of the Law, so as to condemn the father in the sons, and the sons in the father.

IX. — Utquid Salvator post baptismum quadraginta diebus jejunavit, postea esuriit (Matth. IV, 2)? Qui enim quadraginta diebus jejunavit, potuit jam non esurire.

IX. — Why did the Saviour fast forty days after His baptism, and afterwards hunger (Matt. 4:2)? For He who fasted forty days could have no longer hungered.

Scriptum est, Fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei, sta in justitia et timore, et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem (Eccli. II, 1). Ideoque Salvator ut formam nobis daret, jejunavit; ut simili modo nos quoque jejuniis insistentes, omnem motum diaboli contra nos oppositum, Dei auxilio superemus, scientes exemplo Salvatoris tunc magis insidias adversarii cavendas, cum ad Dei timorem accedimus. Dolet enim quod recesserimus

It is written, Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation (Ecclus. 2:1). And so the Saviour fasted in order to give us a pattern; so that in like manner we too, persevering in fasts, may by God's help overcome every movement of the devil set against us, knowing by the Saviour's example that the snares of the adversary are to be guarded against more when we approach the fear of God. For he grieves that we

Editors' notes and page, col. 2393

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (VI)› · call in col 2393

(printed under page 545) (a) Eadem est cum ea quae inter prima vulgatas numeratur quaest. 56.

It is the same as the one numbered Question 56 among those first published.

(printed under page 545)

(b) ‹anchor: VII› · call in col 2393

(printed under page 545) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 545)

(printed under page 545) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 545)

(d) ‹anchor: IX› · call in col 2393

(printed under page 545) (d) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 545) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 545) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 545)

Page

running head: 2393 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word recesserimus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2394

PL 35:2394

ab illo : ideo plus saevit adversum nos. Hoc nobis gessit Salvator, non sibi. Similiter et quod esuriit, non sua causa, sed nostra est. Jejuniis enim cum superatae fuissent tentationes diaboli, quae ideo scriptae non sunt, quia ad profectum doctrinae non pertinent; postea, id est, post quadraginta dies permisit, ut (quod hominis erat) pateretur famem; ut videns diabolus, qui jam fuerat superatus, infirmitatem in eo famis, incitaretur rursum ad tentandum, videns hominem esse a quo vincebatur. Hoc enim fuit mysterium Salvatoris, ut quia homini victo insultabat et dominabatur, ab homine vinceretur, ut Dei virtus homini victoriam acquireret : et sic magis vilis effectus est satanas, cum et hominem cernit, et virtutem non hominis intelligit. Mirabatur enim stupore hebetatus, quod mysterium inesset quod se lateret : ut potestas esset accedendi, circumveniendi non esset. Duabus enim ex causis torquebatur. Videns enim infirmitatem, accedebat, et inveniebat virtutem; ut cernens hominem suspectus esset de Dei virtute. Ad hoc ergo esuriit, ut illuderet astutiam satanae. Idcirco autem non amplius jejunavit, ut concordaret Moysi et Eliae.

have withdrawn from him: therefore he rages the more against us. This the Saviour did for us, not for Himself. Likewise also the fact that He hungered is not for His own sake, but for ours. For when the temptations of the devil had been overcome by fasting (and these are not written down for this reason, that they do not pertain to the advancement of teaching), afterwards, that is, after forty days, He permitted that He should suffer hunger (which was proper to man), so that the devil, who had already been overcome, seeing in Him the weakness of hunger, might be roused again to tempting, seeing that it was a man by whom he was being vanquished. For this was the mystery of the Saviour: that, because [the devil] mocked and lorded it over man once conquered, he should be conquered by a man, so that the power of God might win the victory for man; and thus Satan was made the more contemptible, since he both perceives a man and understands a power that is not a man's. For, dulled with stupor, he marvelled that there was a mystery within that was hidden from him: that there was the possibility of approaching, but not of getting round [Him]. For he was tormented for two reasons. For seeing weakness, he approached, and found power; so that, perceiving a man, he was left in suspicion concerning the power of God. For this purpose, then, He hungered, that He might make sport of the cunning of Satan. But He fasted no longer for this reason, that He might agree with Moses and Elijah.

X. — Quid est ut cum prius Joannes Baptista testimonium perhibuerit Salvatori, postea dubitaverit dicens per discipulos : Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus (Matth. XI, 3-10)?

X. — How is it that, though John the Baptist earlier bore witness to the Saviour, he afterwards doubted, saying through his disciples: Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another? (Matt. 11:3–10)

Qui Joannem putant dubitasse, detrahunt Salvatori Aut enim illum recte asserunt dubitasse, aut certe imperitiae arguunt Salvatorem; quia sicut putant, male de se sentientem laudavit. Sed quia falli Salvatorem impossibile est, recte laudatus ab eo Joannes est. Si recte laudatus est, non dubitavit. Ipso enim tempore quo misit ad Jesum Joannes de carcere discipulos suos, dicens : Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus? tunc Jesus respondit discipulis ejus dicens : Ite, dicite Joanni quae videtis et auditis. Caeci vident, surdi audiunt, leprosi mundantur, claudi ambulant, mortui resurgunt, et beatus ille qui non fuerit scandalizatus in me. Abeuntibus autem nuntiis Joannis, coepit Jesus dicere ad turbas de Joanne Baptista : Quid existis in desertum videre? arundinem vento moveri, aut hominem mollibus vestibus indutum? Ecce qui mollibus vestiuntur, in domibus regum sunt. Sed quid existis videre? prophetam? Dico vobis quoniam plus quam prophetam. Hic est de quo scriptum est, Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparet viam tuam. Tunc publicani laudaverunt Deum, baptizati baptismo Joannis. Quanta autem laus data Joanni est, ut plus diceretur esse quam propheta, et beatum vocat Salvator eum qui non scandalizatur in se? quomodo laudatur Joannes qui dubitando scandalizatus est? Sed non utique dubitavit. Laus enim beatum illum probat, quia non est scandalizatus. Nam et Salvator idcirco ipso tempore in laudem Joannis prorupit, ut ostenderet sensum Joannis esse liberum a discipulorum ejus dubitatione. Joannes enim volens mirantes discipulos suos corroborare in fide Salvatoris, sciens exitum sibi imminere, ea quae de ipso dicebat, ore ejus voluit confirmari : ideo ut testis verus sit, testimonium potioris implorat, ut eorum concordia omnis ambiguitas auferretur. Hoc commentum Joannis est, ut dubios suis quasi verbis mitteret, ut eadem audientes a Salvatore quae audierant a Joanne, firmarentur, scientes idonei procuratoris et Domini coelestis testimonium in dubium vocari non posse. Idcirco et Salvator quasi Joanni respondit, ut inter Joannem interrogantem et Salvatorem respondentem discerent veritatem.

Those who think that John doubted disparage the Saviour. For either they assert that he rightly doubted, or else they charge the Saviour with ignorance, because, as they think, He praised one who thought ill of Him. But since it is impossible for the Saviour to be deceived, John was rightly praised by Him. If he was rightly praised, he did not doubt. For at the very time when John sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, saying: Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another? then Jesus answered his disciples, saying: Go, tell John what you see and hear. The blind see, the deaf hear, lepers are cleansed, the lame walk, the dead rise again, and blessed is he who shall not have been scandalized in Me. And when John's messengers had gone away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John the Baptist: What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed moved by the wind, or a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are clothed in soft things are in the houses of kings. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? I say to you, more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send My angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way. Then the publicans praised God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. And how great is the praise given to John, that he should be said to be more than a prophet; and the Saviour calls blessed him who is not scandalized in Him: how is John praised, who by doubting was scandalized? But he certainly did not doubt. For the praise proves him blessed, because he was not scandalized. For the Saviour broke out in praise of John at that very time for this reason, to show that John's mind was free from the doubting of his disciples. For John, wishing to strengthen his wondering disciples in faith in the Saviour, knowing that his end was imminent, willed that the things he said about Him should be confirmed by His mouth: therefore, that he might be a true witness, he implores the testimony of one greater, so that by their agreement all ambiguity might be removed. This is John's device: that he should send the doubters as though with words of their own, so that, hearing from the Saviour the same things they had heard from John, they might be made firm, knowing that the testimony of a fit agent and of the heavenly Lord cannot be called into doubt. Therefore the Saviour too answered as though to John, so that between John asking and the Saviour answering they might learn the truth.

XI. — Quid est quod superius Herodem mortuum legimus (Matth. II, 19), infra autem et post multos annos Herodem Joannem occidisse (Id. XIV, 1-11), cum superius mortuo Herode Joannes supervixerit?

XI. — How is it that above we read that Herod was dead (Matt. 2:19), but below, and after many years, that Herod killed John (Matt. 14:1–11), when, by the account above, Herod having died, John outlived him?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2394

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (X)› · call in col 2394

(printed under page 545)

(b) ‹anchor: XI› · call in col 2394

(printed under page 545)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2394 (left half of the running head, over col. 2393, cut off by the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2395

Herodes rex fuit Judaeae : hic habuit filios quatuor, Archelaum, Herodem, Philippum, et Lysaniam : sed mortuo Herode patre eorum, successit Archelaus, quo mortuo, in quatuor partes divisum est regnum supra dicti Herodis, ita ut Pilatus in partem regni quartam admitteretur, quasi praeses, non quasi rex (Matth. II, 22, et Luc. III, 1) : filii autem Herodis reges dicerentur. Denique mortuo iterum Philippo, accepit uxorem illius Herodes frater ejus, de qua arguebatur a Joanne Baptista, qua causa occidit eum Herodes filius supra memorati Herodis. Quid enim dicit? Herodes, inquit, tetrarcha; id est, in parte quarta regni positus sui patris Herodis. Quid ergo ambigitur quando significatio adjecti cognominis ostendit alium hunc esse Herodem? Ipse est enim qui et Jacobum occidit g⟨l⟩adio, fratrem Joannis, qui postea percussus ab angelo Dei scatens vermibus exspiravit.

Herod was king of Judaea: he had four sons, Archelaus, Herod, Philip and Lysanias; but when Herod their father died, Archelaus succeeded, and when he died, the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted into the fourth part of the kingdom as governor, not as king (Matt. 2:22, and Luke 3:1), while the sons of Herod were called kings. Then, when Philip in turn had died, Herod his brother took his wife, concerning whom he was reproved by John the Baptist, for which reason Herod, the son of the aforementioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? Herod, it says, the tetrarch; that is, set over the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. Why then is there any doubt, when the meaning of the added surname shows that this is a different Herod? For it is he who also killed with the sword James, the brother of John, who afterwards, struck by an angel of God, expired swarming with worms.

XII. — Orandum utique pro inimicis docuit Dominus : quid est ergo ut contra animae occisorum ulcisci petant, a Domino postulantes vindictam?

XII. — The Lord taught that one must certainly pray for enemies: what is it, then, that on the contrary the souls of the slain ask to be avenged, demanding vengeance from the Lord?

Apocalypsis cum futura mala et tribulationes diffidentiae et malae vitae causas Deo vindice testaretur, etc.

Since the Apocalypse was testifying that future evils and tribulations, with God as avenger, are the consequences of distrust and of an evil life, etc.

XIII. — Si jam praedicante Salvatore vel Joanne Lex cessavit, quomodo Salvator ait : Non veni solvere Legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere? Si enim cessavit, quomodo non solut⟨a⟩ est, aut destructa, quae agendi amisit auctoritatem?

XIII. — If, when the Saviour or John was already preaching, the Law ceased, how does the Saviour say: I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil? For if it ceased, how has it not been abolished or destroyed, since it has lost its authority to act?

Prophetarum dicta de Salvatoris adven⟨t⟩u, impleta sunt cum venit, etc.

The sayings of the Prophets about the coming of the Saviour were fulfilled when He came, etc.

XIV. — Joannes ad Dominum, Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus (Matth. XI)? Sub sua persona discipulorum suorum agit causam. Non enim Joannes dubitabat, qui dixerat : Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi (Joan. I, 29) : sed ut discipulis suis satisfaceret, mittit illos suis verbis, ut Salvatoris ore firmaret quod ipse de illo docebat; ut post excessum suum sine dubitatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur.

XIV. — John [said] to the Lord, Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another (Matt. 11)? Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples. For John was not in doubt, he who had said: Behold the lamb of God, behold Him Who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29); but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the Saviour's mouth he might confirm what he himself was teaching about Him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt.

XV. — Quare Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem, et post recte cessasse dicuntur (Matth. XI, 13)? Quia jam de quo prophetabant, advenit. Quare Lex usque ad Joannem, cum Apostolus dicat, Legi nos subditos debere esse : Quae autem, inquit, sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt (Rom. XIII, 1)?

XV. — Why are the Law and the Prophets said to be until John, and after [him] rightly to have ceased (Matt. 11:13)? Because He of Whom they were prophesying has now come. Why is the Law until John, when the Apostle says that we ought to be subject to the Law: But those which are, he says, are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1)?

Legis quidem unum nom⟨e⟩n est, sed tripartitam habet intelligentiam. Prima enim pars Legis de Deo est. Sic enim Lex a lectione dicta est, ut de multis quid eligas scias. Inter errores ergo positi acceperunt ut eligant verum, id est reprobato diabolo eligant Deum. Secunda autem Legis pars haec est, quae scilicet praeceptis continetur, quae sic incipit, Honora patrem et matrem. Tertia vero in neomeniis et in sabbato est, et in escis discernendis ac eligendis, et in circumcisione et in hostiis pecudum offerendis. Hanc itaque Legem dicit usque ad Joannem, non ultra servandam. Sic enim data est, ut completo tempore cessaret, nec enim fuit ab initio, sed ex causa data ad tempus est, ut adveniente Salvatore cessaret Lex. Ergo de Deo manet tam Lex praeceptorum quam natura ejus quae sine dubio est, ab ipso aboleri non potest. Per ipsum enim proficitur ad promissum praemium. Timor enim sollicitudinem parit.

The Law indeed has one name, but it has a threefold meaning. For the first part of the Law concerns God. For the Law (lex) is so named from choosing (lectio), so that out of many things you may know what to choose. Placed, then, amid errors, they received it so that they might choose the true, that is, that rejecting the devil they might choose God. The second part of the Law is this, namely that which is contained in the precepts, which begins thus: Honour father and mother. The third lies in new moons and in the sabbath, and in distinguishing and choosing foods, and in circumcision and in offering sacrifices of cattle. It is this Law, therefore, that he says was to be kept until John, not beyond. For it was given in such a way that it should cease when its time was complete; for it did not exist from the beginning, but was given for a reason and for a time, so that at the coming of the Saviour the Law should cease. Therefore the Law of the precepts, which concerns God, remains, as does His nature, which is beyond doubt; it cannot be abolished by Him. For through it one advances to the promised reward. For fear begets solicitude.

XVI. — Cum Salvator baptismum Joannis de coelo dicat, cur Nicodemo, cum de baptismo loquitur, dubitanti ait : Si terrestria dixi vobis et non creditis? etc.

XVI. — Since the Saviour says that the baptism of John is from heaven, why does He say to Nicodemus, who was doubting, when He is speaking of baptism: If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe? etc.

Quod dixit, Si terrestria dixi vobis, et non creditis, non pertinet ad baptismum, etc.

His saying, If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, does not pertain to baptism, etc.

XVII. — Quid est ut Salvator mulieri alienigenae,

XVII. — How is it that the Saviour, to a foreign

Editors' notes and page, col. 2395

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: XII› · call in col 2395

(printed under page 546) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 68.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 68.

(printed under page 546)

(b) ‹anchor: XIII› · call in col 2395

(printed under page 546) (b) Ibid., quaest. 69.

Ibid., Question 69.

(printed under page 546)

(printed under page 546) (c) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 546)

(d) ‹anchor: XV› · call in col 2395

(printed under page 546) (d) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 546)

(e) ‹anchor: XVI› · call in col 2395

(printed under page 546) (e) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 59.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 59.

(printed under page 546)

(f) ‹anchor: XVII› · call in col 2395

(printed under page 546) (f) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 546) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest 64.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 64.

(printed under page 546) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 546)

Page

running head: 2395 QUAESTIONUM EX NOVO TEST.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2396

id est Chananaeae, inter initia misericordiam denegaret (Matth. XV, 22-28), cum et Centurioni alienigenae, et leproso quem ipse Jesus alienigenam dixit, beneficium impertiendae salutis non negaverit (Luc. VII, 2-10, et XVII, 12-19)?

woman, that is, a Canaanite, refused mercy at the beginning (Matt. 15:22–28), when He did not refuse the benefit of imparting health both to the centurion, a foreigner, and to the leper whom Jesus Himself called a foreigner (Luke 7:2–10, and 17:12–19)?

Dignum factum Salvatoris ipsa causa designat. Absurdum enim erat, et ad injuriam promissionis Patrum proficiebat, si mulier quae Judaeorum Deum non confessa fuerat, acciperet beneficium promissum genti confitenti Deum. Inter initium ideo negatum est illi. At ubi autem cervice flexa Salvatoris verbis fidem non negavit, sed confessa est Judaeos credentes esse filios, Gentes autem canes vel servos, per quod junxit se fidei dominicae; quia servi dominum indicant, et dominus non est sine servis: unitas facta est subjecti et subjicientis. Hinc est unde meruit consequi quod precata est. Centurio autem qui beneficium a Salvatore incunctanter accepit, olim se Dei rebus infecerat. Denique dicunt majores Judaeorum ad Dominum: Dignus est ut praestes illi; diligit enim gentem nostram, et synagogam ipse aedificavit nobis. Leprosum vero alienigenam dixit Dominus, non fide, sed natione. Erat enim Samaritanus, quos constat ex origine esse Babyloniorum. Et hic tamen non sine confessione consecutus est beneficium: quia dictum erat discipulis a Domino: In viam gentium ne abieritis, et in civitatem Samaritanorum ne introieritis, sed ite potius ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel (Matth. X, 5, 6); hoc est, ut non prius praedicaretur Samaritanis et Gentibus quam Judaeis, quorum fuerat promissio haec. At ubi Judaei coeperunt repudiare fidem ⟨C⟩hristi, tunc et Samaritanae se obtulit Salvator, et post crucem Centurioni Cornelio: a Chananaea autem requisitus suscepit eam; quia non erat adhuc tempus, ut offerretur illis salus.

The very cause shows the Saviour's deed to be fitting. For it was absurd, and tended to the injury of the promise made to the Fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews should receive the benefit promised to the nation that confessed God. Therefore at the beginning it was refused to her. But when, with bowed neck, she did not deny faith to the Saviour's words, but confessed that the believing Jews are sons, and the Gentiles dogs or servants, she thereby joined herself to the Lord's faith; for servants point to a master, and a master is not without servants: a unity was made of the one subjected and the one subjecting. Hence it is that she merited to obtain what she had prayed for. But the centurion, who received the benefit from the Saviour without delay, had long before steeped himself in the things of God. Indeed, the elders of the Jews say to the Lord: He is worthy that Thou shouldst grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and he himself built the synagogue for us. The leper, however, the Lord called a foreigner, not by faith but by nation. For he was a Samaritan, and it is established that they are of Babylonian origin. And yet even he did not obtain the benefit without confession: for it had been said to the disciples by the Lord: Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into the city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep which have perished of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5–6); that is, that it should not be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles before the Jews, to whom this promise had belonged. But when the Jews began to reject the faith of Christ, then the Saviour offered Himself both to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius: but when sought by the Canaanite woman He received her; because it was not yet the time for salvation to be offered to them.

XVIII. — Quomodo probatur quod dixit Salvator, quia post tres dies et post tres noctes a mortuis resurgeret; cum utique coena pura passus, illucescente die dominico, cum adhuc tenebrae essent, resurrexerit? Unde numerus dierum et noctium non convenisse videtur.

XVIII. — How is what the Saviour said proved, that after three days and after three nights He would rise from the dead; since in fact, having suffered on the day of the pure supper, He rose as the Lord's day was dawning, while it was still dark? Whence the number of days and nights does not seem to have agreed.

Praescius Salvator omnium quae in se futura erant, h⟨ae⟩c protestatus est, etc.

