A letter from Jerome (late 4th century)

Translated letter:

Preface: While I have never seen your face, I know you very well because of the ardor of your faith. And from the farthest boundaries of Gaul you call on me as I am hiding away in the rural part of Bethlehem to respond to a few small questions about Holy Scripture, sending along a little commentary in the hands of a man of God, my son Apodemius—as if you do not have eloquent men in your own province, men who are perfect in the law of God. Yet, perhaps you seek to test me more than you seek my doctrine, and you wish to know what I think about what you have heard from others. Your ancestors Patera and Delphidius, of which one taught rhetoric at Rome before I was born, and the other, when I was a youth, elevated all of Gaul with his talent in both prose and verse, were asleep and silent, but now they rebuke me for daring to even mutter a word to their descendant. While I admit that they have great eloquence and education in secular letters, I may rightly draw off knowledge of the law of God which no one can receive unless it has been given by the father of lights. He shines a light on every man who comes into this world and stands amid believers who have gathered together in his name. Thus, I freely admit—and I do not fear the indictment of arrogance—that I am writing to you not in the bookish words of an urbane intellect that God will eventually demolish, but in the spiritual words of faith, while dealing with spiritual matters so that the deep of the Old Testament may call on the deep of the Gospel in the voice of waterfalls, that is, of its own prophets and apostles; and so that the truth of the Lord may reach up to the clouds which received orders not to rain down upon disbelieving Israel but to water the fields of the Gentiles and to soften the torrent of thorns and the Dead Sea. So pray that the true Elijah may bring back to life the dead and sterile waters in me, and that he may season my small present with the salt of the apostles, to whom he had said, “You are the salt of the earth”, because a sacrifice without salt will not be offered to the Lord. And do not delight in the brilliance of secular eloquence, which Jesus saw falling from the sky as if it were lightning; rather, receive the one who does not have elegance and beauty, a person beset by misfortunes, knowing what it is to endure illness. And whatever I say in response to your questions, know that I have responded not because I am confident in my speech, but because of my faith in Him, who promised, “Open your mouth and I will fill it”. 1. How can one be complete and how should a widow live who is without children? The teacher of the law asks the same thing also in the gospel, “‘Teacher, what shall I do to achieve an eternal life?’ To whom the Lord responds, ‘Do you know the commandments?’ He replies, ‘Which?’ Jesus then said, ‘Do not commit homicide, adultery, theft, nor give false witness; honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself’. And when he responds, ‘I have done these things,’ the Lord adds, ‘You are lacking one thing. If you wish to be perfect, come, sell all that you have, give to the poor, and come, follow me.’” In the same way, I will respond to you, using the words of our Lord. If you wish to be perfect, and to bear your cross and to follow the Lord, Savior, and to imitate Peter when he said, “Behold, we have given up our goods and followed you”, then come, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor and follow your Savior. He did not say, “Give to your children, give to your brothers, give to your relatives”—whom, even if you had them, the Lord would precede by law—but he said, “Give to the poor”, indeed give to Christ, who was nourished among the poor, who, although he was rich, became poor because he loved us. In the 39th Psalm, he says, “I am a beggar and a pauper, the Lord shows concern for me”. Immediately following, the 40th Psalm begins, “Blessed is the man who truly understands the destitute and the poor”. The one who is destitute and poor needs understanding, and, after understanding, blessedness; not the one who, when he has been found begging and in squalor, did not retreat from sins, but those about whom the apostle says, “Would that we might be mindful of the poor.” And it was for the relief of the poor that Paul and Barnabas worked in the Gentile churches, so that there might be collections at the start of the Sabbath. They also hasten to bring this very offering not by others, but by themselves, who have parted with their wealth on behalf of Christ, who have endured persecutions, who have said to their father and mother, wives and children, “We do not know you”. They have fulfilled the will of God and have heard the Lord, Savior, who said, “My mother and my brothers are the ones who fulfill the will of my father.” And we [shifts to plural] say these things not to hinder generosity toward the Jews, or the Gentiles, or the poor of any nation, but so that we may prefer Christians to nonbelievers, and so that among the Christians themselves, there may be careful distinction as to whether one is a sinner or a saint. It is from this that the apostle in many places recommends indiscriminate compassion and says that such compassion is “best among those who are fellow believers.” A fellow believer is one who is connected to you in the same religion, whom sins do not separate from fraternal fellowship. But, with regard to our enemies, if we are taught to give them food when they are hungry, to give them drink when they are thirsty, and, in doing so, to heap coals over their heads, then how much more should we do concerning those who are not enemies, but are holy Christians! It is important that the saying, “By doing so, you will heap coals of fire over his head” be read in a positive way. For when we show kindness to our enemies, we overcome their evil with our goodness and we soften their hard nature and we steer their angry spirit toward friendship. It is in this way that we heap coals over their heads, as it is written, “Along with devastating coals are the sharp arrows from a powerful hand”, so that, in the way that the coal, once the Seraphim has taken it down from the altar, has cleansed the lips of the prophet, the sins of our enemies, likewise, may be cleansed; so that we may, in goodness, conquer evil and speak kindly to those speaking ill, so that we may follow the ways of our Father, who makes his sun rise over the just and unjust alike. Therefore, because you do not have a few children, have many; make friends from the mammon of iniquity so that they may receive you into the eternal dwelling places. “Of iniquity” was quite rightly said; for everyone descends from the iniquity of wealth and, unless one should lose it, another would not be able to find it. For which reason, this common sentiment seems particularly true to me, “A wealthy man is either unjust or the heir of an unjust man”. When a man skilled in the law had heard this, he was unable to subscribe to it because he had many riches. Because of this, the Lord, turning toward his disciples, said, “How difficult it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven!” He did not say, “impossible”, but rather, “difficult”, although he did imply an impossibility. “A camel will be able to walk through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man into the kingdom of heaven.” This is not difficult so much as it is impossible; for a camel cannot actually walk through the eye of a needle. Given that, can a rich man ever enter into the kingdom of heaven? Well, a camel is tortuous and crooked and is weighed down by a heavy burden. Since we, when we walk along crooked paths, stray from the right track, and are burdened by the riches of the world or the weight of our sins, we are not able to approach the kingdom of heaven. But if we should put down our heaviest burden and put on the wings of a dove, we will fly away and rest. Of us, it is said, “If you should sleep in the middle of the land, the wings of the dove will be made silver and, afterwards, its back will be golden in color.” Our back, which was formerly unsightly and was pressed down by a heavy burden, let it have the sheen of gold, which is interpreted as sense, and silver wings, which are understood in the words of scripture; then we will be able to enter the kingdom of God. The apostles say that they have parted with all of their possessions and boldly demand a reward for this virtue. To these men the Lord responds, “Every man who leaves behind his home, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children on account of my name, he will receive a hundredfold and will have eternal life.” What a great blessing it is to receive great things in place of small, eternal for temporary, what always endures for what is perishable, and to have the Lord as our debtor! If, moreover, any widow has children – and especially if she is of a noble family –, she should not leave her children in poverty. Let her love them equally, so that she may be mindful of her soul, first of all, and so that she may consider her soul to be one of her children and divide her property along with them instead of leaving it all to them; rather, she should make Christ a coheir. You will say, “It’s difficult, it’s hard, unnatural.” But you will hear the Lord respond to you, “Whoever is able to do so, let him.” And if you wish to be perfect, he does not put the yoke of necessity on you, but gives you the power to make a decision regarding your children. Do you wish to be perfect and to stand on the summit of virtue? Do what the apostles did—sell everything that you have, and give to the poor and follow our Savior and you, naked and alone, pursue pure virtue alone. Or do you wish not to be perfect, but to stay on the second level of virtue? Rid yourself of your goods and give them to your children, your relatives. No one will blame you if you pursue lesser virtues, so long as you recognize that you ought to subject yourself to the one who has chosen the greater virtue.

You say, “Perhaps this is possible for apostles and other men, but certainly not for a noble woman—she cannot sell all of the things which she truly needs on a daily basis.” Hear, then, the words of the apostle, “Not as a source of aid for others, or as a hardship for you, but out of equality, let your abundance help lift their poverty so that their abundance can then become a supplement to your poverty.” Then the Lord says, “Whoever has two tunics, give one of them to one who does not have a tunic.” Why do so, if the freeze of Scythia and the snow of the Alps cannot be repelled by two or three tunics, or even animal skins? Therefore, whatever is able to defend our bodies and to help human weakness, since nature brought us forth without clothes, this must be called a tunic and, whatever is necessary for present sustenance, this is called the provision of one day. Thus, this precept, “Do not be concerned about tomorrow,” meaning the future, and the apostle says, “While we have food and clothing, we are content.” If you have more than is necessary of food and clothing, pay it out. Know that you are a debtor.

Ananias and Sapphira deserved the judgment of the apostle, because they had secretly set aside their property. “Therefore,” you say, “must the one who does not give away his possessions be punished?” Not at all. They were punished because they wanted to lie to the Holy Spirit, and, while setting aside the things necessary for their sustenance, they pretended to renounce worldly things, chasing after some vain glory. One can give willingly or not, but for the one who desires to be perfect, present poverty will be compensated by future wealth. Moreover, as to how a widow should live, the apostle, in a brief sermon, dealt with this topic by saying, “She who lives in luxury, is dead, although living.” And we deal with this matter more fully in the two letters we have written to Furia and Salvina.

2. What is the meaning of what is written in Matthew: “Moreover, I say to you: I will not drink from the fruit of this vine until that day, whereby I shall drink it at last with you in the kingdom of my father”?

Some construct a fable from this passage for thousands of years during which time people contend that Christ would rule in the flesh and would drink wine which he will not have drunk from then all the way up to the end of the world. Also, let us understand that the bread, which the Lord broke and gave to the disciples, was the body of the Lord and Savior, as he himself said to them, “Receive and eat it, this is my body,” and that that was the cup, concerning which he said, “Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed on behalf of many in order to forgive their sins.” That is the cup that we read of in the prophet, “I shall receive the cup of the Savior and I shall call upon the name of the Lord”, and elsewhere, “How excellent is my overflowing cup!” Indeed, if the bread, which fell from the sky, is the body of the Lord and the wine, which he gave to his disciples, is his blood of the new covenant, which has been shed in order to forgive all sinners, let us reject the Jewish fables and let us ascend with the Lord to the great ?upper story/supper [cenaculum?], ?spread out/covered [stratum?] and cleansed, and let us receive from him on high the cup of the new covenant and there, celebrating Easter with him, let us be drunk with the wine of sobriety. “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice and joy and peace in the Holy Spirit.” And Moses did not give us the true bread, but the Lord Jesus did, himself both the feaster and the feast, himself the eater and the one who is eaten.

We drink his blood and cannot drink without him, and daily in his sacrifices, from the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of the Sorek, which means “chosen”, we press the red grapes and we drink new wine from them in the kingdom of the father, not at all in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit, singing a new song that no one can sing unless in the kingdom of the church, which is the kingdom of the father. Jacob the Patriarch wanted to eat this bread, saying, “If the Lord God was with me and gave me bread to eat and clothes to wear”. And however many of us are baptized in Christ, we are clothed in Christ and we eat the bread of the angels and we hear the Lord preaching, “This is my food, so that I may fulfill the will of the one who sent me, and so that I may complete his work”. Therefore, let us fulfill the will of the one who sent us, the father, and let us complete his work. And Christ will drink his own blood with us in the kingdom of the church.

3. Why do the evangelists tell different versions of the resurrection and the appearance of the Lord?

First, you ask why Matthew said that the Lord arose on the eve of the Sabbath while the first day of the Sabbath was shining and Mark recalled that his resurrection occurred in the morning, writing, “When he had arisen, he appeared on the morning of the Sabbath to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons; and she, as she was departing, announced it to those grieving and weeping alongside him. And they, upon hearing of it, believed that he was alive and that she had seen him.”

There is a twofold solution to this question. Either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, because it is reported in a small group of gospels, and because nearly all the Greek codices lack this final section, and especially since the other evangelists seem to report different and conflicting information, or we must accept that both are telling the truth: in Matthew, when the Lord arose, it was on the eve of the Sabbath, and in Mark, when Mary Magdalene saw him, it was on the first morning of the Sabbath. So, then, it must be distinguished, “When he had arisen,” and with a short pause it must be added, “he appeared to Mary Magdalene on the first morning of the Sabbath” so that, he who arose on the eve of the Sabbath according to Matthew, could have appeared to Mary Magdalene on the first morning of the Sabbath according to Mark. John the Evangelist also attests to this, saying that he was seen on the morning of the next day.

4. How can Matthew say that Mary Magdalene saw the Lord arise on the eve of the Sabbath when John the Evangelist says that she was weeping next to his grave on the morning of the Sabbath?

The first day of the Sabbath must be understood as Sunday, because every week is divided into a Sabbath and into the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh day of the Sabbath, which the pagans mark with the names of their idols and planets. At last, the apostle orders a collection of money, which is gathered for the poor, to be amassed on the first morning of the Sabbath. And we must not think that Matthew and John are in disagreement, but that they marked out the exact same time, the middle of the night and cock-crow, in different terms. For Matthew writes that “on the eve of the Sabbath”, or “late”, not at the start of night, but with the deeper and greater part of the night already spent, the Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene and that he appeared on the eve of the Sabbath, nearing dawn upon the first day of the Sabbath, explaining what he said, “on the eve of the Sabbath”, that is, with the light of the following day already drawing near—and John did not simply say, “Moreover on the first day of the Sabbath Mary Magdalene came in the morning to the grave”, but added, “When there were still shadows”. Thus, one spoke of the end, the other of the beginning, of the exact same point in time—midnight and cock-crow.

And it seems to me that Matthew the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, did not say “evening” so much as “late” and that the one who interpreted it was deceived by the ambiguity of the word and understood it not as “late” but as “evening”, even though customarily in human speech “late” does not mean “evening”, but more like “the eleventh hour”. For we are accustomed to say, “You have arrived late”, that is “past the prearranged time”, and, “The one who ought to have done it before, do it late, at least”, that is “past the prearranged time”. But if one objects to how the same Mary who had seen the Lord rise before can be said to weep beside his grave afterwards, it must be said that she, either alone or in the company of other women, mindful of the kindnesses that the Lord had bestowed, ran frequently to his grave, and both worshiped the one she saw and wept for the absent one she was seeking, even though some contend that there were two Mary Magdalenes from the village of Magdalon and that one was the Mary in Matthew who saw the Lord rise and the other one was the Mary in John who was mourning for the absent Lord. Moreover, we read of four Marys in the Gospels: one is the mother of the Lord Savior, another his maternal aunt whose name was Mary of Cleophas, the third Mary is the mother of Jacob and Joseph, the fourth is Mary Magdalene, although some argue that the mother of Jacob and Joseph was Jesus’ aunt. Some, to free themselves of this problem, read that Mark was speaking of Mary and that the cognomen Magdalene was left out, and was added later through an inappropriate scribal error, which the Evangelist did not write in the original.