The Saviour, foreknowing all things that were to come upon Him, declared these things, etc.

XIX. — Quare Salvator, Orate, ait, ne fiat fuga vestra hieme vel sabbato (Matth. XXIV, 20): cum tempus persecutionis hujus differri non possit, dicente Apostolo, Qui revelabitur in suo tempore (II Thess. II, 6, 8); et in Actibus Apostolus inquit, Definiens tempora et terminos habitationis eorum (Act. XVII, 26)? Et cur hieme fugam vel sabbato non expedire significat?

XIX. — Why does the Saviour say, Pray that your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath (Matt. 24:20), when the time of this persecution cannot be put off, since the Apostle says, Who shall be revealed in his own time (2 Thess. 2:6, 8); and in the Acts the Apostle says, Determining the times and the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:26)? And why does He indicate that flight in winter or on the sabbath is not expedient?

Hieme tuta fuga non est: frigora enim sunt, imbres assidui, ningit, gelat, flumina exeunt; ideoque fugientibus pergrave est. Latere enim in silvis non possunt, neque in montibus, neque in speluncis. Sabbato autem juxta Judaeos longius a civitate exire non licet, nec altum ascendere, ac per hoc fugi sabbato non potest. Quomodo haec tempora fugam tutam non faciunt, propter impedimenta supra dicta; ita et fuga nostra tuta non erit, si nos obligatos impedimentis carnalibus invenerit praedicta persecutio. Detinent enim homines quasi compedes desideria saecularia, id est facultates mundanae, ne edicta diaboli possint effugere. Ideo ergo orandum est ne tempore quo fugiendum est, hiemis et sabbati in nobis ratio inveniatur, sed ut liberos nos ab his impedimentis Dei praestet auxilium, ut non sit quod nos desiderio sui captos mancipet mundo. Quoniam ergo de novissima persecutione loquebatur Salvator, quae futura est ab Antichristo; ideo hiemem posuit, quia novissimum tempus est: et sabbatum similiter, quia postremus dies est, ut sicut his temporibus aspera e⟨t⟩ difficilis fuga est, ita significaret illo tempore tam

In winter flight is not safe: for there is cold, continual rain, it snows, it freezes, rivers overflow; and therefore it is very grievous for those fleeing. For they cannot hide in the woods, nor in the mountains, nor in caves. On the sabbath, moreover, according to the Jews it is not lawful to go out farther from the city, nor to climb on high, and for this reason one cannot flee on the sabbath. Just as these times do not make flight safe, because of the hindrances mentioned above; so too our flight will not be safe if the foretold persecution finds us bound by carnal hindrances. For worldly desires, that is, the riches of this world, hold men back like fetters, so that they cannot escape the edicts of the devil. Therefore we must pray that, at the time when we must flee, the condition of winter and of the sabbath be not found in us, but that the help of God may grant us to be free from these hindrances, so that there be nothing whereby the world may enslave us, held captive by desire for it. Since, then, the Saviour was speaking of the last persecution, which is to come from Antichrist, He therefore set down winter, because it is the last season; and the sabbath likewise, because it is the last day; so that, just as at these times flight is harsh and difficult, so He might signify that at that time

Editors' notes and page, col. 2396

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: bato non potest› · call in col 2396

¹ Ms. Germanensis, fugere sabbato non potes.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "fugere sabbato non potes" (you cannot flee on the sabbath).

(printed under page 546)

(a) ‹anchor: XVIII› · call in col 2396

(printed under page 546)

(b) ‹anchor: XIX› · call in col 2396

(printed under page 546)

Page

running head: [cut off at left]X NOVO TEST. PARS SECUNDA. 2396
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2397

graves futuras persecutiones et pressuras, ut vix aliquis eas possit effugere.

so grievous would be the persecutions and afflictions to come that scarcely anyone could escape them.

XX. — Salvator cum se passurum diceret, et post tertium diem resurrecturum, adjecit, Et postquam resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam, ibi me videbitis; et angelus mulieribus similiter (Matth. XXVI, 32, et XXVIII, 7): cum tamen inveniatur a mulieribus et a discipulis suis in Jerusalem.

XX. When the Saviour said that He would suffer, and would rise again after the third day, He added: And after I have risen again, I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see Me. The angel said the same to the women (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7). Yet He is found by the women and by His disciples in Jerusalem.

Verba Salvatoris retractare infidelis est: sed te video non de verbis Salvatoris dubitare, sed sensum requirere, quare cum in Jerosolymis post passionem suam visus sit, dixit se in Galilaea ab his videri. In Jerosolyma visus est, sed particulatim ad recreandos animos discipulorum: in Galilaea vero ab omnibus simul. Ergo qui in Jerusalem visuri illum erant per partes, in Galilaeam illis constituit ut simul omnibus appareret, et ad ordinandam disciplinam daret praecepta.

To call the Saviour's words into question belongs to an unbeliever. But I see that you do not doubt the Saviour's words. You are seeking their sense: why, when He was seen in Jerusalem after His passion, He said that He would be seen by them in Galilee. He was seen in Jerusalem, but piecemeal, to refresh the spirits of the disciples. In Galilee, however, He was seen by all together. So those who were to see Him in Jerusalem in parts, He appointed to Galilee, so that He might appear to all together and give precepts for ordering the discipline.

XXI. — Tres evangelistae sexta hora crucifixum dicunt Salvatorem, Marcus vero evangelista tertia hora dicit crucifixum. Sed quidam strenui (industria sua) tertia hora sententiam datam dicunt, ac per hoc tertia hora crucifixum. Data enim quis sententia jam mortuus habetur. Sed constat post quintam horam in sextam Pilatum sedisse pro tribunali, et sic sententiam dedisse, sicut Joannes ostendit.

XXI. Three evangelists say that the Saviour was crucified at the sixth hour, but Mark the evangelist says that He was crucified at the third hour. Some energetic people, by their own ingenuity, say that sentence was given at the third hour, and that in this sense He was crucified at the third hour, for once sentence has been given a man is already held to be dead. But it is established that after the fifth hour, going into the sixth, Pilate sat at the tribunal and so gave sentence, as John shows.

Obscuris vera involvere non est bonum. Nam tres evangelistas verum dixisse ipsa concordia obtestatur, etc.

It is not good to wrap true things in obscure ones. For their very agreement bears witness that the three evangelists spoke the truth, etc.

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

XXII. If the Saviour was baptized in order to be an example, why, having been circumcised Himself, did He forbid others to be circumcised?

Circumcisio usque ad Christum indulta est. Abraham autem circumcisionem in Christo promisso accepit, etc.

Circumcision was granted until Christ. Abraham, moreover, received circumcision in the Christ who had been promised, etc.

XXIII. — Judaeis accusantibus discipulos eo quod facerent contra legem sabbati, spicas vellendo, Salvator exemplum protulit David, dicens: Nescitis quid fecerit David cum esuriret, quomodo accepit panes propositionis et manducavit, et dedit his qui secum erant, quod non licebat nisi solis sacerdotibus? Quod exemplum non excusare videtur discipulos, sed possunt tam hi quam David praevaricatores videri.

XXIII. When the Jews accused the disciples of acting against the law of the sabbath by plucking ears of grain, the Saviour brought forward the example of David, saying: Do you not know what David did when he was hungry, how he took the loaves of the presentation and ate, and gave to those who were with him, which was not lawful except for the priests alone? This example does not seem to excuse the disciples. Rather, both they and David may be seen as transgressors.

Noluit Salvator de tempore impleti sabbati praejudicare Judaeos, etc.

The Saviour did not wish to prejudge the Jews concerning the time when the sabbath would be fulfilled, etc.

XXIV. — Cur Salvator discipulos suos filios tonitrui appellavit (Marc. III, 17), qui plus magis videantur filii Dei dici? tonitrua enim dicuntur collisione nubium fieri.

XXIV. Why did the Saviour call His disciples sons of thunder (Mark 3:17), when they would seem much rather to be called sons of God? For thunder is said to be produced by the collision of clouds.

Quoniam tonitrua terrorem incutiunt, hac causa filios tonitrui discipulos appellavit, quasi ejus filii, qui timendus sit. Quamvis enim tonitrua collisione nubium fiant, voluntate tamen Dei fiunt, et sunt terribilia.

Since thunderclaps strike terror, for this reason He called the disciples sons of thunder, as being sons of Him who is to be feared. For although thunder is produced by the collision of clouds, it is nevertheless produced by the will of God, and it is terrible.

XXV. — Quid est ut secundum Marci evangelistae relationem, Christi non sit impleta voluntas: Intrans enim, inquit, in domum, voluit neminem scire, et non potuit latere? Si ergo voluit latere et non potuit, infirmata voluntas ejus est.

XXV. How is it that, according to the account of Mark the evangelist, Christ's will was not fulfilled? For he says: Entering into a house, He wished no one to know, and He could not be hidden. If, then, He wished to be hidden and could not, His will was weakened.

Hoc quod per compendium propositum est, ut plus sensum p⟨o⟩sset occulere, etc.

This was set out in condensed form so that it might conceal more of its sense, etc.

XXVI. — In Evangelio legimus angelum dicere ad Mariam matrem Domini, quod regni ejus, id est Christi, non erit finis (Luc. I, 33). Et Daniel eadem dicit: ait enim: Tunc exsurget regnum in aeternum, quod nunquam corrumpetur (Dan. VII, 14). Contra Apostolus de Domino: Cum tradiderit, inquit, regnum Deo et Patri (I Cor. XV, 24) Quomodo regnum aeternum habebit, quod traditurus dicitur Deo et Patri?

XXVI. In the Gospel we read that the angel says to Mary, the mother of the Lord, that of His kingdom, that is, Christ's, there will be no end (Luke 1:33). Daniel says the same, for he says: Then a kingdom will arise for ever, which will never be corrupted (Dan. 7:14). On the other hand, the Apostle says of the Lord: When He has handed over, he says, the kingdom to God and the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). How will He have an eternal kingdom, which He is said to be about to hand over to God and the Father?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2397

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 547)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (b) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 65.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 65.

(printed under page 547)

(printed under page 547) (c) Ibid., quaest. 50.

Ibid., Question 50.

(printed under page 547)

(d) ‹anchor: XXIII› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (d) Ibid., quaest. 61.

Ibid., Question 61.

(printed under page 547)

(e) ‹anchor: XXIV› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (e) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 547)

(f) ‹anchor: XXV› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (f) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 77.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 77.

(printed under page 547)

(g) ‹anchor: XXVI› · call in col 2397

(printed under page 547) (g) Deest. in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 547) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 547) (b) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 60.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 60.

(printed under page 547)

Page

running head: 2397 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2398

In causa Patris et Filii, id est, Dei et Christi, traditio non abolitio intelligitur. Considera enim quomodo Pater tradiderit Filio regnum, ipso haec Domino protestante : Omnia enim, inquit, mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo (Matth. XI, 27). Si Pater ergo desiit habere cum tradidit, potest et de Salvatore dici quia cum tradidit, amisit. Nam Filius postquam traditum sibi a Patre regnum dixit, Patrem adhuc praeferens ait : Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum et verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum (Joan. XVII, 3). Secundum hunc igitur sensum et Filius non amittit regnum cum tradit, ut haec vera sint; et angelus et Daniel non discrepare ab hoc sensu dicantur. Qui horum enim testimonium retractandum putat, perfidia plenus est. Sed nunc videamus manentes in hac fide, quid sit tradere Filium Patri regnum : hoc enim est quod inter caetera alio loco dicit Apostolus : Tunc et ipse subjectus erit ei qui subjecit ei omnia, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus (I Cor. XV, 28). Subjectio igitur haec, ipsa est traditio regni. Itaque hoc loco interpretatio videtur necessaria, ut et subjectus Patri Filius non negetur, et nihilominus aeternum regnum habere dicatur. Hoc est regnum Filii, quia in nomi⟨n⟩e Jesu omnia genua flectuntur, coelestia, terrestria, et inferna (Philipp. II, 10). Quod etiam firmat Petrus apostolus, dicens : Non est aliud nomen datum sub coelo, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri (Act. IV, 12). Et ipse Dominus discipulis ait : Usquemodo nihil petistis in nomine meo; petite, et ego faciam (Joan. XVI, 24). Sic regnat Filius, cum omnia in nomine ejus salventur, et dantur quae postulantur usque ad finem mundi. Postquam vero omnia Christum fuerint confessa, sive vi, sive voluntate, et substrata potentiae ejus cui restiterant, mysterium unius Dei cunctis manifestabitur, et omnis gratiarum actio referetur ad Patrem, ex quo sunt omnia; ut cessante praedicatione unus Deus sciatur in mysterio Trinitatis. Cum enim omnes potestates, omnes principatus et Dominationes Christo genu flexerint, tunc Filius manifestabit non se esse a quo sunt omnia, sed Filium ejus, et illum in se videri. Haec est subjectio et reg⟨n⟩i traditio. Ostendens enim Patrem esse a quo sunt omnia, subjecit se illi cum de eo se dicit esse. Tanta enim majestas et claritas in adventu Filii videtur, ut omnes potentiae et chori Angelorum hunc singularem putent Deum. Salvator autem cum se non illum esse dixerit, qui dicitur Pater, sed Filium ejus, regnans tradit regnum Patri. In hac re manifestata est et subjectio, et regni traditio; quia et cum a Patre se profitetur esse, quidquid habet, Patris confitetur esse, omnem summam referens ad eum.

In the case of the Father and the Son, that is, of God and Christ, a handing over, not an abolition, is understood. For consider how the Father handed over the kingdom to the Son, the Lord Himself declaring this: For all things, He says, have been handed over to Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27). If, then, the Father ceased to have it when He handed it over, it can also be said of the Saviour that when He handed it over, He lost it. For the Son, after He had said that the kingdom had been handed over to Him by the Father, still setting the Father before Himself says: But this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3). According to this sense, therefore, the Son too does not lose the kingdom when He hands it over, so that these things may be true; and the angel and Daniel may be said not to disagree with this sense. For whoever thinks that their testimony should be retracted is full of faithlessness. But now, remaining in this faith, let us see what it is for the Son to hand over the kingdom to the Father: for this is what the Apostle says, among other things, in another place: Then He Himself also will be subject to Him Who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). This subjection, therefore, is itself the handing over of the kingdom. Accordingly an interpretation seems necessary in this place, so that the Son is not denied to be subject to the Father, and is nonetheless said to have an eternal kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Son, that in the name of Jesus every knee bends, of things heavenly, earthly and infernal (Phil. 2:10). This the apostle Peter also confirms, saying: There is no other name given under heaven, in which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And the Lord Himself says to the disciples: Until now you have asked nothing in My name; ask, and I will do it (John 16:24). Thus the Son reigns, since all things are saved in His name, and the things asked for are given, until the end of the world. But after all things have confessed Christ, whether by force or by will, and have been laid beneath His power which they had resisted, the mystery of the one God will be made manifest to all, and all thanksgiving will be referred to the Father, from Whom are all things; so that, when preaching has ceased, one God may be known in the mystery of the Trinity. For when all powers, all principalities and Dominions have bent the knee to Christ, then the Son will make manifest that He is not the One from Whom are all things, but His Son, and that He [the Father] is seen in Him. This is the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom. For in showing that the Father is the One from Whom are all things, He subjected Himself to Him when He says that He is from Him. For such majesty and glory is seen at the coming of the Son that all the powers and choirs of Angels think Him to be the sole God. But the Saviour, when He has said that He is not the One Who is called Father, but His Son, reigning hands over the kingdom to the Father. In this matter both the subjection and the handing over of the kingdom have been made manifest; for when He also professes that He is from the Father, He confesses that whatever He has is the Father's, referring the whole sum to Him.

XXVII. — Salvator ait, Si quis non reliquerit omnia sua, id est, domum, et agrum, et caetera, non potest meus discipulus esse : et contra evangelista, Venit, inquit, Joseph ab Arimathia, homo dives, qui et ipse discipulus erat Jesu, exspectans regnum Dei (Luc. XIV, 33, et XXIII, 50, 51). Quid est ut evangelista profiteatur eum discipulum quem Salvator negavit? Nam et Zachaeus dives erat, et Cornelius Centurio dives, et mulieres quae illis ministrabant de facultatibus suis.

XXVII. — The Saviour says, If anyone does not leave all his things, that is, house, and field, and the rest, he cannot be My disciple: and on the other hand the evangelist: There came, he says, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, who himself also was a disciple of Jesus, awaiting the kingdom of God (Luke 14:33 and 23:50–51). How is it that the evangelist declares him a disciple whom the Saviour denied [to be one]? For Zacchaeus too was rich, and Cornelius the Centurion was rich, and the women who ministered to them from their means.

Hunc sensum paucis absolvit Apostolus, dicens : Qui habent, quasi non habentes sint; et qui utuntur hoc saeculo, quasi non utantur; et qui emunt, tanquam non possidentes (I Cor. VII, 30, 31). Qui ergo haec sic habet, quasi non habeat, reliquisse videtur. Quando enim non praesumit de his, neque se jactat, sed humiliter incedit, non tantum habitu, sed et mente, dispensatorem se harum et ministrum intelligens, omnia sua reliquisse videtur. Hoc enim relinqui dicitur, quod a desiderio recedit, et gratiam non habet.

The Apostle resolved this sense in a few words, saying: Let those who have be as though not having; and those who use this world, as though they did not use it; and those who buy, as though not possessing (1 Cor. 7:30–31). Whoever, therefore, has these things in such a way as though he did not have them is seen to have left them. For when he does not presume upon them, nor boast of himself, but walks humbly, not only in his dress but also in his mind, understanding himself to be their steward and minister, he is seen to have left all his things. For that is said to be left which withdraws from desire and holds no attraction.

XXVIII. — Si Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem quomodo Salvator ad sacerdotes mittit offerri munera pro emundatione?

XXVIII. — If the Law and the Prophets [lasted] until John, how does the Saviour send [men] to the priests for gifts to be offered for cleansing?

Editors' notes and page, col. 2398

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: XXVII› · call in col 2398

(printed under page 547)

(b) ‹anchor: XXVIII› · call in col 2398

(printed under page 547)

Page

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

PL 35:2399

Hoc secutus est apostolus Paulus. Cum enim praedicaret jam non oportere circumcidi quemquam, etc.

The apostle Paul followed this. For when he was preaching that no one now ought to be circumcised, etc.

XXIX. — Si Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem, ex quo regnum coelorum praedicatum est (Luc. XVI, 16); ipse est enim inchoator novae praedicationis; cur baptisma ejus cessavit?

XXIX. If the Law and the Prophets [were] until John, from whom the kingdom of heaven has been preached (Luke 16:16), for he is the beginner of the new preaching, why did his baptism cease?

Baptisma Joannis coeptum non cessavit, sed additum est ei quod deerat. Joannes enim tantum baptizavit, non Spiritum sanctum credentibus dedit: sicut et ipse de Salvatore dicit, Ego baptizo vos in aqua in poenitentiam, ipse autem vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto (Matth. III, 11). Hoc est quod dicit: Per me remissio peccatorum, non tamen datur Spiritus sanctus, ut purificati filii dicantur; hoc enim Salvatori reservatum est, utpote Domino, ut filii Dei non fierent, nisi accepto a Filio Dei Spiritu sancto. Effectus ergo baptismi Joannis, quod tacite operabatur sine interrogatione, non tamen sine Salvatoris mentione, ut firmum esset quod agebat, Trinitatis est donum: quod dignatio Salvatoris ostendit, dans formam trium nominum, quae a primordio sub unius Dei nomine vel persona unum opus et indifferens operata sunt. Interpretatio ergo accessit ad baptismum Joannis cum significatione latentis dudum mysterii: accessit et amplius donum, ut baptizati accepto Spiritu sancto sint filii Dei. Amplificatum ergo est, non evacuatum.

The baptism of John, once begun, did not cease, but there was added to it what was lacking. For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to believers, just as he himself also says of the Saviour: I baptize you in water unto repentance, but He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). This is what he means: through me there is remission of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, so that the purified may be called sons; for this was reserved to the Saviour, as being the Lord, so that they would not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God. The effect, therefore, of John's baptism, which he performed silently, without interrogation, yet not without mention of the Saviour, so that what he was doing might be firm, is the gift of the Trinity: which the Saviour's condescension shows, giving the form of the three names, which from the beginning, under the name or person of one God, have wrought one work without difference. An interpretation, therefore, was added to John's baptism, with the signification of a mystery long hidden: and a fuller gift was added as well, that the baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore amplified, not made void.

XXX. — In Evangelio Joannis, Lex, ait, per Moysen data est; gratia autem et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est. Si ergo per Christum veritas facta est, ante non fuit. Si ante non fuit, quomodo a Deo data Lex dicitur, in qua veritas non erat?

XXX. In the Gospel of John it says: The Law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. If, then, truth came about through Christ, it did not exist before. If it did not exist before, how is the Law said to have been given by God, in which there was no truth?

Videndum est quid sit, Lex per Moysen data est. Per Moysen autem Lex data, manifesta habet praecepta, etc.

We must see what is meant by: The Law was given through Moses. Now the Law given through Moses has plain precepts, etc.

XXXI. — Sabbatum certe Lex est vel pars Legis; quomodo ergo non evacuata Lex est, dicente evangelista, Non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum (Joan. V, 18).

XXXI. The sabbath is certainly the Law, or part of the Law; how, then, was the Law not made void, when the evangelist says: Not only was He breaking the sabbath, but He was also calling God His father (John 5:18).

Solvit sane sabbatum Salvator, sed sine praejudicio dati sabbati. Dum enim sabbati jam tempus cessaret, Judaei autem sabbatum adhuc manere assererent, Salvator sabbatis operans, et infirmo lectum suum sabbatis portare praecipiens, secundum sensum Judaeorum sabbatum solvebat. Nam juxta veri fidem tale est si dicatur quod jam cessaverat, quale est si dicatur de aliquo qui expraefectus dicendus est, et injuriam passus fuerit, quia praefectura injuriam passa est. Non ergo sabbatum solutum est, sed homines qui impudenter sabbati auctoritatem vindicabant, delusi sunt, cum jam sabbato successisset nova Lex.

The Saviour did indeed break the sabbath, but without prejudice to the sabbath that had been given. For while the time of the sabbath was now ceasing, and the Jews nonetheless asserted that the sabbath still remained, the Saviour, by working on the sabbaths and by ordering the sick man to carry his bed on the sabbaths, was breaking the sabbath according to the understanding of the Jews. For in truth it is such, if it be said of what had already ceased, as it is if it be said of someone who must be called an ex-prefect, and has suffered an injury, that the prefecture has suffered an injury. So the sabbath was not broken, but the men who shamelessly claimed the authority of the sabbath were mocked, since a new Law had already succeeded the sabbath.

XXXII. — Si arbitrio proprio vivimus, cur Salvator, Nemo, inquit, venit ad me, nisi Pater qui misit me, traxerit eum: et non discordans ab his Apostolus, Neque volentis, inquit, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei? His utique perturbari videtur arbitrium liberae voluntatis. Si enim nemo vadit, nisi tractus, non erit illius delictum, qui non vadit quia non est tractus. Et si non qui petit et currit, accipit, sed cui vult dat Deus, sine culpa erit et crimine qui vult et non obtinet; et ad illum redundat crimen qui petentem spernit.

XXXII. If we live by our own choice, why does the Saviour say: No one comes to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him; and the Apostle, not disagreeing with these words, says: It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy? By these the choice of free will certainly seems to be thrown into confusion. For if no one goes unless drawn, it will not be the fault of him who does not go because he has not been drawn. And if it is not he who asks and runs that receives, but God gives to whom He wills, then he who wills and does not obtain will be without fault and guilt; and the guilt falls back upon Him Who spurns the one who asks.

Nullo genere ex his arbitrii causa poterit turbari. Etenim dicta ad causam referas qua dicta sunt, etc.

In no way can the case for choice be thrown into confusion by these words. For you should refer the sayings to the cause for which they were said, etc.

XXXIII. — Quid est ut cum Salvator omnes prope verbo curasset, caeco tamen per lutum de sputo factum oculos reformarit (Joan. IX, 6, 7)?

XXXIII. How is it that, although the Saviour had healed almost everyone by a word, He nevertheless restored the eyes of the blind man by means of clay made from spittle (John 9:6–7)?

Hoc Salvator ad confusionem illorum fecit, qui Creatorem accusant. Quando enim non aliter vitium accidens corpori emendavit quam Conditor fecit, auctorem operis hujus commendavit. Per id enim emendavit, quo erat conditum. Omne enim quod fit, si

The Saviour did this to confound those who accuse the Creator. For when He corrected a defect befalling the body in no other way than the Maker had made it, He commended the author of this work. For He corrected it by means of that from which it had been made. For everything that is made, if

Editors' notes and page, col. 2399

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2399

(printed under page 548) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 548)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible (XXX)› · call in col 2399

(printed under page 548) (b) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 76.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 76.

(printed under page 548)

(printed under page 548) (c) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 548)

(d) ‹anchor: XXXII› · call in col 2399

(printed under page 548) (d) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 79.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 79.

(printed under page 548)

(e) ‹anchor: XXXIII› · call in col 2399

(printed under page 548) (e) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 548) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 548) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 548) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 548)

Page

running head: 2399 QUÆSTIONUM EX NOVO TEST. (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2400

lapsum per id quod fuerat factum reformetur, rectum factum probabitur. Si enim Salvator per hoc se Deum testatur, quia damna et vitia corporis emendavit, quanto magis Deus est qui ipsius corporis inventor est?

it has fallen, is restored through that through which it had been made, it will be shown to have been rightly done. For if the Saviour testifies that He is God by this, that He amended the losses and defects of the body, how much more is He God Who is the inventor of the body itself?

XXXIV. — Quid est quod Salvator ait, Ego sum janua; qui ante me fuerunt, fures sunt et latrones (Joan. X, 7, 8)? Quod dictum videtur Prophetas pulsare.

XXXIV. — What is it that the Saviour says, I am the door; those who were before Me are thieves and robbers (John 10:7–8)? This saying seems to strike at the Prophets.

Quia nemo vadit ad Deum Patrem, nisi per fidem Christi, idcirco se januam dicit Salvator regni coelorum. Si ergo januae verbis utitur, quid opus erat ut de anterioribus diceret, Quotquot ante me fuerunt; cum nulla quaestio de praeteritis verteretur; sed utique quasi praesens janua de praesentibus quaereretur? De Judaeis enim dicit Salvator, qui non per fidem, sed per justitiam Legis in regnum Dei se intrare putabant. Ante Salvatorem enim venientes, id est ante illum stantes, obtrectabant ei contradicentes, ut etiam alios a fide ejus averterent. Unde fures et latrones appellati sunt. Nam eo tempore haec dicta sunt, quo Pharisaei disceptabant cum illo qui erat ex caeco illuminatus, cui Salvator oculos reddidit quos natura negaverat, quem volebant a fide Salvatoris avertere, dicentes non per hunc posse, quia sabbatum violat, sed per justitiam Legis intrari in regnum Dei. Tunc Salvator: Ego sum, inquit, janua; per me si quis introibit, pascua inveniet: si quis autem aliunde intrare voluerit, ille fur est et latro. Quomodo hoc ad personam pertinet Prophetarum? Numquid Prophetae contra Christi doctrinam per justitiam Legis sine fide Deum promereri posse dicebant, qui Christum in carne venturum scierunt? Hoc ergo de praesentibus dixit, ut quicumque ante ipsum fuerunt, astantes vel sedentes, fures intelligantur et latrones. Sevocantes enim illum qui fuerat caecus, volebant eum a fide Salvatoris avertere, dicentes: Da honorem Deo; nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est. Quos ille arguit, dicens: A saeculo nunquam fuit auditum quod aperuerit quis oculos caeci nati: nisi hic esset a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam (Id. IX, 24, 32, 33). De hoc ergo, quia perseveravit in fide; et de illis qui dixerunt, Haec verba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid potest daemonium caecorum oculos aperire? dixit Salvator, Sed non audierunt eos oves (Id. X, 8, 9, 21): illos utique quos fures et latrones appellavit. Nam quomodo non audierunt Prophetas oves, cum constet Scripturis omnes bonos ob⟨e⟩disse Prophetis, et malos pseudoprophetis?

Because no one goes to God the Father except through faith in Christ, for that reason the Saviour calls Himself the door of the kingdom of heaven. If, then, He uses the words of a door, what need was there for Him to speak of those earlier, As many as were before Me, when no question was being raised about past things, but rather, as a present door, the question concerned present things? For the Saviour speaks of the Jews, who thought that they entered the kingdom of God not through faith but through the righteousness of the Law. For coming before the Saviour, that is, standing before Him, they disparaged Him by contradicting Him, so that they might also turn others away from faith in Him. Hence they were called thieves and robbers. For these things were said at the time when the Pharisees were disputing with the man who had been enlightened from blindness, to whom the Saviour gave back the eyes which nature had denied, whom they wished to turn away from faith in the Saviour, saying that the kingdom of God could not be entered through this man, because He violates the sabbath, but through the righteousness of the Law. Then the Saviour said: I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will find pasture; but if anyone wishes to enter by another way, he is a thief and a robber. How does this pertain to the person of the Prophets? Did the Prophets, who knew that Christ would come in the flesh, say, against the teaching of Christ, that one could merit God through the righteousness of the Law without faith? He said this, therefore, about those present, so that whoever were before Him, standing or sitting, should be understood as thieves and robbers. For calling aside the man who had been blind, they wished to turn him away from faith in the Saviour, saying: Give honour to God; we know that this man is a sinner. He refuted them, saying: Since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind: if this man were not from God, He could not do anything (John 9:24, 32–33). Concerning this man, therefore, because he persevered in faith, and concerning those who said, These are not the words of one who has a demon; can a demon open the eyes of the blind? the Saviour said, But the sheep did not hear them (John 10:8, 9, 21): those, namely, whom He called thieves and robbers. For how did the sheep not hear the Prophets, when it is established by the Scriptures that all the good obeyed the Prophets, and the wicked the false prophets?

XXXV. — Quid est ut admirabilem et incognitam virtutem facturus, Lazarum scilicet a mortuis resuscitaturus, fleret, aut locum ubi positus erat quasi ignarus quaereret (Joan. XI, 34, 35)?

XXXV. — Why is it that, when about to perform a wonderful and unheard-of mighty work, namely to raise Lazarus from the dead, He wept, or asked as though ignorant for the place where he had been laid (John 11:34–35)?

Salvator Deus et homo est, ac per hoc duas vices egit semper: ut quia hominis affectus habet, ploret; sed quia et Deus erat, hunc quem flevit resuscitavit. A minimis ergo semper ad majora venitur, ut quia homo cernebatur, hoc reprobaret esse quod videbatur; Deum autem se operibus asserebat.

The Saviour is God and man, and through this He always played two parts: so that, because He has the feelings of a man, He weeps; but because He was also God, He raised the one whom He wept for. One always proceeds, therefore, from the least things to greater ones, so that, because He was seen as a man, He might disprove that He was [only] what He appeared to be; and He asserted Himself to be God by His works.

XXXVI. — Cum Salvator dicat, Ego pro eis rogo, quos mihi dedisti; non pro mundo rogo (Joan. XVII, 9); Joannes apostolus contra, Habemus, inquit, advocatum apud Patrem, deprecatorem pro peccatis nostris, et non solum pro nostris, sed pro universo mundo (I Joan. II, 1, 2): hoc contrarium videtur.

XXXVI. — Since the Saviour says, I pray for those whom Thou hast given Me; I do not pray for the world (John 17:9), whereas John the apostle, on the contrary, says, We have an advocate with the Father, an intercessor for our sins, and not only for ours, but for the whole world (1 John 2:1–2): this seems contradictory.

Quamvis non longe discrepet sensus, tamen aliud est quod dicit Salvator, et aliud quod affirmat apostolus Joannes. Nam Salvator rogat pro discipulis, ut a mali infestatione tuti praestentur: denique sic dicit: Non rogo ut tollas eos de mundo, sed ut serves eos a malo. Apostolus autem Joannes aliud genus precationis inducit: ait namque: Habemus advocatum, qui postulat pro peccatis nostris, et totius mundi. Pro Christianis ergo duplici genere postulatur; quia et pro peccatis illorum oratur, et ut tuti a diaboli infestatione prae†stentur.

Although the sense does not differ greatly, yet what the Saviour says is one thing, and what the apostle John affirms is another. For the Saviour prays for the disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of evil: accordingly He says thus: I do not ask that Thou take them out of the world, but that Thou keep them from evil. But the apostle John introduces another kind of prayer: for he says: We have an advocate, who intercedes for our sins, and those of the whole world. For Christians, therefore, intercession is made in a twofold manner; for prayer is made both for their sins, and that, safe from the assault of the devil, they may be kept

Editors' notes and page, col. 2400

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: XXXIV› · call in col 2400

(printed under page 548) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 548)

(b) ‹anchor: XXXV› · call in col 2400

(printed under page 548) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 548)

(printed under page 548) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 548)

Page

running head: NOVO TEST. PARS SECUNDA. 2400 (start of running head cut off at left edge of image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word prae†stentur. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2401

PL 35:2401

Pro his autem qui non credunt, haec sola deprecatio est, ut cum pro peccatis suis et perfidia plecti mererentur, bonitas et patientia exspectet illos, si forte velint corrigi. Non enim postulatur ut ignoscantur illis peccata diffidentibus, sed ut dilationem accipiant longam, ut si se emendaverint, dimittantur illis delicta. Hoc ergo postulat pro illis Salvator, quod diximus.

But for those who do not believe, this is the only supplication: that, although for their sins and faithlessness they deserved to be punished, goodness and patience should wait for them, in case perhaps they may be willing to be corrected. For it is not asked that their sins be forgiven them while they distrust, but that they receive a long delay, so that, if they amend themselves, their offences may be forgiven them. This, then, is what the Saviour asks for them, as we have said.

XXXVII. — Quid est ut Salvator dicat Mariae volenti se tangere causa gaudii, Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem (Joan. XX, 1-17); cum legatur a caeteris mulieribus et tactus et adoratus?

XXXVII. — What does it mean that the Saviour says to Mary, who wished to touch Him for joy, Do not touch Me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:1–17); when it is read that He was both touched and worshipped by the other women?

Indignantis verba sunt dicentis, Noli me tangere. Quamvis enim desideraret Salvatorem, aliis tamen resurrectionem ejus credentibus, haec ad monumentum stabat plorans, quam jam gaudere oportuerat. Audierat enim a Joanne et Petro apostolis resurrexisse Dominum. Sic enim habes: Et vidit linteamina et sudarium in unum locum, et credidit: nondum enim sciebat Scripturam, quia oportebat eum a mortuis resurgere. Sed Maria quia non illum videbat resurrexisse, non credebat. Nimius enim amor dubitare illam faciebat. Denique quos diligimus, si incommodum patiantur, non eos evadere credimus: quos autem odimus, si jam prope mortem sint, incredulum nobis est. Mariae ergo, quoniam obstupuerat et moerorem patiebatur per amorem, quam oportuerat sequi discipulorum fidem, primum se ostendit Dominus, ut desineret a moerore, non tamen sine indignatione. Hinc audit, Noli me tangere: hoc est, Carnalem sensum quaeris; abstine te, et spiritualia sequere quae non videntur. Nondum enim, inquit, ascendi ad Patrem. Tale est hoc, quale illud beati Joannis Baptistae mittentis discipulos suos ad Jesum, et dicentis: Ite, dicite, Joannes Baptista misit nos ad te, dicens, Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus (Luc. VII, 19, 20)? Sub sua persona, discipulorum suorum agit causam. Nec enim Joannes dubitabat, qui dixerat, Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi (Joan. I, 29): sed ut discipulis suis satisfaceret, mittit illos suis verbis, ut Salvatoris ore firmaret quod ipse de illo docebat, ut post excessum suum sine dubitatione aliqua discipuli sui Christum sequerentur. Ita et Salvator in se Mariam arguit, dicens, Nondum ascendi ad Patrem: id est, Adhuc cor tuum humi pressum est, quae si non vides, non credis. Si enim ad Deum cor elevasset, resurrexisse Dominum cum discipulis credidisset.

These are the words of one who is indignant, saying, Do not touch Me. For although she longed for the Saviour, yet, while others believed in His resurrection, she stood at the tomb weeping, when she ought already to have been rejoicing. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. For thus you have it: And he saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and he believed: for he did not yet know the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead. But Mary, because she did not see that He had risen, did not believe. For excessive love was making her doubt. Indeed, those whom we love, if they suffer some harm, we do not believe will escape; but those whom we hate, if they are already near death, it seems incredible to us. To Mary, therefore, because she was stunned and was suffering grief through love, when she ought to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord showed Himself first, so that she might cease from grief, yet not without indignation. Hence she hears, Do not touch Me: that is, You seek a carnal perception; hold yourself back, and follow spiritual things, which are not seen. For, He says, I have not yet ascended to the Father. This is like that act of blessed John the Baptist, sending his disciples to Jesus and saying: Go, say, John the Baptist has sent us to Thee, saying, Art Thou He Who is to come, or do we look for another (Luke 7:19–20)? Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples. For John did not doubt, who had said, Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29); but to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that he might confirm by the Saviour's mouth what he himself was teaching about Him, so that after his departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. So too the Saviour rebukes Mary in Himself, saying, I have not yet ascended to the Father: that is, Your heart is still pressed down to the ground, since what you do not see you do not believe. For if she had raised her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples that the Lord had risen.

XXXVIII. — Quomodo intelligitur, quod dicente Maria ad angelum, Et unde hoc sciam, quia virum non cognovi? respondit Gabriel angelus, Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi?

XXXVIII. — How is it to be understood that, when Mary said to the angel, And whence shall I know this, since I have not known a man? the angel Gabriel answered, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you?

Ambigenti Mariae de conceptu, possibilitatem angelus praedicat dicens, etc.

To Mary, who was in doubt about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying, etc.

XXXIX. — Qua ratione Magi Chaldaei per stellam apparentem Christum regem Judaeorum natum intellexerunt; cum stella indice temporalis rex designetur?

XXXIX. — By what reasoning did the Chaldean Magi understand, through a star that appeared, that Christ the King of the Jews had been born, since with a star as indicator it is a temporal king who is signified?

Hi Magi Chaldaei non malevolentia astrorum cursum, sed rerum curiositate speculabantur, etc.

These Chaldean Magi observed the course of the stars not out of malevolence, but out of curiosity about things, etc.

XL. — Quid sibi vult ut Isaias propheta de Christo dicat, Qui peccatum non fecit; contra autem Apostolus, Qui peccatum, inquit, nesciebat, peccatum pro nobis fecit?

XL. — What does it mean that Isaiah the prophet says of Christ, Who did no sin; but the Apostle, on the contrary, Who knew no sin, he says, made sin for us?

Quantum ad propositum pertinet, non solum verba discrepant, sed et personae diversae sunt, etc.

As far as concerns the matter in hand, not only do the words disagree, but the persons too are different, etc.

XLI. — Certe qui filius Dei non est, diaboli

XLI. — Certainly he who is not a son of God, is of

Editors' notes and page, col. 2401

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Salvator in se› · call in col 2401

¹ Morel affirmat legendum, ipse. Vid. Element. Critic., pag. 156. M.

Morel asserts that "ipse" (himself) should be read. See the Elementa Critica, p. 156. M.

(printed under page 549)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (XXXVII)› · call in col 2401

(printed under page 549) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 549)

(b) ‹anchor: XXXVIII› · call in col 2401

(printed under page 549) (b) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 51.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 51.

(printed under page 549)

(printed under page 549) (c) Ibid., quaest., 63.

Ibid., Question 63.

(printed under page 549)

(d) ‹anchor: XL› · call in col 2401

(d). Ibid., quaest. 74.

Ibid., Question 74.

(printed under page 549)

(e) ‹anchor: XLI› · call in col 2401

(printed under page 549) (e) Ibid., quaest. 80.