However, the answer seems simple and clear to us: these holy women, unable to bear Christ’s absence, throughout the entire night ran to the grave of the Lord not once, not twice, but quite often, especially since the shaking ground, the shattering rocks, the fleeing sun, the confused nature of everything around them, and—what is even greater—the desire for their Savior disrupted these women’s sleep.

5. How did Mary Magdalene, according to Matthew, on the eve of the Sabbath with another Mary, bowed at the feet of the Savior, according to John, on the first morning of the Sabbath, hear from the Lord, “Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my father”?

Mary Magdalene, who first had seen the Lord rising with the other Mary and had fallen at his feet, afterwards returned throughout the night—for because of her longing for the Lord, she was unable to remain at home. She came to his grave, and when she had seen that the stone, with which the tomb had been shut, was gone, she ran to Simon Peter and to another disciple whom Jesus loved especially, and said to them, “They took the Lord from his grave and we do not know where they have placed him”. The woman’s error was coupled with piety; there was piety because she desired him, whose majesty she knew, but error because she said, “They took the Lord from his grave and we do not know where they have placed him”.

At last, after Peter and John, upon entering the grave, had seen the torn linen cloth and the handkerchief with which the Lord’s head had been wrapped set apart, they believed that he had resurrected, whose body they had not found in the grave; “Mary was standing outside of the tomb, weeping.” When she laid herself down at his head and his feet, “she saw two angels in white sitting” near the tomb “where Jesus’ body had been placed”, so that she might believe that, under such excellent care, his body, protected by guardian angels, could not have been stolen by anyone.

Then the angels whom she saw said to her, “Woman, why do you weep?” in accordance with what the Lord spoke to his mother, “What is that to you and to me, woman? My hour has not yet come”, so that, in calling her “woman”, they might accuse her of weeping in vain and say, “Why do you weep?” Moreover, Mary Magdalene, greatly astonished, had grown numb, and in awe of these miracles, she held on to her faith as if in a cloud, so that she could not even sense the appearance of the angels in her presence, but instead responded in a womanly fashion and said, “I weep for that very reason, because they took my Lord and I do not know where they have put him”.

O Mary, if you believe that he is the Lord and that he is your Lord, how can you think that he has been taken by men? “I do not know,” she said, “where they have put him”. How can you not recognize the one whom you worshiped only moments before? And when she saw the angels and did not recognize them, petrified and numb, she turned her head here and there, wanting nothing other than to see the Lord, and turning back around, she saw Jesus standing there and did not recognize that it was Jesus. This was not because, as Manes and other heretics claim, the Lord had altered his shape and appearance to seem different whenever he wanted, but because Mary, completely shocked by the miracle, thought that he was a gardener whom she was seeking with such fervor. Thus, the Lord says, with the same words spoken by the angels, “Woman, why do you weep?” and adds some of his own, “Whom do you seek?” But the woman responds, “Lord, if you have taken him, tell me where you have placed him and I will take him”. Here, she does not call the Savior her Lord out of a confession of true faith, but offers obedience to the gardener out of humility and fear.

And mark how great the ignorance! She thinks that the gardener alone removed the body that the cohort of the soldiers was protecting, at whose grave the angels were standing guard; and ignorant of her own weakness, she engages herself in a task of great strength, believing that she alone, a terrified woman, can lift the body of a full-grown man, who—and I shall be silent about the rest—had been anointed with a hundred pounds of myrrh.

When Jesus had called her and said, “Mary,” so that she might understand his voice, whose face she did not recognize, she, remaining steadfast in her error, calls him not “Lord”, but “rabboni”, that is, “teacher”. And mark how great the disturbance! She who names the gardener “Lord” calls the son of God “teacher”. And thus, to this woman, who sought a living man among the dead, who, by feminine error and womanly weakness, was running here and there and was seeking his fallen body, whose feet she held as he was living, to this woman the Lord speaks and says, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my father.” And the sense is, “Since you are seeking a dead man, you do not deserve to touch me while I am living. If you think that I have not yet ascended to my father, and that I have been removed by the trick of men, you are unworthy of my touch.”

Moreover, he was saying this not to dull her enthusiasm in seeking him, but so that she might know that the management of the assumed flesh had been changed into the glory of divinity and that she might in no way wish to be with the Lord physically, whom she ought to believe spiritually rules with his father.

It is for this reason that the apostles are of greater faith, who, not from the sight of the angels, nor from the appearance of the Savior himself, after they had found his body in the tomb, believed that he had arisen from the lower regions. Some think that what John had narrated happened first: Mary Magdalene came to the grave and saw the stone rolled back and, after returning with the apostles Peter and John, she remained alone at the tomb and, being unbelieving up to this point, had been rebuked by the Lord. Then, she went home and came back to the grave with the other Mary and, after some advice from the angel, worshiped the Lord as he was exiting the tomb. They were holding his feet when they both heard from him, “Hail!” and, “They approached and held his feet and worshiped him”. They are so greatly helpful that they are sent to the apostles and first hear, “Do not fear”, and second, “Go and announce to my brothers to go to Galilee for there will they see me.”

6. How did Peter and John, amid a crowd of soldiers on guard, freely enter the grave with no one to bar their entrance?

Clearly for this reason: because “on the eve of the Sabbath, which was approaching the first day of the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the grave. And behold, there was a great earthquake. An angel of the Lord also descended from heaven and, after arriving, rolled back the stone and sat above it; and his face was like lightning, his clothes like snow. Out of fear, the guards were petrified and became nearly dead.”

Therefore, they who had been petrified through such great fear that they were considered dead must be believed either to have given up the grave and fled or to have been so numb in body and soul that they did not dare to prohibit men or even women who desired to enter the grave. For a great fear had terrified those who saw that the stone had been rolled back and that the earth shook in an unusual way, which greatly shook everything and threatened the destruction of the earth’s foundation. And they saw an angel of God that descended from heaven with such a brilliant countenance, that he was not imitating the lamps and torches created by human skill, but rather the lightning of heaven through which everything else is lit. Thus, they were able to see in the shadows and freely entered; for Mary Magdalene had come, who had told them that the stone had been rolled back and that the Lord’s body had been removed from the tomb. But we should not think that the angel came to open the grave for the rising Lord and to roll back the stone, but that, after the Lord arose at the hour he himself wished, which no mortal knew about, the angel indicated what had happened, showed that the grave was empty through rolling back the stone, and showed his own presence. Everything was visible through his glowing face and through the brightness of the lightning conquering the horror of the shadows.

7. How can it be that Matthew and Mark write that the apostles were commanded, through the women, to precede the Savior to Galilee and see him there, when Luke and John recall that he was seen by the apostles in Jerusalem?

For one thing, he showed himself to his eleven apostles, who had been in hiding on account of their fear of the Jews. He approached them with the doors shut and showed his hands and his side, wounded by cudgels and a lance, to those who believed he was a spirit. For another, according to Luke, he showed himself to them variously: he appeared to them for 40 days, spoke about the kingdom of God, and, while dining with them, ordered them not to leave Jerusalem. In one way, as a consolation, he appeared to them briefly before once again being removed from their sight; in another way, there was such a great familiarity and steadfastness, that he dined with them as equals. For these reasons also Paul the Apostle reports that he appeared at the same time to 500 of his disciples; and in John, we read that while the apostles were fishing, he stood on the shore and ate a piece of roasted fish and a honey-comb; proofs of a true resurrection. However, he is said to have done none of these things in Jerusalem.

8. What does the following passage in Matthew mean? “Jesus, crying with a loud voice, cast out his spirit. And the veil of the temple was cut into two parts from top to bottom, the earth shook, the rocks were split, the graves were opened, many bodies of saints that were sleeping rose up again and leaving the graves after his resurrection, came to the holy city and appeared to many.”

I have discussed this passage in my commentaries on Matthew. First, it must be said that it is in the Lord’s divine power to lay down his life and resume it again whenever he wishes. And then, the centurion, after witnessing that the Lord said to his father, “I entrust my spirit to your hands” and immediately let his spirit go of his volition, he was moved by this great miracle and said, “This man was truly the son of God.” Also, the veil of the temple was cut into two parts so that what Joseph reported might be verified: that the virtues [angels] watching over the temple said, “Let us leave from this location”. In the Gospel, however, which was written in Hebrew, we read that the veil of the temple was not cut, but that the lintel of the temple, being of great size, toppled over. “The earth shook,” because it was unable to bear the weight of the Lord hung on the cross. “The rocks were split” to show the hardness of the Jews, who did not wish to recognize the presence of the son of God. “The graves were opened” as a sign of the coming resurrection. And “many bodies of the saints, leaving the tombs, came to the holy city and appeared to many”. We should understand “holy city” to be Jerusalem to distinguish it from all other cities that were worshipping idols at that time; for the temple, the worship of one God, and the true religion were in this city alone. And they did not appear to everyone, but to many people who believed the Lord’s resurrection.

Next, according to anagogy, we must discuss the fact that, when Jesus cried out and expired, the veil of the temple was cut into two parts from top to bottom and all the mysteries of the law, which were considered hidden before, were revealed and shown to everyone. Moreover, the veil was cut into two parts, into the old and new document, and from top to bottom: from the beginning of the world, when man was hidden, through the remaining events that the sacred history reports took place in-between up until the consummation of the world. And we must seek out whether the veil of the temple was cut on the outside or the inside. I believe that the veil was cut during the passion of the Lord which, in both the tabernacle and in the temple, had been placed outside and was called “exterior”, because now we see in part and we recognize in part. When perfection comes, then the interior veil must be split so that we may see into all the sacraments of the house of God which are hidden from us now: what the two cherubim signify, as well as the oracle, and the golden vase in which manna was hidden. For now we see through a mirror as if in a likeness and, although the veil of our history has been cut so that we may enter the house of God, we are nevertheless unable to know the secrets and all of the mysteries which are kept shut in heavenly Jerusalem.

Therefore, the earth shook during the passion of the Lord, according to what was written in the Book of Haggai: “Now I will move the heaven and earth simultaneously and the desired one will come to all nations,” so that people from the East and West may come and lie with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And “the rocks were split”; rather, the hard hearts of the Gentiles. Or, the rocks are the universal predictions of the prophets who themselves took the name “rock”, along with the apostles, from the “rock” that is Christ so that whatever was preserved in them through the inflexible covering of the law might be accessible to people once it has been cut.

There are also the monuments, about which it was written, “You all are whitewashed tombs on the outside; on the inside, you are full of the bones of the dead”; for this reason, they are opened so that those who were dead before in their faith might walk out from them, live with Christ who is risen and alive, enter into heavenly Jerusalem, have citizenship not on earth but in heaven, and dying with Adam on earth rise again with Adam in heaven. To return to the literal meaning, it would not seem unreasonable to anyone that with the saviour dead Jerusalem is called the holy city, since, until its destruction, the apostles always entered the temple and, for fear of offending the Jews who had faith in Christ, they exercised the ceremonies of the law.

Also, the Lord loved Jerusalem so greatly that he wept and lamented it, saying as he hung from the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”. Thus his request was granted, and straightaway, thousands of Jews became believers and received forty-two years in which to repent. After this time, to those who were still continuing in their blasphemy, two bears, Vespasian and Titus, marched out of the woods of the Roman people, murdered and mauled the “children” blaspheming against the true Elisha who was ascending to the house of God—for Bethel is understood in this way—mocking him with their voices in unison. Since then, Jerusalem has not been called the holy city, but after losing its sanctity and its original name, takes the spiritual name of Sodom and Egypt, so that a new city may be built in its place, which the “force of the river delights” and from whose center a spring flows forth. This spring lessened the bitterness of the world so that the wretched Israelites, now that their strength was stripped from them, may mourn the ruins of their temple, and a new crowd of true believers may see every day that the church is rising and say to Zion, “the place for me is narrow”, and what is written in Isaiah is fulfilled: “And his grave will be glorious”.

9. How is it that according to John, the Savior breathes the Holy Spirit into the apostles while according to Luke, he says that he would send for them after his ascension?

The answer to this question is quite simple if, with the guidance of Apostle Paul, we come to know that the Holy Spirit has many forms of grace. For he writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, “There are different gifts, but the same spirit; and different offices, but the same Lord; and different divine works and the same God who works all in all. Also, the manifestation of the spirit is granted to each person for a useful purpose. To one man, the speech of wisdom is given through the spirit; to another, the speech of knowledge according to the same spirit; to another, the gifts of healing in one spirit; to another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the work of miracles; to another, prophecies; to another, the power of distinguishing spirits; to another, the knowledge of languages; to another, the understanding of sermons. However, all these things the one and the same spirit devises, distributing them to each person exactly as he wishes” [1Cor.12:4-11].

Therefore, the Lord, after his resurrection, in the Gospel of Luke, said: “Behold, I shall send to you the promise of my father; but stay in the city until you are clothed in virtue from on high”. And according to Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, “He ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to await the promise of his father, which ‘you heard from my lips, because John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days’”. Again, at the end of the Gospel of John, the Lord on his day of resurrection—that is, on Sunday—went to the apostles and, after the doors were shut, said to them for a second time, “Peace be with you,” and relayed, “As my father sent me, so I send you.” After he had said this, he breathed into them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit; the sins of those you have forgiven are forgiven, and of those you have retained, will be retained.”

Therefore, on the first day of his resurrection, they received the grace of the Holy Spirit in order to forgive sins, baptize, make men the children of God, and bestow upon the faithful the spirit of adoption, as the Savior himself said, “the sins of those you have forgiven are forgiven and of those you have retained, will be retained.” Moreover, on the day of the Pentecost, they were promised more fully that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit and that they would be endowed with power so that they might preach the gospel of Christ to all nations. This is according to what we read in the 67th Psalm: “The Lord will give his word to those spreading the gospel with great power”, so that they might have the power of miracles and healing, and so that they, to preach to many nations, might receive knowledge of various languages, so that it might then be understood who of the apostles would preach to which nations. Finally, the apostle Paul, who preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum and from there hastened to go to Spain via Rome, gives thanks to God, because he could speak in more languages than all the apostles; for he, who would preach to many nations, had received the gift of many languages.

The promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the tenth day after the ascension of the Savior, as Luke writes, “When the days of the Pentecost were finished, all were equally in the same place and there was a sudden sound from heaven, as though a violent blast were approaching, and it filled the entire home in which they were staying. Tongues divided like flames appeared to them and, seated above each of them, filled them all with the Holy Spirit and they began to speak in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave speech to them” [Acts2:1-4]. Then, what we have read in Joel was fulfilled. “And during the final days, the Lord said, ‘I will pour my spirit upon all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young will see visions.’” Moreover the word of “pouring” signifies the abundance of grace and expresses what the Lord promised. “You all will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days.” Indeed, they were baptized so fully with the Holy Spirit that the entire house was filled, and the fire of the Holy Spirit found in them a welcome location and divided the languages and, according to Isaiah who had said that he had unclean lips, cleaned their lips, so that they might more purely preach the gospel of Christ.