Ibid., Question 80.

(printed under page 549) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 95.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 95.

(printed under page 549) (b) Ibid., quaest. 97.

Ibid., Question 97.

(printed under page 549) (c) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 549) (d) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 54

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 54.

(printed under page 549) (e) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 549)

Page

running head: 2401 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2402

est: semper ergo filius est, sed aliquando Dei, aliquando diaboli. Quid ergo nascimur, requirendum est utrum filii Dei, an diaboli, an aliud tertium, si possit admitti.

the devil: he is therefore always a son, but sometimes of God, sometimes of the devil. As what, then, are we born? It must be inquired whether as sons of God, or of the devil, or as some third thing, if that can be admitted.

Dominus cum filii Israel saepe delinquerent educti de Aegypto, iratus, nullum illorum terram promissionis intrare permisit, etc.

When the children of Israel, having been led out of Egypt, often transgressed, the Lord in His anger permitted none of them to enter the land of promise, etc.

XLII. — Quaerendum an Spiritum sanctum habuerint Apostoli tempore illo quo fuerunt cum Domino, etc.

XLII. — It must be inquired whether the Apostles had the Holy Spirit at that time when they were with the Lord, etc.

In his omnibus quae proposita sunt, non una est causa. Breviter enim singularum causarum significatae sunt formae, etc.

In all these things that have been put forward, there is not one reason. For the forms of the individual reasons have been indicated briefly, etc.

XLIII. — Qua ratione responderi possit Arianae impietati simpliciter ex Lege.

XLIII. — By what reasoning one can answer the Arian impiety simply from the Law.

Si rationi fides accommodetur, ipsa nominum ratio Patris et Filii ostendet unitatem, etc.

If faith is accommodated to reason, the very meaning of the names Father and Son will show their unity, etc.

XLIV. — Cum Salvatorem natum profiteamur, quid est ut Apostolus factum eum dicat ex semine David (Rom. I, 3); cum aliud sit fieri, aliud nasci?

XLIV. — Since we profess that the Saviour was born, how is it that the Apostle says He was made of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3), since to be made is one thing, to be born another?

Quanquam hoc loco possit factura nativitatis intelligi: factura enim a generatione distat quidem; sed in aliis causis non ubi carnis et corporis vertitur ratio: Apostolus tamen non sine causa taliter verbis locutus est; quia et in alio loco, Factum, inquit, ex muliere (Galat. IV, 4). Aliquid ergo significavit hoc dicto. Quoniam enim non humano semine concreta caro Domini est in utero Virginis, et corpus effecta, sed effectu et virtute sancti Spiritus; ideo sic locutus est Apostolus. Aliud est enim semine admixto sanguinem coagulare, et generare, et aliud non permixtione, sed virtute procreare. Ideo factum potius dixit quam genitum.

Although in this place the making can be understood as the birth: for making does indeed differ from generation, but in other matters, not where the account concerns flesh and body; yet the Apostle did not speak in such words without reason, since in another place too he says, Made of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He therefore signified something by this saying. For since the flesh of the Lord was formed in the womb of the Virgin and made a body not by human seed, but by the working and power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing to curdle blood with seed mixed in, and to beget, and another to bring forth not by mingling but by power. Therefore he said made rather than begotten.

XLV. — Si ex semine David Christus Dei factus est Filius secundum carnem, hoc est natus jam Filius Dei est in utroque, quia sanctificatus natus est: quomodo ergo postquam baptizatus est, dictum ei a Deo est, Tu es Filius meus, ego hodie genui te?

XLV. — If from the seed of David Christ was made Son of God according to the flesh, that is, being born He is already Son of God in both respects, since He was born sanctified: how then, after He was baptized, was it said to Him by God, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee?

Christus Filius Dei secundum spiritum ex aeterno est, juxta carnem autem Dei Filius ex semine David est ex nativitate, etc.

Christ is Son of God according to the spirit from eternity, but according to the flesh He is Son of God from the seed of David by birth, etc.

XLVI. — Apostolus Legem datam a Moyse, et sanctam, et justam, et bonam, et spiritualem appellat (Rom. VII, 12, 14). Alibi dicit, Lex enim iram operatur; et, Ubi non est Lex, nec praevaricatio (Id. IV, 15). Sine enim his esse, securitas est.

XLVI. — The Apostle calls the Law given by Moses both holy, and just, and good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). Elsewhere he says, For the Law works wrath; and, Where there is no Law, neither is there transgression (ibid. 4:15). For to be without these is security.

Ipse dicta conferens, satis tibi debueras facere. Nam sic solent dubii facere quaestiones, ut unius dicta, quae fas non est reprehendere, pugnantia et inimica quaerantur. Si enim Apostolus Legem sanctam, et justam, et bonam, et spiritualem vocat, vir omni laude praecipuus, et undique veritate munitus, sufficeret hoc ad fidem, et de hoc quod videtur in verbis contrarium, sine obstinatione et invidentia quaerendum erat. Propositio enim haec impunitatem peccandi vult. Nam Apostolus utique cum legem fidei pro temporis merito et gratia praeferret apud Romanos, qui sub fide Christi in Legem fuerant inducti. In legem dico, non eam quae naturalis est: nam utique in legem erant Romani, quam de Athenis decemviri missi, et post alii duo attulerunt, quae in duabus tabulis scripta est, quae in Capitolio obrutae sunt; sed eam quae factorum appellatur, ut circumciderentur, sabbatum observarent et neomenias, discernerent escas, circa mundanda vasa essent solliciti, et caetera quae continentur in Lege hujusmodi. Hanc ergo Legem dicit iram operari: propterea enim irato Deo addita sunt haec, ut oneri essent perfidiae Judaeorum. De tantis enim necesse est ut aliquid praetereat. Unde apostolus Petrus: Quid, inquit, imponitis jugum

By comparing the sayings yourself, you ought to have satisfied yourself. For doubters are accustomed to raise questions in such a way that the sayings of one man, which it is not right to find fault with, are sought out as conflicting and hostile. For if the Apostle, a man pre-eminent in every praise and fortified on every side by truth, calls the Law holy, and just, and good, and spiritual, this would suffice for faith, and concerning what seems contrary in his words, inquiry ought to have been made without obstinacy and ill will. For this proposition aims at impunity for sinning. For the Apostle certainly, when he preferred the law of faith, by reason of the merit and grace of the time, among the Romans, who under the faith of Christ had been brought into the Law. Into the law, I say, not that which is natural: for indeed the Romans were under the law which the decemvirs who had been sent, and afterwards two others, brought from Athens, which was written on two tablets, which were buried in the Capitol; but that which is called the law of deeds, that they should be circumcised, observe the sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be careful about the cleansing of vessels, and the other things of this kind which are contained in the Law. This Law, then, he says works wrath: for these things were added because God was angry, that they might be a burden to the faithlessness of the Jews. For of so many things it is necessary that something should pass away. Whence the apostle Peter says: Why do you put a yoke

Editors' notes and page, col. 2402

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quam genitum› · call in col 2402

¹ Ms. Germanensis, factum dixit quia ingenitum.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "factum dixit quia ingenitum" (he said "made" because [he was] unbegotten).

(printed under page 549)

(2) ‹anchor: quae in duabus› · call in col 2402

² Forte legendum, duodecim.

Perhaps read "duodecim" (twelve).

(printed under page 549)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2402

(printed under page 549)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2402

(printed under page 549)

(d) ‹anchor: XLV› · call in col 2402

(printed under page 549)

(e) ‹anchor: XLVI› · call in col 2402

(printed under page 549)

Page

running head: PENDIX. 2402 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge; presumably APPENDIX.)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2403

super cervicem fratrum, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos potuimus portare (Act. XV, 10)? Denique dicit Deus per Jeremiam prophetam: Dedi illis praecepta non bona (Ezech. XX, 25). Post enim offensiones multas et tentationes in Deum et contumelias factas Moysi et detractiones de Deo, haec data sunt, quae observarent, ut premeretur dura cervix eorum, et quocumque se converterent, Legem haberent, ut nullum eis esset refrigerium. Ut ergo ab hac illos Lege tolleret Apostolus, Ubi, ait, non est Lex, nec praevaricatio: ut securi per compendium possint Deo servire spiritualiter. Quia, inquit, legem Judaeorum servantes, necesse est ut praevaricetis. Tanta enim sunt praecepta, quae impleri impossibile est. Nam quomodo de ista lege diceret, quae naturalis est? Nam Moyses ideo scripsit, ut auctoritatem illius firmaret, non quia ante non erat, cum legamus vindicatum esse ante Moysen; sed ut exponeret Romanis non debere vivere jam sub Lege, quos sub Lege agere expediebat. Nec aliter enim possent servare justitiam. Denique dicit ad eos: Vis non timere potestatem? Bonum fac; et, Qui contemnunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt (Rom. XIII, 3, 2). Spiritualem ergo hanc legem dicit, quam et sanctam, et justam, et bonam ostendit. Haec est quam naturalem diximus, quae prohibet peccare: dux est enim bonae vitae. Huic addita Lex fidei perfectum hominem facit. Nam quia communi nomine nuncupatur lex haec quam naturalem dixi, et illa quae factorum lex dicitur, contra Legem loqui videtur Apostolus. Sed ne hanc exinanire videretur, sine qua vita haec gubernari non potest, dicit, Scimus quia Lex spiritualis est: ut illam quam exinanit, lex sabbati, et circumcisionis, et escarum, et neomeniarum sciretur. Illa enim idcirco spiritualis dicitur, quia omnia punit peccata.

upon the neck of the brethren, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear (Acts 15:10)? Then God says through the prophet Jeremiah: I gave them precepts that were not good (Ezek. 20:25). For after many offences and temptations against God, and insults done to Moses, and disparagements of God, these things were given for them to observe, so that their stiff neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned they would have the Law, so that there would be no respite for them. So, in order that the Apostle might take them away from this Law, he says: Where there is no Law, neither is there transgression: so that, free from care, they might by a short way be able to serve God spiritually. For, he says, in keeping the law of the Jews it is inevitable that you transgress. For so many are the precepts that it is impossible for them to be fulfilled. For how could he say this of that law which is natural? For Moses wrote it for this reason, to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before, since we read that punishment was exacted before Moses; but in order to set out to the Romans that those whom it had been expedient to live under the Law ought no longer to live under the Law. For otherwise they could not keep righteousness. Then he says to them: Do you wish not to fear the power? Do good; and: Those who despise it acquire damnation for themselves (Rom. 13:3, 2). He therefore calls this law spiritual, which he also showed to be holy, and just, and good. This is the one we have called natural, which forbids sinning: for it is the guide of a good life. The Law of faith, added to this, makes a man perfect. For since this law which I have called natural, and that which is called the law of works, are named by a common name, the Apostle seems to speak against the Law. But lest he should seem to empty this one of force, without which this life cannot be governed, he says: We know that the Law is spiritual: so that that one which he empties of force might be known to be the law of the sabbath, and of circumcision, and of foods, and of new moons. For that one is called spiritual for this reason, that it punishes all sins.

XLVII. — Qua ratione sapientia carnis inimica est Deo; vel quae est ipsa sapientia quae legi Dei non est subjecta (Rom. VIII, 7)?

XLVII. — In what way the wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God; or what is that wisdom which is not subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7)?

Non discrepat sensu quaestio haec a superiore. Nam carnem dicendo, quid significet declaratum est; unde quae sit ejus sapientia, facile possit dignosci. Diximus ergo elementa omnia carnem appellari, id est visibilium substantias: quorum ratio talis est, ut nihil aestiment posse fieri sine commixtione spirituali et simplici, potentiae rationem horrentes ac fatuam judicantes. Hi enim qui de spiritualibus diffidentes, carnalia sequuntur, nihil aliud sapiunt ac putant verum, quam ratio continet elementorum: ut neque virginem peperisse, neque carnis credant resurrectionem; quia hoc ratio carnis, id est elementorum, non recipit. Omnia enim quae gignuntur in tempore, permixtione operante generantur: et emortua et resoluta corpora non posse rursus reddi ad vitam, quia unumquodque elementum permixtione discreta revertitur in propriam naturam. His modis inflati, negant futurum vel factum quod credimus: ac per hoc asseveratio illorum inimica est Deo, dum stultum et inane putat quod fecit et facturum se promisit Deus.

This question does not differ in sense from the one above. For in speaking of the flesh, what it signifies has been made clear; whence what its wisdom is can easily be discerned. We have said, then, that all the elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things: and their reasoning is such that they reckon nothing can come to be without commixture, shrinking from the principle of a spiritual and simple power and judging it foolish. For these, who, distrusting spiritual things, follow carnal things, think and hold as true nothing other than what the reasoning of the elements contains: so that they believe neither that a virgin gave birth, nor in the resurrection of the flesh; because the reasoning of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not admit this. For all things that are begotten in time are generated by the working of commixture: and [they believe] that bodies dead and dissolved cannot be restored to life again, because each element, once the commixture is separated, returns into its own nature. Puffed up in these ways, they deny that what we believe will come to be or has come to be: and for this reason their assertion is hostile to God, since it holds foolish and empty what God has done and has promised that He will do.

XLVIII. — Apostolus dicit de principibus et potestatibus hujus saeculi, quod si cognovissent, nunquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent: e contra Marcus evangelista de daemonibus ait, Sciebant enim ipsum esse. Si daemones sciebant, quomodo potestates ignorabant?

XLVIII. — The Apostle says of the princes and powers of this age that if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty: on the contrary, Mark the evangelist says of the demons: For they knew that it was He. If the demons knew, how were the powers ignorant?

Quibusdam videtur principes et potestates hujus s⟨ae⟩culi Judaeorum majores et principes dixisse, etc.

To some it seems that he called the elders and princes of the Jews the princes and powers of this age, etc.

XLIX. — Quem spiritum Apostolus salvandum

XLIX. — What spirit is it that the Apostle

Editors' notes and page, col. 2403

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2403

¹ Sic Theologi Lov. In B. desunt verba, haec quam naturalem dixi, et illa quae factorum lex. M.

So the Louvain theologians. In B the words "haec quam naturalem dixi, et illa quae factorum lex" (this, which I called natural, and that which is the law of deeds) are missing. M.

(printed under page 550)

(2) ‹anchor: punit peccata› · call in col 2403

² Germanensis Ms., deponit peccata.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "deponit peccata" (lays aside sins).

(printed under page 550)

(a) ‹anchor: XLVII› · call in col 2403

(printed under page 550) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 550)

(b) ‹anchor: a superiore› · call in col 2403

(printed under page 550) (b) Indicat quaestionem quae infra est 61.

He means the question that is number 61 below.

(printed under page 550)

(printed under page 550) (c) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 66.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 66.

(printed under page 550)

(d) ‹anchor: XLIX› · call in col 2403

(printed under page 550) (d) Deest in Mss primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 550) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 550)

Page

running head: 2403 QUÆSTIONUM EX NOVO TEST. (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2404

asserit, cum dicit, Tradidi hujusmodi hominem satanae in interitum carnis, etc. (I Cor. V, 5)?

asserts is to be saved, when he says, I have handed over such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, etc. (1 Cor. 5:5)?

Interitus carnis est, cum quis voluptatibus et desideriis carnalibus deditus, gehennam sibi procurat: interitum enim ex opere carnis acquirit. Ex his enim totus fit carnalis, quia sicut secundum legem vivens totus homo spiritualis efficitur, ut etiam caro hoc dicatur quod anima: ita si secundum desiderium mundi et voluptates libidinum vivat; totus homo fit caro, proficiens in interitum carnis; id est, ut sicut caro, propterea quod fluxa et corruptibilis et mortalis est, amissa anima deformatur carens figura, defluit in interitum; interit enim cum vigorem omnium membrorum amittit: sic et anima de tali corpore deformata est, cujus vigore despecta erat in poena cum carne, in qua se vitiis maculavit. Ut nullus profectus sit carni per animam; sed interitum habeat anima per carnem, quia non corpus gubernavit, spiritualiter, cum regina data sit carni, sed ipsa decet opera carnalia. Talem igitur hominem cum Ecclesia abjecit, spiritum habet salvum, sanctum scilicet, qui Ecclesiae curator est: quia si passi fuerint talem inter se habere qui uxorem patris polluit libidine, ut lege cum possint compellere, ne contaminet omnes, et Spiritus sanctus recedat ab Ecclesia propter pollutum; non habebit salvum spiritum Ecclesia. Quod enim amittitur, non est salvum, et in die Domini nudi ab spiritu inventi, inter filios Dei computari non poterunt. Spiritus etenim testimonium perhibet quod sumus filii Dei (Rom. VIII, 16). Haec Apostolus ad plebem loquitur, quia adhuc episcopi Ecclesiis non erant locis omnibus ordinati. Ideo plebem jubet hoc facere quod facturus esset si illic creatus fuisset episcopus, ut conspirantes in unum, ejicerent illum de coetu suo, ne consentire viderentur operibus ejus. Quia qui non arguit eum quem potest, sed recipit quasi non errantem, delinquendi illi fomitem praestat, qua causa contaminatur et ipse fugans a se Spiritum sanctum. Ad Thessalonicenses namque simili modo inter caetera dicit: Integer spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus sine querela in adventu Domini nostri serve⟨t⟩ur (I Thess. V, 23). Ipse idem sensus est: hoc est enim salvum esse, quod integrum. Nam dicit rex ad Danielem, Salvane sunt signa Daniel? et ille respondit, Salva, rex (Dan. XIV, 16); id est, integra: ut nobis sit integer spiritus, cum non nos deserit. Quos enim spiritus deserit, jam non erunt integri in causa regenerationis; quia non habent eum, per quem filii Dei vocabantur. Nec hoc est contrarium, si Spiritum sanctum dicamus, nobis peccantibus nos deserere, et integrum non esse. Ideo enim integer non est, dum nos deserit qui dux et rector noster erat; quia si caput nostrum est, et nos membra ejus. Cum autem adversum aliquid facimus, non ille nos, sed nos illum videmur deserere: et tunc ille videtur integer non esse, cum nos amittit. Hoc enim verum ac manifestum est, quia non ille se a nobis avertit, sed nos ab illo cum peccamus. Et ad Colossenses inter caetera ait: Ex quo omne corpus subministratum et productum crescit in incrementum Domini (Coloss. II, 19). Quod juxta sonum verborum si accipiamus, non convenit: nec enim Deus aliquid dehabet, ut crementum faciat per nos. Sed nos dum revertimur ad auctorem vitae nostrae, et confitemur illum, acquirens nos ad salutem, crementum facit in nobis divinitas: ideo in eis qui ab eo recedunt, detrimentum est. Hoc est ergo integrum non esse, quod est et detrimentum facere.