And in Isaiah, also, it is said that the lintel of the temple had been agitated and the whole house was full of smoke, i.e. full of error and darkness and ignorance of the truth. But in the beginning of the gospel, the church is filled with the spirit, so that the sins may be purged by his grace and the fervor of all believers, and that the tongue preaching Christ may be healed by the fire of the Holy Spirit, which the Lord had said that he would send.

Therefore, John and Luke are not in disagreement since the former said that the Holy Spirit was given on the first day of the resurrection while the latter describes that he came on the fiftieth day. But this was done so that those who first had received the gift of forgiving sins might later receive the working of miracles and all the types of gifts that were described by the apostle, and –what is most necessary—the diversity of languages and of all nations, so that those about to speak the word of Christ would not need an interpreter. For this reason, in Lycaonia, when the people there had heard Paul and Barnabas speaking in their language, they believed that they were Gods in the guise of men.

And in truth, the endowment of virtue is a gift from the Holy Spirit, and those who possess it were not afraid of the tribunals of judges or the purples of kings. For the Lord had promised this before his passion, and he had stated: “When they hand you over, do not think of how or what you say; for you will not be the ones speaking, but rather the spirit of your father who speaks in you”[Matth10:19-20]. And I, boldly and with complete liberty, proclaim that, from the time when the apostles believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit was with them and they would have been unable to perform miracles without the gift of the Holy Spirit, save in small measure.

From this, the Savior exclaimed in the temple, “’He who is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me,’ as the Scripture says, ‘rivers of living water will flow from his heart.’ He said this about the spirit that those believing in him were about to receive.” And in the same place, “The spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” This is not to say that there was no Holy Spirit, since the Lord Savior says, “If I, with the Holy Spirit, cast out demons.” But the spirit that was in the Lord was not fully in the apostles. On account of this, they were terrified at his passion and they deny and swear that they do not know Christ. Yet after they are baptized in the Holy Spirit and the grace of the Holy Spirit is poured in them, they freely speak to the leaders of the Jews, “Is it right to obey God or men?” They rouse the dead, they rejoice in the midst of lashings, they shed their blood, and they are crowned because of their own suffering. Therefore, the spirit was not yet in the apostles, nor were the spiritual gifts flowing from their hearts, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. What this glory may be, moreover, he himself says in the gospel. “Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” The glory of the Savior is the cross of his triumph. He is crucified as man, glorified as God. At last the sun flees, the moon is changed to blood, the earth trembles with an unusual movement, graves are opened, the dead walk about, and rocks are crushed. This is the glory that is spoken of in the Psalm. “Arise, my glory, arise, my psaltery and lute.” And the glory and dispensation of the assumed flesh responded, “I will rise at daybreak” so that the title of the 21st Psalm may be complete: “For the assumption of morning”.

I say these things not because I believe that he is a God and a man and is two people in one son of God—as the new heresy falsely accuses—but he is one and the same son of God and son of man and whatever it says, in one way we are referring to divine glory, in another to our salvation. For which, “he did not think that for him to be equal with God was something to be grasped, but he laid aside his glory, having become obedient to his father to the point of death, even the death of the cross. And the word was made flesh and dwelt in us” [Phil.2:6-8]. Since the Lord promises and says, “I am going and I will send you another protector [paraclete],” and with Luke the Evangelist relating it after, I marvel that Montanus and his crazy women, those failed prophets, said that what was promised to the apostles was only fulfilled after a long period of time. For it was promised to the apostles: “I will send to you the promise of my father and you all will have a seat in the city, until you are endowed with the power from on high”, and rising, breathed upon the faces of the apostles—and not on the faces of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla—and he says to them, “the sins of those you have forgiven are forgiven, and of those you have retained, will be retained.” I say that he ordered the apostles not to leave Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the spirit. And afterwards, we read that the promise was fulfilled. “All were filled with the Holy Spirit and they began to speak in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave speech to them.” For the Holy Spirit breathes where he will, and, when the Lord says, “I will send you another protector,” the Holy Spirit shows that he is the protector that is called “Comforter”. Thus is God the Father known by this name: “God of mercy and of all comfort.” Moreover, if the Father is the comforter, the Son the comforter, the Holy Spirit the comforter, then believers are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, all of which is understood as God. There is only one name for the divinity and the comforter, therefore, there is only one nature.

This Holy Spirit was not only in the apostles, but even in the prophets, about which David said, “Do not remove your Holy Spirit from me.” And it is said that Daniel had the spirit of God, and David with the spirit in him says that the Lord said to his lord, “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies at your feet like a footstool.” And without the Holy Spirit, the prophets did not prophesy and “with the word of God, the heavens were hardened and all of their power came from the breath of his mouth”; and, whatever of the Father and the Son there is, it is likewise of the Holy Spirit, and the spirit itself, when it is sent from the Father and comes for the sake of the Son, in one place or another is called both the Spirit of God the Father and the Spirit of Christ. From this, in the Acts of the Apostles, those who had been baptized by John and believed in God the Father and Christ, because they did not know of the Holy Spirit, were baptized a second time; rather, at that time they received true baptism—for the mystery of the trinity is incomplete without the Holy Spirit—and in the same volume, it is told that Peter said to Ananias and to Sapphira that when they lied to the Holy Spirit, they were not lying to man, but to God.

10. What does it mean when the apostle Paul discusses with the Romans, “What therefore do we say? Can it be that there is iniquity in God? Perish the thought” up to the place where he says, “If the Lord of hosts had not left seed for us, we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah”?

Indeed, the entire epistle to the Romans requires interpretation. It is shrouded in so many obscurities that, in order to understand these things, we need the help of the Holy Spirit who dictated these very things through the apostle; but this passage is especially obscure. For instance, certain men wishing to preserve the justice of God say that, from previous causes Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected in the womb of Rebecca, just as both Jeremiah and John the Baptist were chosen in the womb and the apostle himself was destined for gospel even before he was born. Nothing is pleasing to us, however, except for what is canonical, and in speaking publicly in the church, we do not fear that I will say that, according to Pythagoras and Plato and their disciples who introduce the dogma of Gentiles under the name of Christianity, souls have fallen from heaven and that, because of the diversity of merits in their bodies, they have paid the penalty for their past sins. It is much better to simply declare ignorance and, among other things we do not know, to flee the obscurity of this passage than to defend the heresy of Basilides and Manes, and to pursue Spanish incantations and Egyptian portents, even though we wish to demonstrate the justice of God. Therefore, let me speak as best I can, following the tracks of the apostle’s intentions not at all at a close clip, as they say, but at some distance from his meaning. He had wept formerly and had called the Holy Spirit as a witness to his grief and his remorse because his brothers and relatives in the flesh, the Israelites, had not received the son of God. Theirs was “the adoption and the glory and the covenant and the legislation and the worship and the promise”, out of which Christ himself according to the flesh was born from the Virgin Mary. And he is so tortured by the grief in his heart that he desires to be anathema, apart from Christ, that is, to die alone, so that the whole of Israel may not perish. And because he had said this, he anticipates the question coming immediately on the contrary: “What are you saying? Has everyone from Israel perished? And how did you yourself and the other apostles and the vast multitude of Jewish people receive Christ as the son of God?” The answer to which is: In the Scriptures, Israel is thought of in two ways and is divided into two sons; one according to the flesh and the other according to the promise and the spirit. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael, who was born according to the flesh, did not receive the inheritance of his father; Isaac, who was born according to the promise from Sarah, is called the seed of God. For it was written: “Isaac will be called your seed; that is, not the children of God who are children of the flesh, but those judged among his seed who are children of the promise.”

And we demonstrate that this happened not only in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, but also with the two children of Rebecca, Esau and Jacob, the one being rejected, the other chosen. And he says all this so that the elder brothers, Ishmael and Esau, signify the rejection of the Jews and that the younger brothers, Isaac and Jacob, signify the chosen people or those of the Jews who were going to believe in Christ. And because he was desiring to make this clear, he had proposed the example of the twin brothers Esau and Jacob, about which it was written: “The elder will be subject to the younger” and in Malachi we read: “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau”. He proposed and considered the objection, and, after refuting it, returned to what he had begun to discuss. If Esau and Jacob had not yet been born and had not done anything either good or bad to deserve or offend God, and the selection and rejection did not demonstrate the merits of each person, but rather the will of the one choosing and rejecting, what, then, are we saying? Is God unjust? According to the example that he used with Moses: “I will have pity for whom I will have pity, and I will supply mercy for whom I have pity.” If, he said, we accept the fact that God does what he wills and, outside of merit and deeds, either chooses or condemns someone, then “it is not in the one who wills nor the one who runs, but in God who shows mercy”; especially when the same Scripture, that is the same God, says to the Pharoah, “I have raised you up for this very reason, that I may show in you my power and that my name be announced in all the earth.” If this is so and he takes pity on Israel of his own will and hardens the Pharaoh, then in vain does he complain and object that we have not done good or that we have done evil, when it is in his power and will, apart from good and evil doings, either to choose or reject someone, especially since human weakness is unable to resist his will.

The apostle was able to refute this very strong argument, woven with support of the Scriptures and nearly irrefutable, by briefly saying, “O man, who are you to respond to God?” And this is the sense: because you respond to God, make a false accusation, and search extensively for such great evidence from the Scriptures that you speak against God and look for justice in his will, you show that you have free will and that you do what you wish—to either talk or stay silent. For if you think that God created you in the same way that one creates a clay vessel and that you are not able to resist his will, consider the fact that the clay vessel does not say to its potter, “Why have you made me in this way?”—for the potter has the power to create one vessel for an honorable purpose, another for an dishonorable purpose, both from the same mound of clay—; God, however, created everyone of equal lot and granted free will so that each person can do whatever he wishes whether good or evil. Also, he gave so much of this power to everyone that a wicked voice may speak against its own creator and search high and low for reasons for his will.

“And if God, desiring to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, very patiently tolerated the vessels of anger ready for destruction in order to show the wealth of his glory upon the vessels of mercy—namely us, not only Jews, but also Gentiles, just as he says in Hosea, ‘I have called those who are not my people “my people” and her who is not loved “loved”’, and this will be in the place where it was said, ‘You are not my people; there, they will be called the children of the living God’”, et cetera. If, the apostle said, the patience of God hardened the Pharaoh and put off the punishment of the Israelites for a long time to condemn more justly those whom he had tolerated for so long, then one cannot find fault with the patience of God, nor his boundless mercy, but rather the hardness of those who have misused the Lord’s kindness to their own detriment.

Besides, the sun’s heat is always the same and melts things according to their substance—it hardens one thing, it loosens another, it tightens some; for wax is liquefied, and mud is hardened—yet the nature of the heat is still the same. In this way, consider the kindness and mercy of God—he hardens the vessels of wrath which are ready for destruction, namely the Israelites; but he saves the vessels of compassion that he prepared for glory, namely us, not only Jews but also Gentiles, not without reason and truth in judgment. He does so for prior reasons, because some did not receive the son of God while others were quite willing to do so.

Moreover, these vessels of compassion are not just the Gentiles, but also those of the Jews who wanted to believe; and people who believe are, in effect, one and the same. This clearly shows that he does not choose based on the nation of men, but based on their will; and it happens thus, in order to fulfill what is said in Hosea: “I have called those who are not my people ‘my people’”, that is, the Gentiles, and those who were called, “not my people”, now are called the children of the living God. But this is not only in reference to the Gentiles, for he calls even the believers among the Jews the vessels of compassion and election. On behalf of Israel, Isaiah cries out, “If the number of the children of Israel shall be as sand of the sea, the remaining will be saved.” That is, even if a great number do not believe, a few will, nevertheless. For God has balanced his word, finished and cut short, in his justice so that with the humility and incarnation of Christ he might save those who had been willing to believe. Isaiah says the very same thing in another passage: “If the Lord of hosts had not left his seed to us, we would be as if we had been made Sodom and Gomorra.”

And after he had put forth his testimony, in which a double calling (the Jews and the Gentiles) is preached, he moves on to a related discussion and says that the Gentiles who were not pursuing justice had apprehended it because they did not show too much pride and believed in Christ; but the majority of the Israelites have fallen for that very reason—because they have fallen upon the stone of offense and the rock of scandal, and because they have ignored the justice of God, and, unwilling to be subjected to the justice of God who is Christ, seek to establish their own justice. I have read in a certain commentary that the apostle responded in such a way as to confuse rather than clear up the discussion. He said to what had been put forth: “What therefore do we say? Is there injustice in God?”, and, “It is not in the one who wills, nor the one who runs, but in God who shows mercy”, and, “God shows mercy on whom he wishes and hardens whom he wishes”, and, “Who is able to resist his will?” The apostle responded thus: “O man, of earth and ash, do you dare to pose a question to God and, being a fragile clay vessel, do you rebel against your potter? Can a piece of art say to its artist, ‘Why did you make me in this way?’ Or doesn’t the potter have the ability, from the same mound of clay, to create one vessel for an honorable purpose and another vessel for a dishonorable purpose?” Therefore, be in eternal silence and know your own weakness and do not try to question God, who did as he wished, being merciful to some and stern to others.

11. In his second letter to the Corinthians, what does the apostle mean when he writes: “To some, we are the smell of death leading to death and to others we are the smell of life leading to life. And who is so qualified for these things?”

Let us put down the entire contents of this passage so that, from the preceding and the following content, the middle which is cmposed from both may be understood. He said: “When I had come to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and the door had been opened to me in the Lord, I did not have peace of mind because I did not find my brother Titus, but after saying goodbye, I set out for Macedonia. And thanks be to God, who always triumphs over us in Jesus Christ and reveals through us the fragrance of his presence in every place, because we are the aroma of Christ in God among those who are saved and those who perish: to some, we are the smell of death leading to death and to others we are the smell of life leading to life. And who is so qualified for these things? For we are not like the majority who peddle the word of God, but we preach sincerely, as though we preach from God, in the presence of God, in Christ.”

He tells the Corinthians what he did, what he suffered, and how he gives thanks to God in all circumstances, so that under his example, he may call them forth to contend. He said, “I came to Troas, which used to be called Troy, to preach the gospel of Christ in Asia. And when the door had been opened for me in the Lord, that is, when many people had believed, though there was hope of faith forming and growing in the Lord through the signs and miracles that God worked in me, I did not have peace of mind; that is, I was not able to find the longed-for consolation in finding my brother, Titus. I thought that I could find him there, for I heard that he was spending time there, or that he would come to that place, as he had said.”

But what such consolation was there? What peace of mind was there in the presence of Titus, because of whose absence, he said goodbye and set out for Macedonia? On several occasions we have said that the apostle Paul was a very learned man, instructed at the feet of Gamaliel, who in the Acts of the Apostles makes a speech and says, “What do you have with those men? If it is from God, it will stand; if from men, it will be destroyed.” And although he had knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and possessed the gift of speech in many tongues—for which reason he glories in the Lord and says, “I give thanks to God, because I speak more languages than everyone”—, he was unable to display the majesty of divine notions in a speech worthy of Greek eloquence. Therefore, he had Titus as an interpreter, just as Peter used to have Mark, whose gospel was composed with Peter as the narrator and Mark as the writer. Finally, the two letters of Peter differ from each other in style and character as well as turn of phrase; from this, we understand that he, of necessity, used different interpreters.