The destruction of the flesh is when someone, given over to carnal pleasures and desires, procures Gehenna for himself: for he acquires destruction from the work of the flesh. For by these things he becomes wholly carnal, because just as the whole man, living according to the law, is made spiritual, so that even the flesh is called what the soul is: so if he lives according to the desire of the world and the pleasures of the lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, advancing towards the destruction of the flesh; that is, just as the flesh, because it is fleeting and corruptible and mortal, is disfigured when the soul is lost, lacking form, and flows away into destruction (for it perishes when it loses the vigour of all its members): so too the soul is disfigured by such a body, by whose vigour it had been despised, in punishment together with the flesh, in which it stained itself with vices. So that there is no advancement for the flesh through the soul, but the soul has destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually, though it was given as queen to the flesh, but itself teaches the works of the flesh. Therefore, when the Church has cast out such a man, it keeps the spirit safe, namely the Holy One, Who is the guardian of the Church: because if they had allowed such a one to be among them, who defiled his father's wife with lust, when they could compel him by the law, so that he should not contaminate all and the Holy Spirit withdraw from the Church on account of the defiled man, the Church would not keep the spirit safe. For what is lost is not safe, and those found on the day of the Lord stripped of the spirit will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:16). The Apostle says these things to the people, because bishops had not yet been ordained for the Churches in all places. Therefore he commands the people to do what a bishop would have done if one had been appointed there, so that, agreeing as one, they might cast him out of their assembly, lest they should seem to consent to his works. For he who does not rebuke one whom he is able to, but receives him as though he were not erring, furnishes him with the kindling of wrongdoing, for which reason he too is contaminated, driving the Holy Spirit away from himself. For in a similar way he says, among other things, to the Thessalonians: May your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint at the coming of our Lord (1 Thess. 5:23). The sense itself is the same: for to be safe is this, to be whole. For the king says to Daniel, Are the seals safe, Daniel? and he answered, Safe, O king (Dan. 14:16); that is, whole: so that the spirit is whole for us when it does not desert us. For those whom the spirit deserts will no longer be whole in the matter of regeneration, because they do not have Him through whom they were called sons of God. Nor is it contradictory if we say that the Holy Spirit deserts us when we sin, and is not whole. For He is not whole for this reason, that He who was our leader and ruler deserts us; for if He is our head, we too are His members. But when we do something contrary, it is not He who seems to desert us, but we Him: and then He seems not to be whole, when He loses us. For this is true and manifest, that it is not He who turns Himself away from us, but we from Him when we sin. And to the Colossians he says, among other things: From which the whole body, supplied and brought forth, grows into the increase of the Lord (Col. 2:19). If we take this according to the sound of the words, it is not fitting: for God does not lack anything, so as to make increase through us. But when we return to the author of our life and confess Him, the Godhead, acquiring us for salvation, makes increase in us: therefore in those who withdraw from Him there is loss. This, then, is not to be whole, which is also to suffer loss.

L. — Cum multa peccata in corpus admitti videantur: omnis enim qui sibi ex quacumque parte corporis vim intulerit, in corpus utique suum peccat; est enim qui se abscidit, est qui laqueo vitam finivit, est qui ferrum in se injecit: quare Apostolus, Omne, inquit, peccatum quodcumque fecerit homo,

L. — Since many sins seem to be committed against the body (for everyone who has done violence to himself in any part of the body certainly sins against his own body; for there is one who has cut himself, there is one who has ended his life with a noose, there is one who has driven a blade into himself): why does the Apostle say, Every sin whatsoever that a man has done,

Editors' notes and page, col. 2404

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: decet› · call in col 2404

¹ Editi, ducit. At Ms. Germanensis, docet.

The editions read "ducit" (leads). But the Saint-Germain manuscript reads "docet" (teaches).

(printed under page 550)

(a) ‹anchor: L› · call in col 2404

(printed under page 550) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 550)

Page

running head: EX NOVO TEST. PARS SECUNDA. 2404
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: decet (for docet, the reading footnote 1 gives; the English follows docet)

PL 35:2405

extra corpus est; qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat (I Cor. VI, 18).

is outside the body; but he who commits fornication sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18).

Imperitum putas fuisse Apostolum, aut vim dicti explanari desideras? Nam Apostolus corpus dicens, non singularem hominem significavit, sed simul comprehendit et feminam; quia portio viri est mulier. Nam omnia supra dicta facinora, quae violenter in se unusquisque admittit, non totum maculant corpus; singularis enim peccat, ac per hoc solus fit reus. In fornicatione autem totum polluitur corpus; quia consensus contaminationis et virum tenet et feminam: ideo grave delictum esse fornicationem. Pessime enim peccatur, cum quis facinori suo socium quaerit ad perditionem. Si enim ut bene vivens etiam pro eo praemium accipiet, quem lucrum fecit; et malus non tantum in se, sed et in illo fit reus, quem participem voluit habere damnationis: quanto magis qui fornicatur, quem constat uno delicto seipsum bis quodammodo contaminare? Si enim in carnem, quae ex se est peccat, bis utique seipsum adulterat. Si quis autem quaestionem hanc transfigurare se putat, ut aut ad Ecclesiam, aut ad corpus Christi dictum hoc aptet, non stabit. Improprie enim dicetur, et Novatiano erit similis, qui ut causam furoris sui astruat, pronuntiat eum qui fornicatur, non in corpus suum peccare, sed in Christi, quia Christiani membra et corpus Christi sunt; ut fornicatio hoc sit quod sacrilegium; ut talis in Christum dicatur peccare, sicut qui negat Christum. Quod quidem infirmum est et fragile: quia ex quavis parte haeret in laqueum, et non evadit. Si enim qui fornicatur, in corpus Christi peccat, caetera peccata non erunt in Christum admissa: ut si christianus fratrem occidat, aut sacrificet idolis, vel aliud genus peccati admittat; quia omne peccatum extra corpus est, excepta fornicatione. Si autem omne peccatum non est extra corpus, sed quodcumque fuerit, in Christum admittitur; qui furatur, aut qui perjurat, et qui mentitur, aut qui percutit fratrem, aut aliud tale admittit, in Christum vel in Spiritum sanctum dicitur peccare, quod valde absurdum est: et tamen Apostolus Ecclesiae membra corpus Christi appellat, ita ut nos invicem simus membra. Quomodo ergo qui fornicatur, in suum corpus peccat, et non magis in Christi? quia secundum Ecclesiae mysterium non nostrum corpus dicimur, sed Christi; et hoc longe a causa est, quia qui fornicatur, ideo in corpus suum peccat, quoniam totus Adam contaminatur.

Do you think the Apostle was unskilled, or do you wish the force of the saying to be explained? For the Apostle, in saying "body", did not signify a single man, but at the same time included the woman also; because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the crimes mentioned above, which each one commits violently against himself, do not stain the whole body; for he sins singly, and for this reason he alone becomes guilty. But in fornication the whole body is polluted; because the consent to defilement holds both the man and the woman: therefore fornication is a grave offence. For one sins most wickedly when someone seeks a partner in his crime unto perdition. For if, just as the one who lives well will receive a reward also for him whom he has gained, so the wicked man becomes guilty not only in himself but also in that one whom he wished to have as a sharer of damnation: how much more he who commits fornication, who, it is agreed, defiles himself in a certain manner twice by a single offence? For if he sins against the flesh which is from himself, he certainly adulterates himself twice. But if anyone thinks he can turn this question about, so as to apply this saying either to the Church or to the body of Christ, it will not stand. For it will be said improperly, and he will be like Novatian, who, to build up the cause of his madness, declares that he who commits fornication sins not against his own body but against Christ's, because Christians are members and body of Christ; so that fornication would be the same as sacrilege; so that such a man would be said to sin against Christ, like one who denies Christ. Which indeed is weak and fragile: because from whichever side one takes it, it sticks in the snare and does not escape. For if he who commits fornication sins against the body of Christ, the other sins will not be committed against Christ: as, for instance, if a Christian should kill his brother, or sacrifice to idols, or commit some other kind of sin; because every sin is outside the body, except fornication. But if every sin is not outside the body, but whatever it may be is committed against Christ, then he who steals, or who perjures himself, and who lies, or who strikes a brother, or commits anything else of the kind, is said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is very absurd: and yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Christ, so that we are members of one another. How then does he who commits fornication sin against his own body, and not rather against Christ's? Because according to the mystery of the Church we are called not our own body but Christ's; and this is far from the point, since he who commits fornication sins against his own body for this reason, that the whole Adam is defiled.

LI. — Cur Apostolus omnibus omnia se factum dixit (I Cor. IX, 22): quod factum adulatoris videtur et hypocritae?

LI. — Why did the Apostle say that he was made all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22): a deed which seems to be that of a flatterer and a hypocrite?

Adulator ille est qui ideo dat consensum, ne offendat eum quem optat habere propitium. Qui enim propter scandalum aliquid facit, quod non quidem periculosum, sed superfluum sit, saluti studet illius quem scandalum pati non vult. Cum Paulus apostolus circumcidit Timotheum propter Judaeos, et purificatus intravit in templum, talem se utique praestitit, ne illi qui aemuli erant traditionis paternae scandalum passi aut occiderent illum, aut religionem nostram sibi inimicam putarent. Minus ergo admittere voluit, ut plus possit lucrari. Graviter enim potuerat peccare, si non ut Judaeum se fecisset in templum ire ad orandum; subjecit ergo se, ut illis prodesset. His autem qui sub Lege erant, id est, Samaritanis, hac ratione, consensit, qua constat illos, libros Moysi recte confiteri esse a Deo, et circumcisionem et sabbata a Deo data. Ex his autem ostendebat illis Christum quem sperabant, hunc esse quem praedicabat. Sic enim habes dicente Samaritide ad Dominum, Scio quia Messias venit: cum ergo venerit, ille annuntiabit nobis omnia (Joan. IV, 25). Juxta ergo hunc sensum persequebatur verba librorum Moysi, qui dixit, Quia Prophetam vobis suscitabit Dominus

A flatterer is one who gives his consent for this reason, that he may not offend him whom he wishes to have favourable. But he who does something on account of scandal, something which is not indeed dangerous but superfluous, is zealous for the salvation of him whom he does not wish to suffer scandal. When Paul the apostle circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews, and, having been purified, entered the temple, he certainly showed himself such, lest those who were zealous for the ancestral tradition, having suffered scandal, should either kill him or think our religion hostile to themselves. He was willing, therefore, to commit the lesser thing, that he might be able to gain more. For he could have sinned gravely if he had not made himself as a Jew so as to go into the temple to pray; he therefore submitted himself, that he might benefit them. But to those who were under the Law, that is, to the Samaritans, he consented on this ground, that it is established that they rightly confess the books of Moses to be from God, and circumcision and the sabbaths to have been given by God. And from these he showed them that the Christ for Whom they hoped was He Whom he was preaching. For so you have it, with the Samaritan woman saying to the Lord, I know that the Messiah comes: when therefore He comes, He will announce all things to us (John 4:25). In accordance with this sense, then, he followed up the words of the books of Moses, who said, That the Lord

Editors' notes and page, col. 2405

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: corpus Christi appellat› · call in col 2405

¹ Ms. Germanensis, Ecclesiam membra et corpus Christi appellat.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "Ecclesiam membra et corpus Christi appellat" (calls the Church the members and body of Christ).

(printed under page 551)

(a) ‹anchor: LI› · call in col 2405

(printed under page 551) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 551) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 99.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 99.

(printed under page 551) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 551) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 551) (d) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 551)

Page

running head: 2405 APPENDIX. (the facing column's head is cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2406

Deus vester de fratribus vestris (Deut. XVIII, 15). His autem qui sine Lege erant, ex hac parte assensit, quia mundum dicunt factum a Deo, et hominum genus. Ait enim: Sicut quidam ex vobis dixerunt, Hujus etenim genus sumus (Act. XVII, 28). Sic ergo factus est omnibus omnia, ut saluti eorum proficeret.

your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brothers (Deut. 18:15). But with those who were without the Law he agreed on this point, because they say that the world was made by God, and the race of men. For he says: As certain of you have said, For we are indeed His offspring (Acts 17:28). Thus, therefore, he was made all things to all, so that he might be of benefit to their salvation.

LII. — Quid est quod dicit Apostolus, Tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana; quasi optet hanc fieri? Et quae est haec humana tentatio? Nam per hanc ostendit esse et divinam tentationem. Discernendae ergo sunt et quae sint ostendit.

LII. — What is it that the Apostle says, Let no temptation take hold of you except a human one; as though he wished this to happen? And what is this human temptation? For by this he shows that there is also a divine temptation. They are therefore to be distinguished, and he has shown what they are.

Omnis quaestio ut dilucidari possit, ad originem revocanda est. Apostolus autem cum de Judaeorum perfidia quereretur, etc.

Every question, in order that it may be elucidated, must be brought back to its origin. But the Apostle, when he was complaining of the faithlessness of the Jews, etc.

LIII. — Quid est quod dicit Apostolus, Nemo potest dicere, Dominus Jesus, nisi in Spiritu sancto (I Cor. XII, 3)? Ergo Photinus, qui negat Christum Deum, potest Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum in Spiritu sancto fateri? et Marcion et Manichaeus, qui negant Christum in carne venisse, hi in Spiritu sancto possunt dicere Dominum Jesum Christum; vel meretrices et spurci: cum Spiritus sanctus non habitet in corpore subdito peccatis, et in malevolam animam non intret sapientia (Sap. I, 4)?

LIII. — What is it that the Apostle says, No one can say, Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3)? Can Photinus, then, who denies that Christ is God, confess our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit? and Marcion and Manichaeus, who deny that Christ came in the flesh, can these say Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit; or harlots and the unclean: since the Holy Spirit does not dwell in a body subject to sins, and wisdom does not enter into a malevolent soul (Wis. 1:4)?

Veritas non ex persona probatur, vel improbatur: quidquid enim bene et verum dicitur, sine dubio in Spiritu sancto dicitur. Non ergo si quis in aliis reus est, et in hoc illi praescribi debet, quod verum loquitur. Nec illi tamen praescribitur, sed Christo Domino contradicitur. Qui enim negat istum verum dicere, Christo injuriam facit. Si autem verum dicitur, negeturque quod verum est in Spiritu sancto dici, quod et Christus admittit (nemo enim bonorum vera de se dicentem arguit: nec enim ex revelatione ediscitur, quod per traditionem discitur); nemo verum dicens poterit improbari.

Truth is not proved or disproved from the person: for whatever is said well and truly is without doubt said in the Holy Spirit. It does not follow, then, that if someone is guilty in other matters, he ought to be barred in this also, in that he speaks the truth. Yet it is not he who is barred, but Christ the Lord who is contradicted. For he who denies that this man speaks the truth does injury to Christ. But if the truth is spoken, and it is denied that what is true is spoken in the Holy Spirit, which even Christ admits (for none of the good accuses one who says true things about him: for what is learned through tradition is not learned through revelation); no one who speaks the truth will be able to be disproved.

LIV. — Apostolus dicit Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse: sic enim ait, Ergo omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus est (II Cor. V, 14, 15). Ipse vero Dominus ait, Venit Filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis (Matth. XX, 28). Hoc modo contrarium.

LIV. — The Apostle says that Christ died for all: for thus he says, Therefore all are dead, and He died for all (2 Cor. 5:14–15). But the Lord Himself says, The Son of Man came to give His life as a redemption for many (Matt. 20:28). In this way it is contradictory.

Verba quidem diversa sunt, sed unus est sensus; quomodo iterum verba eadem diversum habent sensum, utputa, Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est (Rom. XIV, 23); et, Lex, ait, non est ex fide (Galat. III, 12), nec tamen peccatum est. Hos ergo quos multos dixit Salvator, ipsos Apostolus omnes significavit. Multi enim sunt, quia maxima pars ex omni populo et gente creditura est Salvatori. Istos Apostolus credentes omnes nuncupavit. Sic enim inter caetera ait, Pro omnibus mortuus est; his utique qui crediderunt et credituri sunt. Est etiam et pro ipsis mortuus, qui credere nolunt: sed dum illi beneficium non recipiunt, nolunt pro se mortuum esse Christum; ac per hoc non videtur mortuus pro his, quibus nihil profuit, sed magis obfuit. Pro his autem rite mortuus dicitur, quibus acquisita victoria est, qui intelligentes mysterium, Deo gratias referunt, per Christum Dominum nostrum.

The words indeed are different, but the sense is one; just as, again, the same words have a different sense, for example, Everything that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23); and, The Law, he says, is not of faith (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. Those, therefore, whom the Saviour called many, the Apostle indicated as all. For they are many, because the greatest part out of every people and nation will believe in the Saviour. These believers the Apostle called all. For thus among other things he says, He died for all; that is, for those who have believed and will believe. He also died even for those very people who refuse to believe: but since they do not receive the benefit, they do not want Christ to have died for them; and for this reason He does not seem to have died for those whom it profited nothing, but rather harmed. But He is rightly said to have died for those for whom the victory has been gained, who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord.

LV. — Cur apostolus Paulus Petrum coapostolum suum reprehendit, quod timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione, subtrahebat se a Gentilibus (Galat. II, 11, 14), cum et ipse timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione, accipiens circumcidit Timotheum, quod fieri prohibebat (Act. XVI, 3)? et ipse ergo reprehendendus est?

LV. — Why did the apostle Paul rebuke Peter his fellow apostle, because, fearing those who were of the circumcision, he withdrew himself from the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11, 14), when he himself also, fearing those who were of the circumcision, took Timothy and circumcised him, which he forbade to be done (Acts 16:3)? Is he then also to be rebuked?

Incredibile est tantum apostolum in eo alterum reprehendisse, in quo se sciret succubuisse. Hoc a tam magno viro factum, non est fas credere; quia iis competit qui carnaliter vivunt. Caret itaque apostoli Pauli factum reprehensione. Cum enim praedicaret

It is incredible that so great an apostle rebuked another in that in which he knew he himself had given way. It is not right to believe that this was done by so great a man; because it befits those who live carnally. The act of the apostle Paul is therefore free from rebuke. For when he was preaching

Editors' notes and page, col. 2406

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (LII)› · call in col 2406

(printed under page 551)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible (LIII)› · call in col 2406

(printed under page 551)

(d) ‹anchor: LV› · call in col 2406

(printed under page 551)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2406
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word praedicaret was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2407

PL 35:2407

non circumcidi, volens autem Timotheum secum assumere, qui cum esset natus matre Judaea, patre autem Graeco, et hoc Judaeis esset scandalum, ut ex Judaea natum incircumcisum assumeret; tunc subjectioni se submisit ad horam, et accipiens circumcidit eum. Rem ergo superfluam fecit, permittente eo qui passus est. Quia enim erat ex matre Judaea, eruditus ab infantia in synagoga litteris sacris, id est voluminibus Hebraeorum, permisit circumcidi se, ut Judaeis scandalum tolleret, quia zelum habebant generis sui. Denique cum Titus, inquit, esset Graecus, non est compulsus circumcidi (Galat. II, 3). Timotheum autem, quia de matre Judaea erat, sicut dixi, non sunt passi Judaei assumi inter doctores incircumcisum. Ad hoc illum assumpsit Apostolus, ut eum episcopum ordinaret, sicut fecit. Eruditus enim propheticis Litteris, ad asserendum Christum idoneus magister inventus est. Apostolus enim Petrus non esset reprehensus, si se more Judaeorum a Gentilibus segregasset, ne illis scandalo esset. Sed hoc reprehensum est in apostolo Petro, quod cum ante Graecis credentibus gentiliter viveret, advenientibus ab Jacobo Judaeis, timore subjectus ex Gentilibus credentibus judaizare debere docebat. Hinc audit, Si tu, cum sis Judaeus, gentiliter vivis, quomodo cogis Gentes judaizare? Dubitari enim fecerat de evangelica disciplina: quod crimen est, dum quae aedificaverat, destruebat. Ideo simulationem hanc vocat apostolus Paulus, quem constat si circumcidisset Timotheum, ut non taceret rem se superfluam propter illorum scandalum facere, et ideo se cedere, propter quod matrem haberet Judaeam: nec enim Judaei insisterent, nisi inventa occasione matris Judaeae, quia hoc minime possent improbare Gentilibus, nec habere facile de his scandalum, qui non essent de genere Israel. Non ergo simulatione hoc fecit, sed violentia. Supra dicta enim causa simulationem habuit non minimam. Nam multi reprehensi sunt in hac causa, ita ut aliqui Judaeorum et Barnabas consentirent huic simulationi.

that men should not be circumcised; but wishing to take Timothy with him, who had been born of a Jewish mother but of a Greek father, and since this would be a scandal to the Jews, that he should take with him an uncircumcised man born of a Jewish woman, he then submitted himself to subjection for the hour, and taking him he circumcised him. So he did a superfluous thing, with the consent of him who underwent it. For since he was of a Jewish mother, instructed from infancy in the synagogue in the sacred letters, that is, in the books of the Hebrews, he allowed himself to be circumcised, so as to remove a scandal from the Jews, because they had zeal for their own race. Finally, Since Titus, he says, was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3). But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews did not allow to be taken up among the teachers uncircumcised. The Apostle took him up for this purpose, to ordain him bishop, as he did. For, being instructed in the prophetic Writings, he was found a fit teacher for affirming Christ. For the apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles after the custom of the Jews, so as not to be a scandal to them. But this was rebuked in the apostle Peter, that whereas before he was living in Gentile fashion with the Greek believers, when Jews arrived from James, subject to fear, he taught that the believers from among the Gentiles ought to Judaize. Hence he hears, If you, though you are a Jew, live in Gentile fashion, how do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize? For he had caused doubt about the gospel discipline: which is a crime, since he was destroying what he had built. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this a pretence; and it is clear that if he had circumcised Timothy, he would not have kept silent that he was doing a superfluous thing because of their scandal, and was therefore yielding on account of the fact that he had a Jewish mother: for the Jews would not have pressed the matter unless the occasion of the Jewish mother had been found, because this they could by no means object against Gentiles, nor easily take scandal over those who were not of the race of Israel. So he did not do this by pretence, but under compulsion. For the case spoken of above involved no small pretence. For many were rebuked in this matter, so that some of the Jews and Barnabas consented to this pretence.