Therefore, the apostle Paul is sad because he had not found at that moment the pipe for his preaching and the instrument through which he sings of Christ. Then he proceeded to Macedonia—for a Macedonian man appeared to him and said, “On your way, help us”—, so that he might find Titus there and visit his brethren or be tested with persecutions. For this is what he says: “Thanks to God who always triumphs over us in Jesus Christ”—which means “He triumphs over us” or “He leads his triumph through us”—, who had said in another place, “We have been made a spectacle to the world, to angels and men.” Finally, in the following, he says, “When we had come to Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but endured every hardship. There were battles without, fear within. But God, who comforts the humble, comforted us with Titus’ arrival, not only with his arrival, but also with him as a source of consolation.”

Thus, for this reason, as the apostle Paul said goodbye to the people of Troy, or Troas, he set out for Macedonia in order to find Titus there and to have him as a comfort while he interpreted and preached. We understand that he was not found there, but came after the apostle’s hardships and persecutions. And before Titus came, having endured a great deal, he gave thanks to almighty God in Jesus Christ, whom he was preaching to the nations because He elected him as being worthy of leading the triumph of his son.

The triumph of God is the passion of the martyrs, the shedding of blood in the name of Christ, and joy in the midst of torments. For when someone sees that the martyrs are standing with such perseverance, tortured, and glorying in their own suffering, the aroma of the knowledge of God is spread through the nations, and this thought travels silently: if the gospel were not true, no one would ever shed his own blood for its defense. For a confession is not some luxurious thing, concerned with wealth, free from care; rather it is in prisons, in scourges, in persecutions, in hunger, nudity, and thirst. This is the triumph of God and the victory of the apostles.

Upon hearing this, one could respond, “How is it, then, that not everyone believed?” Before he asks the question, the apostle has a reply to this supposed objection according to his custom; whatever another person is able to object, he discusses it before the objection is made. And this is the sense: “We are, to God, in every place the good aroma of the name of Christ and the ardor of our preaching breathes the spirit of the Lord far and wide. But because men have been left to their own judgment—for they do not do good out of necessity, but out of will, in order that the believers might receive the crown, and the nonbelievers might be punished—, for this reason, our aroma, which is inherently good, leads to life or to death depending on the virtue or vice of those who believe or do not. This is so that believers may be saved and nonbelievers may perish.” This should not be surprising about the apostle, when we have even read about the Lord, “Behold, this man has been set up for the fall and the resurrection of many people and will be spoken against.”

Clean and dirty places both receive the rays of the sun and they shine as much on flowers as on manure and the rays of the sun are not polluted. In this way, the good aroma of Christ, which is not able to be changed or to lose its own nature, leads to life for believers and death for nonbelievers. Moreover, death is not that common occurrence whereby we die along with animals, but is that about which it was written: “The soul which has sinned will die.” Therefore, life must not be judged by the fact that we breathe and walk and run here and there, but by what David says: “I believe that I see the Lord in the land of the living.” For he is the God of the living and not the dead and our life is hidden with Christ in God; moreover, when Christ, our life, appears, then we also will appear with him in glory.

The apostle said, “O Corinthians, do not think it insufficient if some believe the truth of our preaching while others do not, if some die a true death while others live the life which states, ‘I am the life.’ For if we had not preached, then death would not be following nonbelievers, nor would life be following believers. This is because a worthy herald of the miracles of Christ can be found only with difficulty, a herald who in making these proclamations preaches the one whose glory he seeks and not his own.” Also, because he denies that he is like the many who peddle the word of God, he shows that most people think that there is profit in piety and do all things for the sake of gain, they “who devour the houses of widows”; but he speaks all things in Christ and for Christ with sincerity as if sent by God and with Him present, so that the reason for preaching of God may be the triumph and glory of Christ.

And it must be noted that the mystery of the trinity is revealed at the end of this chapter, for “We preach from God, in the Holy Spirit, in the presence of God the Father, in Christ.” Also, to prove that he set out for Macedonia from Troas, I shall give testimony from the Acts of the Apostles: “When they had passed through Mysia, they descended to Troas and a vision came to Paul at night. A certain Macedonian man was standing and entreating him, saying, ‘As you pass through Macedonia, help us.’ And after he had seen this, we immediately decided to proceed to Macedonia, certain that God had called us to spread the gospel there.”

12. In his first letter to the Thessalonians, what does he mean when he writes: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you in all ways and may your unharmed spirit and soul and body be preserved without complaint for the arrival of our Lord, Jesus Christ”?

A well-known question, but to be treated briefly here. He had said above: “Do not extinguish the spirit”, but if there is understanding, then we will know immediately what that spirit is that must be preserved along with the body and soul for the day of the Lord’s coming. For who could believe that the Holy Spirit may be extinguished like a flame which, once put out, ceases to be what it had been? And who could believe that the Holy Spirit may put up with its own destruction when it was at one time in Israel, having been able to say through Isaiah and Jeremiah and individual prophets, “The Lord says these things,” and now in church through Agabus says, “The Holy Spirit says these things. There are different gifts, but the same spirit; and different offices, but the same Lord; and different divine works and the same God who works all in all. Also, the manifestation of the spirit is granted to each person for a useful purpose. To one man, the speech of wisdom is given through the spirit; to another, the speech of knowledge according to the same spirit; to another, the gifts of healing in one spirit; to another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the work of miracles; to another, prophecies; to another, the power of distinguishing spirits. All these things the one and the same spirit devises, distributing them to each person exactly as he wishes” [1Cor.12:4-11].

David was asking this spirit not to be removed from him, saying, “Do not remove your Holy Spirit from me.” For when it is removed, it is extinguished not in substance, but in the person from whom it was removed. I think that the statement “Do not extinguish the spirit” means the same thing as when he writes in another place “Be fervent in spirit”. For the spirit is by no means extinguished in the one whose passion for the spirit does not grow cool because of an increased injustice, or because of a love grown cold.

Therefore, “May the God of peace sanctify you through all” or “in all” or “fully and perfectly”—this sounds more like the Greek (holoteleis). Moreover, he is called “God of peace” because through Christ we have been reconciled to him, who is our peace, who has made both one. In another place, he is called the peace of God, surpassing every sense that guards the hearts and minds of the saints. Also, the one who is sanctified or made perfect in all things, in him are the spirit and soul and body preserved for the day of the Lord. The body is a gift if it makes use of the services of every limb: if the hand labors, the foot walks, the eye sees, the ear listens, the teeth chew food, the bowels eliminate, if the limbs of the body are not maimed. Is anyone able to believe that the apostle prayed on behalf of the believers so that Christ may find the body of each person untouched on the Day of Judgment? Is it not that everyone’s bodies either are destroyed in death or, if they should be found still breathing (as certain people wish), have their own defects, especially the martyrs who have either their eyes dug out or their noses or hands cut off in the name of Christ? Therefore a body is whole, then, which we mentioned in another question, even not having the head, from which each body receives its connection and agreement, increased in the administration of Christ. This body is the church and, whoever has a head and preserves the other limbs of this body, he will have a whole body, as much as human nature is able. According to this rule, the integrity of the soul must also be preserved, so as to say, “My soul, bless the Lord who heals all your weaknesses”, and it is written, “He sent his word and he healed them.” The spirit as well is kept whole in us when we do not go astray in spiritual matters, but live in the spirit; we assent to the spirit, we subdue the works of the flesh by the spirit, and we bear all the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, and so on.

From another angle, we can learn from what Solomon says: “Describe things three times in good counsel and knowledge, so that you may respond to those who question you with the words of truth.” A threefold description of the rule of the Scriptures in our hearts is: first, so that we may understand them according to history; second, according to tropology; third, according to spiritual meaning. Historically, the order of what was written is preserved; tropologically, we move from the actual letter to higher concepts and, whatever physically happened among the earlier people, we interpret in a moral sense and use it for the benefit of our soul; in spiritual interpretation (theoria in Greek), we cross over to loftier ideas, leaving behind earthly notions: we discuss happiness for the future and heavenly things, so that the thought of present life may be a shadow of future happiness. Christ, with his peace, will sanctify and make perfect those he will find, so that they may be preserved whole in body, soul, and spirit, and so that they may have the whole truth of a triple knowledge for themselves.

Many understand the passage concerning the resurrection in a simple way—the spirit and the soul and the body should be kept whole for the coming of the Lord. Others, from this passage, wish to confirm a triple substance in man: that of the spirit, with which we feel, the soul, with which we live, and the body, with which we move. There are people who explain that man is only the body and the soul, and they desire that the spirit be understood not as a substance, but as an efficient power in us through which it is called a mind, sense, thought, and reason [animus]. And to be sure, there are not as many substances as there are names. And when this passage is put before them: “Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord”, they do not accept the Scripture, saying that it is not in Hebrew. We, however, in this present passage, as we have said above, take the spirit that is kept whole along with the body and the soul, not as a substance of the Holy Spirit that is unable to perish, but as a grace and as a gift that either by our virtue or by our vice are kindled or extinguished in us. 1

Original letter:

PRAEFATIO. Ignota uultu fidei mihi ardore notissima es. et de extremis Galliae finibus in Bethleemitico rure latitantem ad respondendum prouocas de sanctarum quaestiunculis scripturarum per hominem dei filium meum Apodemium commonitoriolum dirigens, quasi uero non habeas in tua prouincia disertos uiros et in dei lege perfectos, nisi forte experimentum magis nostri quam doctrinam flagitas et uis scire, quid de his, quae ab aliis audisti, nos quoque sentiamus. maiores tui Patera atque Delphidius, quorum alter, antequam ego nascerer, rhetoricam Romae docuit, alter me. iam adulescentulo omnes Gallias prosa uersuque suo inlustrauit ingenio, iam dormientes et taciti me iure reprehendunt, quod audeam ad stirpem generis sui quippiam musitare, licet concedens eis eloquentiae magnitudinem et doctrinam saecularium litterarum merito subtraham scientiam legis dei, quam nemo accipere potest, nisi ei data fuerit a patre luminum, qui inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in mundum [John 1:9] et stat medius credentium, qui in nomine eius fuerint congregati. unde libere profiteor— nec dictum superbiae pertimesco—me scribere tibi non in doctis humanae sapientiae uerbis, quam deus destructurus est, sed in uerbis fidei spiritalibus spiritalia conparantem, ut abyssus ueteris testamenti inuocet abyssum euangelicam in uoce cataractarum, id est prophetarum et apostolorum suorum, et ueritas domini perueniat usque ad nubes, quibus mandatum est, ne super incredulum Israhel imbrem pluerent, sed ut rigarent arua gentilium et torrentem spinarum ac mare mortuum dulcorarent. ora igitur, ut uerus Heliseus steriles in me et mortuas aquas uiuificet et apostolorum sale, quibus dixerat: uos estis sal terrae [Matth.5:13], meum munusculum condiat, quia omne sacrificium, quod absque sale est, domino non offertur. nec fulgore saecularis eloquentiae delecteris, quam uidit Iesus quasi fulgur cadentem de caelo, sed potius eum recipe, qui non habet decorem nec faciem, homo in plagis positus et sciens ferre infirmitatem, et quicquid ad proposita respondero, scias me non confidentia respondisse sermonis, sed eius fide, qui pollicitus est: aperi os tuum et implebo illud [Ps.80:11]. 1.Quomodo perfectus esse quis possit et quomodo uiuere debeat uidua, quae sine liberis derelicta est. Hoc idem et in euangelio legis doctor interrogat: “magister, quid faciens uitam aeternam possidebo? cui respondit dominus: mandata nosti? dicit illi: quae? Iesus autem dixit: non homicidium facies, non adulterium, non furtum, non falsum testimonium dices; honora patrem et matrem et diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum. et illo dicente: 'haec omnia feci' dominus intulit: unum tibi deest. si uis esse perfectus, uade, uende omnia, quae habes, et da pauperibus et ueni, sequere me [Matth.19:16-21, Luke 18:18-22]. itaque et ego tibi domini nostri respondebo sermonibus: si uis esse perfecta et tollere crucem tuam et sequi dominum saluatorem et imitari Petrum dicentem: ecce nos omnia nostra dimisimus et secuti sumus te [Matth.10:28, Luke 18:28], uade et uende omnia tua, quae habes, et da pauperibus et sequere saluatorem. non dixit:' da filiis, da fratribus, da propinquis' — quos etiam si haberes, iure his dominus praeferretur — sed 'da pauperibus', immo da Christo, qui in pauperibus pascitur, qui, cum diues esset, pro nobis pauper factus est, qui loquitur in tricesimo nono psalmo: ego autem mendicus sum et pauper, dominus sollicitus est pro me. statimque quadragesimi de eo exordium est: b e a t u s, qui intellegit super egenum et pauperem. intellegentia opus est et post intellegentiam beatitudine, qui sit egenus et pauper, non utique ille, qui mendicitate et squalore coopertus est et tamen non recedit a uitiis, sed de quibus apostolus loquitur: tantum ut pauperum memores essemus [Gal.2:10], ob quorum refrigeria laborant Paulus et Barnabas in ecclesiis gentium, ut collectae fiant per primam sabbati, et hanc ipsam oblationem non per alios, sed per se deferre festinant his, qui suas pro Christo amisere substantias, qui persecutiones passi sunt, qui dixerunt patri suo et matri, uxoribus et liberis: 'non nouimus uos'. hi impleuerunt uoluntatem dei et audierunt dicentem dominum saluatorem: mater mea et fratres mei hi sunt, qui faciunt uoluntatem patris mei [Luke 8:21]. et haec dicimus, non quo in pauperes Iudaeos siue gentiles et omnino, cuiuslibet gentis sint pauperes. prohibeamus faciendam elemosynam, sed quo Christianos et credentes pauperes incredulis praeferamus et inter ipsos Christianos sit multa diuersitas, utrum peccator an sanctus sit. unde et apostolus passiuam in omnibus misericordiam probans infert: maxime in domesticos fidei. domesticus fidei est, qui eadem tibi religione coniungitur, quem a consortio fraternitatis peccata non separant. quodsi de inimicis quoque nobis praecipitur, ut, si esurierint, demus eis cibos, si sitierint, demus eis potum et haec facientes congregemus carbones super caput eorum, quanto magis de his, qui non sunt inimici et qui Christiani sunt aut Christiani sancti! neque uero hoc, quod dicitur: haec enim faciens carbones ignis congregabis super caput eius [Rom.12:20], in malam partem accipiendum est, sed in bonam. quando enim inimicis nostris praebemus beneficia, malitiam eorum nostra bonitate superamus et mollimus duritiam iratumque animum ad necessitudinem flectimus atque ita congregamus carbones super caput eorum, de quibus scriptum est: sagittae potentis acutae cum carbonibus desolatoriis [Ps.119:4], ut, quomodo de altari a seraphin carbo sublatus prophetae labia purgauit, ita et inimicorum nostrorum peccata purgentur, ut uincamus in bono malum et benedicamus maledicentibus et imitemur patrem, qui solem suum oriri facit super iustos et iniustos. igitur et tu, quia paucos non habes filios, habe plurimos; fac tibi amicos de iniquo mamona, qui te recipiant in aeterna tabernacula. pulchreque dixit 'de iniquo'; omnes enim diuitiae de iniquitate descendunt et, nisi alter perdiderit, alter non potest inuenire. unde illa uulgata sententia mihi uidetur esse uerissima: 'diues aut iniquus aut iniqui heres'. quod cum legis doctor audisset et ferre non posset, quia habebat diuitias multas, conuersus dominus ad discipulos ait: quam difficile, qui diuites sunt, intrare possunt in regna caelorum! [Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24] non dixit 'inpossibile', sed 'difficile', licet exemplum posuerit inpossibilitatis: facilius camelus per foramen acus transire poterit quam diues in regna caelorum [Matth.19:24]. hoc autem non tam difficile est, quam inpossibile; numquam enim fieri potest, ut camelus transeat per foramen acus. numquam igitur diues intrare poterit regna caelorum? sed camelus tortuosus et curuus est et graui sarcina praegrauatur; et nos ergo, quando prauas ingredimur semitas et rectam uiam dimittimus et oneramur mundi diuitiis siue pondere delictorum, regnum dei ingredi non ualemus. quodsi deponamus grauissimam sarcinam et adsumamus nobis pennas columbae, uolabimus et requiescimus et dicitur de nobis: si dormiatis inter medios cleros, pennae columbae deargentatae et posteriora dorsi eius in pallore auri [Ps.6 7:14]. dorsum nostrum, quod primum informe erat et graui sarcina premebatur, habeat uirorem auri, quod interpretatur in sensu, et alas deargentatas, quae intelleguntur in eloquio scripturarum, et regnum dei intrare poterimus. dicunt apostoli se omnia, quae sua fuerint, dimisisse et mercedem pro hac uirtute audacter exposcunt. quibus respondit dominus: omnis, qui relinquit domum uel fratres aut sorores aut patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum, centuplum accipiet et uitam aeternam possidebit [Matth.19:29]. 0 quanta beatitudo pro paruis magna recipere, aeterna pro breuibus, pro morituris semper uiuentia et habere dominum debitorem! si qua autem uidua habet liberos — et maxime, si nobilis familiae est -—, egentes filios non dimittat, sed ex aequalitate,ut meminerit primum animae suae et ipsam putet esse de filiis et partiatur potius cum liberis, quam omnia filiis derelinquat, immo Christum liberorum suorum faciat coheredem. respondebis: 'difficile, durum est, contra naturam'. sed dominum tibi audies respondentem: qui potest capere, capiat [Matth.19:12], et si uis esse perfecta, non tibi iugum necessitatis inponit, sed potestati tuae liberum concedit arbitrium. uis esse perfecta et in primo stare fastigio dignitatis? fac, quod fecerunt apostoli, uende omnia, quae habes, et da pauperibus et sequere saluatorem et nudam solamque uirtutem nuda sequaris et sola, non uis esse perfecta, sed secundum gradum tenere uirtutis? dimitte omnia tua, quae habes, da filiis, da propinquis. nemo te reprehendit, si inferiora secteris, dum modo illam scias tibi iure praelatam. quae elegerit prima, dicis: hoc apostolorum est et uirorum, mulierem autem nobilem non posse omnia uendere, quae multis adiumentis uitae huius indigeat. audi igitur apostolum commonentem: non ut a1iis refrigerium, uobis autem tribulatio, sed ex aequalitate uestra abundantia illorum sustentet inopiam, ut et illorum abundantia uestrae inopiae sit supplementum [2Cor.8:13-14]. unde et dominus: qui habet, inquit, duas tunicas, det alteram non habenti [Luke 3:11]. quid, si Scythiae frigora sint et Alpinae niues, quae non duabus et tribus tunicis, sed uix pecudum pellibus repelluntur? quicquid ergo corpora nostra defendere potest et humanae succurrere inbecillitati, quos nudos natura profudit, hoc una appellanda est tunica et, quicquid in praesentibus alimentis necessarium est, hoc unius diei uictus appellatur. unde praeceptum est: ne cogitetis de crastino [Matth.6:34], hoc est de futuro tempore, et apostolus: habentes, inquit, uictum et uestitum his contenti sumus [1Tim.6:8]. si plus habes, quam tibi ad uictum uestitumque necessarium est, illud eroga, in illo debitricem esse te noueris. Ananias et Sapphira apostoli meruere sententiam, quia sua timide reseruarunt. 'ergone', inquies, 'puniendus est, qui sua non dederit? minime. puniti sunt, quia mentiri uoluerunt, spiritui sancto et reseruantes necessaria uictui suo quasi perfecte saeculo renuntiantes uanamgloriam sectabantur. alioquin licet libere uel dare uel non dare, quamquam ei, qui cupiat esse perfectus, praesens paupertas futuris diuitiis conpensanda sit. quomodo autem uidua uiuere debeat, breui sermone apostolus conprehendit dicens: quae in deliciis est, vivens mortua est et nos in duobus libellis, quos ad Furiam et Saluinam scripsimus, plenius dictum putamus. 2. Quid sit, quod in Matheo scriptum est: dico autem, uobis: non bibam a modo de hoc genimine uitis usque in diem illum, quo illud bibam uobiscum novum in regno patris mei.[Matth.26:29] Ex hoc loco quidam mille annorum fabulam struunt, in quibus Christum regnaturum corporaliter esse contendunt et bibiturum uinum, quod ex illo tempore usque ad consummationem mundi non biberit. nos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit dominus deditque discipulis, esse corpus domini saluatoris ipso dicente ad eos: accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum [Matth.26:26], et calicem illum esse, de quo iterum locutus est: bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est enim sanguis meus noui testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum [Matth.26:27-28]. iste est calix, de quo in propheta legimus: calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen domini inuocabo [Ps.115:4], et alibi: calix meus inebrians quam praeclarus est! [Ps.22:5] si enim panis, qui de caelo descendit, corpus est domini et uinum, quod discipulis dedit, sanguis illius est noui testamenti, qui effusus est in remissionem omnium peccatorum, Iudaicas fabulas repellamus et ascendamus cum domino cenaculum magnum, stratum atque mundatum et accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem noui testamenti ibique cum eo pascha celebrantes inebriemur uino sobrietatis. non est enim regnum dei cibus et potus, sed iustitia set gaudium et pax in spiritu sancto [Rom.14:17]. nec Moyses dedit nobis panem uerum, sed dominus Iesus, ipse conuiua et conuiuium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur. illius bibimus sanguinem et sine ipso potare non possumus et cotidie in sacrificiis eius degenimine uitis uerae et uineae Sorech, quae interpretatur 'electa', rubentia musta calcamus et nouum ex his uinum bibimus in regno patris nequaquam in uetustate litterae, sed in nouitate spiritus canentes canticum nouum, quod nemo potest canere nisi in regno ecclesiae, quod regnum patris est. hunc panem et Iacob comedere patriarcha cupiebat dicens: si fuerit dominus deus mecum et dederit mihi panem ad uescendum et uestimentum ad operiendum Gen.28-20]. quotquot enim in Christo baptizamur, Christum induimur et panem comedimus angelorum et audimus dominum praedicantem: meus cibus est, ut faciam uoluntatem eius, qui me misit, et impleam opus eius [John 4:34]. faciamus igitur uoluntatem eius, qui nos misit, patris et impleamus opus illius et Christus nobiscum bibet in regno ecclesiae sanguinem suum. 3. Quae causa sit, ut de resurrectione et apparitione domini euamjelistae diuersa narrauerint. In quibus primum quaeris, cur Matheus dixerit ucspere sabbati inlucescente in una sabbati dominum surrexisse et Marcus mane resurrectionem eius factam esse commemoret ita scribens: cum autem resurrexisset, una sabbati mane apparuit Mariae Magda1enae, de qua eiecerat septem daemonia; et illa abiens nuntiauit his, qui cum eo fuerant, lugentibus et flentibus. illique audientes, quod uiueret et quod uidisset eum, crediderunt [Mark 16:9-11]. cuius quaestionis duplex solutio est. aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur euangeliis omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim cum diuersa atque contraria euangelistis ceteris narrare uideatur, aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque uerum dixerit: Matheus, quando dominus resurrexerit, id est uespere sabbati, Marcus autem, quando eum uiderit Maria Magdalene, id est mane prima sabbati. ita enim distinguendum est: cum autem resurrexisset, et parumper spiritu coartato inferendum: prima sabbati mane apparuit Mariae Magda1enae [Mark 16:9], ut, qui uespere sabbati iuxta Matheum resurrexerat, mane prima sabbati iuxta Marcum apparuerit Mariae Magdalenae. quod quidem et Iohannes euangelista significat mane eum alterius diei uisum esse demonstrans. 4. Quomodo iuxta Matheum uespere sabbati Maria Magdalene uidit dominum resurgentem et Iohannes euangelista refert mane una sabbati eam iuxta sepulchrum flere? Una sabbati dies dominica intellegenda est, quia omnis ebdomada in sabbatum et in primam et secundam et tertiam et quartam et quintam et sextam sabbati diuiditur, quam ethnici idolorum et elementorum nominibus appellant. denique et apostolus collectam pecuniae, quae indigentibus praeparatur, in una sabbati praecepit congregandam. nec putandum est Matheum et Iohannem diuersa sensisse, sed unum atque idem tempus, mediae noctis et gallorum cantus, diuersis appellasse nominibus — Matheus enim scribit 'uespere sabbati', id est sero, non incipiente nocte, sed iam profunda et magna ex parte transacta apparuisse dominum Mariae Magdalenae et apparuisse uespere sabbati inlucescentis in unam sabbati se ipsum interpretans, quid dixisset 'uespere sabbati', id est adpropinquante iam luce sequentis diei — et Iohannem non absolute dixisse: una a u t e m sabbati uenit Maria Magdalene mane ad sepulchrum [John 20)1], sed addidisse: cum adhuc essent tenebrae, eiusdem igitur atque unius temporis, id est mediae noctis et gallorum cantus, alterum finem, alterum dixisse principium. mihique uidetur euangelista Matheus, qui euangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit, non tam 'uespere' dixisse quam 'sero' et eum, qui interpretatus est, uerbi ambiguitate deceptum non 'sero' interpretatum esse, sed 'uespere', quamquam et consuetudo humani sermonis teneat 'sero' non uesperum significare, sed 'tarde'. solemus enim dicere: 'sero uenisti',id est 'tarde', et: 'qui facere ante debueras, fac saltim sero', id est 'tarde'. sin autem illud obicitur, quomodo eadem Maria, quae prius uiderat dominum resurgentem, postea ad sepulchrum eius flere referatur, hoc dicendum est, quod et sola et cum altera siue cum aliis mulieribus memor beneficiorum, quae in se dominus contulerat, ad sepulchrum eius frequenter cucurrerit, et nunc adorauerit, quem uidebat, nunc fleuerit, quem quaerebat absentem, licet quidam duas Marias Magdalenas de eodem uico Magdalo fuisse contendant et alteram esse, quae in Matheo eum uiderit resurgentem, alteram, quae in Iohanne eum quaerebat absentem. quattuor autem fuisse Marias in euangeliis legimus: unam matrem domini saluatoris, alteram materteram eius, quae appellata est Maria Cleopae, tertiam Mariam, matrem Iacobi et Ioseph, quartam Mariam Magdalenen, licet alii matrem Iacobi et Ioseph materteram eius fuisse contendant. nonnulli, ut se liberent quaestione, in Marco uolunt unam esse de Mariis, sed non additum cognomen Magdalenae, et ex superfluo scriptorum inoleuisse uitio, quod primum euangelista non scripserit, nobis autem simplex uidetur et aperta responsio: sanctas feminas Christi absentiam non ferentes per totam noctem non semel nec bis, sed crebro ad sepulchrum domini cucurrisse, praesertim cum terrae motus et saxa disrupta et sol fugiens et rerum natura turbata et—quod his maius est — desiderium saluatoris somnum ruperit feminarum. 