LVI. — Apostolus ait, Nos natura Judaei. De Judaeis ergo Judaeos nasci ostendit. Denique in eremo qui nati sunt, non circumcisi Judaei erant. Non ergo circumcisio Judaeum facit, sed nativitas sub Dei creatoris devotione progenita. Si ergo de Judaeis Judaei nascuntur, et de Paganis Pagani nascuntur; eti⟨a⟩m de Christianis Christiani nascuntur.

56. — The Apostle says, We are Jews by nature. He shows, then, that Jews are born of Jews. Finally, those who were born in the desert, though not circumcised, were Jews. So it is not circumcision that makes a Jew, but birth begotten under devotion to God the Creator. If, then, Jews are born of Jews, and pagans are born of pagans, Christians too are born of Christians.

Non omne quod nascitur, hoc est quod unde nascitur. Nam et aurum de terra nascitur, etc.

Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold too is born of the earth, etc.

LVII. — Quid opus erat ut Galatas arguens Apostolus hoc interponeret. Galatis enim post Evangelium ad Legem confugientibus inter caetera ait, Mediator autem unius non est, Deus autem unus est (Galat. III, 20): quasi Galatae unum Deum negarent. Quippe cum hac ratione inducti in Lege, ut unum Deum et singularem crederent: Christum autem ministrum tantum ex praedestinatione venisse ad dispensandum donum gratiae Dei.

57. — What need was there for the Apostle, in rebuking the Galatians, to insert this. For to the Galatians, who after the Gospel were fleeing back to the Law, he says among other things, But a mediator is not of one, but God is one (Gal. 3:20): as though the Galatians were denying one God. Since indeed they had been led into the Law on this reasoning, that they should believe God to be one and single, but that Christ had come merely as a minister, by predestination, to dispense the gift of the grace of God.

Manifestum est sic inductos Galatas in Legem fuisse ut et Christum profiterentur, sed non sicut dignum est, sed more Photini; ut quia unum Deum Lex praedicat, contra Legem sit si Christus Deus dicatur. Hoc commentum Judaeorum est, qui magnalibus virtutum victi crediderunt post crucem Christi, ita ut profitentes Christum, Legem tamen servarent, quasi non esset omnis spes in Christo ponenda. Hi sunt quos Apostolus falsos fratres appellat (Id. II, 4, et II Cor. XI, 26). Isti ergo post Apostolorum traditionem, Galatarum sensum corruperant, ita ut Judaeos eos facerent sub nomine Salvatoris. Hinc Apostolus Christum dicit venisse arbitrum circumcisionis et praeputii, sicut

It is clear that the Galatians had been led into the Law in such a way that they also professed Christ, but not as is fitting, rather after the manner of Photinus; so that, since the Law proclaims one God, it would be against the Law if Christ were called God. This is a fabrication of the Jews who, overcome by the mighty works of [His] powers, believed after the cross of Christ, in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though all hope were not to be placed in Christ. These are those whom the Apostle calls false brothers (ibid. 2:4, and 2 Cor. 11:26). These men, then, after the tradition of the Apostles, had corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so as to make them Jews under the name of the Saviour. Hence the Apostle says that Christ came as arbiter of circumcision and foreskin, as

Editors' notes and page, col. 2407

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2407

¹ Ms. Germanensis, timore Judaeorum.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "timore Judaeorum" (for fear of the Jews).

(printed under page 552)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2407

² Morel affirmat legendum, quem constat sic circumcidisse Timotheum. Vid. Element. Critic., pagg. 264, 265. M.

Morel asserts that the reading should be "quem constat sic circumcidisse Timotheum" (who, it is agreed, circumcised Timothy in this way). See the Elementa Critica, pp. 264–265. M.

(printed under page 552)

(a) ‹anchor: LVI› · call in col 2407

(printed under page 552) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 81.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 81.

(printed under page 552)

(b) ‹anchor: LVII› · call in col 2407

(printed under page 552) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 552) (a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 83.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 83.

(printed under page 552) (b) Ibid., quaest. 82.

Ibid., Question 82.

(printed under page 552) (c) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 552)

Page

running head: 2407 QUÆSTIONUM EX NOVO TEST.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word sicut was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 2408

PL 35:2408

dicit ad Ephesios: In uno novo homine faciens pacem (Ephes. II, 15). Si ergo arbiter venit Christus, arbiter autem sic facit pacem inter duos, ut novam regulam ponat, auferens ambobus professiones, reconciliat eos, ut ejus sententiam secuti, amittant discordiam pristinam. Judaeo enim circumcisionem vindicante, et Gentili praeputium, discordia fit. Cum vero hoc ambobus aufertur, fit pax. Si igitur sic se haec habent, quomodo vos, inquit, Galatae Judaei facti, Christi arbitrium corrumpitis? Ideo dixit illis: Evacuati estis a Christo. Jus enim reconciliationis quod inter eos constituerat spernentes, ad pristinum Judaeorum sensum conversi sunt, accusantes tam se quam reconciliatorem. Omne enim quod displicet, accusatur. Et quoniam haec res Galatas ad Legem converti coegerat, ut unum Deum sine mysterio faterentur, quasi Legi esset inimicum, si Christus Deus diceretur; dicit, Arbiter, hoc est, mediator, unius non est, sed duorum utique: vos autem conversi ad Legem, arbitrum recusastis, Deus tamen unus est. Quo dicto non sic se Christum Deum praedicare testatur, ut alterum Deum faceret, aut duos profiteretur, sed unum esse Deum, sicut et in Lege dictum est. Quia Christus cum de Deo Deus praedicatur, non ad alterum proficit Deum: quia quod de Deo est, non se permittit alterum Deum dici. Sive enim Deus, sive quod de Deo est, unus est Deus. Nihil enim utique distat inter Deum, et quod de Deo est. Est enim alter. Ipse enim alter, propter personam, qua Filius nuncupatur: ipse vero idem, propter unitatem substantiae. Ne reprehensibile videatur quia personam dixi, solent enim hoc quidam abnuere; sed Apostolum sequamur qui ait: Nam quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi (II Cor. II, 10).

he says to the Ephesians: Making peace in one new man (Eph. 2:15). If therefore Christ came as arbiter, and an arbiter makes peace between two in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away from both their professions, He reconciles them, so that, having followed His judgement, they may lose their former discord. For when the Jew claims circumcision, and the Gentile the foreskin, discord arises. But when this is taken away from both, peace arises. If therefore these things are so, how is it, he says, that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the arbitration of Christ? Therefore he said to them: You have been emptied out from Christ. For, spurning the law of reconciliation which He had established between them, they have turned back to the former mind of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler. For everything that displeases is accused. And since this matter had compelled the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they might confess one God without the mystery, as if it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: An arbiter, that is, a mediator, is not of one, but surely of two: you, however, having turned to the Law, have refused the arbiter; yet God is one. By this saying he testifies that he preaches Christ as God not in such a way as to make another God, or to profess two, but that God is one, just as it was also said in the Law. For Christ, when He is preached as God from God, does not advance to another God: for that which is from God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether God, or that which is from God, God is one. For there is surely no difference between God and that which is from God. For He is another. For He Himself is another by reason of the person, by which He is called the Son; but He Himself is the same by reason of the unity of substance. Lest it seem reprehensible that I have said "person" (for some are accustomed to reject this), let us follow the Apostle, who says: For what I have given, if I have given anything, [I have given] for your sakes in the person of Christ (2 Cor. 2:10).

LVIII. — Si per Christum salus, et vera et perfecta cognitio, cur non ante venit, ut anteriores nostri qui in ignorantia fuerunt addiscerent veritatem? Denique post adventum Christi multi salvi facti sunt magis quam prius: unde si ante venisset, multo plures salvati fuissent. Si ergo ita est, reprehensibile videtur.

LVIII. — If through Christ there is salvation, and true and perfect knowledge, why did He not come earlier, so that our forebears who were in ignorance might learn the truth? Indeed, after the coming of Christ more were saved than before: hence, if He had come earlier, many more would have been saved. If therefore it is so, it seems reprehensible.

Si ei cui necessitas imminet, ante subveniatur, erit quidem gratus, non valde tamen poterit scire quid sibi praestitum est, etc.

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, etc.

LIX. — Paganos sub elementis esse nulli dubium est. Quid ergo Apostolus dixit, Eramus et nos sub elementis hujus mundi servientes. Si itaque et Judaei sub elementis erant, quid differunt a Paganis?

LIX. — That pagans are under the elements is doubtful to no one. Why then did the Apostle say, We too were serving under the elements of this world? If therefore the Jews too were under the elements, in what do they differ from the pagans?

Pagani non sub elementis serviunt, sed ipsis elementis. Colunt enim astra, etc.

The pagans do not serve under the elements, but serve the elements themselves. For they worship the stars, etc.

LX. — Quando Apostolus Galatis dicit, quos sic reprehendit et arguit per totam Epistolam, Estote sicut et ego, quia ego sicut vos (Galat. IV, 12): si ergo talem se praestitit quales illi erant, superfluum fuit dicere, Estote sicut et ego. An forte in quibusdam imitator illorum esse coeperat, et in aliquibus vult illos sui similes existere?

LX. — When the Apostle says to the Galatians, whom he thus rebukes and reproves throughout the whole Epistle, Be as I also am, for I am as you are (Gal. 4:12): if therefore he showed himself such as they were, it was superfluous to say, Be as I also am. Or perhaps in certain things he had begun to be an imitator of them, and in some things he wishes them to become like himself?

Quid illorum poterat imitari Apostolus? aut quid illi deerat magistro gentium? Sed hortatur illos ut imitatores ejus sint: et quoniam non est impossibile, sic reprobat, cum dicit, Quia hoc sum quod vos: homines enim estis, sicut et ego; ideo facite quod facio ego. Potest et ad illud referri, ut quoniam omnibus se omnia factum dicit per assensum in quibus a vero non discrepabant, maxime Gentiles (I Cor. IX, 22). Nec enim fuit aliquid eorum, quid jam fieri minime oportebat, prius autem recte factum erat, ut circumcisio, sabbatorum observatio, neomeniarum, escarum. Sed si quid gentium probavit, non cessare jam debere ostendit. Mundum enim dicunt a Deo et hominibus fabricatum: hoc semper stat. Si ergo in his consentiens illis factus est sicut et illi, hortatur illos

What of theirs could the Apostle imitate? Or what did the teacher of the Gentiles lack? But he exhorts them to be his imitators: and since it is not impossible, he thus reproves them when he says, For I am what you are: for you are men, just as I also am; therefore do what I do. It can also be referred to this, that he says he became all things to all men by assent in those matters in which they did not differ from the truth, especially the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:22). For there was nothing of theirs which ought now by no means to be done but had formerly been rightly done, such as circumcision, the observance of sabbaths, of new moons, of foods. But if he approved anything of the Gentiles, he shows that it ought not now to cease. For they say that the world was made by God and by men: this always stands. If therefore, agreeing with them in these things, he became as they also are, he exhorts them

Editors' notes and page, col. 2408

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: imitari Apostolus› · call in col 2408

¹ Germanensis Ms., Quis illorum poterat imitari Apostolum?

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "Quis illorum poterat imitari Apostolum?" (Which of them could imitate the Apostle?).

(printed under page 552)

(a) ‹anchor: LVIII› · call in col 2408

(printed under page 552)

(b) ‹anchor: LIX› · call in col 2408

(printed under page 552)

Page

running head: [E]X NOVO TEST. PARS SECUNDA. (left edge of the head cut off by the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2409

ut simili modo et hi fiant sicut et illa est, consentientes doctrinae ejus.

so that in like manner these too may become as he is, agreeing with his teaching.

LXI. — Quomodo liberi sumus arbitrii ac voluntatis, cum dicat Apostolus, Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus vero adversus carnem, ut non quae vultis, ea faciatis (Galat. V, 17)? Et si caro adversus spiritum concupiscit, mala est. Spiritus enim bona suggerit.

LXI. — How are we possessed of free 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 (Gal. 5:17)? And if the flesh lusts against the spirit, it is evil. For the spirit suggests good things.

Carnem non substantiam carnis hoc loco intelligas, sed actus malos et perfidiam significata in carne. Per id enim quod omnis error ex visibilibus et mundanis, caro autem cognata eorum est; ex elementis enim constat; omnem errorem carnem appellat: non solum adulteria, fornicationes et luxuriam, opera dicit carnis, sed et idololatriam, et maleficia, et blasphemias, et talia. Numquid caro ad blasphemiam cogit aut idololatriam? Nonne haec animae vitia sunt, dum consentit errori? Recte autem agentibus dicit quod non sint in carne, sed in spiritu. Et utique ad hoc in corpore sunt. Qui ergo bene ambulat, nec diffidit de spe fidelium, in carne positus, non esse dicitur in carne: male autem vivens et blasphemus, in carne dicitur esse, et caro; quia quomodo bene agentes spirituales sunt cum ipsa carne, sic male viventes carnales sunt cum ipsa anima. Hoc enim nuncupatur quod dicit. Hic itaque error, quem carnem appellat, concupiscit adversus spiritum, id est suggerit mala contra eumdem spiritum, qui est lex Dei. Ad duas enim leges inducit, Dei et diaboli. Unde spiritum dicit, propterea quod lex Dei spiritualis est, contra carnem, hoc est contra vitia repugnare, ut hominem conservet Deo: lex autem diaboli, qui est error, contradicit per oblectamenta luxuriae, et mundana dulcedine. His ergo repugnantibus medius homo est, qui cum consentit spiritui, non vult caro: cum autem manum dat carni, spernit spiritum, id est legem Dei contemnit. Consentientem ergo carni, spiritus revocat ne faciat quod vult: assentientem autem spiritui, caro sollicitat ne faciat quod putat utile. Sed spiritus recte et providenter contradicit et revocat, ut eripiat hominem a consi⟨li⟩is satanae. Caro autem quae est lex adversa, idcirco sollicitat, et spiritui legis resistit, ut per fallaciam decipiat. Ideo ergo haec Apostolus publicat, ut ostendat arbitrio humano cui rei voluntatem suam committat, non ut arbitrium libertatis exinaniat, sed docet arbitrium cui rei se conjungat. Si autem non est voluntatis arbitrium, neque lex diaboli quae est caro, neque lex Dei quae est spiritus, invicem sibi adversando hominem consiliis sollicitarent. Qui enim sollicitat, suadet: qui autem suadet, non vim infert, sed circumvenit: qui circumvenitur, fallaciis quibusdam voluntas illi mu⟨t⟩atur. Si autem non esset liberum arbitrium, nolens homo traheretur ad ea quae non vult.

You should understand "flesh" in this place not as the substance of the flesh, but as evil acts and faithlessness signified in the flesh. For since all error [arises] from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them, for it consists of the elements, he calls all error flesh: he calls works of the flesh not only adulteries, fornications and luxury, but also idolatry, and sorceries, and blasphemies, and such things. Does the flesh compel to blasphemy or idolatry? Are these not vices of the soul, when it consents to error? But of those who act rightly he says that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. And yet for this very purpose they are in the body. Whoever, then, walks well and does not lose confidence in the hope of the faithful, though placed in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but one who lives evilly and is a blasphemer is said to be in the flesh, and to be flesh; because just as those who act well are spiritual along with the flesh itself, so those who live evilly are carnal along with the soul itself. For this is what is named by what he says. This error, therefore, which he calls flesh, lusts against the spirit, that is, suggests evil things against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For he brings in two laws, that of God and that of the devil. Hence he says that the spirit, because the law of God is spiritual, fights against the flesh, that is, against vices, in order to keep man for God; but the law of the devil, which is error, opposes [it] through the delights of luxury and through worldly sweetness. Between these, then, as they fight each other, man stands in the middle; when he consents to the spirit, the flesh is unwilling; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit, that is, he despises the law of God. When he consents to the flesh, therefore, the spirit calls him back so that he may not do what he wills; but when he assents to the spirit, the flesh entices him so that he may not do what he thinks useful. But the spirit rightly and providently opposes and calls back, in order to snatch the man from the counsels of Satan. The flesh, however, which is the opposing law, entices for this reason, and resists the spirit of the law, so that it may deceive by trickery. For this reason, therefore, the Apostle makes these things public, in order to show human choice to what it should commit its will; not so as to empty out the choice of freedom, but he teaches choice to what it should join itself. But if there is no choice of the will, neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, would, in opposing each other, entice man with counsels. For he who entices persuades; and he who persuades does not apply force, but circumvents; he who is circumvented has his will changed by certain deceits. But if there were no free choice, man would be dragged against his will to the things he does not will.

LXII. — Si in Christo omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae sunt absconditi (Coloss. II, 3), quomodo idem Salvator do die et hora futuri judicii dicit se nescire (Marc. XIII, 32)? Si autem sciat, et dicit se nescire, videtur mentiri.

LXII. — If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Col. 2:3), how does the same Saviour say that He does not know the day and hour of the future judgement (Mark 13:32)? But if He knows, and says that He does not know, He seems to lie.

Dictum hoc duplicem continet sensum. In Christo enim omnes thesauros sapientiae et scientiae sic dicit absconditos, ut qui habet Christum, pro omni sapientia et scientia illi cedat: ut scire Christum totum sit scire, et omnem sapientiam comprehendisse, sicut dicitur ad Colossenses, Nemo vos circumveniat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem, secundum elementa hujus mundi, et non secundum Christum: quia in Christo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter:

This saying contains a twofold sense. For he says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ in such a way that, for whoever has Christ, He counts as all wisdom and knowledge: so that to know Christ is to know everything, and to have comprehended all wisdom, as is said to the Colossians, Let no one circumvent you through philosophy and empty seduction, according to the elements of this world, and not according to Christ: for in Christ dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily:

Editors' notes and page, col. 2409

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: idololatriam› · call in col 2409

¹ Juxta Lov.: Numquid caro blasphemiam cogit aut idololatriam? M.

According to the Louvain edition: "Numquid caro blasphemiam cogit aut idololatriam?" (Does the flesh compel blasphemy or idolatry?) M.

(printed under page 553)

(2) ‹anchor: in corpore sunt› · call in col 2409

² Morel affirmat legendum: Et utique adhuc in corpore sunt Vid. Element. Critic., pag. 168. M.

Morel asserts that the reading should be "Et utique adhuc in corpore sunt" (and indeed they are still in the body). See the Elementa Critica, p. 168. M.

(printed under page 553)

(3) ‹anchor: illi cedat› · call in col 2409

³ Ms. Germanensis, illum credat.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "illum credat" (let him believe him).