5. Quomodo iuxta Matheum Maria Magdalene uespere sabbati cum altera Maria aduoluta pedibus saluatoris secundum, Iohannem mane una sabbati audit a domino: noli me tangere; necdum enim ascendi ad patrem meum? Quae prius uiderat dominum resurgentem cum altera Maria et eius pedibus fuerat aduoluta, postea reuersa per noctem — domi enim desiderio eius manere non poterat—uenit ad sepulchrum, cumque lapidem, quo monumentum clausum fuerat, uidisset ablatum, cucurrit ad Simonem Petrum et ad alterum discipulum, quem Iesus amabat plurimum, et dicit eis: tulerunt dominum de monumento et nescimus, ubi posuerunt eum [John 20:2]. error mulieris cum pietate sociatus est; pietas in eo erat, quod desiderabat eum, cuius nouerat maiestatem, error in illo, quod dicebat: tulerunt dominum de monumento et nescimus, ubi posuerunt eum. denique, cum Petrus et Iohannes introeuntes sepulchrum uidissent linteamina separata et sudarium, quo caput domini fuerat inuolutum, seorsum positum et resurrexisse crederent, cuius corpus non inuenerant in sepulchro, Maria stabat ad monumentum foris plorans [John 20:11]. cumque se inclinasset, uidit duos angelos in albis sedentes in loco monumenti ad caput et pedes, ubi positum fuerat corpus Iesu, ut sub tanta custodiae dignitate non crederet ab hominibus potuisse furari, qui ministris angelis seruabatur. dicuntque ei angeli, quos cernebat: mulier, quid ploras ? secundum illud, quod dominus loquitur ad matrem: quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? nondum uenit hora mea [John 2:4], ut ex eo, quod appellauerunt mulierem, arguerent frustra plorantem et dicerent: quid ploras? in tantum autem Maria Magdalene obstupefacta torpuerat et fidem miraculis territa quasi in caligine possidebat, ut ne angelorum quidem praesentium sentiret aspectum, sed muliebriter responderet et diceret: ideo ploro, quia tulerunt dominum meum et nescio, ubi posuerunt eum. o Maria, si dominum credis et dominum tuum, quomodo arbitraris ab hominibus esse sublatum? nescio, inquit, ubi posuerunt eum. quomodo nescis, quem paulo ante adorasti? cumque uideret angelos et, quos cernebat, ignoraret stupore perterrita, hue atque illuc faciem circumferebat nihil aliud nisi dominum uidere desiderans conuersaque retro uidit Iesum stantem et nesciebat, quia Iesus erat, non quo iuxta Manicheum et alios hereticos formam dominus uultumque mutasset et pro uoluntate diuersus ac uarius uideretur, sed quo Maria obstupefacta miraculo hortulanum putaret, quem tanto studio requirebat. itaque et dominus isdem uerbis, quibus et angeli, loquitur ad eam: mulier, quid ploras? additque de suo: quem quaeris? at illa respondit: domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito, ubi posueris eum, et ego illum tollam. hic dominum non de confessione uerae fidei saluatorem uocat, sed humilitate et timore hortulano defert obsequium. et uide, quanta ignorantia! quem custodiebat cohors militum, cuius sepulchro angeli praesidebant, ab uno hortulano arbitratur ablatum et ignorans inbecillitatem femineam tantarum se uirium repromittit, ut corpus uiri et perfectae aetatis, quod—ut cetera taceam—centum libris myrrae circumlitum erat, aestimaret ab una et pauida muliere posse portari. cumque Iesus appellasset eam atque dixisset: 'Maria', ut, quem facie non agnoscebat, uoce intellegeret, illa in errore persistens nequaquam dominum, sed ‘rabboni', id est magistrum, uocat. et uide, quanta turbatio! quae hortulanum putans dominum nuncuparat, dei filium resurgentem magistrum uocat. itaque ad eam, quae quaerebat uiuentem cum mortuis, quae errore femineo et inbecillitate muliebri huc illucque currebat et corpus quaerebat occisi, cuius pedes uiuentis tenuerat, loquitur dominus et dicit: noli me tangere, tibi enim nondum ascendi ad patrem meum. et est sensus: 'quem mortuum quaeris, uiuentem tangere non mereris. si me necdum putas ascendisse ad patrem, sed hominum fraude sublatum, meo tactu indigna es'. hoc autem dicebat, non ut studium quaerentis obtunderet, sed ut dispensationem carnis adsumptae in diuinitatis gloriam sciret esse mutatam et nequaquam corporaliter uellet esse cum domino, quem spiritaliter credere deberet regnare cum patre. unde et apostoli maioris fidei sunt, qui absque angelorum uisu, absque ipsius saluatoris aspectu, postquam corpus eius in monumento non reppererant, crediderunt eum ab inferis surrexisse. alii putant primum esse, quod a Iohanne narratum est, uenisse Mariam Magdalenen ad sepulchrum et uidisse reuolutum lapidem et postea regressam cum apostolis Petro et Iohanne solam ad monumentum remansisse et idcirco adhuc incredulam a domino fuisse correptam reuersamque domum rursum ad sepulchrum uenisse cum Maria et ab angelo monitam exeuntemque de monumento adorasse dominum et tenuisse pedes eius. quando ab eo pariter audierunt: hauete. et illae accesserunt et tenuerunt pedes eius et. adorauerunt eum, quae in tantum profecerint, ut mittantur ad apostolos et audiant primum: no1ite timere, secundo: ite et nuntiate fratribus meis, ut eant in Gali1aeam; ibi me uidebunt [Matth.28:9-10]. 6. Quomodo custodiente militum turba, Petrus et Iohannes libere ingressi sunt sepulchrum nullo prohibente custodum? Hac uidelicet causa, quia uespere sabbati, quae lucescebat in prima sabbati, uenit Maria Magdalene et altera Maria uidere sepulchrum. et ecce terrae motus factus est magnus, angelus quoque domini descendit de caelo et accedens reuoluit lapidem et sedebat super eum; erat que aspectus eius sicut fulgur et uestimentum illius sicut nix. prae timore autem eius exterriti sunt custodes et facti sunt uelut mortui [Matth.28:1-4]. qui igitur fuerant tanto timore perterriti, ut mortui putarentur, aut dimisisse sepulchrum et fugisse credendi sunt aut ita et corpore et animo obtorpuisse, ut non dicam uiros, sed nec mulierculas quidem sepulchrum intrare cupientes auderent prohibere. magnus enim timor eos exterruerat uidentes lapidem reuolutum et terrae motum factum non ex more solito, sed magnum, qui cuncta concuteret et euersionem terrae funditus minaretur, angelum quo quo dei descendisse de caelo tam claro uultu, ut non lampadas et humana lumen arte succensum, sed fulgur imitaretur cadi, quo inlustrantur omnia, unde et in tenebris uidere potuerunt. itaque libere introeunt; uenerat enim Maria Magdalene, quae eis nuntiauerat lapidem reuolutum et corpus domini de monumento esse sublatum. angelum autem non putemus idcirco uenisse, ut aperiret sepulchrum domino resurgenti et reuolueret lapidem, sed, postquam dominus resurrexerit hora, qua ipse uoluerat et quae nulli mortalium cognita est, indicasse, quod factum est, et sepulchrum uacuum reuolutione lapidis et sui ostendisse praesentiam. quae omnia uidebantur splendente facie ipsius et horrorem tenebrarum fulgoris claritate uincente. 7. Quomodo Matheus scribit et Marcus, quod mandatum sit apostolis per mulieres, ut praecederent saluatorem in Galilaeam et ibi eum uiderent, Lucas autem et Iohannes in Hierusalem eum ab apostolis uisum esse commemorant ? Aliud est undecim se offerre discipulis, qui propter metum Iudaeorum absconditi erant, quando ad eos clausis ingressus est ianuis et putantibus, quod uideretur in spiritu, manus et latus obtulit clauis et lancea uulneratum, aliud, quando secundum Lucam praebuit se eis in multis argumentis per dies quadraginta apparens eis et loquens de regno dei et conuescens praecepit eis, ab Hierosolymis ne discederent [Act.1:3-4]. in altero enim pro consolatione mentium uidebatur et uidebatur breui rursumque ex oculis tollebatur, in altero autem tanta familiaritas erat et perseuerantia, ut cum eis pariter uesceretur. unde et Paulus apostolus refert eum quingentis simul apparuisse discipulis et in Iohanne legimus, quod piscantibus apostolis in litore steterit et partem assi piscis fauumque comederit, quae uerae resurrectionis indicia sunt, in Hierusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur. 8. Quid significet, quod in euangelista Matheo scriptum est: I e s us autem clamans uoce magna emisit spriritum. et uelum templi scissum est in duas partes a summo usque deorsum et terra mota est et petrae scissae sunt et monument aperta sunt et multa corpora sanctorum, qui dormierant, resurrexerunt et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius uenerunt in sanctam ciuitatem et apparuerunt multis [Matth.27:50-53]. Et de hoc loco in isdem commentariis disseruimus. primumque dicendum, quod diuinae potentiae indicium sit ponere animam, quando uoluerit, et rursum accipere eam. denique centurio uidens eum dixisse ad patrem: in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum [Luke 23:46] et statim sponte spiritum dimisisse commotus signi magnitudine ait: uere dei filius erat iste. uelum quoque templi scissum est in duas partes, ut conpleretur id, quod refert Iosephus praesides templi dixisse uirtutes: 'transeamus ex his sedibus', in euangelio autem, quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, legimus non uelum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis conruisse. terra, inquit, mota est — pendentem dominum suum ferre non sustinens — et petrae scissae sunt — ut indicarent duritiam Iudaeorum, qui praesentem dei filium intellegere noluerunt — et monumenta aperta sunt — in signum futurae resurrectionis — multaque sanctorum corpora exeuntia de sepulchris uenerunt in sanctam ciuitatem et apparuerunt multis. sanctam ciuitatem Hierosolymam debemus accipere ad distinctionem omnium ciuitatum, quae tunc idolis seruiebant; in hac enim sola fuit templum et unius dei cultus et uera religio. et non omnibus apparuerunt, sed multis, qui resurgentem dominum susceperunt. Dein iuxta anagogen [in Greek] dicendum, quod inclamante Iesu et emittente spiritum suum uelum templi scissum sit in duas partes a summo usque deorsum et omnia legis reuelata mysteria, ut, quae prius recondita tenebantur, uniuersis gentibus proderentur. in duas autem partes, in uetus et nouum instrumentum, et a summo usque deorsum, ab initio mundi, quando homo conditus est et reliqua, quae facta in medio sacra narrat historia, usque ad consummationem mundi. et quaerendum, quod uelum templi scissum sit, exterius an interius. mihique uidetur in passione domini illud uelum esse conscissum, quod et in tabernaculo et in templo foris positum fuit et appellabatur exterius, quia nunc ex parte uidemus et ex parte cognoscimus; cum autem uenerit, quod perfectum est [iCor.13:9-10], tunc etiam uelum interius disrumpendum, ut omnia, quae nunc nobis abscondita sunt, domus dei sacramenta uideamus: quid significant duo cherubin, quid oraculum, quid uas aureum, in quo manna reconditum fuit. nunc enim per speculum uidemus in imagine et, cum historiae nobis uelum scissum sit, ut ingrediamur atrium dei, tamen secreta eius et uniuersa mysteria, quae in caelesti Hierusalem clausa retinentur, scire non possumus. igitur in passione domini terra commota est iuxta illud, quod scriptum est in Aggeo: adhuc ego semel mouebo caelum et terram et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus [Hag.2:7-8], ut ab oriente et occidente ueniant et recumbant cum Abraham, Isaac et Iacob. et petrae scissae sunt: dura corda gentilium; siue petrae uniuersa uaticinia prophetarum, qui et ipsi a petra Christo cum apostolis petrae uocabulum susceperunt, ut, quicquid in eis duro legis uelamine claudebatur, scissum pateret gentibus. monumenta quoque, de quibus scriptum est: uos estis sepulchra extrinsecus dealbata, quae intus plena sunt ossibus mortuorum [Matth.23:27], ideo sunt aperta, ut egrederentur de his, qui prius in fidelitate mortui erant, et cum resurgente Christo atque uiuente uiuerent et ingrederentur caelestem Hierusalem et haberent municipatum nequaquam in terra, sed in caelo, morientesque cum terreno Adam resurgerent cum Adam caelesti. porro secundum litteram nulli uiolentum esse uideatur mortuo saluatore appellari Hierusalem sanctam ciuitatem, cum usque ad destructionem eius semper apostoli templum ingressi sint et ob scandalum eorum, qui de Iudaeis crediderant, legis exercuerint caerimonias. in tantum autem amauit Hierusalem dominus, ut fleret eam et plangeret et pendens in cruce loqueretur: pater, ignosce eis; quod enim faciunt, nesciunt [Luke 23:34]. itaque impetrauit, quod petierat, multaque statim de Iudaeis milia crediderunt et usque ad quadragesimum secundum annum datum est tempus paenitentiae, post quos perseuerantibus illis in blasphemia egressi sunt duo ursi de siluis gentium Romanorum, Uespasianus et Titus, et blasphemantes pueros ascendentique uero Heliseo in domum dei — hoc enim interpretatur Bethel — uoce consona inludentes interfecerunt atque lacerauerunt et ex eo tempore Hierusalem non appellatur ciuitas sancta, sedet sanctitatem et pristinum nomen amittens spiritaliter uocatur Sodoma et Aegyptus, ut aedificetur pro ea noua ciuitas, quam fluminis impetus laetificat et de cuius medio egreditur fons, qui totius orbis amaritudinem mitigauit, ut miserabilis Israhel ruinas templi nudatis plangat lacertis et in Christum turba credentium noua cotidie uideat ecclesiae tecta consurgere et dicat Sion: angustus mihi locus est impleaturque illud, quod in Esaia scriptum est: et erit sepulchrum eius inclitum [Isa.49:20]. 9. Quomodo saluator secundum Iohannem insufflat spiritum sanctum apostolis et secundum Lucam post ascensionem missurum esse se dicit? Huius quaestionis perfacilis solutio est, si docente apostolo Paulo spiritus sancti diuersas gratias nouerimus. scribit enim in prima ad Corinthios: diuisiones donorum sunt, idem uero spiritus; et diuisiones ministeriorum, idem autem dominus; et diuisiones operationum et idem deus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus, unicuique autem datur manifestatio spiritus ad id, quod expedit. alii quidem datur per spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae secundum eundem spiritum, alii gratiae sanitatum in uno spiritu, alii fides in eodem spiritu, alii operatio uirtutum, alii prophetia, alii discretio spirituum, alii genera linguarum, alii interpretatio sermonum. omnia autem haec operatur unus atque idem spiritus diuidens unicuique, prout uult [1Cor.12:4-11]. ergo dominus, qui post resurrectionem suam iuxta Lucae euangelium dixerat: ecce ego mittam promissionem patris mei in uos; uos autem sedete in ciuitate, quoadusque induamini uirtutem ex alto [Luke 24:49], et iuxta eundem in apostolorum Actibus praecepit eis, ab Hierosolymis ne discederent, sed expectarent promissionem patris, quam audistis per os meum, quia Johannes quidem baptizauit aqua, uos autem baptizabimini spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies [Act.1:4-5], rursum in fine euangelii secundum Iohannem eo die, quo resurrexerat, id est die dominica, clausis ianuis ad apostolos introisse narratur et dixisse eis secundo: pax u o b i s et intulisse: sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto uos. hoc cum dixisset, insufflauit et dicit eis: accipite spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis, quorum retinueritis, retenta erunt [John 20:21-23]. primo igitur die resurrectionis eius acceperunt spiritus sancti gratiam, qua peccata dimitterent et baptizarent et filios dei facerent et spiritum adoptionis credentibus largirentur ipso saluatore dicente: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur eis et, quorum retinueritis, retenta erunt. die autem pentecostes eis amplius repromissum est, ut baptizarentur spiritu sancto et induerentur uirtutem. qua Christi euangelium cunctis gentibus praedicarent, iuxta illud, quod in sexagesimo septimo psalmo legimus: dominus dabit uerbum euangelizantibus uirtute multa, ut haberent operationem uirtutum et gratiam sanitatum et praedicaturi multis gentibus acciperent genera linguarum, ut iam tunc cognosceretur, qui apostolorum quibus deberent gentibus nuntiare. denique apostolus Paulus, qui de Hierusalem usque in Illyricum praedicauit et inde per Romam ad Hispanias ire festinat, gratias agit deo, quod cunctis apostolis magis linguis loquatur. qui enim multis gentibus adnuntiaturus erat, multarum linguarum acceperat gratiam. quae repromissio spiritus sancti die decimo post ascensionem saluatoris expleta est Luca referente, qui scribit: cumque conplerentur dies pentecostes, erant omnes pariter in eodem loco et factus est repente de caelo sonus tamquam aduenientis spiritus uehementis et repleuit totam domum, ubi erant sedentes. et apparuerunt illis dispertitae linguae tamquam ignis, seditque super singulos eorum et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto et coeperunt loqui aliis linguis, prout spiritus sanctus dabat eloqui illis [Act.2:1-4]. tunc conpletum est illud, quod legitur in Iohel: et erit in nouissimis diebus, dicit dominus, effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem et prophetabunt filii uestri et filiae uestrae et iuuenes uestri uisiones uidebunt [Joel 2:28, Act.2:17]. uerbum autem effusionis significat gratiae largitatem et ad ipsum sonat, quod dominus repromisit: uos autem baptizabimini spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies, in tantum enim sancto spiritu baptizati sunt, ut repleretur tota domus, ubi erant sedentes, et ignis spiritus sancti stationem in eis inueniret optatam linguasque diuideret et secundum Esaiam, qui inmunda labia habere se dixerat, purgaret labia eorum, ut euangelium Christi purius praedicarent. et in Esaia quidem superliminare templi dicitur fuisse commotum et repleta omnis domus fumo, id est errore et tenebris uerique ignorantia. in principio autem euangelii rcpletur spiritu ecclesia, nt gratia eius atque feruore omnium credentium peccata purgentur et igne spiritus sancti, quem dominus missurum esse se dixerat, praedicatura Christum lingua sanetur. non ergo Iohannes Lucasque discordant, ut, quod ille prima resurrectionis die datum esse significat, hic die quinquagesimo uenisse describat, sed profectus apostolicus est, ut, qui primum remittendorum peccatorum gratiam acceperant, postea acciperent operationes uirtutum et cuncta donationum genera, quae ab apostolo descripta memorauimus, et — quod magis necessarium erat — diuersitatem linguarum uniuersarumque gentium, ut adnuntiaturi Christum nullo egerent interprete. unde et in Lycaonia, cum audissent Paulum et Barnaban loqui linguis suis, deos in homines conuersos esse credebant. et re uera indumentum uirtutis spiritus sancti gratia est, quam possidentes iudicum tribunalia et regum purpuras non timebant. promiserat enim dominus, priusquam pateretur, et dixerat: cum autem tradent uos, nolite cogitare, quomodo aut quid loquamini; dabitur enim nobis in illahora, quid loquamini. non enim uos estis, qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris uestri, qui loquitur in uobis [Matth.10:19-20]. ego audacter et tota libertate pronuntio ex eo tempore, quo apostoli domino crediderunt, semper eos habuisse spiritum sanctum nec potuisse signa facere absque spiritus sancti gratia, sed pro modulo atque mensura. unde saluator clamabat in templo dicens: qui sitit, ueniat ad me et bibat. qui credit in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de uentre eius fluent aquae uiuae. hoc autem dixit de spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum. et in eodem loco infert: nondum enim erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum fuerat glorificatus [John 7:37-39], non quo non esset spiritus sanctus dicente domino saluatore: si autem ego in spiritu sancto eicio daemonia [Matth.12:28], sed, qui erat in domino, necdum totus in apostolis morabatur. quam ob rem deterrentur ad passionem eius et negant et Christum nescire se iurant. postquam autem baptizantur in spiritu sancto et effunditur in eos spiritus sancti gratia, tunc libere loquuntur ad principes ludaeorum: oboedire magis deo oportet an hominibus? [Act.5:29] mortuos suscitant, inter flagella laetantur, fundunt sanguinem et suis suppliciis coronantur. nondum ergo erat spiritus in apostolis nec de uentre eorum fluebant gratiae spiritales, quia dominus necdum fuerat glorificatus. quae sit autem gloria, ipse in euangelio loquitur: pater, glorifica me gloria, quam apud te habui prius, quam mundus esset [John 17:5]. gloria saluatoris patibulum triumphantis est. crucifigitur ut homo, glorificatur ut deus. denique sol fugit, luna mutatur in sanguinem, terra motu insolito contremiscit, aperiuntur inferi, mortui ambulant, saxa rumpuntur. haec est gloria, de qua loquebatur in psalmo: exsurge, gloria mea, exsnrge, psalterium et cithara [Ps.56:9]. ipsaque de se respondit gloria et dispensatio carnis adsumptae: exsurgam diluculo, ut impleatur uicesimi primi psalmi titulus: pro adsumptione matutina. haec dicimus, non quod alium deum et alium hominem esse credamus et duas personas faciamus in uno filio dei, sicut noua heresis calumniatur, sed unus atque idem filius dei et filius hominis est et, quicquid loquitur, aliud referimus ad diuinam eius gloriam, aliud ad nostram salutem. pro quibus non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem deo, sed se ipsum exinaniuit factus oboediens patri usque ad mortem et mortem crucis. et uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis [Phil.2:6-8], miror autem Montanum et insanas feminas eius, abortiuos prophetas, domino promittente atque dicente: uado et alium paracletum mittam uobis [John 14:12, 16] et postea Luca euangelista narrante, quod apostoli acceperint, quod promissum est, id multo post tempore in se dicere fuisse conpletum. apostolis enim promissum est: ego mittam sponsionem patris mei in uos et uos sedebitis in ciuitate, quoad usque induamini uirtutem ex alto [Luke 24:49], et resurgens in apostolorum insufflauit faciem — et non in Montani, Priscillae et Maximillae — et illis ait: quorum dimiseritis peccata, dimittentur et, quorum retinueritis, retenta erunt. apostolis, inquam, praecepit, ne recederent de Hierosolymis, sed expectarent promissionem spiritus. et postea, quod promissum est, expletum legimus: repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto et coeperunt loqui aliis linguis, prout spiritus sanctus dabat eloqui eis. spiritus enim sanctus spirat, ubi uult, et, quando dicit dominus: 'alium paracletum mittam uobis', ct se ostendit esse paracletum, qui appellatur 'consolator'. unde et deus pater hoc censetur nomine: deus miserationum et totius consolationis. si autem pater consolator, et filius consolator et spiritus sanctus consolator; et in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, quod intellegitur deus, bapti zantur credentes. quorum unum diuinitatis et consolatoris est nomen, ergo et una natura est. hic spiritus sanctus non solum in apostolis, sed et in prophetis fait, de quo Dauid orabat dicens: spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me [Ps.50:13]. et Danihel spiritum dei habuisse narratur et Dauid in spiritu loquitur dixisse dominum domino suo: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum [Ps.109:1]. nec sine spiritu sancto prophetauerunt prophetae et uerbo domini caeli firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis uirtus eorum [Ps.32:6]; et, quicquid patris et filii est, hoc idem et spiritus sancti est et ipse spiritus. cum mittatur a patre et pro filio ueniat, in alio atque alio loco spiritus dei patris et Christi spiritus appellatur. unde et in Actibus apostolorum, qui Iohannis baptismate fuerant baptizati et credebant in deum patrem et Christum, quia spiritum sanctum nesciebant, iterum baptizantur, immo tunc uerum accipiunt baptisma — absque spiritu enim sancto inperfectum est mysterium trinitatis — et in eodem uolumine Petrus Ananiae et Sapphirae dixisse narratur, quod mentientes spiritui sancto non sint hominibus mentiti, sed deo. 10. Quid significet illud, quod apostolus Paulus disputat ad Romanos scribens: quid ergo dicimus? numquid iniquitas apud deum? ab sit usque ad eum locum, ubi ait: nisi dominus sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus et sicut Gomorra similes fuissemus. Omnis quidem ad Romanos epistula interpretatione indiget et tantis obscuritatibus inuoluta est, ut in intellegenda ea spiritus sancti indigeamus auxilio, qui per apostolum haec ipsa dictauit; sed praecipue locus hic, in quo quidam uolentes dei seruare iustitiam ex praecedentibus causis dicunt electum in utero Rebeccae Iacob et abiectum Esau, sicut et Hieremias et Baptista Iohannes eliguntur in utero et ipse apostolus praedestinatur in euangelium, antequam nascatur. nobis autem nihil placet, nisi quod ecclesiasticum est et publice in ecclesia dicere non timemus, ne iuxta Pythagoram et Platonem et discipulos eorum, qui sub nomine Christiano introducunt dogma gentilium, dicamus animas lapsas esse do caelo et pro diuersitate meritorum in his uel illis corporibus poenas antiquorum luere peccatorum. multoque melius est simpliciter imperitiam confiteri et inter cetera, quae nescimus, etiam huius loci obscuritatem refugere quam, dum uolumus dei probare iustitiam, Basilidis et Manichei heresim defendere et Hiberas nenias Aegyptiaque portenta sectari. dicamus igitur, ut possumus, et apostolicae uoluntatis sequentes uestigia ne puncto quidem, ut dicitur, atque ungue transuerso ab illius sententiis recedamus. fleuerat supra et dolori suo et conscientiae testem inuocauerat spiritum sanctum, quod fratres sui et cognati secundum carnem, id est Israhelitae, dei filium non recepissent, quorum fuit adoptio et gloria et testamenta et legislatio et cultura et promissio [Rom.9:4], ex quibus etiam ipse Christus secundum carnem de Maria generatus est uirgine, et tam continuo cordis dolore torquetur, ut ipse optet anathema esse a Christo, id est solus perire, ne omne Israheliticum genus pereat. et quia hoc dixerat, statim uenientem e regione praeuidet quaestionem: ‘quid ergo dicis? omnes, qui ex Israhel sunt, perierunt? et quomodo tu ipse et ceteri apostoli et infinita Iudaici populi multitudo Christum dei filium recepistis?', quam ita soluit: Israhel in scripturis sanctis dupliciter appellatur et in duos diuiditur filios: in unum, qui iuxta carnem est, et in alterum, qui iuxta repromissionem et spiritum. Abraham duos habuit filios, Ismahel et Isaac. Ismahel, qui secundum carnem natus est, hereditatem patris non accepit; Isaac, qui de repromissione generatus est ex Sarra, semen dei appellatur. scriptum est enim: in Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, id est: non, qui filii carnis, hi filii dei, sed, qui filii sunt repromissionis, isti aestimantur in semine [Gen.21:12]. et hoc non solum in Ismahel et Isaac accidisse conuincimus, sed etiam in duobus Rebeccae filiis, Esau et Iacob, quorum alter abiectus, alter electus est. et hoc totum dicit, ut in prioribus fratribus, Ismahel et Esau, populum Iudaeorum abiectum esse significet, in posterioribus autem, hoc est in Isaac et Iacob, electum populum gentium uel eos, qui ex Iudaeis in Christum credituri erant. et quoniam hoc uolens adprobare proposuerat testimonium nascentium geminorum Esau et Iacob, de quibus scriptum est: maior seruiet minori [Gen.25:23] et in Malachia legimus: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui [Ma.1:2-3], uenientem e latere quaestionem more suo proponit et disserit et hac soluta reuertitur ad id, de quo coeperat disputare. si Esau et Iacob necdum nati erant nec aliquid egerant boni aut mali, ut uel promererentur deum uel offenderent, et electio eorum atque abiectio non merita singulorum, sed uoluntatem eligentis et abicientis ostendit, quid ergo dicimus? iniquus est deus? secundum illud exemplum, quod loquitur ad Moysen: miserebor, cui misertus fuero, et misericordiam praestabo, cuius miserebor [Rom.9:15], si hoc, inquit, recipimus, ut faciat deus, quodcumque uoluerit, et absque merito et operibus uel eligat aliquem uel condemnet, ergo non est uolentis neque currentis, sod miserentis dei, maxime cum eadem scriptura, hoc est idem deus, loquatur ad Pharaonem: in hoc ipsum excitaui te, ut ostendam in te uirtutem meam et adnuntietur nomen meum in uniuersa terra, si hoc ita est et pro uoluntate sua miseretur Israheli et indurat Pharaonem, ergo frustra queritur atque causatur nos uel bona non fecisse uel fecisse mala, cum in potestate illius sit et uoluntate absque bonis et malis operibus uel eligere aliquem uel abicere, praesertim cum uoluntati illius humana fragilitas resistere nequeat. quam ualidam quaestionem scripturarum ratione contextam et paene insolubilem breui apostolus sermone dissoluit dicens: o homo! tu quis es, qui respondeas deo? et est sensus: ex eo, quod respondes deo et calumniam facis et de scripturis tanta perquiris, ut loquaris contra deum et iustitiam uoluntatis eius inquiras, ostendis te liberi arbitrii et facere, quod uis, uel tacere uel loqui. si enim in similitudinem uasis fictilis te a deo creatum putas et illius non posse resistere uoluntati, hoc considera, quia uas fictile non dicit figulo: quare me sic fecisti? — figulus enim habet potestatem de eodem luto et de eadem massa aliud uas facere in honorem, aliud uero in contumeliam —, deus autem aequali cunctos sorte generauit et dedit arbitrii libertatem, ut faciat unusquisque, quod uult, siue bonum siue malum, in tantum autem dedit omnibus potestatem, ut uox impia disputet contra creatorem suum et causas uoluntatis illius perscrutetur. sin autem uolens deus ostendere iram et notam facere potentiam suam, sustinuit in multa patientia uasa irae apta in interitum, ut ostenderet diuitias gloriae suae in uasa misericordiae, quae praeparauit in gloriam, quos et uocauit nos non solum ex Iudaeis, sed etiam ex gentibus, sicut in Osee dicit: uocaui non plebem meam plebem meam et non dilectam dilectam, ct erit in loco, ubi dictum est ei: non plebs mea uos, ibi uocabuntur filii dei uiui et cetera, quae sequuntur. si, inquit, patientia dei indurauit Pharaonem et multo tempore poenas distulit Israhelis, ut iustius condemnaret, quos tanto tempore sustinuerat, non dei accusanda patientia est et infinita clementia, sed eorum duritia, qui bonitatem dei in perditionem suam abusi sunt, alioquin unus est solis calor et secundum essentias subiacentes alia liquefacit, alia indurat, alia soluit, alia constringit; liquatur enim cera et induratur lutum et tamen non est caloris diuersa natura. sic et bonitas dei atque clementia uasa irae, quae apta sunt in interitum, id est populum Israhel, indurat, uasa autem misericordiae, quae praeparauit in gloriam, quae et uocauit, hoc est nos, qui non solum ex Iudaeis sumus, sed etiam ex gentibus, non saluat inrationabiliter et absque iudicii ueritate, sed causis praecedentibus. quia alii non susceperunt filium dei, alii recipere sua sponte uoluerunt. haec autem uasa misericordiae non solum populus gentium est. sed et hi, qui ex Iudaeis credere uoluerunt, et unus credentium effectus est populus. ex quo ostenditur non gentes eligi, sed hominum uoluntates atque ita factum est, ut impleretur illud, quod dictum est per Osee: uocaui non plebem meam plebem meam, hoc est populum gentium, et, quibus prius dicebatur: 'non plebs mea', nunc uocentur filii dei uiui. quod ne solum de gentibus dicere uideretur, etiam eos, qui ex Israhelis multitudine crediderunt, uasa misericordiae et electionis appellat. clamat enim Esaias pro Israhel: si fuerit numerus filiorum Israhel tamquam harena maris, reliquiae saluae fient, hoc est: etiam si multitudo non crediderit, tamen pauci credent, uerbum enim consummatum atque breuiatum in sua deus aequitate librauit, ut humilitate et incarnatione Christi eos saluos faceret, qui in eum credere uoluissent. hoc ipsum et in alio loco dicit Esaias: nisi dominus sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus et sicut Gomorra similes fuissemus. cumque testimonia proposuisset, quibus duplex uocatio praedicitur et gentium et populi Iudaeorum, transit ad cohaerentem disputationem et idcirco dicit gentes, quae non sectabantur iustitiam, adprehendisse iustitiam, quia non superbierint, sed in Christum crediderint, Israhelis autem magnam partem ideo corruisse, quia offenderit in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali et ignorauerit iustitiam dei et quaerens statuere iustitiam suam iustitiae dei, qui Christus est, subici noluerit. legi in cuiusdam commentariis sic respondisse apostolum, ut magis inplicuerit, quam soluerit quaestionem. ait enim ad id, quod proposuerat: quid ergo dicimus? numquid iniquitas apud deum? et: non est uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis dei et: cuius uult, miseretur et, quem uult, indurat et: uoluntati eius quis potest resistere? sic apostolum respondisse:' o homo, qui terra et cinis es, audes deo facere quaestionem et, uas fragile atque testaceum, rebellas contra figulum tuum ? numquid figmentum potest dicere ei qui se finxit: quare me sic fecisti? aut non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem uas in honorem, aliud uero in contumeliam? aeterno igitur silentio conticesce et scito fragilitatem tuam et deo ne moueas quaestionem, qui fecit quod uoluit, ut in alios clemens, in alios seuerus existeret'. 