(printed under page 553)

(a) ‹anchor: LXI› · call in col 2409

(printed under page 553) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 553)

(b) ‹anchor: LXII› · call in col 2409

(printed under page 553) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 553) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 553)

Page

running head: 2409 APPENDIX.
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: do die (for de die)
other: signature line PATROL. XXXV. printed below the foot notes of this column

PL 35:2410

Hoc est, nihil ind⟨i⟩gere ad salutem, eum qui credit in Christum, sed illi hoc abundare; quia plenitudo divinitatis in fide ejus est. Et iterum in eadem Epistola inter caetera ait : Nemo vos seducat in humiliationem cordis, et in superstitione Angelorum, quae videt extollens se, frustra inflatus mente carnis suae, et non tenens caput ex quo omne corpus subministratum et productum crescit in incrementum Dei (Coloss. II, 8, 9, 18, 19). Si itaque credentes in Christum, caput totius principatus et potestatis venerantur, nullius indigent, sed totum quod ad salutem opus est habent; nihil illis oberit inferiora quae ad salutem nihil conferunt nescire, quando id quod necessarium est norunt. Hujusmodi ergo totum scire, dicendi sunt, qui hoc sciunt, quod illis proficiat ad salutem. Est etiam illud, quia in Salvatore omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae sunt absconditi. Omnia enim sacramenta Paterna ipsi sunt cognita; et omnem creaturam ipse metitur; et nec Pater judicat quemquam, sed omne judicium dedit Filio (Joan. V, 22); et nemo scit quae sunt in Deo, nisi Spiritus Dei (I Cor. II, 11), qui est et Christi. Quomodo ergo et diem et horam futuri judicii nescire dicendus est, cujus Spiritus quae in Deo sunt, novit, de quo dixit quia de ejus accepit (Joan. XVI, 14, 15)? Si ergo qui de ejus accepit novit quae futura sunt, quomodo non sciet Christus qui misit Spiritum sanctum? Et potest fieri ut judex nesciat diem futuri judicii? quippe cum omnia signa dederit quando speretur. Forte etiam hos dicatur vere nescire, quibus dicit : Amen dico vobis, quod nescio vos (Matth. XXV, 12). Nec virgines stultas et improvidas dicetur scire, quia dixit etiam, ipsis dicentibus, Domine, Domine, aperi nobis, Amen dico vobis, quod nescio vos. Causa ergo est ut dicat se nescire quod scit. Denique sic ait : Vigilate, quia nescitis qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit (Id. XXIV, 42). Ut ergo sollicitos nos et vigilantes faceret, interrogatus nescire se dixit diem et horam futuri judicii; sed ut nobis prodesset, negavit se scire quod scit. Ignorantibus ergo nobis quid prosit nobis, scire omnino volumus quod si scierimus, oberit nobis : Christus autem provisor salutis nostrae, ne audiremus quod contra nos esset, dixit se nescire. Numquid si alicui in dolore posito gladium poscenti se ut perimat, qui habet respondeat se non habere, mendacii arguendus erit negans, quod si non neget, sciat contrarium?

That is, that he who believes in Christ needs nothing for salvation, but that this is abundant for him; because the fullness of the divinity is in faith in Him. And again in the same Epistle, among other things, he says: Let no one lead you astray in humiliation of heart and in the superstition of the angels, which he sees, exalting himself, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding the head from which the whole body, supplied and brought forth, grows into the increase of God (Col. 2:8, 9, 18, 19). If therefore those who believe in Christ venerate the head of all principality and power, they need nothing, but have all that is needed for salvation; it will do them no harm not to know lower things which contribute nothing to salvation, when they know that which is necessary. Such men, therefore, are to be said to know everything, who know this, which profits them for salvation. There is also this, that in the Saviour all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. For all the Father's mysteries are known to Him; and He Himself measures every creature; and the Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son (John 5:22); and no one knows the things that are in God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11), Who is also Christ's. How then is He to be said not to know the day and hour of the future judgement, Whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, the Spirit of Whom He said that He received of His (John 16:14–15)? If then He Who received of His knows the things that are to come, how will Christ not know, Who sent the Holy Spirit? And can it happen that the judge does not know the day of the future judgement? seeing that He has given all the signs of when it is to be hoped for. Perhaps also He may be said truly not to know those to whom He says: Amen I say to you, that I do not know you (Matt. 25:12). Nor will He be said to know the foolish and improvident virgins, because He also said, when they were saying, Lord, Lord, open to us: Amen I say to you, that I do not know you. There is a reason, then, for His saying that He does not know what He knows. Finally He speaks thus: Watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord is to come (Matt. 24:42). So, in order to make us anxious and watchful, when asked He said that He did not know the day and hour of the future judgement; but so that it might profit us, He denied that He knew what He knows. For we, not knowing what profits us, altogether want to know what, if we knew it, would harm us; but Christ, the provider of our salvation, said that He did not know, so that we might not hear what would be against us. Surely if someone placed in pain asks for a sword to kill himself, and the one who has one answers that he does not have one, he will not be convicted of a lie in denying it, since, if he did not deny it, he knows the contrary would follow?

LXIII. — Quid est ut cum Apostoli omnes curas sibi oblatas sanassent, propriis tamen infirmis medelam non dederint? Nam utique Epaphroditus usque ad mortem non aegrotasset (Philipp. II, 27), si intercessio Apostoli fuisset audita. Quis enim dubitet orasse hoc saepe Apostolum, et non impetrasse? Si enim auditus fuisset, statim infirmitas fuisset adempta?

LXIII. — Why is it that, though the apostles healed all the cases for cure brought to them, they nevertheless gave no remedy to their own sick? For certainly Epaphroditus would not have been sick unto death (Phil. 2:27), if the Apostle's intercession had been heard. For who would doubt that the Apostle often prayed for this, and did not obtain it? For if he had been heard, would not the illness at once have been taken away?

Signa et virtutes idcirco ab Apostolis factae sunt, ut infidelitas cogeretur ad fidem, ut videntes facta quae hominibus impossibilia sunt, Dei ex hoc esse praedicationem agnoscerent, et rationem esse in fide, virtute probarent : ut quoniam verbis semper contradicitur, testis virtus posita est, cui cum verba cedunt, rationem esse in fide significat, quae verbis exprimi non potest. Inter fideles igitur non jam signa et prodigia sunt necessaria, sed spes firma. Postquam enim discitur vera esse quae promissa sunt, ad hoc se armat animus, ut spretis praesentibus, futuris dignus existat, meritum sibi collocans per laborem; hoc Salomone testante, qui ait, Fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei, sta in justitia et timore, et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem (Eccli. II, 1). Quoniam tentationibus proficit homo, haec data sunt monita. Unde Apostolus : Per tribulationes, inquit, oportet nos intrare in regnum Dei (Act. XIV, 21). Hae tribulationum tentationes diversis modis accidunt, ut perseverans animus in accepta fide possit coronari. Non solum enim

Signs and mighty works were done by the apostles for this reason: that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that, seeing things done which are impossible for men, they might recognize from this that the preaching was of God, and might prove by power that there is reason in the faith: so that, since words are always contradicted, power was set up as a witness, to which, when words yield, it signifies that there is a reason in the faith which cannot be expressed in words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but firm hope. For after it is learned that the things promised are true, the soul arms itself for this, that, despising present things, it may prove worthy of future things, laying up merit for itself through labour; as Solomon testifies, who says, Son, approaching the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation (Sir. 2:1). Since man advances through temptations, these warnings were given. Hence the Apostle: Through tribulations, he says, we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). These temptations of tribulations befall in various ways, so that the soul persevering in the faith it has received may be crowned. For not only

Editors' notes and page, col. 2410

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: LXIII› · call in col 2410

(printed under page 553)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2410
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2411

in fide tentatur homo, sed et in aegritudine, et in damno, et in persecutione, et in morte charorum: ut si in his passionibus ad auxilium daemoniorum non fuerit abductus, sine sanguinis pretio mercetur martyrium. Non ergo ad dispendium Epaphroditi non impetravit Apostolus quod petiit, sed ad profectum: quia et in sua causa, cum postulasset, audivit, Sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur (II Cor. XII, 9).

a man is tested in faith, but also in sickness, and in loss, and in persecution, and in the death of dear ones: so that if in these sufferings he has not been drawn away to the help of demons, he may purchase martyrdom without the price of blood. It was not, then, to Epaphroditus's loss that the Apostle did not obtain what he asked, but to his advancement: for in his own case too, when he had made petition, he heard, My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).

LXIV. Petrus apostolus dicit, Christus mortuus est pro vobis (I Petr. II, 21). Paulus vero apostolus asserit quia et pro se mortuus est, Factus, inquit, obediens usque ad mortem; propter quod donavit illi Deus nomen quod est super omne nomen (Philipp. II, 8 et 9). Quod si ita est, imperfectus videbitur fuisse qui per opera sua fecit augmentum.

64. The apostle Peter says, Christ died for you (1 Pet. 2:21). But the apostle Paul asserts that He also died for Himself: Having become, he says, obedient unto death; because of which God gave Him the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:8–9). And if this is so, He who made increase through His own works will seem to have been imperfect.

Filium Dei perfectum natum esse de Deo, nemo fidelium ambigit. Omnia enim divinitatis paternae accepit

That the Son of God was born perfect from God, none of the faithful doubts. For all the things of the paternal divinity He received

QUAESTIONUM EX UTROQUE MIXTIM PARS SECUNDA.

Questions from Both Testaments Mixed Together, Second Part.

QUAESTIO PRIMA. — Quid sit ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei fecisse hominem: et an mulier imago Dei sit.

First Question. — What it is to have made man to the image and likeness of God: and whether woman is the image of God.

Hoc est ad imaginem Dei factum esse hominem, quia unus unum fecit, etc.

This is man's having been made to the image of God, that One made one, etc.

II. — Evangelium testatur quia nemo vidit Deum (Joan. I, 18, VI, 46, et I Tim. VI, 16): contra Jacob et Moyses et Isaias asserunt Deum se vidisse (Gen. XXXII, 30, et Isai. VI, 1). Sed dicit quis, Patrem nemo vidit. Quid ad rem? Si Filius visus est, visus et Pater est: quippe cum Pater et Filius uterque sit unus Deus, et in substantia, et in imagine, quia duorum una imago est, et sicut ipse dicit, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. XIV, 9). Quomodo ergo nemo vidit Patrem Deum, cum Filius dicat videri Patrem cum ipse videtur? Quia neque alter Deus. Si ergo alter non est, ipse idem quia unus est, visus est Deus.

2. — The Gospel testifies that no one has seen God (John 1:18, 6:46, and 1 Tim. 6:16): on the other hand Jacob and Moses and Isaiah assert that they saw God (Gen. 32:30, and Isa. 6:1). But someone says, No one has seen the Father. What has that to do with the matter? If the Son has been seen, the Father too has been seen: since the Father and the Son are both one God, both in substance and in image, because of the two there is one image, and as He Himself says, He who sees Me sees the Father also (John 14:9). How then has no one seen God the Father, when the Son says that the Father is seen when He Himself is seen? Because neither is He another God. If then He is not another, the very same, because He is one, God has been seen.

Quantum ad Evangelistam pertinet, de Patre Deo hoc dixit, quia nemo vidit Deum, nisi Filius unigenitus qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Credamus Filio; ipse enarravit enim quia nemo, nisi ipse, vidit Deum. Hoc autem ideo dixit, ut doceret se semper apparuisse Patriarchis et Prophetis. Non ergo hoc ad unum Deum pertinet, sed ad personam Patris, de quo non potest dici aliter quam Deus Pater. Filius autem sic se visum dicit, ut invisibilis sit tamen in eo ipso cum videri putatur. Visus enim hic intellectus est; quia non utique oculis visus est, sed mente intellectus: et hoc fuit vidisse, intellexisse, in eo quod apparuit ibi inesse Deum. Cum autem dicit Salvator, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem; non utique ad oculorum visum hoc retulit, sed mentis, et ut nihil inter Patrem et Filium diversum esse putaretur. Neuter ergo eorum visus est juxta substantiam. Circum apparentia autem solus Filius visus est mente, non carnalibus oculis; quia invisibilis est sicut Pater.

As far as the Evangelist is concerned, he said this of God the Father, that no one has seen God except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father; He Himself has declared [Him]. Let us believe the Son; for He Himself has declared that no one but He has seen God. And He said this in order to teach that it was He who always appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets. This, then, does not concern the one God, but the person of the Father, of whom it cannot be said otherwise than God the Father. But the Son says that He has been seen in such a way that He is nevertheless invisible in that very thing in which He is thought to be seen. For seeing is here understanding; for He was certainly not seen with the eyes, but understood with the mind: and this was to have seen, to have understood, in that it was evident that God was present there. And when the Saviour says, He who sees Me sees the Father also, He certainly did not refer this to the sight of the eyes, but of the mind, and so that nothing should be thought different between the Father and the Son. Neither of them, therefore, has been seen according to substance. But as regards appearance the Son alone has been seen, with the mind, not with carnal eyes; because He is invisible just as the Father is.

III. — Vetus Lex Deum jurasse allegat: sic enim dicit, Per memetipsum juravi, dicit Dominus (Gen. XXII, 16). Salvator autem jurare prohibuit (Matth. V, 34): quomodo non destruxit vetera?

3. — The Old Law alleges that God swore: for it says thus, By My very self I have sworn, says the Lord (Gen. 22:16). But the Saviour forbade swearing (Matt. 5:34): how has He not destroyed the old things?

Antequam notitia Dei esset in terris, non aliter oportuit provocare homines ad spem inauditam, quam

Before the knowledge of God was on earth, it was not fitting to call men forth to an unheard-of hope otherwise than

Editors' notes and page, col. 2411

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: LXIV› · call in col 2411

(printed under page 554, upper half of col. 2411, above the part title) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 554, upper half of col. 2411, above the part title)

(a) ‹anchor: Quaestio prima› · call in col 2411

(printed under page 554) (a) Eadem cum ea quae inter primo vulgatas est quaest. 21.

The same as the one that is Question 21 among those first published.

(printed under page 554)

(b) ‹anchor: II› · call in col 2411

(printed under page 554) (b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 554)

(printed under page 554) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 554)

Editors' prose

- The part title printed across page 554 at mid-page (QUAESTIONUM EX UTROQUE MIXTIM PARS SECUNDA) is set in layer 1 in c2411 above QUAESTIO PRIMA.

Page

running head: 2411 QUAESTIONUM EX UTROQUE MIXTI[M] (cut off at the image edge; column number printed blurred, reads 2:11)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2412

nascendo de Deo Patre. Tunc ergo accepit nomen, quod est super omne nomen, id est ut hoc dicatur quod Pater, Deus. Nam nihil apud eum futurum dicitur: omnia enim ante se habet. Ideo ad haec omnia creanda et restauranda natus est. Nam utique ordo et ratio hoc habet, ut paterno nomini omne genu flectatur. Hoc Pater donavit Filio propter ea quae erat acturus; donavit autem quando genuit. Sic enim illum genuit, ut in eodem honore esset, quo ipse Pater est.

by being born of God the Father. Then, therefore, He received the name which is above every name, that is, that He should be called what the Father is, God. For with Him nothing is said to be future: for He has all things before Him. Therefore He was born to create and to restore all these things. For assuredly order and reason hold this, that every knee should bend to the paternal name. This the Father gave to the Son on account of the things which He was going to do; and He gave it when He begot Him. For He so begot Him that He should be in the same honour in which the Father Himself is.

LXV. — Quid est quod dictum est Joanni, sicut in Apocalypsi scriptum legitur, Vade, et accipe librum, et devora illum; et amaricabit ventrem tuum, sed in ore tuo erit dulce tanquam mel? Quid est hic liber: vel quomodo amarum facit ventrem, cum sit dulcis?

65. — What is it that was said to John, as is read written in the Apocalypse, Go, and take the book, and devour it; and it will make your belly bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey (Rev. 10:9)? What is this book: or how does it make the belly bitter, though it is sweet?

Frequenter, qui compendium quaerit, solet errare. Quid est ut non omnia ad causam dicta proponas, etc.

Often he who seeks a short cut is apt to go astray. Why is it that you do not set out all the things said bearing on the matter, etc.

jurejurando promissio illis fieret, ab eo utique quem non, ut dignum erat, sciebant. At ubi autem coepit sciri, non utique jurare oportuit, quem mentiri fas non esset arbitrari. Ideo ergo Dominus nec servos jam jurare praecepit, sed tales se instituere, ut sermonibus illorum fides habeatur. Sacramentum enim jurisjurandi aut perfidia exegit, aut fallacia inconstantis; ut quia fallere homines solent, timore forte Dei revereantur: aut certe satis erit, et qui fallitur, quia ex hoc offensam acquirit.

a promise should be made to them by oath, namely by Him whom they did not know as was fitting. But when He began to be known, it was certainly not fitting to swear, since it was not right to think that He would lie. Therefore the Lord commanded that even servants should no longer swear, but should so form themselves that their words might be believed. For the sacrament of the oath was demanded either by faithlessness or by the deceit of one who is inconstant; so that, since men are wont to deceive, they might perhaps be restrained by the fear of God: or at least it will be enough, even for him who is deceived, that by this [the deceiver] incurs offence.

IV. — Quid est quod in cruce positus Salvator ait, Pater, ignosce illis; non enim sciunt quid faciunt? Si nesciunt, quid est quod ignoscitur, maxime cum dicat Abimelech ad Deum, Numquid ignorantes perdes?

4. — What is it that the Saviour, when placed on the cross, says, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34)? If they do not know, what is it that is forgiven, especially since Abimelech says to God, Wilt Thou destroy those who are ignorant (Gen. 20:4)?

Non omnis ignorans immunis a poena est. Hic enim qui potuit discere, et non dedit operam, etc.

Not everyone who is ignorant is free from punishment. For he who could have learned, and did not apply himself, etc.

V. — Si in Lege nemo justificatur apud Deum, quare scriptum est, Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro Legis, ut faciat ea (Deut. XXVII, 26)? si ex fide justificantur homines, et non per Legem (Galat. II, 16), utquid maledictus est qui non implevit Legem, cum non proficiat ad justitiam?

5. — If in the Law no one is justified before God, why is it written, Cursed is everyone who has not continued in all the things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them (Deut. 27:26)? If men are justified by faith, and not through the Law (Gal. 2:16), why is he cursed who has not fulfilled the Law, since it does not avail for justice?

Lex data per Moysen justitiam habebat quidem, sed terrenam; ut servantes Legem justi essent ad praesens, ut non rei fierent. Justus est enim ex Lege, qui nulli nocet. Unde Apostolus, Lex, inquit, non ex fide; sed qui fecerit ea, vivet in eis (Id. III, 12): hoc est, faciens Legem non morietur, sed vivit ad praesens; justitia autem quae ex fide est, justificat homines apud Deum, ut remunerentur in futuro saeculo. Addiderunt enim temporali justitiae justitiam fidei. Justum est enim nosse ex quo et per quem sumus, ut Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti vera confessio ad coelestia regna nos perducat. Nam et veteres qui non solum Legis praecepta servaverunt, sed et Deum dilexerunt, spem habentes in promissione, justificati sunt apud Deum. Solam enim Legem dicit non justificare homines apud Deum, sicut nec sola fides exceptis bonis operibus commendat apud Deum, sed servata justitia terrena et divina, perfectos facit. Hinc dicit Dominus: Nisi abundaverit justitia vestra

The Law given through Moses did indeed hold justice, but an earthly one; so that those keeping the Law should be just for the present, so as not to become guilty. For he is just according to the Law who harms no one. Hence the Apostle says, The Law is not of faith; but he who does these things shall live in them (Gal. 3:12): that is, he who does the Law will not die, but lives for the present; but the justice which is of faith justifies men before God, so that they may be rewarded in the world to come. For they added to temporal justice the justice of faith. For it is just to know from Whom and through Whom we are, so that the true confession of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit may lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. For the men of old too, who not only kept the precepts of the Law but also loved God, having hope in the promise, were justified before God. For he says that the Law alone does not justify men before God, just as neither does faith alone, without good works, commend [them] before God, but justice kept both earthly and divine makes [men] perfect. Hence the Lord says: Unless your justice abounds

Editors' notes and page, col. 2412

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: LXV› · call in col 2412

(a) Habetur sup. inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 72.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 72.

(printed under page 554, upper half of col. 2412, above the part title)

(a) ‹anchor: IV› · call in col 2412

(a) Habetur supra inter primo vulgatas, juxta quaest. 67.

It is found above among those first published, next to Question 67.

(printed under page 554)

(b) ‹anchor: V› · call in col 2412

(b) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 554)

Page

running head: TROQUE MIXTIM PARS SECUNDA. (cut off at left edge; column number printed after it)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2413

plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non introibitis in regnum coelorum (Matth. V, 20).

more than [that] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20).

VI. — Quid est ut David dicat, Confundantur et erubescant qui dicunt mihi, Euge, euge (Psal. LXIX, 4): Dominus autem, Euge, inquit, serve bone et fidelis, (Matth. XXV, 21, 23) etc. Quod David pro malo accepit, hoc Salvator bonis meritis dignum ostendit?

VI. — Why is it that David says, Let them be confounded and put to shame who say to me, Well done, well done (Ps. 69:4), but the Lord says, Well done, good and faithful servant (Matt. 25:21, 23), etc.? What David took as evil, does the Saviour show this to be worthy of good merits?

Non valde istud discrepat a superiore quaestione. Unum enim verbum diversas habet significationes, sicut supra memoravi (In secunda parte Quaest. ex Novo Test., quaest. 54). Obtrectatores enim David, cum exitiis ejus faverent, gratulabantur malis ejus. Dum enim ille pressuras et angustias pateretur a Saul et filio suo Absalon, illi recte et bene fieri dicebant. Tale est si aliquis dicat, de eo qui injurias patitur, Bene illi hoc est, gaudere in malis: hoc e⟨s⟩t dicere, Recte illi fit, sic enim meretur. Simili modo et Salvator laetus in bonis operibus, meritum hominis pronuntiat dicens: Euge, serve bone et fidelis. Exsultat enim, quia servus digniorem se fecit, dicens, Bene; hoc est, Recte egisti, uti majus meritum collocares. Unum igitur verbum duabus contrariis causis aptatur. Nam solemus de aliquo dicere, Adjudicatus est. Sed quomodo dicatur, causa aut subsequens aut praecedens declarat. Aliquando enim ad bonum dicitur, aliquando ad malum: sicut et concupiscentia aliquando ad bonum, aliquando ad malum aptatur.

This does not differ greatly from the preceding question. For one word has different meanings, as I mentioned above (In the second part, Questions from the New Testament, question 54). For David's detractors, since they favoured his ruin, rejoiced at his misfortunes. For while he was suffering oppressions and straits from Saul and from his son Absalom, they said that it was being done rightly and well. It is as if someone were to say, of one who suffers injuries, It is well for him, that is, to rejoice in [his] misfortunes: this is to say, It is done to him rightly, for so he deserves. In like manner the Saviour also, glad at good works, pronounces the man's merit, saying: Well done, good and faithful servant. For He exults because the servant has made himself more worthy, saying, Well; that is, You have acted rightly, so that you might lay up a greater merit. One word, therefore, is fitted to two contrary causes. For we are accustomed to say of someone, He has been adjudged. But in what way it is said, the cause, either following or preceding, makes clear. For sometimes it is said towards good, sometimes towards evil: just as concupiscence too is sometimes applied to good, sometimes to evil.

VII. — Quid est quod in Psalmo, Homines, inquit, et jumenta salvos facies (Psal. XXXV, 7): et ad Jonam prophetam, Non parcam, ait, civitati in qua habitant centum triginta millia hominum, et pecora multa (Jonae IV, 11): contra autem Apostolus, Numquid, ait, de bobus cura est Deo (I Cor. IX, 9)?

VII. — Why is it that in the Psalm He says, Men and beasts Thou wilt save (Ps. 35:7), and to the prophet Jonah He says, Shall I not spare the city in which dwell a hundred and thirty thousand men, and many cattle (Jonah 4:11); but on the contrary the Apostle says, Is it for oxen that God has care (1 Cor. 9:9)?

Quantum ad verba pertinet, videtur contrarium; si causa autem hominis et pecorum inspiciatur, manifestabitur esse non dispar. Omnium curam gerit Deus, quasi omnium opifex; sed non servat pecora propter ipsa, sed propter homines servat pecora, non homines propter pecora. Itaque qui hominum curam gerit, custodit pecora, ut non illi cura sit de bobus, sed de hominibus. Quae enim spes in pecoribus?

As far as the words are concerned, it seems contrary; but if the cause of man and of cattle is examined, it will be shown not to be at variance. God has care of all things, as the maker of all things; but He does not preserve cattle for their own sake, but He preserves cattle for the sake of men, not men for the sake of cattle. And so He who has care of men keeps the cattle, so that His care is not for oxen but for men. For what hope is there in cattle?

VIII. — In Tobia, Opera, inquit, Dei revelare et confiteri, honorificum est (Tob. XII, 7). Salvator autem opus Dei faciens, Nulli, ait, dixeris (Marc. VIII, 26).

VIII. — In Tobit he says, To reveal and confess the works of God is honourable (Tob. 12:7). But the Saviour, doing the work of God, says, Tell no one (Mark 8:26).

Non Salvator opus Dei celari debere dixit: nam alio loco, Vade, inquit, et narra quanta tibi fecerit Deus (Id. V, 19). Sed illorum testimonium refutavit aliquando, et jactantiam pressit; ne videretur, quod prudentibus absurdum est, ipse sibi, ut seductor, testimonium perhibere.

The Saviour did not say that the work of God ought to be concealed: for in another place He says, Go and tell how great things God has done for you (ibid. 5:19). But He sometimes rejected their testimony and suppressed boasting, lest He should seem, what is absurd to the prudent, to bear witness to Himself like a deceiver.

IX. — De aeternitate Filii.

IX. — On the eternity of the Son.

Quoniam sunt quidam, qui nondum adhuc discussa erroris caligine, nec purgata vel detersa veternosae vitae carie, terreno sensu existimantes, dubitant vel de Dei Filio, vel duos unum esse (perfida enim et contumax natio Judaeorum, quibus fons Legis et sacramentorum thesauri patuerunt, non ambigit, sed nefariis pernegat vocibus), breviter quantum tractus contractior patitur edisseram. Spes enim ignorantibus si velint discere, integra dimittitur; poena dissimulantibus perpetua destinatur. Deus omnipotens, cum magnitudine ac bonitate praestantior sit, magnum aliquod et maxime bonum edere ex se atque exhibere debuerat: sed si quid edidisset quod contra modum excellentiae suae foret, aut non potuisse amplius, quod in omnipotentem non cadit; aut noluisse, quod in benignissimum, videretur. Certe in summo Deo grande non fuerat fecisse quod infra se positum vim

Since there are some who, the darkness of error not yet dispelled, nor the rot of a sluggish life purged or wiped away, judging with an earthly sense, are in doubt either concerning the Son of God or that the two are one (for the faithless and stubborn nation of the Jews, to whom the fountain of the Law and the treasures of the sacraments lay open, does not doubt but denies it outright with wicked words), I shall set it out briefly, as far as a rather compressed treatment allows. For to the ignorant, if they are willing to learn, hope is left entire; to those who dissemble, perpetual punishment is appointed. God almighty, since He is surpassing in greatness and goodness, ought to have brought forth from Himself and shown forth something great and supremely good: but if He had brought forth anything that was contrary to the measure of His excellence, He would seem either to have been unable [to do] more, which does not befit the Almighty, or to have been unwilling, which does not befit the most benign. Certainly in the supreme God it would not have been a great thing to have made what, placed beneath Himself, the force

Editors' notes and page, col. 2413

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2413

¹ Sic Ms. Germanensis. At editi, utinam.

So the Saint-Germain manuscript. But the editions read "utinam" (would that).

(printed under page 555)

(2) ‹anchor: thesauri patuerunt› · call in col 2413

² Sic Ms. Germanensis. At editi, thesauri hoc monstrare potuerunt.

So the Saint-Germain manuscript. But the editions read "thesauri hoc monstrare potuerunt" (the treasures could show this).

(printed under page 555)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible (VI)› · call in col 2413

(printed under page 555) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 555)

(b) ‹anchor: VII› · call in col 2413

(printed under page 555) (b) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 555)

(printed under page 555) (c) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 555)

(d) ‹anchor: IX› · call in col 2413

(printed under page 555) (d) Deest in iisdem Mss.

Missing in the same manuscripts.

(printed under page 555) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 555)

Page

running head: 2413 APPENDIX. (the column number of the right-hand column is cut off by the image)
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2414

plenae summitatis non esset habiturum. Super se ergo nihil erat; nihil est enim quod Deum vincat: infra se parum fuerat; quia minus maximo non congruebat. Simillimum itaque suum Filium creans, edidit ex se quasi alterum se: ac sic illud summum et maximum bonum, quod nobis ex Deo suppetit, per ejus ad nos propaginem redundavit. Quin et haec simul intelligenda ratio est, Deum qui hunc mundum condidit, ei qui inter caetera pulchritudinis ordinationisque miracula, creandi quoque naturam sufficiendis sui cujuslibet generis fetibus tribuit, ipsum prius utique habuisse quod dederit. Nullus enim dat quod ipse non habeat. Qui habuit ergo Filium totis sibi similitudinis partibus congruentem, hoc est, unus unicum, probus probum, bonus benignum, beatus beatum, maximus maximum, sempiternus aeternum, habuit utique ante mundum creatae sobolis principatum, de quo rebus oriundis impertiebatur exemplum, ut gignentium germina suis respondere seminibus cogerentur. Nec sane aliter sinebat ordo legitimus, quam ut pater rerum futurus, ante esse debuerit pater proprius, hoc est proprii sui fetus. Sed quod editum filium diximus, non sic est accipiendum tanquam nostri similem habeat ortum, natusque ita sit, ut mortales nasci videmus, cum prorumpente fetu existant quae ante non fuerant. Illa enim aliunde insitis concepta seminibus, elementorum subjectorum coetu in generis sui speciem coalescunt: haec autem divinitus nullo auxilio admixtionis externae ex se id quod in se ac secum semper habuit, eduxit et protulit. Ut enim si lucem nasci ex sole dicamus, quod ab eo procedat et profluat; non utique sic dicimus, quasi aliquando sine luce sol aut esse possit, aut fuerit, ut eam tempore aliquo a se posteriorem generaverit, sed ut quod secum semper obtinuit, eam de se scilicet genitam sine coepti aliqua distinctione a principio, qua semper fulgeat, semper ex se velut munere reparante collustret: sic Dei Filius ab aeterno omnino Patri cohaerens, hanc quoque ejus similitudinem tenuit, ut nec ortum habeat, nec occasum. Et ut Deus sine origine sempiternus, ita et Filius sempiternus: et ut Deus unus est, simplex, idemque, sic cum Patre permixtus, ut nominibus et affectibus distincti quidem, sed idem sint, in ambobus unus, et uterque in uno inseparabili majestate continuus. Deus itaque Filium non ex materiis discordantibus tractum, sed ex simplici ac singulari naturae suae stirpe ac seminario editum, semper in se habitum, nec a se ulla unquam separatione dimissum, ita secum continet et amplectitur, ut nihil in ambobus de illa unitate mutetur.

of complete summitness would not have. Above Himself, therefore, there was nothing, for there is nothing that surpasses God; below Himself would have been too little, because what is less did not befit the greatest. Therefore, creating His Son most like Himself, He brought forth from Himself as it were another self; and so that highest and greatest good, which is supplied to us from God, has overflowed to us through His offspring. Moreover, this reason too must be understood at the same time: that God, Who founded this world and Who, among the other wonders of beauty and order, also granted to it the nature of creating, for supplying offspring of each of its kinds, certainly first had Himself what He gave. For no one gives what he himself does not have. He, therefore, Who had a Son agreeing with Him in every part of likeness, that is, one an only one, upright an upright one, good a kind one, blessed a blessed one, greatest a greatest one, everlasting an eternal one, certainly had before the world the sovereignty of a created offspring, from which an example was imparted to things that were to arise, so that the shoots of begetting things should be compelled to correspond to their seeds. Nor indeed would lawful order allow otherwise than that He Who was to be the Father of things should first have been a Father in His own right, that is, of His own proper offspring. But when we have said that the Son was brought forth, this is not to be understood as though He has a birth like ours and was born in the way we see mortals born, when, with the bursting forth of offspring, there come to be things which previously were not. For those things, conceived from seeds implanted from elsewhere, grow together into the form of their kind by a union of underlying elements; but this [nature], divinely and with no aid of external admixture, drew out and brought forth from itself that which it always had in itself and with itself. For if we say that light is born from the sun, because it proceeds and flows forth from it, we certainly do not say this as though the sun could at any time exist without light, or ever did, so that it begot the light at some time as later than itself. We say it rather in the sense that what the sun has always held with itself, namely that light begotten from itself from the beginning without any distinction of a start, by which it always shines, it always illumines from itself as though by a renewing gift. So the Son of God, cleaving wholly to the Father from eternity, has held this likeness to Him also, so that He has neither rising nor setting. And as God is everlasting without origin, so too the Son is everlasting; and as God is one, simple and the same, so He is mingled with the Father in such a way that, though distinct in names and affections, they are yet the same, one in both, and each continuous in the one inseparable majesty. God, therefore, holds and embraces with Himself the Son, not drawn from discordant materials but brought forth from the simple and singular stock and seed-bed of His own nature, ever held in Himself and never sent away from Himself by any separation, in such a way that nothing in either of them is changed from that unity.

X. — 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 (Galat. I, 6, 7)? Si aliud certe est, ipsum non est: si ipsum non est, quomodo non aliud est?

X. — What is it that the Apostle says to the Galatians, I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from Him Who called you into grace, into another Gospel, which is not another (Gal. 1:6–7)? If it is certainly another, it is not the same; if it is not the same, how is it not another?

Ideo aliud dicit Evangelium, ad quod vocati fuerant, quia non hoc est quod postea sequi coeperant Galatae. Ab Evangelio enim Christi abducti, in Judaismum fuerant attracti sub nomine Christi, quasi hoc esset sequendum; et aliud quam quod Apostolus praedicabat, affirmabant. Unde sublegitur, Sicut vobis suadent. Pseudo enim apostoli, cum circumvenirent Gentiles credentes, hoc dicebant a Salvatore traditum, quod ipsi docebant, sicut continetur in Actibus Apostolorum, Quia nisi circumcidamini more Moysi, non poteritis salvi esse (Act. XV, 1). Hinc Apostolus dolore eversionis illorum commotus, scribit ad eos, dicens: Miror quod sic tam cito transferimini ab eo qui vocavit vos in gratiam, in aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud. Miratur ergo, quia post rem levem et minus gravem, asperitati studerent et oneri: hoc

He calls the Gospel to which they had been called another for this reason: because what the Galatians had afterwards begun to follow is not this. For, led away from the Gospel of Christ, they had been drawn into Judaism under the name of Christ, as though this were to be followed; and they were affirming something other than what the Apostle preached. Hence it is added, As they persuade you. For the false apostles, when they circumvented the believing Gentiles, said that what they themselves were teaching had been handed down by the Saviour, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles, Because unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved (Acts 15:1). Hence the Apostle, moved by grief at their overthrow, writes to them, saying: I marvel that you are so quickly transferred from Him Who called you into grace, into another Gospel, which is not another. He marvels, therefore, because after a light and less heavy thing they were devoting themselves to harshness and to a burden: this

Editors' notes and page, col. 2414

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 2414

¹ Ms. Germanensis, elementorum distantia in coetum sui generis specie coalescunt.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "elementorum distantia in coetum sui generis specie coalescunt" (the separated elements grow together into a union by the form of their kind).

(printed under page 555)

(2) ‹anchor: posteriorem generaverit› · call in col 2414

² Ms. Germanensis, a se superiore generaverit.

The Saint-Germain manuscript reads "a se superiore generaverit" (had begotten from one higher than itself).

(printed under page 555)

(a) ‹anchor: X› · call in col 2414

(printed under page 555)

Page

running head: APPENDIX. 2414
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 35:2415

est, ut post fidei simplicitatem circumcidi se, pro elementis permitterent, neomenias colerent et sabbatum, elementis subjecti ac provocati erant, id est, gratiae non Legis factorum. Et ne pseudoapostolis occasionem dedisse videretur, dicentibus aliud esse quod acceperant Galatae quam veritatis habet traditio, statim subjecit, Quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui qui vos conturbant, et volunt convertere Evangelium Christi. Aliud ergo erat, ad quod ab Apostolo vocati erant Evangelium, quam quod sequi coeperant impulsu p⟨s⟩eudoapostolorum: non tamen a⟨li⟩ud erat quam ⟨C⟩hristus tradiderat, ut vel per id in errorem se inductos c⟨o⟩gnoscerent, et solam fidem sequerentur, profitente⟨s⟩ Christum Deum, et hunc sufficere ad salutem tri⟨bu⟩endam, per quem fuerant remissionem peccatoru⟨m⟩ adepti, non per Legem: quia sine Lege gratia Dei donat delicta.

is, that after the simplicity of faith they should allow themselves to be circumcised for the sake of the elements, and should observe new moons and the sabbath, they had become subject to the elements and had been called forth, that is, [called] of grace, not of the works of the Law. And lest he should seem to have given an opening to the false apostles, who were saying that what the Galatians had received was other than what the tradition of truth holds, he at once added, Which is not another, except that there are some who trouble you and wish to turn round the Gospel of Christ. So the Gospel to which they had been called by the Apostle was one thing, and that which they had begun to follow at the prompting of the false apostles another; yet it was not another than the one Christ had handed down, so that even by this they might recognize that they had been led into error, and might follow faith alone, confessing Christ as God, and that He suffices for bestowing salvation, He through Whom they had obtained the remission of sins, not through the Law: for without the Law the grace of God forgives offences.

XI. — Non esse contristandum de mortuis Paulus apostolus signat (I Thess. IV, 12). Nam desperantium est contristari; et ipse, Infirmus, inquit de Epaphrodito, fuit prope mortem, sed Deus misertus est illi: non solum autem illi, sed et mihi, ne tristitiam super tristitiam haberem (Philipp. II, 27). Quomodo contristandum vetat, cum ipse contristandum se, si mortuus fuisset, declarat?

XI. — That one ought not to grieve over the dead the apostle Paul indicates (1 Thess. 4:12). For to grieve belongs to those who despair; and yet he himself says of Epaphroditus, He was sick, near to death, but God had mercy on him: and not on him only, but on me too, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow (Phil. 2:27). How does he forbid grieving, when he himself declares that he would have grieved had that man died?

Aliter se de morte Epaphroditi, si provenisset, contristandum significavit, et aliter prohibet contristandum. Nam hic propter solatium adjutorii ejus, quo utebatur in Evangelio, si mortuus fuisset, contristandum se dixit. Nos autem sic contristari prohibet, ne obitos quasi exstinctos et perditos lugeamus, desperantes de resurrectione. Aliud est igitur solatium requirere quasi absentis, et aliud dolere interitum jam non futuri. Hic cessat consolatio, illic excluditur desperatio.

In one sense he indicated that he would grieve over the death of Epaphroditus, had it come about, and in another sense he forbids grieving. For here he said that he would have grieved, had that man died, on account of the comfort of his help, which he made use of in the Gospel. But he forbids us to grieve in such a way that we mourn the departed as extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is one thing, then, to miss the comfort of someone as of one absent, and another to lament the destruction of one who will no longer be. Here consolation ceases, there despair is shut out.

XII. — Quid est quia occisis filiis Liae, qui sunt ex tribu Juda, Rachel filios suos plangere dicatur?

XII. — Why is it that, when the sons of Leah, who are of the tribe of Judah, were killed, Rachel is said to bewail her sons?

Rachel filii, quantum ad historiam pertinet, olim pro malefico suo opere Sodomitarum, et spurcitia quam in concubinam hominis levitae operati sunt, exstincti fuerunt et erasi sunt a reliquis tribubus, etc.

The sons of Rachel, as far as the history is concerned, were once destroyed and wiped out by the remaining tribes for their wicked deed of the Sodomites and the filthiness which they wrought upon the concubine of a man who was a Levite, etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 2415

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: gratiae non Legis factorum› · call in col 2415

¹ Haec verba, ac provocati erant, id est, gratiae non legis factorum, absunt a Germanensi codice.

These words, "ac provocati erant, id est, gratiae non legis factorum", are absent from the Saint-Germain codex.

(printed under page 556)

(a) ‹anchor: XI› · call in col 2415

(printed under page 556) (a) Deest in Mss. primi generis.

Missing in the manuscripts of the first class.

(printed under page 556)