11. Quid sit, quod apostolus scribit in secunda ad Corinthios: aliis odor mortis in mortem, et aliis odor uitae in uitam. et ad haec quis tam idoneus? Totum loci huius capitulum proponamus, ut ex praecedentibus et sequentibus possint intellegi media, quae ex utroque contexta sunt, cum uenissem, ait, Troadem propter euangelium Christi et ostium mihi apertum esset in domino, non habui requiem spiritui meo, eo quod non inuenerim Titum, fratrem meum, sed ualefaciens eis profectus sum in Macedoniam. deo autem gratias, qui semper triumphat nos in Christo Iesu et odorem notitiae suae manifestat per nos in omni loco, quia Christi bonus odor sumus deo in his, qui salui fiunt, et in his, qui pereunt, aliis quidem odor mortis in mortem, aliis odor uitae in uitam. et ad haec quis tam idoneus? non enim sumus sicut plurimi uenditantes uerbum dei, sed ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex deo coram deo in Christo loquimur [2Cor.2:12-17]. narrat Corinthiis, quae fecerit, quae passus sit et quomodo in cunctis deo agat gratias, ut sub exemplo sui illos prouocet ad certandum. 'ueni', inquit, 'Troadem, quae prius Troia appellabatur, ut euangelium Christi in Asia praedicarem. cumque mihi ostium apertum esset in domino, hoc est plurimi credidissent, siue per signa atque uirtutes, quae in me operabatur deus, spes esset nascentis fidei et in domino succrescentis, non habui requiem spiritui meo, hoc est speratam consolationem inuenire non potui, eo quod Titum, fratrem meum, non inuenerim siue, quem ibi repperiendum putabam, siue, quem ibi audieram degere, uel, qui illuc uenturum esse se dixerat'. quae autem fuit tanta consolatio et quae requies spiritui in praesentia Titi, quem quia non inuenit, ualefaciens eis proiectus est in Macedoniam? aliquotiens diximus apostolum Paulum uirum fuisse doctissimum et eruditum ad pedes Gamalihel, qui in apostolorum Actibus contionatur et dicit: 'et nunc quid habetis cum hominibus istis? si enim a deo est, stabit, si ex hominibus, destruetur'. cumque haberet sanctarum scientiam scripturarum et sermonis diuersarumque linguarum gratiam possideret — unde ipse gloriatur in domino et dicit: gratias ago deo, quod omnium eorum magis linguis loquor —, diuinorum sensuum maiestatem digno non poterat Graeci eioquii explicare sermone. habebat ergo Titum interpretem sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius euangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente conpositum est. denique et duae epistulae, quae feruntur Petri, stilo inter se et caractere discrepant structuraque uerborum; ex quo intellegimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis eum usum interpretibus. ergo et Paulus apostolus contristatur, quia praedicationis suae in praesentiarum fistulam organumque, per quod Christo caneret non inuenerat, perrexitque in Macedoniam —apparuerat enim ei uir Macedo dicens: transiens adiuua nos—, ut ibi inueniret Titum et uisitaret fratres uel persecutionibus probaretur. hoc est enim, quod dicit: deo autem gratias, qui semper triumphat nos in Christo Iesu — pro eo, quod est: 'triumphat de nobis' siue 'triumphum suum agit per nos' —, qui in alio loco dixerat: spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus [1Cor.4:9]. denique narrat in consequentibus: nam cum uenissemus Macedoniam, nullam requiem habuit caro nostra, sed omnem tribulationem passi. foris pugnae, intus timores. sed, qui consolatur humiles, consolatus est nos deus in aduentu Titi, non solum autem in aduentu eius, sed etiam in solacio [2Cor.7:5-6]. ergo propterea ualefaciens Troianis siue Troadensibus profectus est Macedoniam, ut inueniret ibi Titum et haberet interpretationis euangeliique solacium, quem intellegimus non ibi repertum, sed post tribulationes et persecutiones apostoli superuenisse. prius ergo, quam ueniret Titus, multa perpessus agit gratias omnipotenti deo in Christo Iesu, quem gentibus praedicabat quod dignum se elegerit, in quo egerit triumphum filii sui. triumphus dei est passio martyrum, pro Christi nomine cruoris effusio et inter tormenta laetitia. cum enim quis uideri tanta perseuerantia stare martyres atque torqueri et in suis cruciatibus gloriari, odor notitiae dei disseminatur in gentes et subit tacita cogitatio, quod, nisi uerum esset euangelium, numquam sanguine defenderetur. neque enim delicata et diuitiis studens ac secura confessio est, sed in carceribus, in plagis, in persecutionibus, in fame et nuditate et siti. hic triumphus est dei apostolorumque uictoria. sed poterat audiens respondere: 'quomodo ergo non omnes crediderunt?' prius ergo, quam interroget, soluit anthipoforan [in Greek] et iuxta morem suum, quicquid alius obicere potest, antequam obieiatur, edisserit. et est sensus: nominis Christi in omni loco bonus odor sumus deo et praedicationis nostrae longe lateque spirat flagrantia. sed quia homines suo arbitrio derelicti sunt — neque enim bonum necessitate faciunt, sed uoluntate, ut credentes coronam accipiant, increduli suppliciis mancipentur —, ideo odor noster, qui per se bonus est, uirtute eorum et uitio, qui suscipiunt siue non suscipiunt, in uitam transit aut mortem, ut, qui crediderint, salui fiant, qui non crediderint, pereant. nec hoc mirandum de apostolo, cum etiam de domino legerimus: ecce hic positus est in ruinam et resurrectionem multorum et in signum, cui contradicetur [Luke 2:34], solisque radios tam munda loca excipiant quam inmunda et sic in floribus quomodo in stercore luceant nec tamen solis radii polluantur. sic et Christi bonus odor, qui numquam mutari potest nec suam naturam amittere, credentibus uita est, incredulis mors, mors autem non ista communis, qua cum bestiis morimur et iumentis, sed illa, de qua scriptum est: anima, quae peccauerit, ipsa morietur. ergo et uita non haec arbitranda est, qua spiramus et incedimus et huc illucque discurrimus, sed illa, de qua Dauid loquitur: credo uidere bona domini in terra uiuentium [Ps.26:13]. deus enim uiuorum est et non mortuorum et uita nostra abscondita est cum Christo in deo; cum autem Christus apparuerit, uita nostra, tunc et nos cum illo apparebimus in gloria, nec uobis. inquit, o Corinthii, parum esse uideatur, si nobis praedicantibus ueritatem alii credant, alii non credant, alii uera morte moriantur, alii uiuant ea uita, quae dicit: ego sum uita. nisi enim nos locuti essemus, nec incredulos mors nec credentes uita sequeretur, quia difficile dignus praeco uirtutum Christi inueniri potest, qui in adnuntiandis illis non suam, sed eius quaerat gloriam, quem praedicat. in eo autem, quod negat non se esse sicut multos, qui uenditent uerbum dei, ostendit esse quam plurimos, qui quaestum putant esse pietatem et turpis lucri gratia omnia faciunt, qui deuorant domos uiduarum, se autem ex sinceritate quasi missum a deo et praesente eo, qui se miserit, omnia in Christo et pro Christo loqui, ut causa praedicationis dei triumphus Christi eiusque sit gloria, et notandum, quod mysterium trinitatis in huius capituli fine monstretur: ex deo enim — in spiritu sancto — coram deo — patre — in Christo loquimur. ad conprobandum autem, quod de Troade perrexit Macedoniam de apostolorum Actibus ponam testimonium: cum autem pertransissent Mysiam, descenderunt Troadem et uisio per noctem Paulo ostensa est. uir Macedo quidam erat stans et deprecans eum ac dicens: transiens in Macedoniam adiuua nos. quod cum uidisset, statim quaesiuimus proficisci in Macedoniam certi facti, quod vocasset nos deus euangelizare eis [Act.16:8-10]. 12. Quid sit, quod scribit in epistula ad Thessalonicenses prima: ipse autem deus pacis sanctificet uos per omnia et integer spiritus uester et anima et corpus sine querella in aduentu domini nostri Iesu Christi seruetur [1Thess.5:23]. Famosa quaestio, sed breui sermone tractanda. supra dixerat: spiritum nolite extinguere, quod si fuerit intellectum, statim sciemus, quis iste sit spiritus, qui cum anima et corpore in die aduentus domini conseruandus est. quis enim possit credere, quod instar flammae, quae extincta desinit esse, quod fuerat, extinguatur spiritus sanctus et sustineat abolitionem sui, qui fuit quondam in Israhel, quando per Esaiam et Hieremiam et singulos prophetas dicere poterat: haec dicit dominus, et nunc in ecclesia per Agabum loquitur: haec dicit spiritus sanctus. diuisiones autem donorum sunt, idem uero spiritus, et diuisiones ministeriorum sunt, idem autem dominus, et diuisiones operationum sunt et idem deus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus, unicuique autem datur manifestatio spiritus ad id, quod expedit. alii per spiritum datur sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae secundum eundem spiritum alii fides in eodem spiritu, alii gratia sanitatum in uno spiritu, alii operatio uirtutum, alii prophetia, alii discretio spirituum. omnia autem haec operatur unus atque idem spiritus diuidens singulis, prout uult [Act.21:11]. de hoc spiritu, ne a se auferretur, rogabat Dauid dicens: spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me [Ps.50:13]. qui quando aufertur, non in substantia sui, sed ei, a quo aufertur, extinguitur. ego puto unum atque idem significare: spiritum nolite extinguere et, quod in alio loco scribit: spiritu feruentes. in quo enim feruor spiritus multiplicata iniquitate et caritatis frigore non tepescit, in hoc spiritus nequaquam extinguitur. deus igitur pacis sanctificet uos per omnia uel in omnibus siue plenos atque perfectos; hoc enim magis holoteleis [in Greek] sonat. deus autem appellatur pacis, quia per Christum ei reconciliati sumus, qui est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum, qui et in alio loco pax dei dicitur superans omnem sensum, quae custodit corda cogitationesque sanctorum, qui autem sanctificatur siue perfectus in omnibus est, in hoc et spiritus et anima et corpus in die domini conseruatur. corpus, si singulorum membrorum utatur officiis, uerbi gratia, si operetur manus, pes ambulet, oculus uideat, auris audiat, dentes cibos molant, stomachus concoquat, aluus digerat aut si nulla membrorum parte truncatum est: et hoc quisquam potest credere, apostolum pro credentibus deprecari, ut in die iudicii integrum omnium Christus corpus inueniat, cum omnium corpora aut morte dissoluta sint aut, si, ut quidam uolunt, reperta. fuerint adhuc spirantia, habeant debilitates suas, et maxime martyrum et eorum, qui pro Christi nomine uel oculos effossos uel amputatas nares uel abscisas manus habeant? ergo integrum corpus est, de quo diximus in alia quaestione, et non tenens caput, ex quo omne corpus conexum atque conpactum accipiat augmentum in administrationem Christi. hoc corpus ecclesia est et, quicumque huius corporis tenuerit caput et cetera membra seruauerit, habebit integrum corpus, quantum potest recipere humana natura. iuxta hunc modum et animae integritas conseruanda est, quae dicere potest: benedic, anima mea, dominum, qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas, et de qua scriptum est: misit uerbum suum et sanauit eos. spiritus quoque in nobis integer conseruatur, quando non erramus in spiritalibus, sed uiuimus spiritu, adquiescimus spiritui et opera carnis mortificamus spiritu adferimusque omnes fructus eius: caritatem, gaudium, pacem et cetera. Aliter: Praecipitur nobis Salomone dicente: tu autem describe ea tripliciter in consilio et scientia,ut respondeas uerba ueritatis his, qui proponunt tibi [Prov.22:20-21]. triplex in corde nostro descriptio et regula scripturarum est: prima, ut intellegamus eas iuxta historiam, secunda iuxta tropologiam tertia iuxta intellegentiam spiritalem. in historia eorum, quae scripta sunt, ordo seruatur; in tropologia de littera ad maiora consurgimus et, quicquid in priori populo carnaliter factum est, iuxta moralem interpretamur locum et ad animae nostrae emolumenta conuertimus; in spiritali theoria [in Greek], ad sublimiora transimus, terrena dimittimus, de futurorum beatitudine et caelestibus disputamus, ut praesentis uitae meditatio umbra sit futurae beatitudinis. quos tales Christus inuenerit, ut et corpore et anima et spiritu integri conseruentur et perfectam habeant triplicis in se scientiae ueritatem, hos sua pace sanctificabit et faciet esse perfectos. multi simpliciter hunc locum de resurrectione intellegunt, ut et spiritus et anima et corpus in aduentu domini integra conseruentur. alii ex hoc loco triplicem in homine uolunt adfirmare substantiam: spiritus, quo sentimus, animae, qua uiuimus, corporis, quo incedimus. sunt, qui ex anima tantum et corpore subsistere hominem disserentes spiritum in eo tertium, non substantiam uelint intellegi, sed efficientiam, per quam et mens in nobis et sensus et cogitatio et animus appellator, et utique non sunt tot substantiae, quot nomina. cumque illud eis oppositum fuerit: benedicite, spiritus et animae iustorum, dominum [Dan.3:86], scripturam non recipiunt dicentes eam in Hebraico non haberi. nos autem in praesenti loco, ut supra diximus, spiritum, qui cum anima et corpore integer conseruatur, non substantiam spiritus sancti, quae non potest interire, sed gratias eius donationesque accipimus, quae nostra vel virtute vel vitio et accenduntur et extinguntur in nobis.

Historical context:

Jerome sent this letter to answer the questions Hedybia had raised about discrepancies in the gospel narrations. In the preface he speaks in the first person singular, but in the answers in the first plural, either as a formal expression of authority, or perhaps as a suggestion of shared views.

Scholarly notes:

1 This translation was provided by Amy Oh.

Printed source:

Sancti Eusebii Hieronvmi Epistulae, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, 3 v. (New York: Johnson, 1970, CSEL repr.1910-18), ep.120, 2.470-515

Date:

late 4th century